Improving or closing complete Basket Case Stations

[The exile]

If the extra 'end to end' passengers who are now attracted from road to rail by having a faster service because it doesn't call all shacks were previously driving longer distances than those at the closed stations who are now having to drive.

Ok - but that’s more than simply closing 5 stations and may not actually be achievable (timetable clashes elsewhere etc) Many of the real basket case stations only have a token service anyway.

 

[Starmill]

It is only train fanatics that are thinking about time first, which is not the market the TOC's are wanting to acquire. It is the commuter market, who yes want to get from where they live at 7am so that they can be in work by 8am or 9am.

Quite the opposite. Generally rail is only used by the top half of the population by earnings anyway. People looking for a budget option have overwhelmingly been priced off trains already.

For nearly all of rail's existing customer base, they'll use the train if it gets them where they need to be at the time they need to be there. That means the service needs to be reliable and have decent average speed in all circumstances. Ideally conditions need to be appropriate for the journey too, so a seat if travelling over 20 minutes, and premium features like at seat catering and usable WiFi if travelling over two hours. If it can't do that people generally won't use it even if it's priced at £0.

 

[RobShipway]

My point being is that we need to learn from what was done by Beeching, not repeat when what happened, when it comes to closing of stations. Look at how many stations got closed by the Beeching act and how many of those have had to be built from scratch on the same sites that existed before, because BR at the time allowed them to be demolished.#

If the stations are changed to request stops only, they are still in place if the population in those areas grow.

Because there is traffic to/from the Village to pick up heading into London for the day (commuters still exist), as well as a certain amount of railheading traffic from places like Beddingham (parking on the verge is free, parking at Lewes station is not). But outside of the rush hour, It's down to every other train stopping (I don't know why they couldn't all stop, but my visits to Lewes tend to be rather fleeting nowadays, it's been 6 or 7 years since I lived there).
There is also the issue of which trains are stopping - the Seaford Branch only sees trains to Brighton off-peak, but does get a few peak-time trains direct to London, which offer a faster journey than changing en-route, even if you add the stop at Southease.

There is now trains direct to London from the Seaford branch, you have to change at lewes for trains from either Eastbourne or Hastings that are going to London. The direct trains to London from Seaford got stopped about 5 or more years ago.

The only people when I have been on or off the trains between 7am to 9am Monday to Friday that get off the trains are hikers. Anyone from the village uses road transport, I know this from both growing up and living in the area.

Quite the opposite. Generally rail is only used by the top half of the population by earnings anyway. People looking for a budget option have overwhelmingly been priced off trains already.

For nearly all of rail's existing customer base, they'll use the train if it gets them where they need to be at the time they need to be there. That means the service needs to be reliable and have decent average speed in all circumstances. Ideally conditions need to be appropriate for the journey too, so a seat if travelling over 20 minutes, and premium features like at seat catering and usable WiFi if travelling over two hours. If it can't do that people generally won't use it even if it's priced at £0.

But stations should not be closed for the reason I give above about learning from the mistakes of the Beeching act.

 

[zwk500]

My point being is that we need to learn from what was done by Beeching, not repeat when what happened, when it comes to closing of stations. Look at how many stations got closed by the Beeching act and how many of those have had to be built from scratch on the same sites that existed before, because BR at the time allowed them to be demolished.

Can you give us the percentage of stations that have reopened in the same position (or within, say, 2 miles of it) of all those closed just by beeching (bearing in mind closures happened before and after him that were not his doing)?

If the stations are changed to request stops only, they are still in place if the population in those areas grow.

As mentioned, there's very little benefit to dropping stations to request stops only.

There is now trains direct to London from the Seaford branch, you have to change at lewes for trains from either Eastbourne or Hastings that are going to London. The direct trains to London from Seaford got stopped about 5 or more years ago.

Do you mean 'There is now no longer direct trains'? Sorry for being pedantic on that part.

The only people when I have been on or off the trains between 7am to 9am Monday to Friday that get off the trains are hikers. Anyone from the village uses road transport, I know this from both growing up and living in the area.

Fair enough. I lived in that area growing up as well and am not at all surprised road transport predominates. However, as I explained upthread the extra stop really doesn't penalise anybody else on the train and at least offering the stop gives some hope of tempting traffic.

