Improving or closing complete Basket Case Stations

[Bletchleyite]

I would also suggest a careful impact analysis on the people locally as to how the closure of the station effects them. I have been someone that has lost his job a few times, due to cuts in budgets for the company I have worked for, not sure how people would feel if they lost they jobs due to cuts in budgets for Network Rail and TOC's with all the money that is currently being spent on HS2.

Nobody likes to lose their job, but job-creation exercises are not the role of the railway. The jobs exist because the work needs to be done. If the work no longer needs to be done, the jobs end.

 

[Bartsimho]

So with the talk about mitigating action for the removal of stations an idea for this mitigation with those I have put down as closing (although this could also be giving a skeleton service which might work better for Rolleston with Southwell Racecourse really close).

There is currently the 300 bus which runs from Newark to Hoveringham as per this map: https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/media/109174/nottinghamshirecountybusmap.pdf
But that might be old as I have a timetable with a different route. Anyway one running (Newark, Kelham, Averham, Staythorpe, Rolleston, Fiskerton Station, Fiskerton, Morton, Gibsmere, Bleasby, Bleassby Station, Thurgarton, Hoveringham, Caythorpe, Lowdham Station, Lowdham) at a frequency of one per hour would allow connections to be made. This connects places where stations are closed to places the stations remain open, is likely to be economic connecting Newark to local places without a station as well.

For those north of the Newark I only have Swinderby closing so an hourly bus which goes (Newark, Winthorpe, Holme, Collingham, Collingham Station, Swinderby, North Scarle, Eagle, Thorpe on the Hill, Hykeham, Lincoln). This allows connections from the villages losing their stations to the rail network but also connect more villages to the rail network and the hourly frequency means that transferring to the train at a station is the fastest way to Lincoln or Newark.

With the Car journey being 1 hour and the Rail journey being 50 minutes it means that if the Rail Journey can be pushed even a little bit quicker it can become the outright faster mode of transport even with travel to the station taken into account.

 

[zwk500]

I would also suggest a careful impact analysis on the people locally as to how the closure of the station effects them. I have been someone that has lost his job a few times, due to cuts in budgets for the company I have worked for, not sure how people would feel if they lost they jobs due to cuts in budgets for Network Rail and TOC's with all the money that is currently being spent on HS2.

Many people would be living near the stations that could potentially be closed because it gives them access, whether they own a car or not.

I think part of the point is that if many people are living near a station, it is unlikely to be closed. But take for example 3 stations on LNR's routes: Polesworth, Wedgewood and Barlaston. Polesworth is not in an ideal location for the settlement and needs a reasonable amount of money spending on providing access to both platforms. However it can be easily slipped into LNR's London-Crewe services without significant penalty as the time-sensitive traffic goes by Avanti and those services run with only a couple of stops after Rugby. That is a station worth investing in as the potential revenue and benefit to the people of Polesworth from a London connection is significant. Wedgewood no longer efficiently serves the factory, and the station has a level crossing on one end and is very close to Barlaston, while Barlaston is a bit closer to Stoke with potential for development so closing Wedgewood and developing services to Barlaston makes a lot of sense as no train will want to stop at both stations while there is IC traffic around.

So a survey of the local residents needs to be done prior to the stations being closed.

Hence why a consultation is part of the station closure process.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think part of the point is that if many people are living near a station, it is unlikely to be closed. But take for example 3 stations on LNR's routes: Polesworth, Wedgewood and Barlaston. Polesworth is not in an ideal location for the settlement and needs a reasonable amount of money spending on providing access to both platforms. However it can be easily slipped into LNR's London-Crewe services without significant penalty as the time-sensitive traffic goes by Avanti and those services run with only a couple of stops after Rugby. That is a station worth investing in as the potential revenue and benefit to the people of Polesworth from a London connection is significant.

I believe the local authority is potentially interested in a Polesworth Parkway on a slightly different site.

Wedgewood no longer efficiently serves the factory, and the station has a level crossing on one end and is very close to Barlaston, while Barlaston is a bit closer to Stoke with potential for development so closing Wedgewood and developing services to Barlaston makes a lot of sense as no train will want to stop at both stations while there is IC traffic around.

Hence why a consultation is part of the station closure process.

Though of course those two escaped a consultation because they aren't technically closed. Taking the mick, really.

