Close 10% of rail lines and lose only 1% of passengers, reinvest savings to generate 10% more passengers…

[amahy]

Manchester Victoria demonstrates the risks of that approach - the current congested site results from rebuilding and sale of "surplus" land 30-odd years ago.

I don't disagree with you there. But I can't see Scarborough needing 6 platforms for some years to come!

 

[35B]

I don't disagree with you there. But I can't see Scarborough needing 6 platforms for some years to come!

Nor can I see further selling off being effective or viable given that much of the site is now either Poundstretcher or a bus station

 

[The Ham]

In my opinion, closing rail lines for money doesn’t make sense. But certain cuts could be made, that would be a lot less disruptive to people. One way, could be to demolish and sell off some railway land at stations that are obviously way overcapacity for their service levels. Scarborough, Stirling, and Helensburgh Central all come to mind.

I get that having flexibility is a good thing, but there are other stations that clearly don’t have enough platforms. So perhaps money from sold off railway land at overcapacity stations could be put into expanding existing stations with not enough capacity, such as Manchester Victoria?

I would look to keep ownership of the land but develop the land (be that flats, retail, hotel, etc.

That would give flexibility if things change but an income in the meantime.

I think it largely has been done where it could sensibly be done. One thing I find quite noticeable in rural Scotland (having been on the West Highland last weekend) is that stuff like disused goods yards and the likes remain, simply because the value of the land in such places is small so it isn't worth bothering about it. Anywhere it's higher there's likely already a block of flats on it or if it's a railhead a bigger car park.

Talking of car parks, one option there is to reduce the footprint but go multi storey, or to allow something to be built on the condition that the car park is retained under it. A rather extreme version of that is the very odd looking Hull Premier Inn*, which is basically a large multistorey car park (albeit with only a couple of floors in use due to low demand) with a Premier Inn plonked on top!

* https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7421076,-0.3285793,3a,75y,155.13h,116.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svM9zq_9MJqYUnyNRQSyK3A!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=-26.318378166890795&panoid=vM9zq_9MJqYUnyNRQSyK3A&yaw=155.1305813254159!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

All very sensible.

 

[yorksrob]

I would look to keep ownership of the land but develop the land (be that flats, retail, hotel, etc.

That would give flexibility if things change but an income in the meantime.

That's a good idea in principle, but don't forget how NR was forced to sell off its income generating arches to pay back the Treasury !

 

[35B]

I would look to keep ownership of the land but develop the land (be that flats, retail, hotel, etc.

That would give flexibility if things change but an income in the meantime.

That presumes there is flexibility in reality, and compromises value received in the medium term. As @yorksrob observes, the freedom to retain income generating assets isn't unlimited, while the reality will be that acting as a developer will mean that obligations (and costs) will be retained, but future freedom (especially for residential property) will be limited.

 

[stevieinselby]

Whenever I take the A66, I wonder why it was that the road developed but the railway faltered.

The railway didn't serve a useful purpose compared to the A66. It was a slow, circuitous route, and so unattractive for passengers making the long journey right across the country – but with virtually no intermediate settlements of note, that'd basically all there was. Also the layout of the route meant that it didn't nicely take people to destinations in the Lakes that they would want to go to.

To be a success, a route through that kind of ultra-rural area has to be fast and direct. Compare the Stainmore railway with the Settle & Carlisle, which had a much better alignment that meant higher speeds and a better end-to-end journey time.

A really obvious closure would be the Stockport-Stalybridge, but I don't think that would be a terrible loss.

The line is well used though – today, there were about 20 freight trains through Denton – there's no way that the line itself could be closed without it having a rant negative impact on freight and passenger capacity across the region – so if the tracks and signalling have to be maintained, the cost of keeping a couple of bare-platform stations in place and running a Sprinter up the line and back once a week is minimal. The reason it's still going is because the administration needed to close it to passengers wouldn't be worth it for the paltry savings it would effect!

 

[The Ham]

That's a good idea in principle, but don't forget how NR was forced to sell off its income generating arches to pay back the Treasury !

Indeed, however, even if that happened again, the value of the asset would be higher than just a car park or disused land.

That presumes there is flexibility in reality, and compromises value received in the medium term. As @yorksrob observes, the freedom to retain income generating assets isn't unlimited, while the reality will be that acting as a developer will mean that obligations (and costs) will be retained, but future freedom (especially for residential property) will be limited.

It depends on how the development happens, and that in part would probably depend on having railway development options.

For example, the station has a former goods yard, some is used for parking, the rest is idle. There's the potential for a loop to be built to give a second platform for the station on a single track line. The (say) housing/ flats are built far enough back facilitate this upgrade (which may not ever happen) and set aside a bit of extra land for future car park expansion.

The fact that peak parking for a station is at different times to housing means that if you provide the "correct" numbers for the local planning authority you'd actually be providing more than is needed (as long as some of that parking is flexible, so either residents or railway users can use it).

By having the travel time to the platform ready to board a train being only a couple of minutes more than driving to the car park entrance could also increase the numbers of people locally using the railways.

