Lines/stations that shouldn't have been reopened

[DarloRich]

One station that shouldn't have reopened is Heysham Harbour. Ir at least not with its current service. One train a day each way to meet the Manx lunchtime ferry. Nothing for the night service. Totally pointless on its own and hardly cost effective. What they should have done is added extra stations at points in Morecambe and Heysham, then run a proper shuttle service Heysham-Morecambe-Lancaster offering commuter services between the towns and Heysham Power Station

it is quicker my road! Even with the Lancaster one way traffic issues! I would imagine the line stays open more to serve the power station than the ferry traffic!

 

[edwin_m]

Whilst the intermediate populations of both lines were fairly low (through relatively empty parts of Derbyshire), at least the Hope Valley line served the cement works in Hope.

If you could serve Penistone from Barnsley then there wouldn't be much in the way of "local" passenger service on the Woodhead route (the line is poorly located to serve centres of population at Hillsborough and Stocksbridge).

There are two separate decisions that might be confused here - that to close Woodhead to passengers, and later to close it outright.

As I understand it closure to passengers came about because in the Beeching era it was decided to dedicate Woodhead to the heavy freight flows that still ran between Yorkshire and Manchester. It's questionable whether it would have been so useful in this role if it also had to take a fast passenger service. At the service speeds and frequencies of the time there was no capacity problem with providing the main Manchester-Sheffield service via the Hope Valley along with the stopping trains and the freight that originated on the route and therefore couldn't go elsewhere.

The only place justifying a station on the central section of the Woodhead route was Penistone, which could still be served by the Huddersfield trains, so there was no need for a local service via Woodhead under any option. If Penistone is taken out of the figures the Hope Valley has significantly more population.

However, Penistone wasn't served via Barnsley until many years after closure of the Woodhead line to passengers. The Sheffield-Huddersfield DMU reversed at Nunnery and ran non-stop to Penistone - illustrating the lack of demand for any station on that section. Re-routeing via Barnsley, entirely sensible from a passenger point of view, happened (I think) only when Woodhead was to be closed for through freight and therefore the DMU would have become the only user between the Stocksbridge junction and Penistone. That closure was in turn triggered by the loss of east-west freight traffic, allowing what remained to be diverted to Hope Valley which couldn't be closed because of its on-route freight sources and stations.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

A regular service between Walsall- Wolverhampton which was introduced many years ago has since been withdrawn.

AIUI Centro are very keen to see the direct Walsall-Wolverhampton service reinstated and are working towards that. The current (via Birmingham New Street) service takes aaaaaaaages.

 

[backontrack]

It doesn't seem like there are any. I personally don't think that there are.

 

[bramling]

Rail is very efficient if you are moving hundreds of people at a time.

It's not the answer to every problem, and certainly not in areas of low population density.

Rail should focus on what it does best.

For example, is it better or worse for the environment to have a DMU carrying fifty passengers or have fifty people driving cars? I don't know what the tipping point is, but I think we should focus on high density areas.





It's a good read (I think Pumbaa posted it a while back, and I spent far too long reading it...), quite sobering - given that any thread about re-openings tends to end up with people saying 'BUT WHAT ABOUT EBBW VALE AND ALLOA' (and ignoring some of the more "average" reopening...).

Some of the stations show how random the process is. The "out of town" Newcraighall in Edinburgh got 176 ,975 passengers pa compared to an expected 467,600...

...but the "out of town" Edinburgh Park on the other side of Edinburgh got 382,823 passengers pa compared to an expected 209,619.

Page 21 is well worth a read, as is the graph on page iv.

It also explains the straightforward reasons why Alloa and Ebbw Vale are such outliers, in terms of data:





(i.e. they didn't bother doing accurate assessments for Alloa since the passenger operations were a sweeter for opening the line for freight so that freight could be diverted away from the Forth Bridge - it wasn't built solely for passenger reasons - so they didn't even bother assessing the size of the bus market - something like seven or eight buses an hour to Stirling...