But stations should not be closed for the reason I give above about learning from the mistakes of the Beeching act.

The fundamental lesson of the Beeching act is that he got about 90% of the theory right and maybe 50-60% of the practical.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fundamental lesson of the Beeching act is that he got about 90% of the theory right and maybe 50-60% of the practical.

I think that's fair. The basis of the closures - which didn't consider the "basic railway" concept and didn't properly recognise connections - meant some lines that shouldn't have closed did, and some of the wrong stations closed, too.

 

[zwk500]

I think that's fair. The basis of the closures - which didn't consider the "basic railway" concept and didn't properly recognise connections - meant some lines that shouldn't have closed did, and some of the wrong stations closed, too.

He also (perhaps understandably) didn't necessarily account for how the motor car would change travel patterns into the Train-bound commuter in 20-25 years time. There were some lines that could have been stripped back to the bare essentials but held in readiness for the middle-class suburban season ticket commuter.
Also, and again understandably, the big oversight of the report is to not consider which railways could have been given over to municipal transport bodies for tram/light rail operation. But that's very much today's thinking being imprinted on 50 year old thinking so I don't criticise the Dr himself for that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

He also (perhaps understandably) didn't necessarily account for how the motor car would change travel patterns into the Train-bound commuter in 20-25 years time. There were some lines that could have been stripped back to the bare essentials but held in readiness for the middle-class suburban season ticket commuter.

Very true. I think it wasn't quite envisaged how the motor car wouldn't just replace rail travel in some cases, but actually complement and enable it in many others, nor how much hate would develop in the 21st century for its use in urban areas. The car hasn't really destroyed the railway, but it probably has done serious damage to the bus and bicycle.

Edit: Referring back to the above talk of New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar, these three are not only very rural but very prosperously rural. Basically every adult living near them will have a decent car (this is Range Rover and Jag land) they'll be willing to drive to Burscough Bridge for a train to Manchester (but most won't consider driving all the way there as it's grim). And the kids will have pushbikes or will be given a lift. Thus the modern day renders these stations, which might have done more business with farmers sending stuff to market than passengers, a bit useless. Even if every train stopped they'd not be well-used.

 

[RobShipway]

Do you mean 'There is now no longer direct trains'? Sorry for being pedantic on that part.

Yes, there is no longer direct trains.

Can you give us the percentage of stations that have reopened in the same position (or within, say, 2 miles of it) of all those closed just by beeching (bearing in mind closures happened before and after him that were not his doing)?

List of Beeching cuts service reopenings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fair enough. I lived in that area growing up as well and am not at all surprised road transport predominates. However, as I explained upthread the extra stop really doesn't penalise anybody else on the train and at least offering the stop gives some hope of tempting traffic.

So if the extra stop does not penalise anybody else, why are you for closing stations with low footfall?

The fundamental lesson of the Beeching act is that he got about 90% of the theory right and maybe 50-60% of the practical.

That is a fair point, but you look at the list above of the reopenings since the Beeching cuts, some routes have become preserved railways, while others have been brought back into the National network, such as redoubling of the Chiltern Line.

I was just going to make a further point about re - usage of some of the routes closed, but you have made it for me with the comment below:

He also (perhaps understandably) didn't necessarily account for how the motor car would change travel patterns into the Train-bound commuter in 20-25 years time. There were some lines that could have been stripped back to the bare essentials but held in readiness for the middle-class suburban season ticket commuter.
Also, and again understandably, the big oversight of the report is to not consider which railways could have been given over to municipal transport bodies for tram/light rail operation. But that's very much today's thinking being imprinted on 50 year old thinking so I don't criticise the Dr himself for that.

If space was available in the routes where any stations are to close, I would have four lines. The two outer lines operate a tram - train service that stop at the stations, the two inner lines are for the fast services, that are supposedly required not to stop. Either that reduce the two tracks too one track that is used by directional for fast trains and the other for train/tram services.

I would also be surprised if approval was given by any of the local councils or authorities for the closure of any stations, which would be needed before they are closed.

 

[zwk500]

List of Beeching cuts service reopenings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cunningly, that avoids answering the question of percentages. (I also note a lot of those are only a matter of months or a few years).

