Stations that ought to be closed down.

[tbtc]

On a related note, has anyone mentioned Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead yet?

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Acknowledging that the disadvantages weigh heavily on the burghers of Maryland, this would surely be for 'the greater good'? Or have I read too much George Orwell?

Probably. What's so important about two minutes that it might attract extra passengers? What is this obsession with time? I remember the ludicrous spectacle of a young 'city type' stamping and shouting, like the spoilt child that he probably was, as he just missed a DLR train at Canary Wharf.

'TEN MINUTES'; he screamed to the world at large. 'I'VE GOT TO WAIT TEN ******* MINUTES'.

He should try living outside London, if he hasn't already died of a burst blood vessel.

 

[edwin_m]

On a related note, has anyone mentioned Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead yet?

I mentioned them on the Euston thread. Both are very close to Tube stations and closing them might allow withdrawal of the DC lines service into Euston with the Bakerloo running to Watford instead.

 

[merlodlliw]

Tonfanau , I was at this station last year, several people used the station,the MC track is on the opposite side to the station, in the Old Gun Range camp.

You must remember many of the Stations on the line to Pwllheli is the only means of public transport, plus some of the stations are the only means of children getting to school.

Hawarden Bridge - Shotton is on the other side of the bridge.

meaning what?

 

[306024]

Stations that need to be closed, hmmmmmm:

East Anglia
Angel Road - People can just use Northumberland Park instead
Buckenham - 100 birdwatchers a year are no reason to keep a station open
Lakenheath - 400 birdwatchers a year are no reason to keep a station open
Maryland - Trains braking for Stratford start to do so before they even pass through here, so people can just use Stratford. And it was closed for the Olympics.
Shippea Hill - Shippea Hill isn't even a place. :P
NOTE: I honestly believe that with a decent service (1tp2h), Spooner Row, Eccles Road, Harling Road & Manea would attract decent custom.

Angel Road - Or a 192 bus. However with the development proposals for the area a 4 track railway is the only proper solution so Angel Road and Northumberland Park could have a decent service rather than the one that is currrently shoe-horned in.

Buckenham and Lakenheath - These do no harm really, but closing them would be a potential PR disaster. Take up twitching and change your mind.

Maryland - see elsewhere

Shippea Hill - and not a Hill either, look at an Ordnance Survey map and you'll see a small depression in the land indicated by a spot height of -1m nearby. Shippea Depression would be a much more suitable name. Mildenhall Airshow was the event that used to put the spotlight on Shippea Hill, but sadly no more.

Spooner Row, Eccles Road, Harling Road - Would a two hourly Thetford - Norwich service be viable for serving these smaller stations? You certainly wouldn't slow down existing services, so that's a unit, and 3-4 drivers and conductors to add to the roster. The business case is looking a little flakey.

Manea - Has to be worth slowing the existing trains. New housing there but is it enough to justify?

I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out that a lot of financial evaluation would be needed to convince the DfT of your aspirations I'm afraid.

 

[W-on-Sea]

On a related note, has anyone mentioned Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead yet?

Well, if the usage figures cited on Wikipedia are correct (for 2010/11: so given the general success of LOROL, quite likely to have grown by then) - 496,000 for South Hampstead, 1,274,000 for Kilburn High Road - that would create rather a lot of people and journeys to displace to nearby tube stations that presumably are not necessarily convenient for the journey being made.

(Sure: westbound journeys for Kilburn High Road and nearby Kilburn Park tube share common route to Queens Park and beyond: but this is not the case for South Hampstead and nearby Swiss Cottage tube; or for eastbound journeys from KHR or South Hampstead).

But in either case, neither station, while not among the busiest in Greater London, is a deserted shack, the closure of which wouldn't cause any inconvenience.

 

[dewsnapsliding]

Also Hyde North bearing in mind the proximity of Flowery Field... Where do you stop???

You do realise that they are on different lines?

If you had said, place a station towards Guide Bridge at "White Bridge" where the lines are still joined giving Dukinfield a station back, then I would agree.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Close down Lowestoft station, because the condition it's in is absolutely disgraceful. Rather like the rest of this town, come to think of it... :roll:

I've been travelling on the Wherry Lines for over a decade, and I have never seen a train stop at Buckenham station. The place is in the middle of nowhere, and unlike Berney Arms (a station I WILL visit this summer, sometime ) there appears to be no novelty value whatsoever.

London Fields and Cambridge Heath stations don't look terribly busy, especially at off-peak/weekends. I'm probably very wrong here...