WMT was meant to be investigating options for reopening one of them and formally closing the other, but COVID seems to have put that onto the back burner. Which makes sense depends on local housing development - I did hear word that the factory might close to be replaced with a major housing development which could make Wedgwood make more sense.

One could argue based on built-up-ness that "Trentham and Hem Heath" about 2km north of there would actually make more sense!

 

[zwk500]

I believe the local authority is potentially interested in a Polesworth Parkway on a slightly different site.

I thought LNR had given a commitment to restore the 2nd platform?

Though of course those two escaped a consultation because they aren't technically closed. Taking the mick, really.

Indeed, and I'd get rid of the Ghost station nonsense as well. If it's to be closed, go through the process and justify it.

WMT was meant to be investigating options for reopening one of them and formally closing the other, but COVID seems to have put that onto the back burner. Which makes sense depends on local housing development - I did hear word that the factory might close to be replaced with a major housing development which could make Wedgwood make more sense.

One could argue based on built-up-ness that "Trentham and Hem Heath" about 2km north of there would actually make more sense!

So if it t'were me (shame it isn't) I'd close Wedgewood, rebuild Barlaston to remove the LX overlap problem for Up trains, and do a massive infill development between Tittensor and Barlaston. I'd then separately investigate the feasibility of a station on the A5035 to serve that part of the suburbs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought LNR had given a commitment to restore the 2nd platform?

I don't remember that being the case.

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

Indeed, and I'd get rid of the Ghost station nonsense as well. If it's to be closed, go through the process and justify it.

Indeed. The full closure consultation process is probably justified for any situation where the service at a given station is reduced by say 70% or more on any given day of the week, as that tends to render the station useless.

 

[zwk500]

I don't remember that being the case.

So wikipedia claims it, but the Citation doesn't actually mention Polesworth at all.

Indeed. The full closure consultation process is probably justified for any situation where the service at a given station is reduced by say 70% or more on any given day of the week, as that tends to render the station useless.

I'd personally go on absolute numbers, because it stops the slight-of-hand tricks or gradual depredation. Anything below 1tph between e.g. 0600-2200 requires special agreement - once signed, agreement for say, 1 train per 2 hours, is valid for a medium term (7-10 years maybe?), renewal possible after 5. Provides and incentive to the TOC to actually try and make something of the services they have to run.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd personally go on absolute numbers, because it stops the slight-of-hand tricks or gradual depredation. Anything below 1tph between e.g. 0600-2200 requires special agreement - once signed, agreement for say, 1 train per 2 hours, is valid for a medium term (7-10 years maybe?), renewal possible after 5. Provides and incentive to the TOC to actually try and make something of the services they have to run.

It'd take some thought, as I think reducing from 4tph to 1tph is something that should also be subject to consultation, and you also want to take into account significant downgrades on lines where sub 1tph is normal.

 

[zwk500]

It'd take some thought, as I think reducing from 4tph to 1tph is something that should also be subject to consultation, and you also want to take into account significant downgrades on lines where sub 1tph is normal.

This would be a different process to the TOC service levels agreed as per their franchising agreements (or whatever replaces them now). But yes, in principle you could have 'metro' (>4tph), 'Suburban/Commuter' (>2tph), 'Standard' (>1tph) and 'rural' (>0.5tph) classifications, and reclassification only allowed after a certain length of time or whatever.

 

[LowLevel]

Nottingham to Lincoln is a mix of rural and interurban travel. The only two real basket case stations are Thurgarton and Rolleston and even they have their own reason for existing.

Thurgarton has a small core of mostly migrant workers who travel to the factory next to the station, mainly from Nottingham and Carlton. They're the only regular users, with some random leisure travel.

Rolleston has a tiny number of semi regulars and picks up some race day travel to the adjacent Southwell race course.

Newark to Nottingham usage went right up when the fast service started, but that was at the cost of most of the eastbound traffic from local stations - the likes of Carlton, Lowdham and Fiskerton used to have reasonable numbers of Lincoln commuters and many don't bother now.

2 car trains are insufficient on peak time and Saturday services, with 3 cars often being full and standing on a Saturday morning. Station infrastructure limits longer trains, particularly the 2 car up platform at Newark Castle.

I'd not get rid of any of the local stations, that would be largely pointless effort.

Much of the traffic from the local stations is now generated at leisure times - you might pick up anywhere up to 30 people at Collingham on a Saturday morning headed to Nottingham.

Carlton's usage is hugely under reported due to Robin Hood season passes being used by most of the commuters - it is a very busy station and has been on the up for some years now.

