Should the closed stations between Preston and Lancaster be reopened? ?

[Bartsimho]

That's not what the posts you're talking about are saying though, is it?

Consider it this way: a whole load of stations have been built where demand has been somewhere between 'disappointing' and 'laughable':

• Reston
• Bow Street
• Worcestershire Parkway
• Stow
• Bermuda Park
• East Midlands Parkway
• Conon Bridge
• Blackridge
• Aylesbury Vale Parkway
• Howwood
• Whitwell
• Creswell
• Corby

And that's just the recent ones, not including older examples in the later BR days.

Other cases involve stations which have opened in locations where demand could have been sufficient to justify stopping, but have been served so poorly they weren't remotely worth it, noting that some are now or will soon be fixed:

• Laurencekirk
• Fishguard & Goodwick
• Soham
• Inverness Airport
• James Cook
• Energlyn & Churchill Park
• Beauly
• Conon Bridge

Finally a number of other projects are certainly nice to have, but mainly just carry existing rail demand, including White Rose and Warrington West.

What number of passengers changes a station from disappointing and laughable in acceptable for you?

 

[Starmill]

What number of passengers changes a station from disappointing and laughable in acceptable for you?

The ideal number is the one that offers a BCR of 2 or more, but between 1 and 2 is also often perfectly reasonable if there's evidence of wider benefits which proved difficult to appraise.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's one loop, it's half a mile further south than your first photo, too short anyway, there's another dangerous bridge just north which would need replacing (too narrow, corners too tight, dangerous junction with the A6).

Is the need to rebuild a bridge on a narrow country lane that, from what you are saying, already needs rebuilding anyway because it's dangerous, really going to be much of a barrier to building a station?

You have just got room to put a second loop and station there, but you'd have to cut back into the hill on the left, car parking would be an issue - and no-one would use it anyway because of the walk up the hill.

You have a remarkably pessimistic view of people's willingness to walk a distance of less than half a mile. From my experience, you routinely see significant numbers of people walking between the University and Galgate, or walking along the cycle path to Hala, both of which are much greater distances.

On top of that the area is a flood risk and the earthworks would increase the flooding in Galgate.

I've used that line a lot. Off the top of my head, I can't ever recall the trains being cancelled because of flooding around Bailrigg (nor do I recall the neighbouring A6 flooding). Have I just been extremely lucky? But even assuming that you're right and the area is prone to flooding, why would building a station significantly impact flooding in a village a mile away when there's basically nothing but countryside in between?

 

[randyrippley]

Is the need to rebuild a bridge on a narrow country lane that, from what you are saying, already needs rebuilding anyway because it's dangerous, really going to be much of a barrier to building a station?



You have a remarkably pessimistic view of people's willingness to walk a distance of less than half a mile. From my experience, you routinely see significant numbers of people walking between the University and Galgate, or walking along the cycle path to Hala, both of which are much greater distances.



I've used that line a lot. Off the top of my head, I can't ever recall the trains being cancelled because of flooding around Bailrigg (nor do I recall the neighbouring A6 flooding). Have I just been extremely lucky? But even assuming that you're right and the area is prone to flooding, why would building a station significantly impact flooding in a village a mile away when there's basically nothing but countryside in between?

The bridge is an extra cost and complication that would require quite a land grab to resolve, and probably fairly lengthy possession.

Walking up the hill carrying shopping or books? Why when the bus service does it. And probably stops close to where you live.

Flooding. The track floods there a few times each year. There's a bigger problem is that any building work around there will increase the flow rate into the Oubeck and River Conder system, which has capacity issues. Galgate already has major floods every 2-3 years, increasing the flow rate would make that worse.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The bridge is an extra cost and complication that would require quite a land grab to resolve, and probably fairly lengthy possession.