 

[Bevan Price]

Stations that need to be closed, hmmmmmm:



Wales
Ty Croes - Serves nowhere, and is only a 30min walk from Rhosneigr


Adam

30 mins is a very long walk for any older people carrying luggage or shopping, especially if it is raining. .

 

[bluenoxid]

Then such calls will have to be resisted. Personally I think it would be better to establish a level of station revenue generation below which stations should be permanently exempted from accessibility requirements. That would be a more pragmatic approach to that risk than a closure programme.

Personally, I think it would be better to establish a level of station revenue below which stations should be exempt from a train service.

Sadly, your proposed exemption would not survive and the railways would be forced to provide a reasonable alternative such as a taxi at cost to the railway system rather than other bodies.

 

[Bald Rick]

Personally, I think it would be better to establish a level of station revenue below which stations should be exempt from a train service.

Sadly, your proposed exemption would not survive and the railways would be forced to provide a reasonable alternative such as a taxi at cost to the railway system rather than other bodies.

Having personally done the sums for closing Reedham - Yarmouth, it would be cheaper to provide each passenger a chauffeur driven helicopter! (possibly)

 

[306024]

Landing a helicopter in a cow pat is fraught with safety issues though !

 

[Buttsy]

You do realise that they are on different lines?

If you had said, place a station towards Guide Bridge at "White Bridge" where the lines are still joined giving Dukinfield a station back, then I would agree.

I did know that, I was being facetious...

 

[yorksrob]

Personally, I think it would be better to establish a level of station revenue below which stations should be exempt from a train service.

Sadly, your proposed exemption would not survive and the railways would be forced to provide a reasonable alternative such as a taxi at cost to the railway system rather than other bodies.

Locations getting a couple of hundred passengers a year are hardly going to have legions of mobility impaired passengers travelling there in the first place are they ?

The reality is that it's unlikely that all of the smallish stations getting tens of thousands of passengers a year are going to be made fully accessible any time soon, so any work-around involving taxis will apply to them as well. Set against that, the few occasions when disabled passengers might decide to flock to Tees Side Airport or Sugar Loaf by railway sponsored taxi will be insignificant, so either you're proposing a massive cull of small stations including a fair few Southern commuter ones, or your logic doesn't stack up.

 

[tsr]

I've been travelling on the Wherry Lines for over a decade, and I have never seen a train stop at Buckenham station. The place is in the middle of nowhere, and unlike Berney Arms (a station I WILL visit this summer, sometime ) there appears to be no novelty value whatsoever.

Buckenham has a weekends-only service, and a limited one at that.

I feel the real problem with getting people to use it, and its fellow local stations, is with the lack of accessibility from the Claxton side of the Yare. If there was an efficient way to cross (bridge near Beauchamp Arms), you could well find some of the villages' residents would use it - for example, Loddon, Chedgrave, Thurton, Claxton and Rockland St Mary, all of which I am very familiar with. There are reasons why this couldn't be done, but they don't seem to be very well drawn up.

If this was done, it would probably be reasonably well-used for a rural station if all services stopped there and a small car park was built, so it could offer a Park & Ride to Norwich (as you probably know, the A146 is a pleasant drive at quiet times but a nightmare during some rush hours). The alternative is Cantley Station for this, but I feel that could introduce unwanted extra road traffic to that particular locality.

This may seem like a weird Norfolk-based railway fantasy, but if I'm honest I don't think it would require a major investment. It would certainly be an improvement on the current situation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having personally done the sums for closing Reedham - Yarmouth, it would be cheaper to provide each passenger a chauffeur driven helicopter! (possibly)

Landing a helicopter in a cow pat is fraught with safety issues though !

I found that rather amusing, but, on a serious note, I feel the financial viability and general usage stats could be improved by better station parking and promotion as competition for the local buses - where they exist...

And do chauffeurs pilot helicopters?

 

[Trainfan344]

Close down Lowestoft station, because the condition it's in is absolutely disgraceful. Rather like the rest of this town, come to think of it... :roll:

I object to this for three main reasons,

1) It would mean that we lose a vital piece of our Heritage.
2) It would make journey times increase.
3) It would mean that Great Yarmouth becomes the UK's most easterly station and we simply can't have that, I mean if there's one place worse than Lowestoft, it has to be Great Yarmouth

 

[tbtc]

On a related note, has anyone mentioned Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead yet?

I mentioned them on the Euston thread. Both are very close to Tube stations and closing them might allow withdrawal of the DC lines service into Euston with the Bakerloo running to Watford instead.

Well, if the usage figures cited on Wikipedia are correct (for 2010/11: so given the general success of LOROL, quite likely to have grown by then) - 496,000 for South Hampstead, 1,274,000 for Kilburn High Road - that would create rather a lot of people and journeys to displace to nearby tube stations that presumably are not necessarily convenient for the journey being made.

