Big city defunct stations - future potential

[William3000]

If you gave enthusiasts the choice between reopening a Manchester station and platforms 15 and 16 project there would probably be a majority for the former. I supported platform 15 and 16 and it is still a good idea in the longer term but with hindsight it would have been a waste of taxpayer money 10 years ago. The focus on longer train lengths was a better medium term solution.



17 platforms for Victoria would be crazy today. Nearly every closed or shrunk station in this thread was unnecessary once the network was nationalised. Manchester and Salford city centres never needed eight stations. It doesn't really need five. If the stations didn't already exist then a station the size of Oxford Road but at the location of Deansgate would be better.

Maybe so but there is clearly a need for huge increase in services - what form they take In not sure. The trams penetrate the central areas more effectively but are relatively short formations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2025 ==

If you gave enthusiasts the choice between reopening a Manchester station and platforms 15 and 16 project there would probably be a majority for the former. I supported platform 15 and 16 and it is still a good idea in the longer term but with hindsight it would have been a waste of taxpayer money 10 years ago. The focus on longer train lengths was a better medium term solution.



17 platforms for Victoria would be crazy today. Nearly every closed or shrunk station in this thread was unnecessary once the network was nationalised. Manchester and Salford city centres never needed eight stations. It doesn't really need five. If the stations didn't already exist then a station the size of Oxford Road but at the location of Deansgate would be better.

I disagree - I think all the stations are well used. Salford Central and Deansgate would both be better used with better services. Building for the next 50 years means much more capacity is required.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2025 ==

Those are positive but the biggest gain of the budget rebuild is allowing longer trains. Oxford Road fixes maximum train lengths in much of the North West at 6 x 23m or 5 x 26m. It can't even fit 8 x 20m without fouling points. This is OK for now but will become a significant problem. Ordsall Lane junction should be grade separated before Piccadilly 15 and 16. Had the Northern Hub plan been built we would have had 16tph of short trains crossing multiple flat junctions. Ordsall Lane is the easiest to do because all the land required is owned by Network Rail. Its too late to buy sufficient land to grade seperate Castlefield Junction and the Ardwick flyover floated nearly 20 years ago would be a collosal project. Victoria is at the bottom of the list. Its current size isn't ideal but its managable.

The Thameslink core in London shows how a single platform each direction can deliver a very high frequency.

 

[Topological]

Maybe so but there is clearly a need for huge increase in services - what form they take In not sure. The trams penetrate the central areas more effectively but are relatively short formations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2025 ==


I disagree - I think all the stations are well used. Salford Central and Deansgate would both be better used with better services. Building for the next 50 years means much more capacity is required.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2025 ==


The Thameslink core in London shows how a single platform each direction can deliver a very high frequency.

The Liverpool - Manchester railway is going to make a big difference by removing any train that might arguably have to skip stops in the centre of Manchester. Once everything calls everywhere you have more consistency. This applies to TPE trains from Victoria to Liverpool as well as Piccadilly (EMR+TPE) which will no longer be needed.

Thameslink does benefit from grade-separated junctions though, so Manchester cannot quite match that capacity (unless the CLC line becomes tram-train so that all trains head North-West from Deansgate). At the East end everything is simpler because all trains can go to the airport without conflicting.

 

[brad465]

Any uses for Bath Green Park (extant and restored, but used as a car park) or Bristol St Philips (low rise and dated office/industrial unit on site, most of approach track still there under vegetation as used for access to waste depot a few years back)

As nice as it would be to reopen Green Park, there is way too much built on the land to the west of the station to make reopening it viable, it's mainly a retail park plus the A36 and land that was car dealerships, now being converting to (student?) flats. Then once beyond Locksbrook it's the Bristol & Bath railway path, which while much easier to convert will draw a lot of opposition unless a compromise like the Avon Valley Railway (where the path runs along one former trackbed, with the single line the other part), is reached. The Somerset & Dorset would have to takeover the Two Tunnels' greenway, which would be impossible to run alongside because of the tunnels.

This is before we get to the fact the S&D line probably wouldn't have enough patronage to reopen (particularly as the closest you could get into Bath there is a parkway station in Oldfield Park/Bear Flat), while the old line to Bristol is largely duplicating the existing mainline. If need be Saltford can get a station on the GWML, while north-east Bristol is maybe better off with a tram system, but this wouldn't extend to Bath.