Considering the level of service provided over the years it has always surprised me how resilient the usage base has been on the East Midlands local service - the constraint is capacity to meet demand. 1 car 153s replaced by 3 car 170s and the trains are still full.

 

[Bald Rick]

Apologies for jumping in.

I would say that there are far more beneficial and worthwhile ways of bringing in an extra 1 million miles a year, namely more competitive fares, better services etc.

I would have to agree with @yorksrob.

So you are both against something that provides a better service to almost all passengers affected, improves journey times, attracts more people to the railway, increases revenue, and reduces costs? Really?

If there was a similar outcomes for a timetable changes, but it didn’t involve closing stations, would you be against that too?

We shouldn't kid ourselves that anything other than fares are the main influencing factor.

Fo some people. But you’ll be kidding yourself if you think that journey times aren’t the main influencing factor for some people. Just think how much quicker you could get to Whitby if the train didn’t call at every wayside halt, and how many more people might use it as a result.

 

[yorksrob]

So you are both against something that provides a better service to almost all passengers affected, improves journey times, attracts more people to the railway, increases revenue, and reduces costs? Really?

If there was a similar outcomes for a timetable changes, but it didn’t involve closing stations, would you be against that too?




Fo some people. But you’ll be kidding yourself if you think that journey times aren’t the main influencing factor for some people. Just think how much quicker you could get to Whitby if the train didn’t call at every wayside halt, and how many more people might use it as a result.

Well, considering closing stations and undertaking the alternative improvements that I alluded to are both policy choices, of course I'm against the bad, destructive policy choice.

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

Three Oaks and Winchelsea on the Marshlink suffered cuts for reasons cited in the thread, but fortunately have seen more recent service improvements.

 

[Starmill]

I can present one in quid pro quo fashion. Chapelton (Devon) and Portsmouth Arms should close. In exchange all trains would call at a new station in Bishop's Tawton.

Would gain hardly any new rail users though, and may even worsen Barnstaple - Exeter journey times very slightly.

What's saved from closing a small station? A couple of pennies keeping the lamps on?

Meanwhile there is a decent cost and significant bureaucracy for doing so

The main benefit comes from speeding up the journey of through passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can present one in quid pro quo fashion. Chapelton (Devon) and Portsmouth Arms should close. In exchange all trains would call at a new station in Bishop's Tawton.

There may be quite a few places where combining stations into a new, improved site between the two would be sensible, not just the Marston Vale, taking into account that other than on very local networks like Merseyrail most people reach stations by car or taxi.

Three I can throw in that should probably close are New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar; these get in the way of a consistent half-hourly clockface service between Southport and Wigan, and are barely used as they basically serve nothing, and future housing development around them is very unlikely. It'd probably only cost a couple of tens of grand (tiny in a railway scheme) to give anyone who doesn't drive and is adversely affected by these a free e-bike to ride down the flat, quiet country lanes to Burscough Bridge for a hugely superior service.

 

[yorksrob]

There may be quite a few places where combining stations into a new, improved site between the two would be sensible, not just the Marston Vale, taking into account that other than on very local networks like Merseyrail most people reach stations by car or taxi.

Three I can throw in that should probably close are New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar; these get in the way of a consistent half-hourly clockface service between Southport and Wigan, and are barely used as they basically serve nothing, and future housing development around them is very unlikely.

Barely anything stops there anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Barely anything stops there anyway.

0.5tph, roughly, though I don't think it's clockface. But they're literally in the middle of nowhere. Just about the only people who would be disadvantaged are the Ramblers who might use them occasionally.

In this sort of area they'll just use the Jag or the Range Rover to drive to Burscough Bridge if they're off to Manchester. Kids might lose out a bit, but kids in a place like that ride bikes. I used to ride round those lanes myself (though have never used any of those three stations).

 

[zwk500]

Barely anything stops there anyway.

And by closing stations and opening a new one somewhere better located, you would be able to stop trains more frequently and there has been plenty of data to show a more frequent service is very attractive to passengers.

 

[Starmill]

Three I can throw in that should probably close are New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar; these get in the way of a consistent half-hourly clockface service between Southport and Wigan, and are barely used as they basically serve nothing, and future housing development around them is very unlikely.

User time savings are significant on those services too. Removing all three saves as much as 7 minutes on Southport or Meols Cop to Wigan.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And by closing stations and opening a new one somewhere better located, you would be able to stop trains more frequently and there has been plenty of data to show a more frequent service is very attractive to passengers.