Right. So it's an added expense and one that's worth pointing out, but not an insurmountable one. I'm pretty sure the cost/complications associated with rebuilding/possibly rerouteing a narrow country lane (which by your own admission arguably needs some work done on it anyway) are going to be pretty small compared to if it was a motorway that needed rebuilding. If you object to any station where you might have to make some changes to local roads etc. then you'll basically almost never open any new stations anywhere.

Walking up the hill carrying shopping or books? Why when the bus service does it. And probably stops close to where you live.

If that's your objection then I think you misunderstand the point of a new Bailrigg station. Yes, obviously it's not going to be used en masse by people coming in from the City Centre or Bowerham or Hala because there are much more frequent/convenient buses (although I wouldn't be surprised if a fair few people living around the Marsh would use it, since for them, the extra walk at the University would be partially balanced by a shorter walk to the station at the city centre end, plus the train being much quicker than the bus). No, the station will be primarily used by people commuting from Preston, maybe Morecambe if there are through services, and so on. Also by visitors coming from all over the country. Or students making day trips to Manchester or the Lake District or so on. In other words by people who will actually be bringing in far more revenue per trip than Lancaster commuters would be doing. When I was a student at what was then St Martin's College, I knew of a couple of students who commuted every day by car from Manchester and one who did the same from Blackpool - so that kind of thing happens even today. A station at Bailrigg will allow people who want to do that to conveniently use the train, and also open up a much wider geographical area for people to conveniently live in while working/studying at the University, thereby taking pressure of housing in the south of Lancaster. And for people making those kinds of journeys, the short walk between the station and the main campus is unlikely to be much of a barrier.

Flooding. The track floods there a few times each year. There's a bigger problem is that any building work around there will increase the flow rate into the Oubeck and River Conder system, which has capacity issues. Galgate already has major floods every 2-3 years, increasing the flow rate would make that worse.

OK, I can buy that some work will need to be done. But I think you're over-egging that objection. There has already been a reasonable amount of building work in the area: The new Uni sports centre, the science park, etc. And going back a bit more, the Hala residential area creeping further South. So evidently, the fact that there's a flood plain is not an insurmountable barrier to building stuff there.

 

[Falcon1200]

Do you mean that people have to support every railway project proposed, regardless of its utility and effectiveness?

A valid point, and applicable to the pet schemes of railway enthusiasts and politicians (near election time) where I live, such as the City Union in Glasgow and Suburban Line in Edinburgh.

I do have to say that although I have been fascinated, and impressed, by the level of detail around and support for reopening the closed stations in this topic, the question has to be asked: Given made that rail is simply one form of transport, would reopening these stations really be the most effective, efficient, and not least most cost-effective means of improving public transport in the area? The last point is crucial, because would there be any chance of fares revenue paying for the work necessary? I seriously doubt it.

 

[156421]

* Broughton - if suitably placed and with access to the M25, would make an excellent parkway station for Preston, as well as serving a reasonably sized community.

i am interested as to how it could have access to the M25

 

[DynamicSpirit]

i am interested as to how it could have access to the M25

Haha! Good catch! Surprised it took so long for someone to notice that. Yes obviously, I meant the M6/M55. Although I have to admit, since I wrote that, I'm becoming less convinced that that's important.

 

[The Planner]

The bridge is an extra cost and complication that would require quite a land grab to resolve, and probably fairly lengthy possession.

Doubt it, Bank Holiday at most.

 

[Bartsimho]

Doubt it, Bank Holiday at most.

For that section wouldn't it be better for a weekday not a bank holiday with its proximity to the Lakes.

Or a weekend in Winter

 

[Bald Rick]

Haha! Good catch! Surprised it took so long for someone to notice that. Yes obviously, I meant the M6/M55. Although I have to admit, since I wrote that, I'm becoming less convinced that that's important.

ahem, post #25

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2023 ==

Given made that rail is simply one form of transport, would reopening these stations really be the most effective, efficient, and not least most cost-effective means of improving public transport in the area? The last point is crucial, because would there be any chance of fares revenue paying for the work necessary? I seriously doubt it.