Also, such a development is likely to attract less objections from the local population (especially if there's improvements at the station, such as more car and cycle parking, more shelters at the station, that they can see that in the future their station could see an upgrade, etc.) when compared to adding the same number of homes nearby.

There's always the risk of short term thinking causing issues, however, that's a reason to ensure that there is at least a medium term plan for flexibility in what is put forwards.

The scale doesn't even need to be large, a few blocks (say 10) which are each a marionette over parking spaces to deliver the equivalent of a single private parking space in addition to the total parking already provided (as a minimum, but ideally more) at a rural station would likely be of a scale that the community wouldn't be too hostile but could easily add 1,000 extra passenger movements a year to that station (two people going to work 200 days year would be 800). Whilst for the majority of stations that's hardly going to change the numbers, for others it could easily be over 10% more passengers (and for several others easily over 5%) in addition to the income from the (I'm assuming) rent from those new buildings.

In a larger locations then it be flats over a decked car park or flats with basement and ground level parking to increase parking numbers whilst gaining an income.

In yet larger places or could be a larger (say 6 storey block) of mixed use, with retail and restaurants at ground level and a mix of flats, offices and maybe a hotel above (most likely split by lift/stair core, so one core serves the hotel, one the offices and another serves the flats, although the offices and hotel could share one core so fewer lifts overall were required for peak demand).

Yes, you're not going to see the sorts of large income from building over a central city station, however there's likely to be far more which could be done and so over time the total could still be a reasonable value.

Start small and prove that it works and the risk of being required to sell it all off in a short term response to something could be reduced, although if it was then a few flats at £100,000+ each is going to be far more than £10,000 for an acre of wasteland, even just getting planning permission would increase that wasteland to being worth at least £100,000, if not closer to £500,000 if that's for something 25 flats and an enlarged car park in a sightly more desirable location.

 

[The exile]

I get that having flexibility is a good thing, but there are other stations that clearly don’t have enough platforms. So perhaps money from sold off railway land at overcapacity stations could be put into expanding existing stations with not enough capacity, such as Manchester Victoria?

Quite a few of those stations (including Manchester Victoria) have an insufficient number of platforms precisely because “redundant land” was sold off in the past, so it’s a bit of a circular argument.

 

[Krokodil]

That's a good idea in principle, but don't forget how NR was forced to sell off its income generating arches to pay back the Treasury !

Sounds a bit like Chicago selling off its parking meters

 

[6Gman]

I distinctly remember the Heart of Wales was once destined for closure; saved only by virtue of it passing through something on the order of 6 marginal constituency towns that the government owned, when their majority was only about 4 seats!

I keep seeing this claimed, but can anyone point to the evidence?

 

[Krokodil]

I keep seeing this claimed, but can anyone point to the evidence?

Wikipedia cites a book as a reference for the same claim. I've tried looking through the constituencies the line would have passed through at the time and can't find any that look particularly vulnerable, never mind six of them.

 

[35B]

Wikipedia cites a book as a reference for the same claim. I've tried looking through the constituencies the line would have passed through at the time and can't find any that look particularly vulnerable, never mind six of them.

I’ve seen the phrase in several places, but never that referenced book. At the time, one also needs to consider the approach to politics in the run up to the 1964 General Election

 

[DM352]

Not sure if said already, but in the past some terminus stations have had lines truncated and the land sold. Quick one off financial win for BR, Netowork rail or Railtrack.
However, can be a long term loss with less land for platforms in the station throat area as often narrower plus can be a longer walk.

Bradford, Epsom Downs and Fort William are examples I can think of.

 

[The exile]

Not sure if said already, but in the past some terminus stations have had lines truncated and the land sold. Quick one off financial win for BR, Netowork rail or Railtrack.
However, can be a long term loss with less land for platforms in the station throat area as often narrower plus can be a longer walk.

Bradford, Epsom Downs and Fort William are examples I can think of.

Contrast what usually happened / happens here (land sold off for supermarket, housing or whatever) with what has happened in other countries (land often used for improved transport interchange) / public space improvements) shows what opportunities get sacrificed for that never-to-be-repeated small win.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Contrast what usually happened / happens here (land sold off for supermarket, housing or whatever) with what has happened in other countries (land often used for improved transport interchange) / public space improvements) shows what opportunities get sacrificed for that never-to-be-repeated small win.

I thought that those were all BR schemes. Which ones have occurred since privatisation?

Some people would say that the wider public benefits, e.g. rail-bus interchange at Bradford or road/ traffic improvements in Fort William (far ‘busier’ than the trains have ever been) were quite positive.

 

[Meole]

Surprised the initial list doesn't include the Mallaig and Oban lines with expensive infrastructure and earth movement issues.

 

[Tetragon213]

I think it largely has been done where it could sensibly be done. One thing I find quite noticeable in rural Scotland (having been on the West Highland last weekend) is that stuff like disused goods yards and the likes remain, simply because the value of the land in such places is small so it isn't worth bothering about it. Anywhere it's higher there's likely already a block of flats on it or if it's a railhead a bigger car park.