...and the Ebbw Vale figures were based on a proposed service to Newport - before the steel works closed, so the number of people needing to travel out of Ebbw Vale to seek employment significantly increased)

It also provides a lot of detail about the methodology that goes into these things, rather than the "IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME' approach so beloved of many enthusiasts

Some lines/stations have worked well, some lines/stations haven't lived up to expectations. Some proposals for further re-openings seem to have good cases (Ashington, Portishead), some are just pie-in-the-sky fantasy. But, I'll never stop enthusiasts from coming up with their 1960s nostalgia-fests



Have a look at the report quoted above - some interesting examples - e.g. Aylesbury Vale Parkway was expected to get 29,000 passengers but only got 13,066 (i.e. not even half the expected numbers).



I wasn't living in Sheffield at the time, but my understanding is that...

Electrification was a red-herring - it was non-standard and would therefore need replacing anyway (as it was to be replaced on the Glossop branch).

Woodhead used Sheffield Victoria, rather than Sheffield Midland, which brought its own problems

Whilst the intermediate populations of both lines were fairly low (through relatively empty parts of Derbyshire), at least the Hope Valley line served the cement works in Hope.

If you could serve Penistone from Barnsley then there wouldn't be much in the way of "local" passenger service on the Woodhead route (the line is poorly located to serve centres of population at Hillsborough and Stocksbridge).

The Hope Valley line also allowed the line through Bakewell to be closed.

Factor in the cost of maintaining the Woodhead tunnels and the long term future of the freight over Woodhead (Dearne Valley coal etc), and it seems a reasonable decision was taken.

Since the service from Sheffield to Manchester nowadays is only a "fast" service every half hour (taking almost an hour to cover around forty five miles, run by two/three/four coach DMUs) - plus the 1h15m Northern stopper every couple of hours, there's some way to go before we run out of capacity - we could run six/eight coach trains from Sheffield to Manchester much easier than build a second route (via Woodhead).

One of the frustrating aspects of Woodhead is that only a comparatively small part of the route is actually abandoned. Manchester to Hadfield still exists, whilst at the other end there is rail access to Penistone via Barnsley/Dodworth, and the route from Sheffield survives as far as Deepcar.

Until the recent conversion of Woodhead New Tunnel, it would have been comparatively easy to reinstate the Penistone to Hadfield section, giving an alternative Sheffield-Manchester route. However, apart from Barnsley and Penistone there's not much else on the route, and, as you say, still plenty of spare capacity on the Hope Valley -- so unfortunately it's all a bit of a solution looking for a problem.

 

[CdBrux]

tbtc, I've attached a chart showing how efficient it to move 50 people by cars, bus, Sprinter, & PPM.
The old Sprinter isn't far behind the 14 cars that the 50 are crammed into (as if there wouldn't just be 1 or 2 in each car). I'm sure the train is better as it has other benefits, for people who can't drive especially, and adding the town where it goes to on the map etc, a rail link might not be profitable but it certainly has a positive impact on the local economy and community.

Does that include any fuel the rail travelers used to get to and from the stations to where they actually want to go?
And what about other operational and capital costs?
Etc...

 

[grumblingalong]

The Vibration Action Group "VAG"

They seriously called themselves that?

 

[TheKnightWho]

One of the frustrating aspects of Woodhead is that only a comparatively small part of the route is actually abandoned. Manchester to Hadfield still exists, whilst at the other end there is rail access to Penistone via Barnsley/Dodworth, and the route from Sheffield survives as far as Deepcar.

Until the recent conversion of Woodhead New Tunnel, it would have been comparatively easy to reinstate the Penistone to Hadfield section, giving an alternative Sheffield-Manchester route. However, apart from Barnsley and Penistone there's not much else on the route, and, as you say, still plenty of spare capacity on the Hope Valley -- so unfortunately it's all a bit of a solution looking for a problem.

I have little doubt that we'll see its reinstatement eventually, but it'll be a good while before the Hope Valley Line is full. Frankly, I think giving Manchester a direct eastern connection to places like Doncaster via the line's branch to Wath and onwards is more important than a second line to Sheffield, but there we go...