It’s reasonable to assume that the incremental fares revenue wouldn’t cover the incremental cost of operating the service, let alone paying for the work necessary.

 

[The Planner]

For that section wouldn't it be better for a weekday not a bank holiday with its proximity to the Lakes.

Or a weekend in Winter

Depends if you can divert the freight during the week, less runs at the weekend. Winter puts you at the behest of weather up there.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

ahem, post #25

Oh yes. Sorry! Checking back I recall reading your post - and realise now that at the time I completely failed to understand your meaning - I thought you meant it would be a long access road from the M55/A6 roundabout, and didn't notice that you were actually calling attention to my typo.

The risks of subtle humour....

 

[JamieL]

That's not what the posts you're talking about are saying though, is it?

Consider it this way: a whole load of stations have been built where demand has been somewhere between 'disappointing' and 'laughable':

• Bow Street

I picked one of your examples at random to make an assessment of your point. Bow Street has usage of 13,490. Is that laughable or disappointing? My local station has under 7,000!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I picked one of your examples at random to make an assessment of your point. Bow Street has usage of 13,490. Is that laughable or disappointing? My local station has under 7,000!

Not sure where that figure comes from. Wikipedia shows 13694 for 2021/22, the only full year for which figures are available, which is almost but not quite the same as your figure. Unfortunately, that translates into about 38 people per day, or 19 return journeys per day, which is laughably small. However, it was a Covid year, so maybe it'll be better in future years. I'm pretty confident that a Bailrigg station with a decent service would see orders of magnitude more passengers.

 

[JamieL]

Not sure where that figure comes from. Wikipedia shows 13694 for 2021/22, the only full year for which figures are available, which is almost but not quite the same as your figure.

Probably my error to be honest.

 

[Starmill]

I picked one of your examples at random to make an assessment of your point. Bow Street has usage of 13,490. Is that laughable or disappointing? My local station has under 7,000!

So somewhere in the region of 20 - 25 entries and exits per day then, with the upper end of that range assuming your station isn't served on Sundays? Are you suggesting that's sustainable for a railway?

Of course, these figures may be reflective of covid restrictions and Bow Street wasn't open to compare it before the pandemic. I will of await a full hourly service and a couple of years of data to suggest whether my assessment of Bow Street is inaccurate, but I am confident in my prediction of it being extremely poor value for money.

 

[JamieL]

So somewhere in the region of 20 - 25 entries and exits per day then, with the upper end of that range assuming your station isn't served on Sundays? Are you suggesting that's sustainable for a railway?

Of course, these figures may be reflective of covid restrictions and Bow Street wasn't open to compare it before the pandemic. I will of await a full hourly service and a couple of years of data to suggest whether my assessment of Bow Street is inaccurate, but I am confident in my prediction of it being extremely poor value for money.

The railways as a whole are very poor value for money. But if we want to get people out of their cars and out of planes, then we need to make them better. Generally speaking, 'build and they shall come'. If we took a more holistic view of developments, namely new housing estates accompanying new transport infrastructure, we would realise potential of such sites. Admittedly, in deepest rural Wales, such developments may be more challenging - but if the station is serving a rural community, who may make greater and greater use of it over time, then is it a waste of money? I don't think so. Its important the railways deliver for locals as well as long distance commuters - otherwise there is a strong argument to say they should be publicly funded.

 

[Starmill]

The railways as a whole are very poor value for money. But if we want to get people out of their cars and out of planes, then we need to make them better.

Indeed! And the way we do that best is by targeting improvements so that the most people will use them, isn't it? People's desire to travel is quasi-unlimited, but resources are strictly limited.

Generally speaking, 'build and they shall come'.

A nice phrase, build what? Everything?

 

[JamieL]

Indeed! And the way we do that best is by targeting improvements so that the most people will use them, isn't it? People's desire to travel is quasi-unlimited, but resources are strictly limited.


A nice phrase, build what? Everything?

See my edited post!

 

[eldomtom2]

Do you mean that people have to support every railway project proposed, regardless of its utility and effectiveness?