 

[Krokodil]

The Thameslink core in London shows how a single platform each direction can deliver a very high frequency.

It does, though the big difference is that Thameslink has exclusively suburban services with terminal platforms available to send any rogue trains that would disrupt the core. Castlefield meanwhile has an awkward mix of suburban, regional, regional express and intercity services where the only places to turn trains back prematurely can be as far away as Warrington.

 

[Chester1]

Maybe so but there is clearly a need for huge increase in services - what form they take In not sure. The trams penetrate the central areas more effectively but are relatively short formations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2025 ==


I disagree - I think all the stations are well used. Salford Central and Deansgate would both be better used with better services. Building for the next 50 years means much more capacity is required.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2025 ==


The Thameslink core in London shows how a single platform each direction can deliver a very high frequency.

Deansgate can't have more services without messing up the timetable because its too close to both Castlefield Junction and Oxford Road station. There is no way there would be stations 400m apart if they hadn't been built by different companies in the 1800s. I am not advocating actually doing anything because its too late but if there was a blank slate there would only be one station in the area. Piccadilly, Oxford Road or Deansgate, Salford Central and Victoria cover the twin city centres. Mayfield, Central and Exchange were all unnecessary after nationalisation. Mayfield and Exchange were next to Piccadilly and Victoria but just far enough to have a slow connection time. Central lost any purpose once London services stopped. Proposals to reopen Manchester Central have never got anywhere because its better value to improve infrastructure to run more services to Piccadilly, Oxford Road and Victoria than have another terminal. Fortunately Viadux 1 has blocked the route and Viadux 2 will further block it (and be taller than Canary Wharf).

 

[William3000]

Deansgate can't have more services without messing up the timetable because its too close to both Castlefield Junction and Oxford Road station. There is no way there would be stations 400m apart if they hadn't been built by different companies in the 1800s. I am not advocating actually doing anything because its too late but if there was a blank slate there would only be one station in the area. Piccadilly, Oxford Road or Deansgate, Salford Central and Victoria cover the twin city centres. Mayfield, Central and Exchange were all unnecessary after nationalisation. Mayfield and Exchange were next to Piccadilly and Victoria but just far enough to have a slow connection time. Central lost any purpose once London services stopped. Proposals to reopen Manchester Central have never got anywhere because its better value to improve infrastructure to run more services to Piccadilly, Oxford Road and Victoria than have another terminal. Fortunately Viadux 1 has blocked the route and Viadux 2 will further block it (and be taller than Canary Wharf).

Oxford Road provides a vital function and is well used particularly for accessing the university. These stations aren’t particularly close. Oxford Rd isn’t connected to Metrolink which is one of its downsides - but it’s a function that Deansgate provides. In theory one could construct a mainline station next to Cornbrook to serve a similar function and unlike Deansgate (which involves a short walk over Whitworth Street West, it is right next to the Metrolink.

Manchester is a growing city and increasingly Britain’s second after London. Its suburban rail network and metro is vastly inferior to comparable sized European cities like Barcelona. Mayfield I agree would simply have duplicated platforms at Piccadilly but Central definitely and possibly Exchange could have provided increased resilience and had they not have closed would undoubtedly be very busy today. But I agree the prospect of either opening is zero (though I’m not sure why that’s fortunate) but that doesn’t mean additional rail capacity won’t be needed over the next 50 years. Burnham is already talking about an underground network

London is continuing to expand its rail network with Crossrail 2, Bakerloo extension both likely in the next 20 years. While not directly comparable - being smaller, Manchester still needs massive extra capacity. Birmingham’s capacity is being increased with 7 new platforms at Curzon Street, 2 or maybe 3 at Moor Street, and reinstating 1 at Snow Hill. Manchester has lots of terminus platforms facing south and east at Piccadilly and a couple more at Victoria but virtually nothing facing west or north west.

Over the next 50 years I would expect Manchester to gain Northern Powerhouse Rail - a relatively high speed line linking Liverpool in the west through Manchester (probably with a new underground station at Piccadilly) and across to Sheffield, Leeds, and possibly York/Hull in the east. This is likely to be complemented by further Metrolink extensions and underground stations, and HS2 or some variant will likely reach Manchester from the south.

