Beeching II - you wield the axe.....

[AndrewE]

Sorry to be pedantic, but London Bridge has these services passing:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W43140/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W49783/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W43393/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W43397/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W44023/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W42718/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W43646/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W43030/2018/11/28/advanced

So they do. Another railway oddity (8 in fact.)

 

[Pigeon]

This thread illustrates the problem that some people treat every bit of railway as sacred - if you can't accept closing the weakest of lines (those with a Parlimentary service or very token services, e.g. Knottingley to Goole) then there's no point trying to have a rational debate about the finite budget we have.

And if your answer is "but, before we close it, we should run services there at a significantly increased frequency for a five year trial, before we can reach a decision about viability" then you are just dodging the difficult question - the numbers might go up from one man and a dog to two men and a dog but it still won't be enough to sustain a station.

By running a "Parliamentary" service you are limiting its patronage to enthusiasts doing it for the crack because it's useless for actually going anywhere, and obscuring any possibility that people might want to use it for going somewhere if there was a service to do it.

I remember getting very frustrated in the 80s trying to plan journeys from south of Manchester to north-east of it (up the WCML then across the Pennines sort of thing). The difficulty was, of course, being dumped at Piccadilly by the service from the south and then having to trog across an alien city centre wondering where Victoria was. The obvious solution according to the network map was to get off the service from the south at Stockport, get a dasher to Stalybridge, and pick up the trans-Pennine service there. Except the dasher only ran about three times a day and none of the times were any use.

These days it seems it only runs one day a week and only in one direction, so it's that much worse, while the basic problem still exists, and any other solution to it is cabbaged by the lack of capacity at Piccadilly. A "Parliamentary" service just means some TOC is putting its own good above the good of the network, not that there's no use for a proper service.

trains dawdling along to stop at places no one gets on or off really feel very very slow (the Network Express to Exeter hahahaha!)

It's not the stopping at stations that's the problem, it's the dawdling in between them - crappy low linespeeds which the train quickly reaches and then creeps along at making you feel like it'd be quicker walking, with added frustration when it drops to 15mph for a mile and a half for some slack that's been there for 20 years and nobody's done anything about it. Even worse when it's on jointed track and the slow thudding of the rail joints emphasises the low speed. Stopping for stations isn't so bad as long as the train can run fast enough between them that you do feel like it's actually making an effort, but when it never gets over 40mph or whatever you just feel like the train can't be arsed and nor can the railway as a whole.

Since people are talking about Hull - I went there once and the run was just like that - seemed to take forever, and it was in a Pacer just to make it even worse. Several stops, but far enough apart that the train could have got moving a lot faster than it did if it had been allowed to. It just felt like nobody gave a toss about the service or the people using it.

 

[tbtc]

Let's take an example: The small stations around Hull. Those being Wressle, Eastrington, Saltmarshe and Broomfleet.
There is currently an hourly stopping service from Hull to Sheffield (it sometimes originates from Beverley or Bridlington). That could alternatley serve Broomfleet and Saltmarshe giving a bi-hourly service at both stations and having no effect on the fastest journey times (there is another limited stop service from Hull to Sheffield which people making end-to-end journey times would use)

I was referring to the York to Hull service. The slow Hull to Sheffield has the alternative fast service, which most people go for anyway

Sorry, I thought from your earlier quote that you were referring to slowing down the Hull - Sheffield stopper (hence my points about the flat crossing on the ECML etc).

But (even if we are talking about a York service), the general points remain - adding a few minutes to each round trip could be the difference between clearing a junction in time or clashing with a following service, the difference between staff getting a long enough break at a terminus or not, the difference between a diagram being reliable and it requiring extra trains/ staff.

It would be difficult to stop any more services at these termini: I can't imagine any trains that don't stop there!

True - maybe I should have said Manchester Piccadilly/ Leeds/ Birmingham New Street etc - just trying to make the point that the "if you run more services there then demand might increase" argument applies to all stations - nothing unique about lightly used ones.

By running a "Parliamentary" service you are limiting its patronage to enthusiasts doing it for the crack because it's useless for actually going anywhere, and obscuring any possibility that people might want to use it for going somewhere if there was a service to do it.

I remember getting very frustrated in the 80s trying to plan journeys from south of Manchester to north-east of it (up the WCML then across the Pennines sort of thing). The difficulty was, of course, being dumped at Piccadilly by the service from the south and then having to trog across an alien city centre wondering where Victoria was. The obvious solution according to the network map was to get off the service from the south at Stockport, get a dasher to Stalybridge, and pick up the trans-Pennine service there. Except the dasher only ran about three times a day and none of the times were any use.