(Sure: westbound journeys for Kilburn High Road and nearby Kilburn Park tube share common route to Queens Park and beyond: but this is not the case for South Hampstead and nearby Swiss Cottage tube; or for eastbound journeys from KHR or South Hampstead).

But in either case, neither station, while not among the busiest in Greater London, is a deserted shack, the closure of which wouldn't cause any inconvenience.

I was just taking the Maryland example. The two stations north of Euston have almost two million passengers a year (combined), but for various reasons they (and the dedicated service that stops there) are "awkward" to serve (and have plenty of other public transport nearby).

To put the figures into context, I work it out at roughly 15 passengers per train at South Hampstead and roughly 35 passengers per train at Kilburn High Road - huge numbers compared to a lot of stations (there must be a lot of stations in the UK that have one passenger per service or fewer on average), but fairly trivial in London terms. You could free up some valuable platform space at Euston for other services - every benefit has a cost though.

Just trying to find a different tack from the "close a rural halt with one passenger per week" and the predictable "but that's a lifeline to the nearby hamlet" response.

 

[Crossover]

Agree on the station closure, but now Moorswater freight is finished (I think?) How about creating a new alignment to take trains direct from Liskeard towards Looe without reversal. That might just get the journey time down to 20 odd minutes allowing a regular hourly service with one unit. Alternatively a light rail conversion could allow a short extension to a new stop near Liskeard town centre, in Girt Lane car park where trams could reverse. In addition at the Looe end, light rail could allow a short extension closer to the river bridge.

I think this has been recently asked on another thread and I believe the terrain has been cited as a potential issue

 

[Eire Sprinter]

Given that not many long-distance trains stop at Watford Junction, Kilburn High Road is very handy for quick access to/from the Kilburn and surrounding areas to/from Euston.

Also for St. Pancras.

Ditto for quick access to/from the South Hampstead area.

Other travel options from these areas to Euston/St. Pancras take much longer.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Probably. What's so important about two minutes that it might attract extra passengers? What is this obsession with time? I remember the ludicrous spectacle of a young 'city type' stamping and shouting, like the spoilt child that he probably was, as he just missed a DLR train at Canary Wharf.

'TEN MINUTES'; he screamed to the world at large. 'I'VE GOT TO WAIT TEN ******* MINUTES'.

He should try living outside London, if he hasn't already died of a burst blood vessel.

In all fairness, in comparison to the Tube a ten minute wait is a significant period of time. And of course for all we know there might have been a perfectly good reason for his despair. Sadly people who work in the City / Canary Wharf are all too often easy targets.

 

[Llanigraham]

Stations that need to be closed, hmmmmmm:

South West
NOTE: Not including intermediate stations on the St. Ives Bay line, as passenger numbers collection methodology keeps changing too much, although I have a suspicion that one of either Lelant or Lelant Saltings may not be needed.

Adam

Lelant Saltings is the main source of passengers on the St Ives line as it is where the Park and Ride Car Park is.
All the other stations on the line have quite a large footfall in the summer, and are only request stops so cost little to run.

 

[W230]

Buckenham has a weekends-only service, and a limited one at that.

I have used it before, albeit last around 1994.

I feel the real problem with getting people to use it, and its fellow local stations, is with the lack of accessibility from the Claxton side of the Yare. If there was an efficient way to cross (bridge near Beauchamp Arms), you could well find some of the villages' residents would use it - for example, Loddon, Chedgrave, Thurton, Claxton and Rockland St Mary, all of which I am very familiar with. There are reasons why this couldn't be done, but they don't seem to be very well drawn up.

If this was done, it would probably be reasonably well-used for a rural station if all services stopped there and a small car park was built, so it could offer a Park & Ride to Norwich (as you probably know, the A146 is a pleasant drive at quiet times but a nightmare during some rush hours). The alternative is Cantley Station for this, but I feel that could introduce unwanted extra road traffic to that particular locality.

I hadn't ever heard such an idea until reading your post and agree, I think Buckenham could end up well used if this was the case. As you already mention, there are quite a few villages on the south side of the Yare that could access it and I seem to think that alot of the villages on the south of the river have pretty crap public transport as it is.

Do I think it could ever happen though? Never, sadly. "Somebody, please, think of the birds..."

 

[tsr]

I hadn't ever heard such an idea until reading your post and agree, I think Buckenham could end up well used if this was the case. As you already mention, there are quite a few villages on the south side of the Yare that could access it and I seem to think that alot of the villages on the south of the river have pretty crap public transport as it is.