 

[Topological]

Oxford Road provides a vital function and is well used particularly for accessing the university. These stations aren’t particularly close. Oxford Rd isn’t connected to Metrolink which is one of its downsides - but it’s a function that Deansgate provides. In theory one could construct a mainline station next to Cornbrook to serve a similar function and unlike Deansgate (which involves a short walk over Whitworth Street West, it is right next to the Metrolink.

Manchester is a growing city and increasingly Britain’s second after London. Its suburban rail network and metro is vastly inferior to comparable sized European cities like Barcelona. Mayfield I agree would simply have duplicated platforms at Piccadilly but Central definitely and possibly Exchange could have provided increased resilience and had they not have closed would undoubtedly be very busy today. But I agree the prospect of either opening is zero (though I’m not sure why that’s fortunate) but that doesn’t mean additional rail capacity won’t be needed over the next 50 years. Burnham is already talking about an underground network

London is continuing to expand its rail network with Crossrail 2, Bakerloo extension both likely in the next 20 years. While not directly comparable - being smaller, Manchester still needs massive extra capacity. Birmingham’s capacity is being increased with 7 new platforms at Curzon Street, 2 or maybe 3 at Moor Street, and reinstating 1 at Snow Hill. Manchester has lots of terminus platforms facing south and east at Piccadilly and a couple more at Victoria but virtually nothing facing west or north west.

Over the next 50 years I would expect Manchester to gain Northern Powerhouse Rail - a relatively high speed line linking Liverpool in the west through Manchester (probably with a new underground station at Piccadilly) and across to Sheffield, Leeds, and possibly York/Hull in the east. This is likely to be complemented by further Metrolink extensions and underground stations, and HS2 or some variant will likely reach Manchester from the south.

Although I am an advocate for a Cornbrook station, it would not replace the metrolink interchange at Deansgate since only trains from the CLC line can call at Cornbrook, all other services through Deansgate do not pass a tram interchange.

Central would not have been busy if it was still open. The big market is London and that is Piccadilly. Central had already lost London so would just be serving local trains and maybe Liverpool fasts. Once the Manchester-Liverpool line comes online the fast route to Liverpool from Central would go. The land probably got sold too cheaply compared to its current value, but the station did rightly close. Exchange is really just more platforms for Victoria but with a long walk. Again a certainty to close.

Manchester needs to build the airport tunnel and HS2 station (lite initially) so that the plugging in of the real HS2 is easier. Underground stations risk making everything too expensive when there is no direct need for underground when using reversible EMUs (as NPR will).

 

[daodao]

The UK's financial situation is too poor to fund new expensive tunnelled railway infrastructure in English provincial cities, or re-use former large abandoned railway stations in such cities for their original purpose, except in Birmingham (England's second city by far). That is why Sunak wisely cancelled HS2 Phase 2.

The best that can be done is to simplify train service patterns through congested infrastructure, such as Manchester Victoria and the Castlefield corridor, to make best use of existing capacity. In Manchester, one could re-route all the short diesel trains that currently run from places like Barrow and Southport via Castlefield into Victoria instead, which has twice its capacity, and abandon scheduled use of the Ordsall curve. In Birmingham, one could make more use of Snow Hill, Moor Street and eventually Curzon Street, to relieve New Street.

 

[Krokodil]

Birmingham (England's second city by far)

Cobblers. Birmingham and Manchester are level pegging.

Sunak wisely

Two words that don't go together. There was nothing "wise" about redirecting capital funding intended for the north to routine maintenance (filling potholes) in London. Nor that wishlist of line reopenings in marginal constituencies.

 

[Chester1]

Oxford Road provides a vital function and is well used particularly for accessing the university. These stations aren’t particularly close. Oxford Rd isn’t connected to Metrolink which is one of its downsides - but it’s a function that Deansgate provides. In theory one could construct a mainline station next to Cornbrook to serve a similar function and unlike Deansgate (which involves a short walk over Whitworth Street West, it is right next to the Metrolink.

