Polesworth

[nuneatonmark]

I remember back in the 90s the infrequent shuttle service between Stafford and Nuneaton using 153s and that for Polesworth, along with Atherstone, this was their only service. I am pretty sure that despite the poor service, both stations had a fair amount of usage.

Since then of course, Polesworth now only has a parliamentary service due to only one platform being in use, but Atherstone now has a hugely improved service.

The new service at Atherstone shows what a decent service can do for a station with usage exponentially increasing (now starting to level out) since LM started the service.

So why are there no calls to re-open Polesworth?

Given the experience of Atherstone, surely the costs of re-opening Polesworth would be more than offset by the benefits? It serves a relatively poor area, so could have a big impact. Has there been any serious attempts to re-open it recently?

 

[The Planner]

It is only 3½ miles from Tamworth and people probably go there. I suspect if you started adding 1½-2 minutes into the schedules in the down direction especially then it is going to cause all kinds of grief at Colwich and Stafford.

 

[sd0733]

I've been told by several people that its all about funding for an access bridge to the 'up' platform. Network rail wanted to use the road bridge and build a footpath to the platform, the council said it needs a proper footbridge and NR said we're not prepared to pay for any more than a footpath and so nothing happened and we're at the current situation.
Like The Planner said though, the added time would probably cause problems elsewhere with pathing and so the will to re-open it is incredibly low/non-existent now.

 

[Buttsy]

I've been told by several people that its all about funding for an access bridge to the 'up' platform. Network rail wanted to use the road bridge and build a footpath to the platform, the council said it needs a proper footbridge and NR said we're not prepared to pay for any more than a footpath and so nothing happened and we're at the current situation.
Like The Planner said though, the added time would probably cause problems elsewhere with pathing and so the will to re-open it is incredibly low/non-existent now.

Having looked at the station on Google street, I was surprised that a ramp to the road and a footpath over the road bridge wasn't done by NR at the time, I hadn't realised that it was the local council that kyboshed the service at the station by requring a separate bridge rather than NR being unwilling to do something.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I suppose NR could purchase a small piece of the field to the east of the station and use that to site a modern footbridge, however I would have thought with all the modern DDA compliance needed it would cost a lot of money that would not be recouped (especially if they all would have used rail from Tamworth anyway) in takings for a very, very long time.

Out of interest how close is the next VWC behind it between Colwich and Milford currently?

 

[sd0733]

The LM service is overtaken by the Chester VT train just as we approach Rugeley and there is a Manchester bound pendolino around 6 mins behind that, so the headway is around 3 mins.

Although the track layout at Colwich would permit a movement towards Stafford on the down slow and towards stoke on the down fast, in my experience it never happens and if we are a couple of minutes late we are held between Rugeley and Colwich to allow the Pendolino past.

I'm unsure if this is just preferred practice, a sort of double blocking, or a limitation of the signalling system.

Once this train passes, there is then a Euston-Glasgow, which if LM loses a couple of minutes around Stafford, is checked at Norton Bridge while the LM accesses the Stoke line. So in reality, until the Stafford resignalling/remodelling, there are not enough allowances to put 2 minutes into the schedule.

The LMs could be sent slow line from Milford & Brocton to Norton bridge, but this would clash with the xx:36 Liverpool train at Stafford, and require crossing the entire layout at Norton bridge.

 

[Class 170101]

I've been told by several people that its all about funding for an access bridge to the 'up' platform. Network rail wanted to use the road bridge and build a footpath to the platform, the council said it needs a proper footbridge and NR said we're not prepared to pay for any more than a footpath and so nothing happened and we're at the current situation.

The councillor(s) / civil servant(s) who made that decision should be taken out and shot. I am all in favour of universal access but this was a cheap and viable option to provide this. It does not and should not be provided without regard to the cost.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Completely agree, I am going to raise this with the local councillors. For the investment of a new path and refurbishment of the platform, a town with a population of over 8000 could have a rail service again.

 

[DarloRich]

The councillor(s) / civil servant(s) who made that decision should be taken out and shot. I am all in favour of universal access but this was a cheap and viable option to provide this. It does not and should not be provided without regard to the cost.

Yes - that seems proportionate, especially when you are in full possession of the facts :roll: I mean I am sure you are an expert in the provision of highways and footpaths.

Completely agree, I am going to raise this with the local councillors. For the investment of a new path and refurbishment of the platform, a town with a population of over 8000 could have a rail service again.

Or it could remain closed and not mess up the entire West Coast timetable. Is a better option not a bus to Tamworth where there are already much better facilities?

 

[nuneatonmark]

Yes - that seems proportionate, especially when you are in full possession of the facts :roll: I mean I am sure you are an expert in the provision of highways and footpaths.