Talking of car parks, one option there is to reduce the footprint but go multi storey, or to allow something to be built on the condition that the car park is retained under it. A rather extreme version of that is the very odd looking Hull Premier Inn*, which is basically a large multistorey car park (albeit with only a couple of floors in use due to low demand) with a Premier Inn plonked on top!

* https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7421076,-0.3285793,3a,75y,155.13h,116.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svM9zq_9MJqYUnyNRQSyK3A!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=-26.318378166890795&panoid=vM9zq_9MJqYUnyNRQSyK3A&yaw=155.1305813254159!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

You'd think that building a block of flats near a train station, and advertising it as having "good transport links" would make quite a pretty penny for ScotRail!

Iirc MTR and some of the Japanese rail companies are more-or-less real-estate firms which happen to run a railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Iirc MTR and some of the Japanese rail companies are more-or-less real-estate firms which happen to run a railway.

One of them (Seibu-Ikebukuro, possible apologies for the spelling, was a department store company that happened to run a railway to get customers to it! Puts Asda free buses to shame. The store is called Seibu hence the name (Ikebukuro is where it goes).

Don't of course forget Metroland...the Met built the houses that created its own custom!

 

[35B]

One of them (Seibu-Ikebukuro, possible apologies for the spelling, was a department store company that happened to run a railway to get customers to it! Puts Asda free buses to shame. The store is called Seibu hence the name (Ikebukuro is where it goes).

Don't of course forget Metroland...the Met built the houses that created its own custom!

And was very unusual in being allowed to do so

 

[yorksrob]

I thought that those were all BR schemes. Which ones have occurred since privatisation?

Some people would say that the wider public benefits, e.g. rail-bus interchange at Bradford or road/ traffic improvements in Fort William (far ‘busier’ than the trains have ever been) were quite positive.

No, demolition of Exchange was definitely a mistake. It's not even as though central Bradford was short of land.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I don’t remember Bradford Exchange very well. Only used it once in that era. So could the bus station/Interchange have been created on the Exchange site? Presumably demolish the old roof, construct a concrete deck over the tracks and platforms, drawing on the Birmingham New Street model. Then put the buses on top.
Interesting idea.

No, demolition of Exchange was definitely a mistake. It's not even as though central Bradford was short of land.

 

[WideRanger]

One of them (Seibu-Ikebukuro, possible apologies for the spelling, was a department store company that happened to run a railway to get customers to it! Puts Asda free buses to shame. The store is called Seibu hence the name (Ikebukuro is where it goes).

While your main point is correct - that Japanese private railways were generally constructed with real estate in mind, the history here is a bit garbled. The line that is now the Seibu Ikebukuro line predates the massive department store in Ikebukuro. Both were renamed later to Seibu, which is connected to the ancient name for the area west of Tokyo. Actually, pretty much all of the private railway companies in the Tokyo area have (or had) vast real estate and retail arms. And where the railways intersected the Yamanote line, which circles around the centre of Tokyo, massive shopping and office centres built up. Which is why there are the ring of business centres of Tokyo, Ueno, Ikebukuro, Shinjuku, Shibuya and Shinagawa.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While your main point is correct - that Japanese private railways were generally constructed with real estate in mind, the history here is a bit garbled. The line that is now the Seibu Ikebukuro line predates the massive department store in Ikebukuro. Both were renamed later to Seibu, which is connected to the ancient name for the area west of Tokyo. Actually, pretty much all of the private railway companies in the Tokyo area have (or had) vast real estate and retail arms. And where the railways intersected the Yamanote line, which circles around the centre of Tokyo, massive shopping and office centres built up. Which is why there are the ring of business centres of Tokyo, Ueno, Ikebukuro, Shinjuku, Shibuya and Shinagawa.

Thanks. I'd not researched it to be fair, I was just going off what someone I know who lived in Ikebukuro when I visited had told me, she must have garbled it a bit!

 

[yorksrob]

I don’t remember Bradford Exchange very well. Only used it once in that era. So could the bus station/Interchange have been created on the Exchange site? Presumably demolish the old roof, construct a concrete deck over the tracks and platforms, drawing on the Birmingham New Street model. Then put the buses on top.
Interesting idea.

There was a carriage shed next to it. Could have been a better place to stop buses without flattening the architecture.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've tried looking through the constituencies the line would have passed through at the time and can't find any that look particularly vulnerable, never mind six of them.

The cited book is linked to on Wikipedia and it refers to the comment being made by Labour’s Secretary of State for Wales in 1968, which is more believable. Labour had just lost three seats in that area around the north of Swansea to Plaid Cymru between 1966 and 1968. The Liberals were also wobbling in the constituencies further north. There may be a bit of artistic licence in describing all six constituencies as marginal, but it is entirely believable that Labour kept the line open purely because they feared Plaid Cymru.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Apr 2026 ==

No, demolition of Exchange was definitely a mistake. It's not even as though central Bradford was short of land.

I’m not sure it was. The station was far too big for what was needed by that time. The new station at four platforms was much more the required size. Remember that by the 70s the Copy Pit route had gone and the Calder Valley trains only ran once an hour. Bradford didn’t need such a massive station for the DMU services which remained.