Manchester is a growing city and increasingly Britain’s second after London. Its suburban rail network and metro is vastly inferior to comparable sized European cities like Barcelona. Mayfield I agree would simply have duplicated platforms at Piccadilly but Central definitely and possibly Exchange could have provided increased resilience and had they not have closed would undoubtedly be very busy today. But I agree the prospect of either opening is zero (though I’m not sure why that’s fortunate) but that doesn’t mean additional rail capacity won’t be needed over the next 50 years. Burnham is already talking about an underground network

London is continuing to expand its rail network with Crossrail 2, Bakerloo extension both likely in the next 20 years. While not directly comparable - being smaller, Manchester still needs massive extra capacity. Birmingham’s capacity is being increased with 7 new platforms at Curzon Street, 2 or maybe 3 at Moor Street, and reinstating 1 at Snow Hill. Manchester has lots of terminus platforms facing south and east at Piccadilly and a couple more at Victoria but virtually nothing facing west or north west.

Over the next 50 years I would expect Manchester to gain Northern Powerhouse Rail - a relatively high speed line linking Liverpool in the west through Manchester (probably with a new underground station at Piccadilly) and across to Sheffield, Leeds, and possibly York/Hull in the east. This is likely to be complemented by further Metrolink extensions and underground stations, and HS2 or some variant will likely reach Manchester from the south.

I live in the city centre and understand how fast it is growing. That doesn't change the fact that building stations with less than 400m between platform ends would be crazy if they didn't already exist. Can you think of a city where that has happened in the modern era? Its fortunate that Central can't be reopened because the "resilience" would come at the cost of no connections with other services. Improving Oxford Road and Piccadilly is a vastly superior solution to reopening Central and that is why I am glad Viadux skyscrapers have taken it off the table. If there was empty land then the best option for the area would be one station with a bridge to the eastern end of Deansgate Castlefield tram stop and an exit at the western end that is within 400m of bus stops on Oxford Road. Exchange was completely unnecessary after nationalisation. There isn't anything it could have provided that keeping more of Victoria open wouldn't have. Manchester needs more investment in its rail network to catchup with comparable cities but it doesn't need more city centre stations. The vast majority of the city centre is within a 10 minute walk of a heavy rail station and anywhere that isn't is a ten minute walk of a Metrolink stop. If you compare with Birmingham city centre you can see the contrast. Birmingham has three city centre stations and Curzon Street will be next to Moor Street. Eight stations was the result of railway mania and reduction to five was the minimum rationalisation.

 

[simonw]

Any uses for Bath Green Park (extant and restored, but used as a car park) or Bristol St Philips (low rise and dated office/industrial unit on site, most of approach track still there under vegetation as used for access to waste depot a few years back)

Bath Green Park falls firmly into the category of stations that were only built because of railway rivalry. Post war there there tentative plans to divert trains into Bath Spa. I'm not sure what services could be diverted to Green Park even it was possible.

 

[Topological]

I live in the city centre and understand how fast it is growing. That doesn't change the fact that building stations with less than 400m between platform ends would be crazy if they didn't already exist. Can you think of a city where that has happened in the modern era? Its fortunate that Central can't be reopened because the "resilience" would come at the cost of no connections with other services. Improving Oxford Road and Piccadilly is a vastly superior solution to reopening Central and that is why I am glad Viadux skyscrapers have taken it off the table. If there was empty land then the best option for the area would be one station with a bridge to the eastern end of Deansgate Castlefield tram stop and an exit at the western end that is within 400m of bus stops on Oxford Road. Exchange was completely unnecessary after nationalisation. There isn't anything it could have provided that keeping more of Victoria open wouldn't have. Manchester needs more investment in its rail network to catchup with comparable cities but it doesn't need more city centre stations. The vast majority of the city centre is within a 10 minute walk of a heavy rail station and anywhere that isn't is a ten minute walk of a Metrolink stop. If you compare with Birmingham city centre you can see the contrast. Birmingham has three city centre stations and Curzon Street will be next to Moor Street. Eight stations was the result of railway mania and reduction to five was the minimum rationalisation.

City Thameslink?

Though there was a Holborn station to replace, it would have been possible to have had just Blackfriars and Farringdon.

I agree that with blank canvas you would have something with an entrance on Oxford Road for the University and City Road (opposite Hacienda) for the new developments. Essentially an extension of Oxford Road and no Deansgate.

Salford Central is increasingly performing an important role and could really do with expansion onto the Chat Moss lines once fast Liverpools are going via the new line.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If the stations didn't already exist then a station the size of Oxford Road but at the location of Deansgate would be better.