In the case of these three just closing them would be fine. Burscough Bridge (which might as well be called "West Lancashire Parkway", as that's how it's been used for years) has a decent car park and is perfectly decent to drive (or cycle, it's as flat as the Netherlands) to from any of the spread-out rural areas that surround the three. Indeed I don't doubt that most of them already drive to Burscough Bridge if going to Manchester.

 

[zwk500]

0.5tph, roughly, though I don't think it's clockface. But they're literally in the middle of nowhere. Just about the only people who would be disadvantaged are the Ramblers who might use them occasionally.

In this sort of area they'll just use the Jag or the Range Rover to drive to Burscough Bridge if they're off to Manchester. Kids might lose out a bit, but kids in a place like that ride bikes. I used to ride round those lanes myself (though have never used any of those three stations).

Possibly hold on to Bescar Lane if a developer want's to build a large amount of homes there, but losing the other two would improve the offering to the rest of the line (especially if it allows clockface to happen). Also close Gathurst and put a station on Scot Lane.

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

In the case of these three just closing them would be fine. Burscough Bridge (which might as well be called "West Lancashire Parkway", as that's how it's been used for years) has a decent car park and is perfectly decent to drive (or cycle, it's as flat as the Netherlands) to from any of the spread-out rural areas that surround the three. Indeed I don't doubt that most of them already drive to Burscough Bridge if going to Manchester.

Providing a more frequent or clockface timetable would also go for, e.g., Burscough. If closing those three station saves enough time for a proper hourly pattern to Southport and Wigan (if it isn't already) then the additional revenue from the better service would likely quickly recover a substantial portion of the cost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Possibly hold on to Bescar Lane if a developer want's to build a large amount of homes there

I can't see any ecovillage type developments happening in West Lancashire, to be honest. There's plenty of scope to build Ormskirk out towards Burscough/Burscough out towards Ormskirk/Southport out a bit (I would expect that within 50 or so years Burscough and Ormskirk will basically be a small conurbation like Ormskirk and Aughton are now) plus to fill in the empty quadrant of Burscough, and that's better served by public transport to where people mostly want to go from around there, i.e. Liverpool, particularly if Merseyrail extends.

It's possible, but with public transport to Liverpool being highest prized and housing demand far lower than the South East I just can't see it happening soon enough to keep the stations open. They can always do planning gain to build a new modern station (rather than two narrow wooden platforms either side of a level crossing) as part of an eco-village project if one was to happen, and that'd also allow choice of other locations along the line if suitable.

but losing the other two would improve the offering to the rest of the line (especially if it allows clockface to happen). Also close Gathurst and put a station on Scot Lane.

Not sure about that. Gathurst isn't the busiest station in the world (71,014 last year, about half of Burscough Bridge) but it also isn't a basket case. I suspect it's fairly well used as a parkway for Shevington, Orrell* and West Wigan (though admittedly the former could go to Appley Bridge easily enough instead) for going to Manchester, to avoid the awful peak time traffic into Wigan.

* Orrell of course has a station on the Kirkby line, but its Manchester service is 1 rather than 2tph, a lot slower and has no evening service.

Providing a more frequent or clockface timetable would also go for, e.g., Burscough. If closing those three station saves enough time for a proper hourly pattern to Southport and Wigan (if it isn't already) then the additional revenue from the better service would likely quickly recover a substantial portion of the cost.

It's 2tph, dropping to hourly would be negative. But two "pure clockface" would be an improvement, certainly.

 

[yorksrob]

0.5tph, roughly, though I don't think it's clockface. But they're literally in the middle of nowhere. Just about the only people who would be disadvantaged are the Ramblers who might use them occasionally.

In this sort of area they'll just use the Jag or the Range Rover to drive to Burscough Bridge if they're off to Manchester. Kids might lose out a bit, but kids in a place like that ride bikes. I used to ride round those lanes myself (though have never used any of those three stations).

And by closing stations and opening a new one somewhere better located, you would be able to stop trains more frequently and there has been plenty of data to show a more frequent service is very attractive to passengers.

I've walked around there. It is pretty sparse (though a lovely bit of countryside).

I don't see much point in closing them. The bigger settlements are already served. Presumably those who do use them are accustomed to fitting into the timetable. There's no prospect of instituting a high speed InterCity service on the route that they're in the way of.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Near enough nobody uses them. But their existence makes the timetable messy and so less memorable.