So if the extra stop does not penalise anybody else, why are you for closing stations with low footfall?

Because I look at each station on a case-by-case basis. Balcombe station, for instance, would have a much stronger case for closure despite having higher usage, because it heavily penalises traffic to Brighton by constricting traffic on a very congested double track main line.

That is a fair point, but you look at the list above of the reopenings since the Beeching cuts, some routes have become preserved railways, while others have been brought back into the National network, such as redoubling of the Chiltern Line.

Preserved railways fulfill negligible transport utility. They do not count towards Beeching's mistakes.

I would also be surprised if approval was given by any of the local councils or authorities for the closure of any stations, which would be needed before they are closed.

AIUI the Minister can overrule the local council, although the chances of them doing so are effectively zero.

 

[Starmill]

But stations should not be closed for the reason I give above about learning from the mistakes of the Beeching act.

It's worth the benefits for journey times to mothball the least used 2% of stations, after screening out ones with substantial local population or other traffic drivers, accounting for any planning applications nearby. Only about 20 stations in England would be for the chop, and we're already building more than that every few years anyway. Otherwise you simply contemplate no change, and thus no improvement, forever.

 

[RobShipway]

Because I look at each station on a case-by-case basis. Balcombe station, for instance, would have a much stronger case for closure despite having higher usage, because it heavily penalises traffic to Brighton by constricting traffic on a very congested double track main line.

I cannot disagree about Balcombe station. However, it is one of those places where I wished that in the past, someone had thought about the future and built a secondary two track route without the need to go through Balcombe.

There has also been issues in the past at a few stations of double track section on the Birmingham Cross City Route, especially at places like Bourneville.

It's worth the benefits for journey times to mothball the least used 2% of stations, after screening out ones with substantial local population or other traffic drivers, accounting for any planning applications nearby. Only about 20 stations in England would be for the chop, and we're already building more than that every few years anyway. Otherwise you simply contemplate no change, and thus no improvement, forever.

Maybe, but rather than close stations if there is capacity and space, I still think it a better idea, to put in a bypass junction so that x amount of trains go past non stop and a certain number stop through the day rather than close a station, that later on maybe needed to be rebuilt because of building growth in that area, which is something that the Beeching report did not take into account.

 

[Bald Rick]

of course I'm against the bad, destructive policy choice.

If you mean the policy choice that is worse for society, then I agree with you. in some cases this choice is keepign stations open unnecessarily.

With regard to the timetable changes that didn't involve closing stations, I would have to look at those cases on their merits.

I’ll put it more simply:

There are two proposals, both of which have exactly the same outcome, which is to increase rail travel by exactly the same amount and reduce car usage by exactly the same amount.

Choice 1 involves increasing the cost to taxpayers and society.
Choice 2 involves reducing the cost to taxpayers and society, but closing stations.

Which is better?

 

[Meerkat]

The Barnstaple line seems an obvious example.
utterly tinpot stations that could be served by bus and leave the railway to be a faster regional link to Barnstaple for onward travel by bus.
Need to leverage closure against the NIMBYs - either you have a small village or you have a station, allow significant development to justify a train service or lose it.

 

[Starmill]

The Barnstaple line seems an obvious example.
utterly tinpot stations that could be served by bus and leave the railway to be a faster regional link to Barnstaple for onward travel by bus.
Need to leverage closure against the NIMBYs - either you have a small village or you have a station, allow significant development to justify a train service or lose it.

And some of the halts probably don't even need any extra bus services. Portsmouth Arms has the eponymous pub and a number of holiday lets nearby, plus a few farmsteads. None but the pub are convenient for the station. There really isn't a reason for the trains to be stopping there.

 

[The exile]

If you mean the policy choice that is worse for society, then I agree with you. in some cases this choice is keepign stations open unnecessarily.




I’ll put it more simply:

There are two proposals, both of which have exactly the same outcome, which is to increase rail travel by exactly the same amount and reduce car usage by exactly the same amount.

Choice 1 involves increasing the cost to taxpayers and society.
Choice 2 involves reducing the cost to taxpayers and society, but closing stations.

Which is better?