I agree with much of what you've said here, but not this bit. Whilst the three stations along Castlefield might be operationally awkward, Oxford Road is ideally placed for the universities and their associated facilities, and the busy bus corridor down Oxford Street.
If the present stations didn't exist you'd probably go for a single station in place of Oxford Road and Deansgate, but you'd definitely want it to have access to Oxford Street. Deansgate is right on the edge of the CBD and not particularly easy to access due to the wide and busy roads nearby.

It's slightly off-topic but by way of comparison it's often suggested that the present Garforth and East Garforth stations be replaced by a single station. This would reduce congestion by removing a stop from the slow trains, but would need to be accessible from the locations of both stations to avoid disadvantaging users. With platforms long enough for the TPE fasts to call, this shouldn't be too difficult to achieve. I'm not sure you could build a single station that would adequately replace both Oxford Road and Deansgate even with an unlimited budget.

 

[The exile]

Bath Green Park falls firmly into the category of stations that were only built because of railway rivalry. Post war there there tentative plans to divert trains into Bath Spa.

And, significantly, pre-nationalisation as it was a joint LMS/GWR plan. It’s a great shame that at least the link at Newbridge wasn’t realised - other than the relocation of Bath Spa (which would have been a mixed blessing) the rest would have been a white elephant.

 

[Topological]

And, significantly, pre-nationalisation as it was a joint LMS/GWR plan. It’s a great shame that at least the link at Newbridge wasn’t realised - other than the relocation of Bath Spa (which would have been a mixed blessing) the rest would have been a white elephant.

Not 100% sure on the geography, but would that have meant you could go from Bath to Gloucester quicker than the current Rhubarb Curve approach. I don't know if that would really help anything. There are also populated areas in East Bristol that would be better served, but not much good if the train does not then go to Bristol. Pretty much a white elephant though.

Would not have helped much when the South Wales trains get diverted via Bath.

 

[The exile]

Not 100% sure on the geography, but would that have meant you could go from Bath to Gloucester quicker than the current Rhubarb Curve approach. I don't know if that would really help anything. There are also populated areas in East Bristol that would be better served, but not much good if the train does not then go to Bristol. Pretty much a white elephant though.

Would not have helped much when the South Wales trains get diverted via Bath.

The pint is it would have given a meaningful destination to a line which has a lot of useful connectivity in the areas it serves - not to mention making Kingswood etc - Bath a viable proposition by public transport. The GW main line is pretty useless as a local suburban line in East Bristol partly because it lacks capacity, but also because it manages to avoid passing through anywhere except St Anne’s at great depth.
Not trying to suggest there is any financial viability in putting it in/back now - but if it had been built in 1947 and if the MR lines had survived Beeching (more likely with the connection) then they would now form the basis of a useful local network ripe for conversion to tram-train.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The Stocksbridge route would broadly parallel the existing route, which is why I don't rate it as likely. However...

It would, but it does serve some key destinations (apart from Stocksbridge, which would make a good park and ride for Woodhead traffic) that need extra capacity, Hillsborough Stadium for one, and there's a large college campus near the trackbed too.

with Victoria being nowhere near anything else, a possible tram-train solution would be to build a viaduct over the A61 and connect the line from Victoria into the exiting viaduct coming down from Nunnery. That gives the option of running into Cathedral or Sheffield Station, as well as reviving a low-level, two platform Sheffield Victoria.

It's not a bad idea, but expensive. My plan would be heading on street via a ramp onto Victoria Station Road, briefly turning onto Exchange Place, then Exchange Street and Haymarket to a triangular junction by the Fitzalan Square/Ponds Forge stop.

I recently said elsewhere that if Whitehall Place hadn't been built (or built the way it has been) you could convert the Harrogate Line to tram-train, reuse the old viaduct and put in a stop at (Leeds) Central, which is where Harrogate/Ripon services used to terminate before 1967. This would also free a couple of platforms at Leeds (City). But that train has long since sailed.

Yeah, sadly I think the best thing you can do now with the Harrogate Line is to wire it, and decrease journey times that way (perhaps in conjunction with the building of LBA Parkway, if that ever is proposed again).

 

[Krokodil]

That doesn't change the fact that building stations with less than 400m between platform ends would be crazy if they didn't already exist. Can you think of a city where that has happened in the modern era?

As the route is served by long distance services it does seem daft. If those were rerouted via NPR, leaving Castlefield through to Heald Green and the Slow lines towards Stockport as a dedicated suburban metro then the station spacing would be perfectly ordinary.