These days it seems it only runs one day a week and only in one direction, so it's that much worse, while the basic problem still exists, and any other solution to it is cabbaged by the lack of capacity at Piccadilly. A "Parliamentary" service just means some TOC is putting its own good above the good of the network, not that there's no use for a proper service

Parliamentary services exist because nobody has the guts to close lightly used stations down so we maintain this charade of providing them with a token level of service.

It's not about the TOC "putting its own good above the good of the network", it's about them meeting the dumb franchise requirements to keep such poorly used stations served by ticking a box.

Given the Stockport - Stalybridge example, you've got to consider whether any DMU leaving Stockport is going to serve more passengers running into Piccadilly rather than skirting Greater Manchester without serving anywhere particularly large en route - there's generally a very good reason why these parliamentary services have been downgraded over the years to the "token" level that they now receive.

Is the demand from (say) Stoke to Huddersfield so great that we should run services avoiding central Manchester? Or would the resources be better used running Stoke - Manchester and Manchester - Huddersfield services?

Are there really any "parliamentary" services where people think that passenger numbers could sustain a regular daytime service (if spare resources were found to provide it)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think re the "Flying Dentonian" there is a really good case to reinstate it hourly now so many services have returned to Victoria. I'd probably suggest a Stockport to Victoria service would be the most useful, as it would also provide a service for those in Denton and Reddish to go into Manchester.

 

[Ken H]

I think re the "Flying Dentonian" there is a really good case to reinstate it hourly now so many services have returned to Victoria. I'd probably suggest a Stockport to Victoria service would be the most useful, as it would also provide a service for those in Denton and Reddish to go into Manchester.

Northern stop a couple of Man Picc - Huddersfield stoppers at Guide Bridge and Staylebridge but no mention in their pocket timetables, tho you can find it in their journey planner.

 

[Esker-pades]

Northern stop a couple of Man Picc - Huddersfield stoppers at Guide Bridge and Staylebridge but no mention in their pocket timetables, tho you can find it in their journey planner.

Those are peak-only services though. They're not of much use when travelling at ~2pm, for example.

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry, I thought from your earlier quote that you were referring to slowing down the Hull - Sheffield stopper (hence my points about the flat crossing on the ECML etc).

But (even if we are talking about a York service), the general points remain - adding a few minutes to each round trip could be the difference between clearing a junction in time or clashing with a following service, the difference between staff getting a long enough break at a terminus or not, the difference between a diagram being reliable and it requiring extra trains/ staff.



True - maybe I should have said Manchester Piccadilly/ Leeds/ Birmingham New Street etc - just trying to make the point that the "if you run more services there then demand might increase" argument applies to all stations - nothing unique about lightly used ones.



Parliamentary services exist because nobody has the guts to close lightly used stations down so we maintain this charade of providing them with a token level of service.

It's not about the TOC "putting its own good above the good of the network", it's about them meeting the dumb franchise requirements to keep such poorly used stations served by ticking a box.

Given the Stockport - Stalybridge example, you've got to consider whether any DMU leaving Stockport is going to serve more passengers running into Piccadilly rather than skirting Greater Manchester without serving anywhere particularly large en route - there's generally a very good reason why these parliamentary services have been downgraded over the years to the "token" level that they now receive.

Is the demand from (say) Stoke to Huddersfield so great that we should run services avoiding central Manchester? Or would the resources be better used running Stoke - Manchester and Manchester - Huddersfield services?

Are there really any "parliamentary" services where people think that passenger numbers could sustain a regular daytime service (if spare resources were found to provide it)?

Not strictly speaking parliamentary, but there are several services that have been degraded to the point of being barely usable, which could sustain a proper service. The Brigg line and Knottingley - Goole spring to mind.

I would argue that the Whitby line is on the border of being in this situation.

Wasn't the Halton curve an example of a proper parliamentary service which has recently been fully upgraded ?.

 

[tbtc]

Not strictly speaking parliamentary, but there are several services that have been degraded to the point of being barely usable, which could sustain a proper service. The Brigg line and Knottingley - Goole spring to mind.

I would argue that the Whitby line is on the border of being in this situation.

Wasn't the Halton curve an example of a proper parliamentary service which has recently been fully upgraded ?.

Whitby has four services a day (extending to/from Darlington/ Newcastle/ Sunderland/ Metro Centre at times).

There's no stations involved on the Halton curve though - it's not like there are any lightly used stations that will be brought back into life (which would support the kind of "if you massively increase service to a station then demand might increase" argument).

