Stations with a suprirsingly limited number of train services

[Tiny Tim]

Melksham. Why spend money re-opening a station and then give it an abysmal service?

Good question. Melksham is well connected by bus to Bath, and within easy reach of Trowbridge and Chippenham. I'd be interested to know what the passenger numbers are at present, and if an improved service would be likely to attract more.

 

[Eagle]

Good question. Melksham is well connected by bus to Bath, and within easy reach of Trowbridge and Chippenham. I'd be interested to know what the passenger numbers are at present, and if an improved service would be likely to attract more.

Although of course an improved service wouldn't just be for people travelling to/from Melksham, but for a large variety of journeys in Wiltshire, such as Swindon to Salisbury.

 

[Pumbaa]

Hartford. Always strikes me as odd you can't go anywhere other than Crewe, Brummagen or Liverpool. Nothing wrong with any of those places mind, I just think it would more useful to be able to go to Wigan, or Preston, or Manchester. Generally a pretty poor service in Cheshire.

(yes that is my own opinion not at all swayed by jcollins).

 

[Eagle]

Hartford was a fairly regular stop for Virgin (both WC and XC) in the loco-hauled days.

 

[Ivo]

Although of course an improved service wouldn't just be for people travelling to/from Melksham, but for a large variety of journeys in Wiltshire, such as Swindon to Salisbury.

As well as this, people in Melksham aren't only interested in travelling to Bath/Bristol. The town is comfortably large enough to support an hourly service between Swindon and Salisbury, which may in turn provide a case for opening a station at Wilton.

And I wouldn't say Melksham is that well connected to Bath by bus anyway - 2bph (which leave just four minutes apart)...

It has roughly 11K p.a. (this value has nosedived since 07-08 though). This could easily be increased 20-fold if a regular service existed.

 

[AndyLandy]

Indeed, I had a thread about Hartford a few weeks back. I hadn't realised it once had through services to both Euston and Paddington back in the day.

It does irk me slightly that it ought to be possible to go North from there to Warrington/Preston/Blackpool/Manchester/Scotland, but the only train service it gets is the BHM-LIV one.

I spoke with LM about Hartford services once, they had put in a proposal to run some of their EUS-CRE services to call at HTF, but I believe the ORR put a stop to it. Shame really.

Then again, whilst Hartford is incredibly useful for me to visit my family, you can't get away from the fact that the place is a tiny little village in rural Cheshire and has two rail stations, both with hourly train services.

 

[Eagle]

The town is comfortably large enough...

Plus its catchment area would be huge. You'd be pulling in people from Devizes, and possibly even Calne (although the latter is probably more convenient for Chippenham).

 

[Ivo]

Plus its catchment area would be huge. You'd be pulling in people from Devizes, and possibly even Calne (although the latter is probably more convenient for Chippenham).

Calne would benefit more from having its branch reopened. In theory, partly to save platform space at Swindon, any theoretical service from Salisbury (etc) via Melksham could even terminate there.

 

[Eagle]

Calne would benefit more from having its branch reopened. In theory, partly to save platform space at Swindon, any theoretical service from Salisbury (etc) via Melksham could even terminate there.

Why send this service to a small terminus station in a small town when you could send it to a large interchange in a large town? A lot of the people on this service are going to want to head to (or via) Swindon, and making them change at Chippenham isn't the best way to do that.

 

[6Gman]

Indeed, I had a thread about Hartford a few weeks back. I hadn't realised it once had through services to both Euston and Paddington back in the day.

It does irk me slightly that it ought to be possible to go North from there to Warrington/Preston/Blackpool/Manchester/Scotland, but the only train service it gets is the BHM-LIV one.

I spoke with LM about Hartford services once, they had put in a proposal to run some of their EUS-CRE services to call at HTF, but I believe the ORR put a stop to it. Shame really.

Then again, whilst Hartford is incredibly useful for me to visit my family, you can't get away from the fact that the place is a tiny little village in rural Cheshire and has two rail stations, both with hourly train services.

But the prize isn't Hartford itself but nearby Northwich and a host of (wealthy) nearby villages - Davenham, Cudduington, Moulton etc

 

[Ivo]

Maybe not - but unless you plan to build a fifth platform at Swindon, there won't be sufficient capacity for it. In practice people travelling to Swindon will mostly be better-served by the 55 bus anyway (ditto Chippenham); with the right timing (i.e. close to the HST paths) though, these services would have an efficient link to London and Bristol.

To be honest though, I'm not sure I can see enough demand to justify it. Unlike Melksham, Calne already has strong bus links to the railway network.

 

[Eagle]

Maybe not - but unless you plan to build a fifth platform at Swindon, there won't be sufficient capacity for it.

There might be if it was only 1tp2h, which is what TransWilts Rail are advocating (and they very nearly got FGW to agree on that, although it's fallen a bit by the wayside what with only a year of the franchise to go).

You could even join it to the current 1tp2h Golden Valley services, and easily have capacity.

If we used base 7 this would be my 10,000th post...

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Borsesley; despite it's position in central Birmingham it only has a parliamentary service.