Bescar Lane: 2516
New Lane: 1814
Hoscar: 1024

Probably I suspect just a handful of regular commuters each day - it'd work out at about 8 for Bescar Lane and about 3-4 for the other two. Though I suspect Hoscar's actual custom is slightly higher, most people probably get a season from Burscough Bridge so if they miss the train that stops they can take another and get picked up.

Notably Gathurst's numbers are roughly twice Cheddington! (32K approx)

 

[RobShipway]

So you are both against something that provides a better service to almost all passengers affected, improves journey times, attracts more people to the railway, increases revenue, and reduces costs? Really?

If there was a similar outcomes for a timetable changes, but it didn’t involve closing stations, would you be against that too?




Fo some people. But you’ll be kidding yourself if you think that journey times aren’t the main influencing factor for some people. Just think how much quicker you could get to Whitby if the train didn’t call at every wayside halt, and how many more people might use it as a result.

If the stations where being closed to be moved ti a better location, that for me would be different because at least the punters would have somewhere to catch a train. But if you are closing a station and the nearest station to it is some 10 - 20 miles away and difficult to get too without using a car, then yes I would be against it.

However, I will use Longcross on the Reading - Waterloo Platform as an example. When I used to use the line, the station had 6 trains a day stop there with 3 in each direction. Those where mostly in the morning and evening. Now due to the use of the nearby Longcross Studios which has expanded over the last 5 - 10 years, there is 32 trains a day that stop there. Yes, this is making people's journey longer by a few minutes. But how many people are actually getting off those 32 trains that stop at Longcross?

The customer when buying a ticket is paying to get from A to B, they are not paying to get from A to B in the quickest time.

What I believe would be better, is those stations with low footfall be changed into Request Stops s is done on many branch lines across the country. Alternatively, only have so many trains through the day stopping at the stations with low footfall. a Good example of this would be Southease station on the Seaford - Brighton line. Other than rush hour periods, it has one train an hour stop if you are lucky.

 

[zwk500]

The customer when buying a ticket is paying to get from A to B, they are not paying to get from A to B in the quickest time.

No, but they will only choose to buy a ticket in the first place if the train gets them to B in time for whatever they are doing. People usually look at their journey before looking at the price when booking travel tickets.

 

[Starmill]

If the stations where being closed to be moved ti a better location, that for me would be different because at least the punters would have somewhere to catch a train. But if you are closing a station and the nearest station to it is some 10 - 20 miles away and difficult to get too without using a car, then yes I would be against it.

However, I will use Longcross on the Reading - Waterloo Platform as an example. When I used to use the line, the station had 6 trains a day stop there with 3 in each direction. Those where mostly in the morning and evening. Now due to the use of the nearby Longcross Studios which has expanded over the last 5 - 10 years, there is 32 trains a day that stop there. Yes, this is making people's journey longer by a few minutes. But how many people are actually getting off those 32 trains that stop at Longcross?

The customer when buying a ticket is paying to get from A to B, they are not paying to get from A to B in the quickest time.

What I believe would be better, is those stations with low footfall be changed into Request Stops s is done on many branch lines across the country. Alternatively, only have so many trains through the day stopping at the stations with low footfall. a Good example of this would be Southease station on the Seaford - Brighton line. Other than rush hour periods, it has one train an hour stop if you are lucky.

Longcross got extra stops because it had a large new population in the area, this isn't yet fully built up.

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

No, but they will only choose to buy a ticket in the first place if the train gets them to B in time for whatever they are doing. People usually look at their journey before looking at the price when booking travel tickets.

Indeed. 5 minutes out of a journey of an hour or so can make an enormous difference, even on a generalised journey time basis.

 

[zwk500]

What I believe would be better, is those stations with low footfall be changed into Request Stops s is done on many branch lines across the country.

Request stops don't really save any time or money though, they're a bit of an anachronism tbh.

Alternatively, only have so many trains through the day stopping at the stations with low footfall. a Good example of this would be Southease station on the Seaford - Brighton line. Other than rush hour periods, it has one train an hour stop if you are lucky.