Or it could remain closed and not mess up the entire West Coast timetable. Is a better option not a bus to Tamworth where there are already much better facilities?

What a ridiculous post! I thought this was supposed to be a pro-rail website!

If someone can't work out how to include a single new stop in the current service without messing up the whole West Coast timetable then we may as well give up trying to improve anything!

 

[DarloRich]

What a ridiculous post! I thought this was supposed to be a pro-rail website!

If someone can't work out how to include a single new stop in the current service without messing up the whole West Coast timetable then we may as well give up trying to improve anything!

Whilst I am sure you know best I am simply pointing out it isn’t as simple as opening a station. The bigger picture is important.

The point is that the WCML is operating at a much higher frequency than ever before. The gaps between trains are very slim. A 2 minute station stop at Polesworth serving perhaps 20 people may add 5 minutes to the timetable accords the board impacting on 100's of trains and 100,000's of people across a vast area.

Are those 20 people going to generate enough income to offset the losses caused by any trade lost by increasing journey times or cutting stations elsewhere to service this stop? Are you going to generate enough new passengers ( not passengers who have simply moved from Tamworth) to make the required investment worthwhile?

Are you sure that the example of Atherstone passenger increases is simply because of a better service? Did these people change stations? Have new houses or industry been built in the area etc? It is too easy to rely on the Post hoc ergo propter hoc defense.

 

[nuneatonmark]

All excuses not to do anything. They managed to find a way to change the LM paths to accommodate faster services which meant all the times along the TV section were changed for that service. I am sure the timetable planners could come up with something, better to have a go than not do anything. Perhaps Alliance Rail should have given up too? Instead we may finally have reasonable fast service back at Nuneaton in 2017, 9 years after the last government robbed us of it.

 

[DarloRich]

All excuses not to do anything. They managed to find a way to change the LM paths to accommodate faster services which meant all the times along the TV section were changed for that service. I am sure the timetable planners could come up with something, better to have a go than not do anything. Perhaps Alliance Rail should have given up too? Instead we may finally have reasonable fast service back at Nuneaton in 2017, 9 years after the last government robbed us of it.

Again whilst I am sure you know best it really isn’t that simple. But mere facts should never stand in the way of the station (aka I) must have better services brigade.

Have you considered that the “robbing” of your fast service was because few people, when considered against the bigger picture, actually used the service? Perhaps there was more money to be made by NOT stopping at Nuneaton.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Getting rid of fast train stops on the intermediate Trent Valley was a stupid idea and it was mostly because the idiots at SRA/DafT couldn't contemplate that people would want to use intermediate stations. They were trying their hardest to cut out the stops at smaller towns on the northern WCML too.

Nuneaton, Lichfield and Tamworth should have a better train service than they do, I think that much is obvious. A four-carriage stopping train to London can't cope, which is why Virgin do stop at Tamworth, Lichfield and Nuneaton during the peaks. Off-peak the London Midland services are wedged.

Polesworth is a difficult one though. It's essentially a suburb of Tamworth. I don't see why it needs an hourly train service to London. Atherstone is slightly different because of industry- Aldi and TNT have big presences in the town- but Polesworth doesn't have that. I'm sure a stop could be slotted in, especially in the peaks (some of the Crewe via Northampton trains wait 20 minutes at Northampton), but would it be worth it? Probably not.

 

[Class 170101]

Yes - that seems proportionate, especially when you are in full possession of the facts :roll: I mean I am sure you are an expert in the provision of highways and footpaths.

If you read a previous post earlier on in the thread you would have seen
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've been told by several people that its all about funding for an access bridge to the 'up' platform. Network rail wanted to use the road bridge and build a footpath to the platform, the council said it needs a proper footbridge and NR said we're not prepared to pay for any more than a footpath and so nothing happened and we're at the current situation.

So you can see it was the council (or civil servants) who tried to get more than NR was prepared to provide. Perhaps the council could have funded the difference between the footpath NR were prepared to provide and the DDA Footbridge that the council wanted

 

[DarloRich]

If you read a previous post earlier on in the thread you would have seen
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So you can see it was the council (or civil servants) who tried to get more than NR was prepared to provide. Perhaps the council could have funded the difference between the footpath NR were prepared to provide and the DDA Footbridge that the council wanted

No i read it - you have based your position on anecdotal evidence and little else. Could it not be that the offered design did not meet, safely, the requirements required for the highways department?

 

[jaigee]

Perhaps there was more money to be made by NOT stopping at Nuneaton.

I think that sums up our present day privatised rail system, maximising profits at the expense of a decent service for anywhere that erodes these.