But where are the big places on the Brigg and Goole lines? And what do you mean by "sustain a proper service"? Be profitable? Generate tens of thousands of journeys per year if only they had an hourly service? Be "useful" (that nebulous word that some enthusiasts like to use for things that would be Nice To Have but certainly aren't essential)?

Goole is a reasonably sized place (compared to some of the ones you have a soft spot for), but two trains per hour to Hull/ Doncaster/ Meadowhall/ Sheffield doesn't seem unreasonable. Maybe a through service to Leeds would be used more if it ran more often but there are other places in Yorkshire that lack a Leeds service because they happen to be on a line pointing in the wrong direction (Mexborough, Penistone etc), so not unique. Nobody is campaigning for Scunthorpe/ Grimsby to get a direct Leeds service, for example.

Plus the Goole line has the parallel Hull - Selby - Leeds route, so it's not a vast area without a railway - it's a pretty empty part of the countryside.

Brigg is only five thousand people - it's never going to sustain many railway passengers even if we did introduced a frequent service (instead of using the resources to do something boring like increase capacity on existing busy lines). The trains attract a few going from Sheffield to the beach at Cleethorpes on a Saturday but it's not going to be great rail territory - fairly empty countryside. Even if you had a few spare DMUs to give to Lincolnshire then they'd be much better used on existing corridors around Lincoln, bring them up to clockface services (before we get into the luxurious position of being able to give Brigg a "proper service").

 

[squizzler]

I presume the OP knows that Beeching II was an actual thing - a report known as "The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes" - proposing a programme of modernisation underpinned by investment in the core of the network which was not at the time fully implemented? This thread should be concerned with devising modern innovations in the spirit of the Freightliner and Intercity concepts, not closing stuff.

 

[duffield]

...
The difficulty was, of course, being dumped at Piccadilly by the service from the south and then having to trog across an alien city centre wondering where Victoria was. The obvious solution according to the network map was to get off the service from the south at Stockport, get a dasher to Stalybridge, and pick up the trans-Pennine service there. Except the dasher only ran about three times a day and none of the times were any use.

These days it seems it only runs one day a week and only in one direction, so it's that much worse, while the basic problem still exists, and any other solution to it is cabbaged by the lack of capacity at Piccadilly.
...

But these days, (apart from the obvious getting the Metro from Pic to Vic), you can at least get a train service between them every 30 mins via the Ordsall Chord, as I did a few weeks ago.

 

[AndrewE]

But these days, (apart from the obvious getting the Metro from Pic to Vic), you can at least get a train service between them every 30 mins via the Ordsall Chord, as I did a few weeks ago.

I'll bet you lose at least an hour going that way. [Crewe] Stockport (change) Stalybridge (change) [Hfield, Leeds and onwards] is a route I used frequently before transpennine trains went via Guide Bridge. As has been said above, with lots of TP trains going via Victoria again it will come back into its own. I shall look forward to it.

 

[SCH117X]

Making an additional stop on an already existing service would cost very little.

Not necessarily - it will cause a slowing of the overall service which could adversely affect the ability to maintain the service with the existing number of trains. I am aware of a new station proposal that Northern are strongly opposed to because it is right in the middle of a relatively fast section of track - the consequential slowing, stopping and reacceleration will, in Northerns opinion, mean the added journey time will adversely affect the ability to maintain the timetable.

 

[Pigeon]

Is the demand from (say) Stoke to Huddersfield so great that we should run services avoiding central Manchester? Or would the resources be better used running Stoke - Manchester and Manchester - Huddersfield services?

The point wasn't about "avoiding central Manchester", it was about not having to leave one station and trog a mile on foot across a strange city centre to a different one.

I chose the example because it was a problem I'd run into personally, that illustrated my point even though it isn't up to date - no Ordsall chord back then! (And yes, it was Stoke to Huddersfield, too...) The responses on this thread suggest pretty strongly that even though the situation with the "Manchester gap" has been mitigated by recent developments, it's still enough of a major hassle that people would indeed want to use a Stockport-Stalybridge service if there was one that was usable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I chose the example because it was a problem I'd run into personally, that illustrated my point even though it isn't up to date - no Ordsall chord back then! (And yes, it was Stoke to Huddersfield, too...) The responses on this thread suggest pretty strongly that even though the situation with the "Manchester gap" has been mitigated by recent developments, it's still enough of a major hassle that people would indeed want to use a Stockport-Stalybridge service if there was one that was usable.

As I said I think there is now, with many services back at Victoria, a very strong case for reinstating an hourly service on that route, or possibly Stockport to Victoria.