It's in central Birmingham, but not in the city centre if that makes any sense. If you were to get off a train at Bordesley you would find yourself surrounded on all sides by very wide and very busy roads. There is very little nearby except for the bottom end of Digbeth high street (and really you are better off just walking from town or getting the bus if you want to go there) and it's handy for the Blues ground when they are at home, despite being on the wrong side of a quite terrifying roundabout. Basically its entire local area has been turned over to the car in a very big way.
I guess it's main use is getting people back into the city centre or out towards Acocks Green/Solihull after full time in the football.

 

[LE Greys]

That's the problem - unless you send all-stations services all the way to York (actually, that's a good idea... ) you'll get the problem of small stations too far out of London for 'metro' style operators, but too small for Intercity-style operators

This example, plus many of the others mentioned, are a result of the near-demise of the main-line stopper. There are a few, the Chathill stoppers running north of Newcastle for instance, but an all-shacks Peterborough-York service via Selby, with perhaps a new station at Bawtry or Rossington (the only closed stations serving anywhere with a population of more than 1,000). It would spend much of its time cantering through rural Lincolnshire, but I can see it carrying quite a lot of the non-London traffic, perhaps by running ahead of a London service as an advertised relief. Still, that's decidedly unlikely. A much more likely one would be Reading-Exeter all-shacks, possibly with reopenings at Cullompton (proposed), Wellington (population 14,000), Norton Fitzwarren (if the WSR can provide enough traffic) and "Marlborough Parkway" (Savernake Low Level). I can't see anywhere else with a population more than 10,000. The idea would be to give people just going to the nearest big town an alternative to getting the London express, as ever.

 

[Eagle]

This example, plus many of the others mentioned, are a result of the near-demise of the main-line stopper.

Which, as London Midland are showing with their Euston–Crewe services, are easily viable (as long as there's enough places for the fast IC services to overtake them).

Your Reading to Taunton idea might work as an extension of the current Bedwyn service. It's ridiculous that there are only four trains a day between Bedwyn and Pewsey.

 

[LE Greys]

Which, as London Midland are showing with their Euston–Crewe services, are easily viable (as long as there's enough places for the fast IC services to overtake them).

Your Reading to Taunton idea might work as an extension of the current Bedwyn service. It's ridiculous that there are only four trains a day between Bedwyn and Pewsey.

I think FGW tried that. They also had an Oxford-Bristol service on the go, which might have worked had it been operated by a 180 rather than one of their rancid 166s. The plans to reopen Corsham and Wooton Bassat might be somewhat more likely with this to serve them.

 

[Eagle]

I think FGW tried that.

Close, it was a Thames service.

(Odd that when this was withdrawn no-one made them keep a parliamentary service over the Didcot west curve, and yet when LM unsuccessfully tried extending to Gloucester they got lumbered with a parly.)

 

[LE Greys]

Close, it was a Thames service.

(Odd that when this was withdrawn no-one made them keep a parliamentary service over the Didcot west curve, and yet when LM unsuccessfully tried extending to Gloucester they got lumbered with a parly.)

Didn't it reverse at Didcot? I'm sure I did Bath-Didcot on a Turbo once.

 

[Eagle]

Didn't it reverse at Didcot? I'm sure I did Bath-Didcot on a Turbo once.

I guess so.

 

[Ivo]

Your Reading to Taunton idea might work as an extension of the current Bedwyn service. It's ridiculous that there are only four trains a day between Bedwyn and Pewsey.

Such a plan may also give credit to providing Frome with a better service, and also re-opening Somerton - even if this is only 1tp2h!

 

[infobleep]

If you arrive at Gatwick Airport between 5pm and 6pm I believe there are just 4 train services south to Haywards Heath where as for lost of the day it's at least 9 per hour. The 4 trains are not evenly spread out either.

It's only 9tph in the morning peak; most of the time it's 6tph. Here's the distribution:

Thank you for correcting me. I would have been looking at a timetable poster a couple of years ago and then their was at least one additional train which stopped at Haywards Heath. Now it avoids it and stops at burgess Hill/hassocks and them Brighton.

However the 6 trains are timed better than the 4.

 

[AndyLandy]

But the prize isn't Hartford itself but nearby Northwich and a host of (wealthy) nearby villages - Davenham, Cudduington, Moulton etc

This is very true. Cuddington is where I'm usually headed, but Hartford is the nearest mainline station. It's always bugged me that Hartford and Greenbank are different stations, especially since the two lines cross not far from either station. I guess that's just the way it is...

Which, as London Midland are showing with their Euston–Crewe services, are easily viable (as long as there's enough places for the fast IC services to overtake them).

Don't forget that the WCML is (almost?) entirely quad-tracked all the way from Euston to Crewe. You can path IC expresses on the Fasts and LM stoppers on the Slows without any real conflict. Trying that on other lines might not be so easy.

 

[Smethwickian]

Close, it was a Thames service.

(Odd that when this was withdrawn no-one made them keep a parliamentary service over the Didcot west curve, and yet when LM unsuccessfully tried extending to Gloucester they got lumbered with a parly.)