Southease is one of those stations that costs next to nothing to keep and makes no difference to operations (no lifts, the level crossing is private traffic and walkers only), so as long as nothing changes it'll stay open. It's on the South Downs Way with a Youth Hostel nearby and is walkable (just) to the local village of Rodmell (excellent pub, fwiw), but is not going to get any serious traffic any time soon. It's on a dead-end branch with frequent stops that already has plenty of turnround time at either end so the minute or two wouldn't make much difference either way. The cost of the process to close it would be unjustifiable given what it actually costs to run the station. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the moment serious money needed to be spent on it the towel was thrown in.

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

Indeed. 5 minutes out of a journey of an hour or so can make an enormous difference, even on a generalised journey time basis.

Yes, and its also interesting how the difference between, say, 33 and 28 minutes can be very, very, important but the difference between 28 and 23 minutes much less so to passenger choice.

 

[Starmill]

Southease is one of those stations that costs next to nothing to keep and makes no difference to operations (no lifts, the level crossing is private traffic and walkers only), so as long as nothing changes it'll stay open. It's on the South Downs Way with a Youth Hostel nearby and is walkable (just) to the local village of Rodmell (excellent pub, fwiw), but is not going to get any serious traffic any time soon. It's on a dead-end branch with frequent stops that already has plenty of turnround time at either end so the minute or two wouldn't make much difference either way. The cost of the process to close it would be unjustifiable given what it actually costs to run the station. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the moment serious money needed to be spent on it the towel was thrown in.

Worth noting of course that quite a few stations haven't gone through the formal process but have still been mothballed.

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

Request stops don't really save any time or money though, they're a bit of an anachronism tbh.

Indeed. There's a tiny performance benefit if you don't stop. But, in general, you would find it difficult to use that to justify shorter layovers or taking any performance allowance out. So the benefit is negligible.

 

[RobShipway]

No, but they will only choose to buy a ticket in the first place if the train gets them to B in time for whatever they are doing. People usually look at their journey before looking at the price when booking travel tickets.

I would say that it is not always the case, especially at the moment with price rise increases. Many people are now looking at the prices first, they certainly are where I live in Seaford, by more people taking the bus as it only costs them £2 each way to Brighton at the moment, where that would be £7 on the train even without stopping at Southease.

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.

Southease is one of those stations that costs next to nothing to keep and makes no difference to operations (no lifts, the level crossing is private traffic and walkers only), so as long as nothing changes it'll stay open. It's on the South Downs Way with a Youth Hostel nearby and is walkable (just) to the local village of Rodmell (excellent pub, fwiw), but is not going to get any serious traffic any time soon. It's on a dead-end branch with frequent stops that already has plenty of turnround time at either end so the minute or two wouldn't make much difference either way. The cost of the process to close it would be unjustifiable given what it actually costs to run the station. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the moment serious money needed to be spent on it the towel was thrown in.

So why does Southease require 6 trains between 7am an 9:30 rush period, but through the rest of the day is lucky if it has a train in each direction stopping? To me Southease has always been one of those stops that should be a request stop. That would then give faster times to those travelling in the rush hour periods, which is the time period when fast trains are required.

 

[zwk500]

Worth noting of course that quite a few stations haven't gone through the formal process but have still been mothballed.

Indeed, and if I had the power I'd take steps to prevent that. If a station is to be mothballed or closed, talk about it properly and let people have their say. If it's emergency work, fine but you've then got to present a plan and timescale for getting it back in one piece, or start the consultation.

I would say that it is not always the case, especially at the moment with price rise increases. Many people are now looking at the prices first, they certainly are where I live in Seaford, by more people taking the bus as it only costs them £2 each way to Brighton at the moment, where that would be £7 on the train even without stopping at Southease.

People may well have shifted more towards the bus because it's 3x cheaper, but also because the bus is often quicker depending on which bit of Brighton you want to go. The bus goes from Newhaven directly along the coast and near Varndean School/6th Form, the Royal Sussex county Hospital past the Marina (although a fair way vertically above it, I admit), before heading down onto the Old Steine/The Level for the Seafront anjd onto Churchill Square for the shopping. The train swings north to avoid the high ground and then drops you a 10-15 minute walk from Shopping and Seafront, and a taxi ride from the hospital.

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.

This is just simply untrue. People look at time first, which is why so many people drive journeys that could feasibly be made by train but take too long to transfer.

So why does Southease require 6 trains between 7am an 9:30 rush period, but through the rest of the day is lucky if it has a train in each direction stopping? To me Southease has always been one of those stops that should be a request stop. That would then give faster times to those travelling in the rush hour periods, which is the time period when fast trains are required.

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.