 

[yorksrob]

Whitby has four services a day (extending to/from Darlington/ Newcastle/ Sunderland/ Metro Centre at times).

There's no stations involved on the Halton curve though - it's not like there are any lightly used stations that will be brought back into life (which would support the kind of "if you massively increase service to a station then demand might increase" argument).

But where are the big places on the Brigg and Goole lines? And what do you mean by "sustain a proper service"? Be profitable? Generate tens of thousands of journeys per year if only they had an hourly service? Be "useful" (that nebulous word that some enthusiasts like to use for things that would be Nice To Have but certainly aren't essential)?

Goole is a reasonably sized place (compared to some of the ones you have a soft spot for), but two trains per hour to Hull/ Doncaster/ Meadowhall/ Sheffield doesn't seem unreasonable. Maybe a through service to Leeds would be used more if it ran more often but there are other places in Yorkshire that lack a Leeds service because they happen to be on a line pointing in the wrong direction (Mexborough, Penistone etc), so not unique. Nobody is campaigning for Scunthorpe/ Grimsby to get a direct Leeds service, for example.

Plus the Goole line has the parallel Hull - Selby - Leeds route, so it's not a vast area without a railway - it's a pretty empty part of the countryside.

Brigg is only five thousand people - it's never going to sustain many railway passengers even if we did introduced a frequent service (instead of using the resources to do something boring like increase capacity on existing busy lines). The trains attract a few going from Sheffield to the beach at Cleethorpes on a Saturday but it's not going to be great rail territory - fairly empty countryside. Even if you had a few spare DMUs to give to Lincolnshire then they'd be much better used on existing corridors around Lincoln, bring them up to clockface services (before we get into the luxurious position of being able to give Brigg a "proper service").

The idea that we could "better use trains on existing routes" is just an excuse for not doing anything.

I agree with clockface timetables elsewhere, however we're about to have a load of surplus 144's that have to go from the existing lines in a year or two. We should have a sort of Speller amendment to enable these to be used.

 

[Mark J]

I presume the OP knows that Beeching II was an actual thing - a report known as "The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes" - proposing a programme of modernisation underpinned by investment in the core of the network which was not at the time fully implemented? This thread should be concerned with devising modern innovations in the spirit of the Freightliner and Intercity concepts, not closing stuff.

Wasn’t the 1983 Serpell Report known as Beeching II?

Option A advocated removing 84% of what was left after Beeching, reducing the network to a mere 1630 miles.

Thankfully it was never implemented.

 

[Warwick]

Here's an idea: everyone who starts a thread on here proposing closures should nominate the station closest to their home address, the line serving it and any other stations and lines within a 15 mile radius, before they are allowed to nominate any others. They would also be forced to sell any motor vehicle in the household, and be subject to a lifelong ban on using taxis.

They should then be asked how happy they still feel about closing railway lines other people depend on.

If you think that the majority of secondary rail lines are a substitute for owning and operating a private motor car you're in dreamland. Go on to the national rail website and ascertain the journey by rail from Penzance to Barnstaple departing from Penzance at 12.00 or so tomorrow morning. Then do the same on TheAA.Com.

 

[swt_passenger]

Would a better situation not be to protect the bus services better?

Yeah, we can’t afford to run a bus service so let’s try a train instead...

 

[sprunt]

I'm suggesting that stations which serve a populus should not be closed.

If the populous aren't using the trains, can the station really be said to be serving it?

 

[AndrewE]

If the populace aren't using the trains, can the station really be said to be serving it?

Like wearing seat-belts and not smoking in public or workplaces nowadays, I'm sure that drastically reducing private vehicle use is an idea that will come to be accepted as the norm. So all sorts of little-used trains and stations will come to be seen as a part of the infrastructure that we couldn't possibly do without.
There will be a lot of bitter opposition from vested interests, of course, and from the people who put their own convenience above all the other needs of society.
All and any potential public transport infrastructure should therefore be protected until it is certain that it will not be needed - e.g. until a bigger or better station is built to supersede one that has been out-grown, which we have seen more than once already. Moor St or Snow Hill might be examples of this.

 

[coppercapped]

Wasn’t the 1983 Serpell Report known as Beeching II?

No. 'Beeching II' may be found here.

The Serpell review was twenty years later.

 

[Bald Rick]

Like wearing seat-belts and not smoking in public or workplaces nowadays, I'm sure that drastically reducing private vehicle use is an idea that will come to be accepted as the norm.

I’m sure you are wrong.

