Line Closures

[34D]

With the exception of the odd curve/spur, or some freight only route (or routes converted to light rail), will history prove that Stratford - North Woolwich is the last closure of a passenger route?

 

[petersi]

Probably not transport needs do change.
Though I think only the short stretch at the North Woolwich end has not found a rail use

 

[yorksrob]

Hopefully.

We must always be on our guard though.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

You could argue it was a conversion and not closure, in which case you'd need to go back to Sinfin (?). I'll throw Girvan-Stranraer into play here but that's a very outside chance (though probably the most likely).

 

[swt_passenger]

You could argue it was a conversion and not closure, in which case you'd need to go back to Sinfin (?)...

I'd agree - it was all tied up together as a conversion and re-routing of the whole area for the DLR to Woolwich and then Stratford, Crossrail, Overground mods at Stratford and to an extent driven by the Olympics.

Because all of that wasn't agreed in one combined contract they needed to legally close the whole of Stratford to North Woolwich first.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Watford (Met) closing soon, with the Croxley Link opening?

Oldham Mumps (Metrolink) has recently gone, with the line re-routed through the town centre.

Folkestone Harbour.

Farringdon-Moorgate (Thameslink).

 

[ushawk]

Folkestone Harbour.

This would be the latest with closure procedures taken place on it with it not being replaced.

 

[edwin_m]

I think Settle Junction to Carnforth might be vulnerable if a future government decides to wield the axe somewhere. Quite a long section with only a few short trains per day, and most through passengers could re-route via Copy Pit. Not as politically sensitive as the S&C and no freight. And unlike Stranraer to Girvan, it's not in Scotland.

 

[user15681]

This would be the latest with closure procedures taken place on it with it not being replaced.

Indeed, consultation launched last year over the closure. DfT have approved the closure to go ahead this week following responses to that consultation and now it needs confirming by ORR.

 

[yorksrob]

I think Settle Junction to Carnforth might be vulnerable if a future government decides to wield the axe somewhere. Quite a long section with only a few short trains per day, and most through passengers could re-route via Copy Pit. Not as politically sensitive as the S&C and no freight. And unlike Stranraer to Girvan, it's not in Scotland.

Then it would be up to us to make it a political nightmare.

(I say this having used that particular route today).

 

[The Planner]

Not sure it would save much if it was closed, no intermediate boxes or signalling, all plain line, just the S&C at either end. If anything it would get a lower line speed to reduce maintenance liabilities.

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure it would save much if it was closed, no intermediate boxes or signalling, all plain line, just the S&C at either end. If anything it would get a lower line speed to reduce maintenance liabilities.

Indeed. Can't be soaking up much in terms of cost.

Hope they don't reduce the line speed though. Quite fun rattling along there at speed

 

[infobleep]

Why was Folkestone Harbour closed and did that cost less to close than the line through Denton in Manchester would cost to close?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Kite159]

You could argue it was a conversion and not closure, in which case you'd need to go back to Sinfin (?). I'll throw Girvan-Stranraer into play here but that's a very outside chance (though probably the most likely).

Stranraer was looking rather sorry for itself last week with the old ferry terminal gathering moss, had quite a few people get on though (which all mostly got off at Ayr).

Although it would save the cost of having 2 (or 3 I can't remember) signalmen coming down the stairs to meet the train though

 

[yorksrob]

Stranraer was looking rather sorry for itself last week with the old ferry terminal gathering moss, had quite a few people get on though (which all mostly got off at Ayr).

Although it would save the cost of having 2 (or 3 I can't remember) signalmen coming down the stairs to meet the train though

They need to be re-orientating it for the town. It would be a pretty dismal opener for either a newly independent Scotland, or a newly rejuvenated union to start off with a rail closure.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Indeed. Can't be soaking up much in terms of cost.

Hope they don't reduce the line speed though. Quite fun rattling along there at speed

Sorry for being off topic but what were the views like? There was a signal box at Wennington until fairly recently, with the loss of the box it makes it much harder to improve the service.

 

[Crawley Ben]

Why was Folkestone Harbour closed and did that cost less to close than the line through Denton in Manchester would cost to close?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I believe there is plans to re-develop the site which the branch runs down to (around the marina etc?). The Folkestone Branch hasn't seen any meaningful traffic in many years now a-side from charter trains that used to use it from time to time. It now serves no purpose & would be expensive to maintain etc.

If I am wrong on the above, I'm sure someone else will be able to put me right.

Ben

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry for being off topic but what were the views like? There was a signal box at Wennington until fairly recently, with the loss of the box it makes it much harder to improve the service.

Well, it's true, you'd have difficulty increasing the service, but I think the service that you have now on the route, holds it's own well, currently.

 

[Carlisle]

Not sure it would save much if it was closed, no intermediate boxes or signalling, all plain line, just the S&C at either end. If anything it would get a lower line speed to reduce maintenance liabilities.

I think there was some concern about this lines future back in BR days too (around the time of the proposed S&C closure) mainly due to repair costs of Melling tunnel

 

[infobleep]

I believe there is plans to re-develop the site which the branch runs down to (around the marina etc?). The Folkestone Branch hasn't seen any meaningful traffic in many years now a-side from charter trains that used to use it from time to time. It now serves no purpose & would be expensive to maintain etc.