Counter argument. Which is better - that 100 people take 4 minutes per day less to get to and from work, school or whatever or that 10 people can’t get to work, school or whatever without a major financial outlay that they perhaps cannot afford?
Ultimately, it’s dangerous to generalise and turn something like this into a matter of principle (either way) - each station is very much an individual case but also belongs to a whole and you have weigh up the “individual” with the “whole” .

 

[Starmill]

Counter argument. Which is better - that 100 people take 4 minutes per day less to get to and from work, school or whatever or that 10 people can’t get to work, school or whatever without a major financial outlay that they perhaps cannot afford?
Ultimately, it’s dangerous to generalise and turn something like this into a matter of principle (either way) - each station is very much an individual case but also belongs to a whole and you have weigh up the “individual” with the “whole” .

Nobody is going to be prevented from getting to school or work though...

 

[Bald Rick]

Ultimately, it’s dangerous to generalise and turn something like this into a matter of principle (either way) - each station is very much an individual case but also belongs to a whole and you have weigh up the “individual” with the “whole”

of course, real life proposals have to be considered on their individual benefits and costs. They always are.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t test hypothetical scenarios. In the scenario you suggest, I would expect the disbenefit to the 10 people who need to make other arrangements outweighs 100 people saving 4 minutes.

However it is conceivable that closing a couple of stations on some lines could save a million people a year 6-7 minutes, encourage perhaps another 100,000 a year to use the train (increasing revenue), reduce industry costs, reduce road congestion, and yet only disadvantage 1000 people a year. For me, that’s worth doing.

 

[The exile]

of course, real life proposals have to be considered on their individual benefits and costs. They always are.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t test hypothetical scenarios. In the scenario you suggest, I would expect the disbenefit to the 10 people who need to make other arrangements outweighs 100 people saving 4 minutes.

However it is conceivable that closing a couple of stations on some lines could save a million people a year 6-7 minutes, encourage perhaps another 100,000 a year to use the train (increasing revenue), reduce industry costs, reduce road congestion, and yet only disadvantage 1000 people a year. For me, that’s worth doing.

Again, it depends on the degree of disadvantage. If it’s a 30 minute longer journey, then I agree with you - if it means kids having to walk a dangerous unlit road with no footpath to get to the nearest station to get to school, then maybe not.

 

[dk1]

And some of the halts probably don't even need any extra bus services. Portsmouth Arms has the eponymous pub and a number of holiday lets nearby, plus a few farmsteads. None but the pub are convenient for the station. There really isn't a reason for the trains to be stopping there.

Passenger numbers look to be up around 50% on pre-pandemic figures. Might give that pub a look next month when down that way.

 

[RobShipway]

Passenger numbers look to be up around 50% on pre-pandemic figures. Might give that pub a look next month when down that way.

I do wonder how closing the station will impact the business of the Portsmouth Arms? In closing the station, it could also impact the business of the holiday lets too?

Hence, why I say a lot of thought and certainly surveying local residents, plus local authorities and councils needs to be done before any closures take place.

 

[Bald Rick]

I do wonder how closing the station will impact the business of the Portsmouth Arms? In closing the station, it could also impact the business of the holiday lets too?

It would have no effect at all. On average 2 people use the station a day, ie the equivalent of one return trip. I’d be surprised if the number of people who use the holiday lets and arrive by train is anything higher than zero.
If every passenger using the line is using it to get to the pub - which you can be sure is not the case - the pub would lose about £100 a week income assuming the punter was thirsty, so perhaps £20 profit.

Hence, why I say a lot of thought and certainly surveying local residents, plus local authorities and councils needs to be done before any closures take place.

That is, of course, required in law.

 

[Neptune]

I do wonder how closing the station will impact the business of the Portsmouth Arms? In closing the station, it could also impact the business of the holiday lets too?

Highly unlikely to affect anything. Very few people go on holiday in North Devon in anything other than a car/motorhome.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stations that quiet on branch lines are ideal candidates for request stops - has this been considered for them?

Would a significantly upgraded timetable be possible without them?

Those are the sorts of question to ask.

 

[The Planner]

Stations that quiet on branch lines are ideal candidates for request stops - has this been considered for them?

Would a significantly upgraded timetable be possible without them?

Those are the sorts of question to ask.