On the subject of which (and back on topic), that reminds me of another former station which may see new use - Warrington Bank Quay Low Level.

 

[Chester1]

City Thameslink?

Though there was a Holborn station to replace, it would have been possible to have had just Blackfriars and Farringdon.

I agree that with blank canvas you would have something with an entrance on Oxford Road for the University and City Road (opposite Hacienda) for the new developments. Essentially an extension of Oxford Road and no Deansgate.

Salford Central is increasingly performing an important role and could really do with expansion onto the Chat Moss lines once fast Liverpools are going via the new line.

I hadn't thought of City Thameslink but wasn't the rational the sheer level of demand in the area? That doesn't apply to Castlefield.

I agree with much of what you've said here, but not this bit. Whilst the three stations along Castlefield might be operationally awkward, Oxford Road is ideally placed for the universities and their associated facilities, and the busy bus corridor down Oxford Street.
If the present stations didn't exist you'd probably go for a single station in place of Oxford Road and Deansgate, but you'd definitely want it to have access to Oxford Street. Deansgate is right on the edge of the CBD and not particularly easy to access due to the wide and busy roads nearby.

It's slightly off-topic but by way of comparison it's often suggested that the present Garforth and East Garforth stations be replaced by a single station. This would reduce congestion by removing a stop from the slow trains, but would need to be accessible from the locations of both stations to avoid disadvantaging users. With platforms long enough for the TPE fasts to call, this shouldn't be too difficult to achieve. I'm not sure you could build a single station that would adequately replace both Oxford Road and Deansgate even with an unlimited budget.

There is less than 400m between the platforms at each station and those platforms are about 150m long. The entire length of the station sites including signalling will be about 800m from end to end. A station with 200-250m platforms where the First Street development has been built would have covered both Oxford Road buses and Deansgate-Castlefield trams with very minimal walking.

Its too late to do anything now but its an example of stations being built for commercial reasons in the 19th century not 21st century demand. Most of the closed stations discussed never made much sense once the network was nationalised and therefore don't make sense to reopen when existing stations can be expanded. A rare exception would be the ongoing reopening of Liverpool St James as Liverpool Baltic. That got a positive business case due a mixture of lack of space at Liverpool Central, it being a through station and the growth of the city centre southwards.

As the route is served by long distance services it does seem daft. If those were rerouted via NPR, leaving Castlefield through to Heald Green and the Slow lines towards Stockport as a dedicated suburban metro then the station spacing would be perfectly ordinary.

On the subject of which (and back on topic), that reminds me of another former station which may see new use - Warrington Bank Quay Low Level.

I agree it would make much more sense if the line was an all stops metro. It is very strange to be repeatedly held at Deansgate station with the doors closed while waiting for a platform at Oxford Road because they are too close for the train to wait in-between the stations.

 

[Mr. SW]

I had a thought that several of these redundant stations could have been repurposed as super city-centre parcels and sundries depots allowing such traffics to be relocated from the better-located, passenger retained stations. Big roofs, high-level platforms, loads of offices, excellent positions in their respective metropolitan areas, they would have pulled the inconvenience of passengers having to dodge heaps of parcels, hampers, mailbags and trollies. A number of city goods depots could also have been closed or converted to handle alternative traffics that would have been unsuitable to be handled in the new depots. It wouldn't have cost that much either.

Maybe someone thought of this - but my general impression is that the railways tended to be conservative until there was no other option. And by then, it was too late.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Yeah, sadly I think the best thing you can do now with the Harrogate Line is to wire it, and decrease journey times that way (perhaps in conjunction with the building of LBA Parkway, if that ever is proposed again).

Wiring it would be sensible. It would not be a good candidate for trams as once out of Leeds it's mostly rural, and it's quite a distance. Heavy rail is much more suitable.

 

[Chester1]

I had a thought that several of these redundant stations could have been repurposed as super city-centre parcels and sundries depots allowing such traffics to be relocated from the better-located, passenger retained stations. Big roofs, high-level platforms, loads of offices, excellent positions in their respective metropolitan areas, they would have pulled the inconvenience of passengers having to dodge heaps of parcels, hampers, mailbags and trollies. A number of city goods depots could also have been closed or converted to handle alternative traffics that would have been unsuitable to be handled in the new depots. It wouldn't have cost that much either.