Do I think it could ever happen though? Never, sadly. "Somebody, please, think of the birds..."

Perhaps the old Buckenham Ferry could be reinstated and slight road widening added to allow for bay parking near the station. I don't know what else could be done, but something needs to be put in there. Sooner or later the residents South of the Yare will be really annoyed with the lack of rail access to their villages, and also will suffer as areas North of the river nick any and all of the tourists.

I don't think the RSPB would be too fussed - their schemes round there seem reasonable enough in my view - but I can imagine tricky consultations with the Councils, including the Parish Councils (who hold a rather high level of public control and influence in the area ).

The existing bus services are frankly received with a mixture of disdain and reluctant acceptance, other than the Norwich P&R scheme. They certainly need competition. Norfolk CC, bus companies et al seem to forget that the population is not especially low for a rural area, but it is quite spread out (especially West of Thurton, but that is a wholly different case) and in need of a decent, quick public transport system. Accessible links such as Buckenham-Norwich would be only around 20-25mins in duration, once the station has been driven/walked/cycled to, and though they might draw local trade to the city areas, they'd be a bonus in terms of transport speed and ease of access to the area.

 

[Requeststop]

Close down Lowestoft station, because the condition it's in is absolutely disgraceful. Rather like the rest of this town, come to think of it... :roll:...

I visited Lowestoft for 35 minutes in Late February and I have seen worse. However I do agree with the state of the station. It's hardly a great welcome to the town.

 

[LE Greys]

I'm amazed that nobody has mentioned Birmingham New Street yet. Such an awful place...

That was a serious proposal not that long ago. Arup came up with an alternative to rebuilding New Street and then building Curzon Street, combine the two in a new station alongside Moor Street called Grand Central (PDF link to proposal). I'm not entirely certain whether New Street would have been demolished, but it seems like a sensible place to put some grade-separation, and by roofing over it, you have a big new shopping area. It would place local, classic line and high speed services all under the same roof and do away with scruffy old New Street. Unfortunately, it cost far more than any other plan, so it didn't happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was just taking the Maryland example. The two stations north of Euston have almost two million passengers a year (combined), but for various reasons they (and the dedicated service that stops there) are "awkward" to serve (and have plenty of other public transport nearby).

To put the figures into context, I work it out at roughly 15 passengers per train at South Hampstead and roughly 35 passengers per train at Kilburn High Road - huge numbers compared to a lot of stations (there must be a lot of stations in the UK that have one passenger per service or fewer on average), but fairly trivial in London terms. You could free up some valuable platform space at Euston for other services - every benefit has a cost though.

Just trying to find a different tack from the "close a rural halt with one passenger per week" and the predictable "but that's a lifeline to the nearby hamlet" response.

There's always the option of diverting the Euston D.C. trains via Primrose Hill towards Camden Road, but that depends on even more work on the NLL, and loses the link to Euston. Having at least 1tph call at the slows at Wembley Central and Queen's Park could help with that, but would create problems of its own.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Given the recent usage figures, I'd certainly be prepared to accept the closure of Teesside Airport station...

 

[Requeststop]

Lelant Saltings is the main source of passengers on the St Ives line as it is where the Park and Ride Car Park is.
All the other stations on the line have quite a large footfall in the summer, and are only request stops so cost little to run.

I for one would be VERY upset if Lelant is Closed.

The likelihood is for the Salting to close once the St.Erth Parking project is up and running.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

I for one would be VERY upset if Lelant is Closed.

The likelihood is for the Salting to close once the St.Erth Parking project is up and running.

The facility is there at Lelant Saltings.
Parking is not easy for visitors in St Ives. (Locals know the system!)
I would have thought it would be best in the long term to leave LTS open.
(The land available at St Erth Station is far from huge!)

With better parking facilities at St Erth, there is also potential for this station to be popular for commuters etc from the very West of Cornwall using mainline trains, rather than use Penzance etc.

 

[yorksrob]

I for one would be VERY upset if Lelant is Closed.

The likelihood is for the Salting to close once the St.Erth Parking project is up and running.

Out of intertest, why would they do that - presumably they're not planning to close the car park there, even when St Erth opens ?

 

[bicbasher]

Using the Maryland principle, Penge West and Anerley could be considered for closure considering how they're nearby to each other and Crystal Palace, which is a Zone 3/4 station with cheaper and more frequent services into Central London.

However, since the introduction of London Overground services, Penge West served 361,000 passengers in 10/11 compared to 226,000 in 09/10 when the station was only served by 2tph by Southern.

Anerley served 509,000 passengers in 10/11 which is of Maryland standards.