Request stops don't really do a lot as you end up putting performance time in approaching the final station or junction to cover if you have to stop. At best you end up early.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Pre pandemic we were heading into what I thought was another golden age of railways. So at the moment, I prefer not to close any stations unless a newer better one is opening nearby. Case in point Salwick. Close it once Cottam Parkway is built.

on the line in question posted by the OP I would wait a few more years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Request stops don't really do a lot as you end up putting performance time in approaching the final station or junction to cover if you have to stop. At best you end up early.

If there's enough slack in the timetable this isn't a great problem on a branch, particularly if all stations on the branch work this way.

I note above that the minor Southport line stations do get in the way, but I am unconvinced that these do.

 

[RobShipway]

Stations that quiet on branch lines are ideal candidates for request stops - has this been considered for them?

Would a significantly upgraded timetable be possible without them?

Those are the sorts of question to ask.

See previous post from @zwk500 who says that it is better to close the stations, then make them request stops which is a suggestion that I made earlier in the thread, at least a couple of times!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2023 ==
I have copied the post below:

My point being is that we need to learn from what was done by Beeching, not repeat when what happened, when it comes to closing of stations. Look at how many stations got closed by the Beeching act and how many of those have had to be built from scratch on the same sites that existed before, because BR at the time allowed them to be demolished.

Can you give us the percentage of stations that have reopened in the same position (or within, say, 2 miles of it) of all those closed just by beeching (bearing in mind closures happened before and after him that were not his doing)?

If the stations are changed to request stops only, they are still in place if the population in those areas grow.

As mentioned, there's very little benefit to dropping stations to request stops only.

There is now trains direct to London from the Seaford branch, you have to change at lewes for trains from either Eastbourne or Hastings that are going to London. The direct trains to London from Seaford got stopped about 5 or more years ago.

Do you mean 'There is now no longer direct trains'? Sorry for being pedantic on that part.

The only people when I have been on or off the trains between 7am to 9am Monday to Friday that get off the trains are hikers. Anyone from the village uses road transport, I know this from both growing up and living in the area.

Fair enough. I lived in that area growing up as well and am not at all surprised road transport predominates. However, as I explained upthread the extra stop really doesn't penalise anybody else on the train and at least offering the stop gives some hope of tempting traffic.

But stations should not be closed for the reason I give above about learning from the mistakes of the Beeching act.

The fundamental lesson of the Beeching act is that he got about 90% of the theory right and maybe 50-60% of the practical.

Pre pandemic we were heading into what I thought was another golden age of railways. So at the moment, I prefer not to close any stations unless a newer better one is opening nearby. Case in point Salwick. Close it once Cottam Parkway is built.

on the line in question posted by the OP I would wait a few more years.

I totally agree and I think many would. But there are those in this forum, that would go along the lines that those stations just need closing especially if it has than less then 20,000 passengers a year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

See previous post from @zwk500 who says that it is better to close the stations, then make them request stops which is a suggestion that I made earlier in the thread, at least a couple of times!

Whether request stops make sense depends on the route, and how often statistically each is used. Totally invalidating the idea suggests that all bus operations the world over have it wrong, for instance.

 

[RobShipway]

Whether request stops make sense depends on the route, and how often statistically each is used. Totally invalidating the idea suggests that all bus operations the world over have it wrong, for instance.

But if there is no bus routes available to take people to the same places, that the railway can take them too, then you are cutting off a community. In these cases, it is better sense to make the stations request stops, rather than close them. I have not been able to find the list, but there are a number of stations I believe that got closed as part of the Beeching act. Yes, you had the auto industry take off somewhat with higher ownership than you had before, but a good few of those places where stations closed with Beeching, have in the last 40 years or more grown in size as the UK population has grown. This to me is what you have got to be careful about, is it possible that in the areas where you are wanting to close stations, that the population may grow in the next 40 - 50 years, this is as well as considering what other forms are locally available in these areas of public transport to get people to the same places, that they are currently travelling too. We have to be careful about not putting people back into their cars, if they have given the car up to be using public transport.

 

[dk1]

Request stops don't really do a lot as you end up putting performance time in approaching the final station or junction to cover if you have to stop. At best you end up early.

No request stops here in East Anglia now.