Maybe someone thought of this - but my general impression is that the railways tended to be conservative until there was no other option. And by then, it was too late.

That is more or less what happened to Manchester Mayfield and Manchester Exchange but the business model failed during the 80s. The goods are too low value relative to their weight and size.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Wiring it would be sensible. It would not be a good candidate for trams as once out of Leeds it's mostly rural, and it's quite a distance. Heavy rail is much more suitable.

Oh certainly, but the urban Leeds section could do with a higher frequency and more closely spaced stations that is really suitable for a line with a quite limited capacity north of Harrogate. Perhaps a turnback at the proposed LBA Parkway would be good for that purpose

 

[The exile]

Not 100% sure on the geography, but would that have meant you could go from Bath to Gloucester quicker than the current Rhubarb Curve approach. I don't know if that would really help anything. There are also populated areas in East Bristol that would be better served, but not much good if the train does not then go to Bristol. Pretty much a white elephant though.

Would not have helped much when the South Wales trains get diverted via Bath.

More directly, though not necessarily quicker. To me, at least, that side of the triangle at Mangotsfield would be the least justifiable - though a peak hours (and weekends) service linking Yate etc to Bath would probably see some use. The main point would be connectivity of East Bristol and beyond both towards central Bristol and Bath - though I accept that as things stand there's quite a lot of not very much between Willsbridge and Bath. Anyone who has to try to get into or out of central Bath during the peaks will realise the competitive advantage that a non road-based medium of transport has (provided it goes somewhere near where you need, of course).

 

[6Gman]

That is more or less what happened to Manchester Mayfield and Manchester Exchange but the business model failed during the 80s. The goods are too low value relative to their weight and size.

I went on a visit to Mayfield in 1974 when it was operating as a parcels depot (it was a 3-day introduction to the railway for 6th formers who might pursue a railway career). It was already struggling, partly because the mail order catalogue companies had switched to the road for deliveries but still used rail for returns - which came in dribs and drabs from random locations. On borrowed time even then.

(Similar thing happened to fish traffic. Merchants used their own lorries for Grimsby to Birmingham/ Manchester/ Liverpool. Rail was left with odd boxes for Uttoxeter, Irlam or Runcorn. Hopelessly uneconomic.

 

[The exile]

I went on a visit to Mayfield in 1974 when it was operating as a parcels depot (it was a 3-day introduction to the railway for 6th formers who might pursue a railway career). It was already struggling, partly because the mail order catalogue companies had switched to the road for deliveries but still used rail for returns - which came in dribs and drabs from random locations. On borrowed time even then.

(Similar thing happened to fish traffic. Merchants used their own lorries for Grimsby to Birmingham/ Manchester/ Liverpool. Rail was left with odd boxes for Uttoxeter, Irlam or Runcorn. Hopelessly uneconomic.

That’s the problem of being an unprotected common carrier. Royal Mail has similar problems today, AIUI.

 

[Krokodil]

Wasn't there a recently announced plan to redevelop Mayfield (not for railway use, mind)?

 

[Chester1]

Wasn't there a recently announced plan to redevelop Mayfield (not for railway use, mind)?

It was partly used from late 2010s until a year or so ago as music and food venue and is being redeveloped as Depot Mayfield, doing the same sort of thing for the whole site. The neighbouring Mayfield Park and associated development was not railway land. Its great that two of the three stations closed in Manchester city centre in 20th century will be persevered long term in other roles. I know there was Liverpool Road too but it was only used for a few years so I am not counting it as part of the topic of this thread.

 

[Magdalia]

Wasn't there a recently announced plan to redevelop Mayfield (not for railway use, mind)?

Yes, see here.

"Up to 40,000 homes to be built on disused railway land" - including Mayfield, Manchester

Link to BBC News - "The UK government has pledged to build up to 40,000 new homes on disused railway land, including former goods yards, industrial sites and station buildings, over the next ten years." Plans include building 1,500 new homes at Manchester's derelict Mayfield railway station...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Topological]

Wasn't there a recently announced plan to redevelop Mayfield (not for railway use, mind)?

Plans for Mayfield have been under development for years. They have built some buildings and a park so far.

However, it didn't stop the government including the Mayfield development in their "new" houses on railway land announcement.