Not wearing seat belts and smoking are proven to be detrimental to society and the economy, on average. There is very, very little downside for individuals giving up smoking or wearing a seatbelt, but a significant upside (less likely to meet an early death).

Private vehicle use is proven to be very beneficial to society and the economy, on average. Yes there are downsides in terms of pollution and accidents, but the up side socially and economically is enormous, in terms of a functioning modern economy.

And the pollution downsides will be largely eliminated within a decade or two. Indeed within London I reckon it will be only a year or so before air quality starts improving considerably given the number of electric black cabs and electric buses coming on line.

 

[squizzler]

Like wearing seat-belts and not smoking in public or workplaces nowadays, I'm sure that drastically reducing private vehicle use is an idea that will come to be accepted as the norm. So all sorts of little-used trains and stations will come to be seen as a part of the infrastructure that we couldn't possibly do without.
There will be a lot of bitter opposition from vested interests, of course, and from the people who put their own convenience above all the other needs of society.
All and any potential public transport infrastructure should therefore be protected until it is certain that it will not be needed - e.g. until a bigger or better station is built to supersede one that has been out-grown, which we have seen more than once already. Moor St or Snow Hill might be examples of this.

I think you are being a bit conservative in the bit I highlighted, as such acceptance has already come to pass. Since the 1990's and the Standing Advisory Committee Trunk Road Assessment report, Government has known that private motoring is not desirable, and arguably accepted such with the Commission for Integrated Transport around the turn of the millennium.

I’m sure you are wrong.

Not wearing seat belts and smoking are proven to be detrimental to society and the economy, on average. There is very, very little downside for individuals giving up smoking or wearing a seatbelt, but a significant upside (less likely to meet an early death).

Private vehicle use is proven to be very beneficial to society and the economy, on average. Yes there are downsides in terms of pollution and accidents, but the up side socially and economically is enormous, in terms of a functioning modern economy.

And the pollution downsides will be largely eliminated within a decade or two. Indeed within London I reckon it will be only a year or so before air quality starts improving considerably given the number of electric black cabs and electric buses coming on line.

I disagree with the highlighted statement. Private vehicles arguably benefit their users at the expense of society as a whole, I couldn't say if the social impact that results would be beneficial or not. Economically the overuse of private vehicles is a clear negative because of the downsides you mention, but also because the economy has to devote more money and resources to a private transport dependent system than an optimised "integrated transport" system, leading to opportunity costs where savings have to be made elsewhere.

Interesting that you cite expected improvements to air quality by electric cab and bus operators, not private vehicles.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting that you cite expected improvements to air quality by electric cab and bus operators, not private vehicles.

Well that’s because in the busiest parts of central London, a significant proportion of traffic is cabs and buses, and Mayoral policy is to electrify these asap (effectively now for cabs, very soon for buses). Privately owned vehicles will take longer as the Mayor doesn’t have jurisdiction over them, except through price mechanisms such as the ULEZ.

Nevertheless I anticipate that pollution in London caused by road vehicle traffic will halve between now and 3 years time.

 

[Howardh]

I would make it law that for every mile removed from the railways where there's little use; it gets replaced by a mile for a new (or reopened) route where it is needed...even if it's light rail! Also that any closed railways don't get built over so they could be reopened in future.

 

[trainmania100]

With southern vectis buses covering the vast majority of the island as it is, and the 483s only covering s very small distance of the island, I would close the island line.

 

[yorksrob]

With southern vectis buses covering the vast majority of the island as it is, and the 483s only covering s very small distance of the island, I would close the island line.

The island line is well used, therefore there is no justification for closing it.

 

[Howardh]

With southern vectis buses covering the vast majority of the island as it is, and the 483s only covering s very small distance of the island, I would close the island line.

Noooooo!! It's the sole reason I visit the IOW!!

 

[backontrack]

The Far North Line is probably an obvious one.

Realistically, if you needed to do some *heavy* pruning, a rule along the lines of "if the route or station doesn't have at least an hourly weekday service it can go" would probably cut the majority of the real basket cases.

Not sure there's such a large case for cutting the Far North Line; a lifeline service that serves the Easter Ross commuter towns, the North Coast 500, Dounreay, Thurso, Wick and Orkney. There's probably a bigger argument for cutting the Kyle line if anything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure there's such a large case for cutting the Far North Line; a lifeline service that serves the Easter Ross commuter towns, the North Coast 500, Dounreay, Thurso, Wick and Orkney.

All of which can be served by bus/coach for less money if it comes to it - and isn't the bus quicker, too?

I don't want to see it close, but if money got tight the financial case for it is very poor.