 

[6Gman]

A regular service between Walsall- Wolverhampton which was introduced many years ago has since been withdrawn.

Which is a great pity!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One of the frustrating aspects of Woodhead is that only a comparatively small part of the route is actually abandoned. Manchester to Hadfield still exists, whilst at the other end there is rail access to Penistone via Barnsley/Dodworth, and the route from Sheffield survives as far as Deepcar.

Until the recent conversion of Woodhead New Tunnel, it would have been comparatively easy to reinstate the Penistone to Hadfield section, giving an alternative Sheffield-Manchester route. However, apart from Barnsley and Penistone there's not much else on the route, and, as you say, still plenty of spare capacity on the Hope Valley -- so unfortunately it's all a bit of a solution looking for a problem.

Not to mention that the detour via Barnsley that Huddersfield trains now take (as would reintroduced Manchester services in order to access Midland) would significantly increase journey times. If ever a link into Midland from the Victoria line had been built this would be very useful for providing a semi-fast Penistone line service (extra doubling or loops permitting, obviously).

 

[yorksrob]

The Ramblers' Association made their case to Barbara Castle, given that Edale marks the start of the Pennine Way, it would be a 'huge' loss to those without cars.

So the economy of both Manchester and Sheffield (millions of residents) suffered for the benefit of a few (thousand) recreational walkers, as well as
costing BR millions in constantly having to spend money on Totley Tunnel.

Further details are available from a book: 'Railroaded!: The Battle for Woodhead Pass' by Simon Bain.

Woodhead survived until 1981, as BR actually couldn't cope without it until then.

I think they made the right decision in not closing the Hope Valley, given its importance to local settlements. And chronologically speaking, it wasn't as if Woodhead was sacrificed for the route as it remained open until long after the reprieve of the Hope Valley anyway !

Peak Forest - Matlock also shouldn't have been closed, but as others have pointed out, this wasn't as a result of the reprieve of the Hope valley either.

 

[Argosy]

For example, is it better or worse for the environment to have a DMU carrying fifty passengers or have fifty people driving cars? I don't know what the tipping point is, but I think we should focus on high density areas.

The tipping point for a 2-car 156 is about 20 people. Or about 15 cars (1.33 persons per car).

At 20 people the emissions are around equal. Below 20 people the unit is contributing more carbon than it is offsetting. Obviously as cars get greaner then the 156 has to carry more passengers on average or get re-engined!

Source AEA Technology and DoEnvironment calcs on carbon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not to mention that the detour via Barnsley that Huddersfield trains now take (as would reintroduced Manchester services in order to access Midland) would significantly increase journey times. If ever a link into Midland from the Victoria line had been built this would be very useful for providing a semi-fast Penistone line service (extra doubling or loops permitting, obviously).

How on earth were they going to do that? The levels are all wrong, the tracks are diverging and the engineering work required would be horrendous.

Alas relocating both to fit Tamworth style wasn't an option either. Sadly the two Sheffield stations are an example of two city stations very difficult to physically connect.

 

[Waverley125]

I think people seriously underestimate the benefits for reopening lines through rural areas. It may be true that local bus services are unsuccesful, but that's usually for two reasons:

1. Everyone living in rural areas owns a car as a matter of course, and the cost of a bus fare is usually comparable to that of parking. Given the bus journey will be slower (as it is mandated to go via every small village) and less comfortable than the care, people won't use the buses that do exist.

2. Rural areas generally have a few large settlements separated by large distances, and roads are often not great quality. Rail has a much better opportunity for a competitive journey time than the bus, making journeys possible that otherwise wouldn't be.

A good example of such a reopening would be Boston - Lincoln. Serving intermediate stations at Bardney (pop. 2000), Woodhall Spa (4000), Tattershall (6500). It could provide a sub-40 minute journey time (around 20 minutes quicker than the car, there is no bus service) as well as through journeys to Skegness.