LM's Friday-only late-night jaunt to Gloucester surely isn't a Parliamentary service - there's not one inch of track which would see the withdrawal of passenger services, and therefore require a stautory closure procedure, if it did not operate.

And wouldn't the Oxford to Bristol service have been introduced under legislation permitting experimental services (Transport Act 1962 (Amendment) Act 1981 - the so-called Speller Amendment) without requiring subsequent formal closure procedures if scrapped within (I think) five years? This is how many 1980s and 1990s line and station reopenings were promoted although few others seem to have been withdrawn after all.

 

[BrianTheLion]

Any time I raise the issue of this miserable level of service with Scotrail I am told there is "no demand". How do they know there is no demand unless the trains actually stop?

I'm with you on this one. It's the same with buses too. How can a company say there is "no demand" when the service isn't available for people to use. They could at least entertain the idea of possibly trialling a service for a few months to ascertain actual demand and then if it's not being used withdraw it, but they don't. They just shoot you down in flames instead!

Bad practice in my opinion and potentially a lot of lost revenue.

Wemyss Bay gets my vote. It's a Ferry terminal station and has an hourly service. Hardly ideal for folk needing to visit the mainland, or for that matter tourists heading the opposite direction. It also covers a few stops in Greenock close to housing estates with a reasonable coverage area.

 

[AlexS]

Close, it was a Thames service.

(Odd that when this was withdrawn no-one made them keep a parliamentary service over the Didcot west curve, and yet when LM unsuccessfully tried extending to Gloucester they got lumbered with a parly.)

London Midland's late night service to Gloucester is neither a parliamentary or result of the additional Worcester to Gloucester trains anyway, it's ran since the start of the franchise as far as I am aware, and was probably present under Central Trains as well, just never being noted as they ran all the Brum to Cardiff etc trains anyway. Why it does I have no idea (perhaps a need for the additional service was identified and Cross Country were unable to provide it for whatever reason).

 

[Eagle]

LM's Friday-only late-night jaunt to Gloucester surely isn't a Parliamentary service - there's not one inch of track which would see the withdrawal of passenger services, and therefore require a stautory closure procedure, if it did not operate.

Not this again.

For the last time, parliamentary services relate to the withdrawal of a service, not the closure of a track. Most famous example is Chiltern's Stratford to Oxford services, although I think the couple of TPE services that call at Wigan NW also falls into this category.

 

[AlexS]

Not this again.

For the last time, parliamentary services relate to the withdrawal of a service, not the closure of a track. Most famous example is Chiltern's Stratford to Oxford services, although I think the couple of TPE services that call at Wigan NW also falls into this category.

With all due respect, that appears to be a definition you or someone else has invented.

Surely the only logical definition for an actual 'Parliamentary Service' is one which is operated to prevent going through due Parliamentary closure proceedings for withdrawal of service from a stretch of passenger railway, not one that simply provides a limited or last remaining flow. Stratford to Oxford does not operate over any lines that would be subject to a Parliamentary withdrawal of service procedure should it cease to operate, it's there simply as a sop to a group of influential people as I understand it to provide direct trains, which is a different situation you've decided to lump in as one.

 

[Smethwickian]

Surely the only logical definition for an actual 'Parliamentary Service' is one which is operated to prevent going through due Parliamentary closure proceedings for withdrawal of service from a stretch of passenger railway, not one that simply provides a limited or last remaining flow. Stratford to Oxford does not operate over any lines that would be subject to a Parliamentary withdrawal of service procedure should it cease to operate, it's there simply as a sop to a group of influential people as I understand it to provide direct trains, which is a different situation you've decided to lump in as one.

Thank you, AlexS, I also cannot see where Eagle is getting that idea from at all.

We're not, indeed, talking about commercial decisions by operators to enter new markets or run odd trains outside a normal service pattern (often for the 'stock movement' or 'route knowledge' convenience of the operators anyhow) nor about franchise specifications for a small number of direct services to serve certain places. "Parliamentary" refers to that provision which would otherwise require formal, legal closure to passenger services of any stretch of line or of a station.

Other passenger services operate between Worcester and Gloucester - no closure of a single inch of track to passenger services would result from LM's withdrawal of its vestigal service, and no such process would be instigated, just as no closure requirement would result from the loss of the only through train from Stratford-upon-Avon to Oxford because lots of other passenger trains operate over the entire route at other times.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Don't forget that the WCML is (almost?) entirely quad-tracked all the way from Euston to Crewe. You can path IC expresses on the Fasts and LM stoppers on the Slows without any real conflict. Trying that on other lines might not be so easy.

Off the top of my head - four track Euston-Roade, where the fast trains the run via Weedon, and the slow trains via Northampton (generally speaking), both double track. They rejoin to four (plus) at Rugby, which reduces to three tracks (two Down (north) , one Up (south) I think), to Nuneaton, then four track all the way to Winsford, except for a three-four mile stretch near Shugborough Tunnel (between Colwich Jn and Stafford), which is two track.

 

[Pumbaa]

It's 1 Down 2 Up from Rugby to Armitage Jct.