If I am wrong on the above, I'm sure someone else will be able to put me right.

Ben

Thanks for that. I don't think the line through Denton in Manchester serves any useful purpose given the train only runs on one direction once a week. Of course I don't know if freight use that one. If they don't, surely worth closing. Yet we are told it's more expensive to close it. Perhaps a developer is playing the closure costs for Folkestone Harbour.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry for being off topic but what were the views like? There was a signal box at Wennington until fairly recently, with the loss of the box it makes it much harder to improve the service.

Apologies - just noticed the first part of your question (I'd had a few last night )

Some quite stunning views along the valleys. Beautiful countryside and well worth the trip.

 

[Llama]

Thanks for that. I don't think the line through Denton in Manchester serves any useful purpose given the train only runs on one direction once a week. Of course I don't know if freight use that one. If they don't, surely worth closing. Yet we are told it's more expensive to close it.

Plenty of ECS and freight on that line.

 

[infobleep]

Plenty of ECS and freight on that line.

That explains it then.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[ac6000cw]

I don't think the line through Denton in Manchester serves any useful purpose given the train only runs on one direction once a week. Of course I don't know if freight use that one. If they don't, surely worth closing. Yet we are told it's more expensive to close it.

I think it's high time the 'parliamentary' trains on several routes stopped running - we shouldn't be wasting taxpayers money on them for purely political 'embarrassment' reasons when the resources could be better used elsewhere.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it's high time the 'parliamentary' trains on several routes stopped running - we shouldn't be wasting taxpayers money on them for purely political 'embarrassment' reasons when the resources could be better used elsewhere.

On the contrary, I think it's time that some of them were made into useful worthwhile services again. Particularly Knottingley - Goole and the Brigg line.

 

[ac6000cw]

On the contrary, I think it's time that some of them were made into useful worthwhile services again. Particularly Knottingley - Goole and the Brigg line.

If that is a commercially viable option (or at least doesn't increase the overall level of subsidy to the railway) then yes, it's an idea worth trying for a while to see if the demand is there.

But the ones that don't make any sense today in useful transport terms should be out out of their misery. The Stockport - Stalybridge service (as it was years ago, hourly I think) made sense as a way for longer-distance passengers to avoid having to travel between Manchester Piccadilly and Victoria stations on e.g. Crewe to Leeds journeys. When trans-pennine trains were transferred to Piccadilly it's main purpose disappeared.

 

[yorksrob]

If that is a commercially viable option (or at least doesn't increase the overall level of subsidy to the railway) then yes, it's an idea worth trying for a while to see if the demand is there.

Just because a line might require subsidy, doesn't mean that the demand isn't there. It might be that these routes do require an element of subsidy, but the benefits to the local communities make it worthwhile.

 

[bangor-toad]

I think it's high time the 'parliamentary' trains on several routes stopped running - we shouldn't be wasting taxpayers money on them for purely political 'embarrassment' reasons when the resources could be better used elsewhere.

Hi there,
The reason many (all perhaps?) of these "parliamentary" services continue is that it is cheaper to continue to run them than to go through the formal closure process.

Formally closing a line requires a number of administrative steps and consultations. It appears that the consensus is that it is simpler and cheaper to avoid this unless absolutely necessary, ie only when the route is required for redevelopment. The cheap option is to just run one train as there is actually little marginal cost to doing so.

Have a look on Wikipedia for list of the current Parliamentary services - there's quite a few.

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[matchmaker]

Stranraer was looking rather sorry for itself last week with the old ferry terminal gathering moss, had quite a few people get on though (which all mostly got off at Ayr).

Although it would save the cost of having 2 (or 3 I can't remember) signalmen coming down the stairs to meet the train though

Stranraer Harbour box can switch out.

 

[ac6000cw]

Just because a line might require subsidy, doesn't mean that the demand isn't there. It might be that these routes do require an element of subsidy, but the benefits to the local communities make it worthwhile.

No problem with that in principle (although in terms of subsidy per passenger, a comparison of train versus bus versus contract taxi service costs might be interesting in some cases). Back in the 1970's, the passenger subsidies to BR were broken down and published for individual routes (large tables in Modern Railways once a year!) - the subsidies for some lines were horrendous in relation to average usage, e.g. it wasn't hard to see why BR proposed Inverness - Kyle of Localsh for closure....

The 'railway' has done well out of privatisation in terms of investment and increases in services, but it's at a cost to the taxpayer that is probably unsustainable long term. Network Rail finally seems to be getting the infrastructure costs under control (after getting out of hand under Railtrack), but the railway as a whole needs to do it's 'housekeeping' so that it doesn't hand easy sticks to beat it with to 'enterprising' politicians in the future.

The last period of major railway investment (1950's modernisation plan) led to Dr Beeching taking charge, after BR wasted taxpayer's money on investing for traffic that had been in long-term decline, instead of electrifying the ECML - a very visible modernisation project that had already been looked at by the LNER - and cutting back the parts of the system that were unlikely to have a viable future. It could happen again.....hospitals, schools, care for the elderly or railway subsidies anyone ?

(or we could end up with the French problem of rural 'trains' that are actually railway buses because the local authority refuses to stump up extra money so the track can be fixed or the trains hired!).