 

[Iskra]

One station that shouldn't have reopened is Heysham Harbour. Ir at least not with its current service. One train a day each way to meet the Manx lunchtime ferry. Nothing for the night service. Totally pointless on its own and hardly cost effective. What they should have done is added extra stations at points in Morecambe and Heysham, then run a proper shuttle service Heysham-Morecambe-Lancaster offering commuter services between the towns and Heysham Power Station

Such a service exists. It's called the 2A.

I imagine it's significantly cheaper to run than what you propose, and considering Morecambe-Lancaster essentially has a rail-based shuttle service with the current service, your proposal doesn't add much considering it would serve only a village, that is only a very short distance away from Morecambe anyway, yet would require a very inefficient reversal and traverse a line with very low line speed so the bus would still be faster.

If the Heysham Harbour service is to be reformed at all, it should probably just be closed to passengers.

 

[Bevan Price]

Not to mention that the detour via Barnsley that Huddersfield trains now take (as would reintroduced Manchester services in order to access Midland) would significantly increase journey times. If ever a link into Midland from the Victoria line had been built this would be very useful for providing a semi-fast Penistone line service (extra doubling or loops permitting, obviously).

There used to be such a link for freight, via Wicker Goods station. But not in an alignment convenient for passenger services between Sheffield & Manchester. And I am not sure if the tunnel on that line had clearance for passenger stock.

The branch left the Woodhead route west of Victoria station, and had a northbound connection onto the Midland route near Grimethorpe Jn - reversal was required to reach Sheffield Midland.

Look for Sheffield area map here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...hefield_&_Blackburn_Valley_Treeton_RJD_67.jpg

 

[edwin_m]

There used to be such a link for freight, via Wicker Goods station. But not in an alignment convenient for passenger services between Sheffield & Manchester. And I am not sure if the tunnel on that line had clearance for passenger stock.

The branch left the Woodhead route west of Victoria station, and had a northbound connection onto the Midland route near Grimethorpe Jn - reversal was required to reach Sheffield Midland.

Look for Sheffield area map here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...hefield_&_Blackburn_Valley_Treeton_RJD_67.jpg

This would have been longer than the connection later put in from Nunnery down to Midland, both requiring a reversal for travel to/from the Penistone direction. This was used by the Penistone/Huddersfield reversing trains I mentioned above, and still is by trains on the Worksop line. I'm not sure when this went in but I assume it was to allow closure of Victoria - just found this link which I will browse at my leisure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_district_rail_rationalisation_plan_of_the_1960s

 

[ac6000cw]

For anyone seriously interested in the economics etc. of rural railways (viewed from the perspective of people who actually had to make hard decisions about allocating scarce railway resources), try reading the recently published 'The Regional Railway Story' book - it covers almost up to the present day.

I haven't got to the end of my copy yet, but it's certainly eye-opening about just how bad the finances of some rural lines are e.g. farebox revenues that don't even cover the direct operating costs of services (i.e. crew, fuel and rolling stock maintenance), let alone make any contribution to infrastructure or train leasing costs. When service improvements have been tried over the years, some lines have responded well, others haven't so not surprisingly the resources have been re-deployed elsewhere.

Overall it's a pretty positive story, and there are plenty of facts and figures in the book to mull over

 

[TheKnightWho]

There used to be such a link for freight, via Wicker Goods station. But not in an alignment convenient for passenger services between Sheffield & Manchester. And I am not sure if the tunnel on that line had clearance for passenger stock.

The branch left the Woodhead route west of Victoria station, and had a northbound connection onto the Midland route near Grimethorpe Jn - reversal was required to reach Sheffield Midland.

Look for Sheffield area map here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...hefield_&_Blackburn_Valley_Treeton_RJD_67.jpg

Any such connection built now would have to be a south to west curve in a tunnel. There is, actually, quite a lot of space for it, with a portal emerging just north of the A61 roundabout that bridges the Don. However, it'd be about half a mile long and cost a fortune.

