MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,857
More generally, this is a welcome development. Can we have more of this sort of thing please?
Isn't a rebuild (scope unknown) proposed for Livingston South as part of the juicing of the Shotts line? It's specifically highlighted amongst its benefits so I'm presuming it's getting more attention than the other stations on the route.
I wonder, how much does Denton and Reddish South cost to run trains to? Same goes for Newhaven Marine.Worth quoting these figures, as any debate about closing a barely-used station tends to get the response "but it's not hurting anyone, it's only a minimal cost" etc.
Three million quid, for a station that doesn't see three passengers each week?
I know that not every station is in line for electrification in the near future, and that this "one-off" event has kind of forced Network Rail's hand, but the costs of upgrading other basket-case stations to modern accessibility standards etc.
I'd rather we bit the bullet and closed a handful of stations properly, rather than the nonsense of one-a-week train services, permanent rail replacement buses etc.
Mont how much Denton and Reddish South cost to run trains to? Same goes for Newhaven Marine.
So is the issue here, not the cost of running services to a station but the cost if they need to be redeveloped?With Reddish South and Denton Network Rail proposed closure in 2007 I think but TfGM blocked the proposals, also both stations haven't been modified since the current service pattern was introduced in 1992.
Should the branch change though with electrification or something else then both stations would likely close for good.
So is the issue here, not the cost of running services to a station but the cost if they need to be redeveloped?
According to news reports the last station to close in Scotland was Balloch Pier in 1986 which was a strange closure as its was one of the few electrified stations to close.
I seem to recall that closing Balloch Pier enabled a level crossing to be disposed of, so it was a sensible move after the ferries had stopped.
And Sheringham.That would be at Balloch Central, which was rebuilt on the south side of the level crossing. The old station building acted as the town's tourist information centre when I was last there IIRC.
I suspect removal of level crossings has been a common reason for resiting over the years - Uckfield is another.
Looking at newspaper articles some of the comments mention that Breich would have more passengers using it if more trains stopped there which would almost certainly be the case but I don't think it would ever reach levels that are anywhere near enough to justify the work that would be needed to improve Breich station.
Is the land around Breich station suitable for building on?
And even more passengers if more people lived nearby.
Is the land around Breich station suitable for building on?
Potentially a good site for a new mega-prison to serve Edinburgh and Glasgow?
Or maybe an extensive gated refugee & asylum community?
Do we trust NR's figures ? The bridge is obviously an issue, but raising the platform sounds like unnecessary gold plating.
The issue at Breich is that substantial track lowering is needed to get the wires under the road bridge, which cannot be raised any higher because of the adjacent road junction. The platforms would therefore have to be rebuilt. There's no gold plating involved and no reason not to trust NR's figures.
According to this, the road bridge has already been rebuilt.
Given that the oil shale was beginning to wind down although not completely around the time of the Beeching Axe I think that is why it was not closed during the Beeching axe.
Had the oil shale industry wound down in the 1950s I think Breich would have been closed by Beeching.
Looking at newspaper articles some of the comments mention that Breich would have more passengers using it if more trains stopped there which would almost certainly be the case but I don't think it would ever reach levels that are anywhere near enough to justify the work that would be needed to improve Breich station.
Looking at the map it doesn't seem an immediately obvious place for a busy station but with the level of service the level of patronage is actually rather good. I remain concerned that one way to make a station too poorly used to maintain is to stop few trains at it.
With a population of about 200, Breich village is never going to be a major source of passengers. The village's location will never make it a particularly appealing place to live. Sorry, Breich, but sometimes facts have to be faced!
Breich's population is actually more like 400-450 and more houses are planned there. Unlikely to see growth to much more than 700-800 though.
Station closure was mentioned previously when the Rail 2014 consultation was done. A lot of the political noise then was about potential threats to the Maryhill line but the low usage stations were mentioned then.
West Lothian Council proposed that any closure proposal should be preceded by an improved service to test true demand.
A station relocated eastwards to the village would have more potential and if located at the existing over bridge could be relatively affordable. Still going to be hard to justify without an improved service though.
More generally, this is a welcome development. Can we have more of this sort of thing please?