No, that's a strawman.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2023 ==

However when the response to:

I do have to say that although I have been fascinated, and impressed, by the level of detail around and support for reopening the closed stations in this topic, the question has to be asked: Given made that rail is simply one form of transport, would reopening these stations really be the most effective, efficient, and not least most cost-effective means of improving public transport in the area? The last point is crucial, because would there be any chance of fares revenue paying for the work necessary? I seriously doubt it.

Is to solely focus on the "fares covering costs" aspects I think that suggests a very narrow view of the definitions of "utility" and "effectiveness".

 

[zwk500]

Is to solely focus on the "fares covering costs" aspects I think that suggests a very narrow view of the definitions of "utility" and "effectiveness".

Using a wider definition, you need to balance the loss of utility to longer distance traffic against the benefits to local traffic.

London to Scotland travel is far more valuable to the country at large from a 'social benefit' standpoint than Garstang to Lancaster.

 

[eldomtom2]

Using a wider definition, you need to balance the loss of utility to longer distance traffic against the benefits to local traffic.

London to Scotland travel is far more valuable to the country at large from a 'social benefit' standpoint than Garstang to Lancaster.

Well yes, but then you also need to examine how the impact on long-distance traffic can be minimised...

 

[SynthD]

More buses. The customer demand is in the order of magnitude that fits buses, rather than considerable capital expenditure.

 

[zwk500]

Well yes, but then you also need to examine how the impact on long-distance traffic can be minimised...

The cost for which can quickly come to more than any benefit, it's a fine balancing act.

 

[Bald Rick]

No, that's a strawman.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2023 ==

However when the response to:

Is to solely focus on the "fares covering costs" aspects I think that suggests a very narrow view of the definitions of "utility" and "effectiveness".

Not for the first time, I really don’t understand what yo7 are trying to say.

Well yes, but then you also need to examine how the impact on long-distance traffic can be minimised...

How do you think it could be minimised?

 

[JamieL]

More buses. The customer demand is in the order of magnitude that fits buses, rather than considerable capital expenditure.

Surely you see the optics of this? Southern long distance travellers use trains, northerners must use buses.

The cost for which can quickly come to more than any benefit, it's a fine balancing act.

How many express services head north per hour from Preston? Looking at the Avanti timetable, the northbound departures from Preston are roughly every hour. Is this really the WCML operating at total capacity with no possibility of the already running Barrow bound service stopping at a few more stops on its way to Lancaster?

 

[The Planner]

How many express services head north per hour from Preston? Looking at the Avanti timetable, the northbound departures from Preston are roughly every hour. Is this really the WCML operating at total capacity with no possibility of the already running Barrow bound service stopping at a few more stops on its way to Lancaster?

Using the current timetable as the base for the example, you have an Avanti going northbound from Preston at xx.41 normally off peak and then the Scotland via the West Mids at xx.53. The Barrow/Windermere goes at xx.46. You work on a 4 minute headway along there and the xx.53 arrives at Lancaster 5 minutes after the Barrow does. Assuming 2-3 minutes for a stop and the second Avanti is catching you. Add two stops and you really put a dent in the Avanti.

 

[JamieL]

Using the current timetable as the base for the example, you have an Avanti going northbound from Preston at xx.41 normally off peak and then the Scotland via the West Mids at xx.53. The Barrow/Windermere goes at xx.46. You work on a 4 minute headway along there and the xx.53 arrives at Lancaster 5 minutes after the Barrow does. Assuming 2-3 minutes for a stop and the second Avanti is catching you. Add two stops and you really put a dent in the Avanti.

So that is xx.41 to xx.53 inclusive - what about movements during xx.54 to xx.40? A snapshot of the Avanti timetable - I am guessing the other services you list are Northern?

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely you see the optics of this? Southern long distance travellers use trains, northerners must use buses.

That‘s quite a leap of logic. How is Lancaster to Bailrigg a long distance journey?