 

[HSTEd]

I wonder how much it would cost to build an Island Line style setup compared to a diesel heavy rail route.
But that would require third/fourth rail and is thus the devil, and so we either use trains that are more polluting than the cars they replace or we continue to use said cars.

The new tube trains in the pipeline would leave rather a lot of stock to use.
(And note I am saying new build rather than Harrogate Chamber of Commerce!)

 

[AnonymousUser1]

<snip>
A good example of such a reopening would be Boston - Lincoln. Serving intermediate stations at Bardney (pop. 2000), Woodhall Spa (4000), Tattershall (6500). It could provide a sub-40 minute journey time (around 20 minutes quicker than the car, there is no bus service) as well as through journeys to Skegness.

Bus service Boston to Lincoln - IC5

which serves Woodhall and tattershall ( and then runs south of the river - to Metheringham and onwards towards Lincoln )

http://www.lincsinterconnect.com/maps.phtml

 

[krus_aragon]

People like Trains over buses as they are seen as more dependable. A train says it will get you there at 1207, 9/10 it does what it says, yes you moan when its a bit late but that is because you expect it to run on time.
Bus on the other hand, is in an uncontrolled environment. You have no idea of traffic delays etc etc.

And buses offer no guarantee of connections, whereas trains do (in principle, at least).

 

[deltic]

For anyone seriously interested in the economics etc. of rural railways (viewed from the perspective of people who actually had to make hard decisions about allocating scarce railway resources), try reading the recently published 'The Regional Railway Story' book - it covers almost up to the present day.

I haven't got to the end of my copy yet, but it's certainly eye-opening about just how bad the finances of some rural lines are e.g. farebox revenues that don't even cover the direct operating costs of services (i.e. crew, fuel and rolling stock maintenance), let alone make any contribution to infrastructure or train leasing costs. When service improvements have been tried over the years, some lines have responded well, others haven't so not surprisingly the resources have been re-deployed elsewhere.

Overall it's a pretty positive story, and there are plenty of facts and figures in the book to mull over

I agree its an excellent book and has plenty of examples of reopened stations which have varied in success from why did they bother to incredible successes. It is in effect part of a series with other books covering InterCity (InterCity Story 1964-2012) and the old Network SouthEast (The Network SouthEast Story) all written by senior railway managers ie Chris Green and Gordon Pettitt

 

[randyrippley]

Such a service exists. It's called the 2A.

I imagine it's significantly cheaper to run than what you propose, and considering Morecambe-Lancaster essentially has a rail-based shuttle service with the current service, your proposal doesn't add much considering it would serve only a village, that is only a very short distance away from Morecambe anyway, yet would require a very inefficient reversal and traverse a line with very low line speed so the bus would still be faster.

If the Heysham Harbour service is to be reformed at all, it should probably just be closed to passengers.

Heysham is more than a village - its half of Morecambe.

If they'd not singled the track when the harbour station was reopened, they then could have built new platforms at Westgate, York Bridge, Broadway, Out Moss Lane, Oxcliffe Rd, Hale Carr, Meldon Rd, Mossgate Park & Moneyclose Lane you could have had a fast service between the three towns and would have enabled a large number of buses to be redeployed.

At present on the core routes between Lancaster and Morecambe there are something like 25 buses an hour tearing up the tarmac.

Using existing Pacers you could have halved the bus journey time, cut pollution and cut the congestion in Lancaster.

It would have been nice to think you could extend the service to Bailrigg / the University, but that would be too disruptive to the WCML and we all know students would be too lazy to walk down the hill........

 

[Mitch in Notts]

Going back to the original title of this thread, did I not once read that the northern section of the reopened Robin Hood Line - Mansfield Woodhouse to Worksop - had failed to reach anticipated passenger numbers? I know the Sunday service over that section was withdrawn a few years ago. On the odd occasion I use that route it is never particularly busy - despite the poor bus services in the area.

 

[rower40]

How busy is Aylesbury Vale Parkway? I visited once, just after it opened to traffic, and the deserted car park was surrounded by empty building plots, suggesting that the housing boom had stalled.

 

[yorksrob]

Heysham is more than a village - its half of Morecambe.

If they'd not singled the track when the harbour station was reopened, they then could have built new platforms at Westgate, York Bridge, Broadway, Out Moss Lane, Oxcliffe Rd, Hale Carr, Meldon Rd, Mossgate Park & Moneyclose Lane you could have had a fast service between the three towns and would have enabled a large number of buses to be redeployed.

At present on the core routes between Lancaster and Morecambe there are something like 25 buses an hour tearing up the tarmac.

Using existing Pacers you could have halved the bus journey time, cut pollution and cut the congestion in Lancaster.

It would have been nice to think you could extend the service to Bailrigg / the University, but that would be too disruptive to the WCML and we all know students would be too lazy to walk down the hill........

In my student days, we used to make it down to the underpass - perhaps it could be converted into a metro station

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

East Midlands Parkway is another which seems to attract criticism for not reaching passenger targets.
Not to mention Eurostar.

One beef I have with individual station reopenings is the extended journey times for everybody else.
This does not apply to eg the Ebbw Vale line because it was all new, but adding stations to existing services can put more people off travelling than any new traffic generated (disbenefits).
I'm particularly thinking of Eastham Rake and Bromborough Rake on Merseyrail (especially if you are a Chester passenger).
That made it 16 stops to Liverpool Central instead of an already tedious 14.
Merseyrail make no effort to offer a skip-stop service to ameliorate this problem (barring the token omission of Capenhurst on alternate services).

Local government/PTEs always want more local stations.
The wider railway doesn't, especially on main lines (eg Coppull and Golborne on the WCML).
There is still no solution to the Norton Bridge/Barlaston/Wedgwood/Polesworth problem on the WCML, or the various parliamentary services still running (bar the Halton Curve project).

 

[yorksrob]

One beef I have with individual station reopenings is the extended journey times for everybody else.
This does not apply to eg the Ebbw Vale line because it was all new, but adding stations to existing services can put more people off travelling than any new traffic generated (disbenefits).
I'm particularly thinking of Eastham Rake and Bromborough Rake on Merseyrail (especially if you are a Chester passenger).
That made it 16 stops to Liverpool Central instead of an already tedious 14.
Merseyrail make no effort to offer a skip-stop service to ameliorate this problem (barring the token omission of Capenhurst on alternate services).

Local government/PTEs always want more local stations.
The wider railway doesn't, especially on main lines (eg Coppull and Golborne on the WCML).
There is still no solution to the Norton Bridge/Barlaston/Wedgwood/Polesworth problem on the WCML, or the various parliamentary services still running (bar the Halton Curve project).

This seems to be less of an issue with PTE re-openings as the routes usually have a stopping service already.

Generally though, I think the benefits of providing rail access to a group of people who didn't previously have it easily, far outweigh the inconvenience of an extra stop for existing passengers.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Going back to the original title of this thread, did I not once read that the northern section of the reopened Robin Hood Line - Mansfield Woodhouse to Worksop - had failed to reach anticipated passenger numbers? I know the Sunday service over that section was withdrawn a few years ago. On the odd occasion I use that route it is never particularly busy - despite the poor bus services in the area.

The northern section of the Robin Hood line would do far better if trains continued to Sheffield. And connections at Worksop aren't brilliant, particularly northbound.

Is this root cause of this obvious weakness the fact that Worksop is in Notts and Sheffield is in Yorkshire? Maybe Notts councillors don't want their voters shopping at Meadowhall instead of Nottingham.

 

[Bald Rick]

Generally though, I think the benefits of providing rail access to a group of people who didn't previously have it easily, far outweigh the inconvenience of an extra stop for existing passengers.

Acknowledging your use of the word generally, it is a trade off.

If the trains typically have 400 people on it, and the extra stop results in each of them losing 2-3 minutes, for the benefit of 4 people getting on, then I'd say it's not worth it. The (rhetorical) question is, how big does the ratio of winners to losers, and the time value of each win and loss, need to be to make it worthwhile?