Teesside Airport station to lose 1 platform and Bridge

[gavin]

Teesside Airport's station is to lose 1 platform its footbridge in a bid to save money

A platform and rail bridge at one of the least used railway stations in the country will be removed.

Only 30 people got on or off a train at Teesside Airport in 2016/17, making it the second least popular station in the country.

Now bosses at Durham Tees Valley Airport has agreed with Northern Rail to run the station’s once-a-week service in only one direction.

Those travelling from Hartlepool to Darlington and using the airport side platform will still be able to use the halt.

But another platform and a footbridge is being removed, as airport chiefs say the cost of maintaining it could be up to £6m over the next five years.

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...used-14084871?ref=BNTMedia&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Darandio]

I do really find this hard to believe

But another platform and a footbridge is being removed, as airport chiefs say the cost of maintaining it could be up to £6m over the next five years.

But Peel Airports are well versed in manipulating figures as an aid to run the airport into the ground and have it closed for good.

 

[MarkyT]

Is this something to do with disabled access regulations? If the second platform was to remain open then expensive ramp modifications or lifts would be required, clearly ludicrous. More interestingly could closure open up a fares loophole where a double back via the next station in one direction must become valid in order that the station has not closed as either a journey start or destination?

 

[DanNCL]

The footbridge there has been in poor condition for a very long time. It's currently propped up by scaffolding. I'm not at all surprised that the footbridge is going, though I am surprised that they're making the effort to get rid of the eastbound platform, I'd have thought they'd just leave it there like they did with the now closed platform at Pilning.

Of course, if NR weren't so anti level crossing, perhaps putting in a foot crossing to replace the bridge would have been a reasonable idea

 

[najaB]

Of course, if NR weren't so anti level crossing, perhaps putting in a foot crossing to replace the bridge would have been a reasonable idea.

They aren't completely anti level crossing, but a barrow crossing at an unstaffed station with trains passing at up to 60 mph is going to be a difficult safety case to make. Especially due to the vanishingly small number of passengers who will be affected.

 

[ainsworth74]

As I say whenever these threads crop up. Close the station down and be done with it. The situation just gets ever more farcical.

I'd have thought they'd just leave it there like they did with the now closed platform at Pilning.

I believe Pilning has a proper platform made from durable materials. Teesside Airport is just wood so there's an actual risk that it may deteriorate further eventually.

Of course, if NR weren't so anti level crossing, perhaps putting in a foot crossing to replace the bridge would have been a reasonable idea

To and from where?!?! There's but farmers fields on one side of the station and it's a trek on the other side to anything else on the airport site!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not just close the thing? It's a nonsense as it is. It can always be reopened later if desired.

At a push it could presumably be served by a taxi on demand once a week in each direction (which of course most of the time nobody actually will demand).

 

[ainsworth74]

Why not just close the thing? It's a nonsense as it is. It can always be reopened later if desired.

Quite! Plus it's deteriorated to such an extent I'd lay a bit of money that it would have to be knocked down and rebuilt anyway if it was ever expected to see significant usage again.

At a push it could presumably be served by a taxi on demand once a week in each direction (which of course most of the time nobody actually will demand).

Yes a Newhaven Marine style solution would work. Station 'open' with ticket holders conveyed by taxi as required as no trains actually call.

 

[AverageTD]

I’m surprised that they are doing this. I think it should be the opposite now that KLM fly more frequently and the overall airport usage is going up. Maybe a daily train timed 30mins to an hour after the Amsterdam lands would be a clever idea

 

[Darandio]

I’m surprised that they are doing this. I think it should be the opposite now that KLM fly more frequently and the overall airport usage is going up. Maybe a daily train timed 30mins to an hour after the Amsterdam lands would be a clever idea

I realise we have just had christmas but I wasn't aware it was April 1st already.

 

[ainsworth74]

I’m surprised that they are doing this. I think it should be the opposite now that KLM fly more frequently and the overall airport usage is going up. Maybe a daily train timed 30mins to an hour after the Amsterdam lands would be a clever idea

No one is going to use the train to get to and from the airport. It's over half a mile to walk from the station to the terminal (and when they tried a shuttle bus that didn't work). The station needs to be killed off. It serves no purpose whatsoever.

Even when every train called at the station no-one used it! Hence why the service was run down rapidly in the 1990s until it reached the two trains per week level.

Close. It. Down.

 

[splashoutradio]

I’m surprised that they are doing this. I think it should be the opposite now that KLM fly more frequently and the overall airport usage is going up. Maybe a daily train timed 30mins to an hour after the Amsterdam lands would be a clever idea

I belive it's quite a walk between the terminal buildings and the station, so this would likely not be so well used. That said, there have been rumors of a new station being built closer to the airport - rumors that have been going on for a long while, mind.

 

[ainsworth74]

That said, there have been rumors of a new station being built closer to the airport - rumors that have been going on for a long while, mind.

Only way to do that would be to slew the line closer to the airport. No one is going to spend the money needed for that.

 

[PR1Berske]

I rarely support closure of a railway station, though in this case it has appeared for some time that Teeside is of more interest to rail enthusiasts than passengers, and when that's the case, the justification for remaining open as a timetable curiosity does look quite thin.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Quite! Plus it's deteriorated to such an extent I'd lay a bit of money that it would have to be knocked down and rebuilt anyway if it was ever expected to see significant usage again. Yes a Newhaven Marine style solution would work. Station 'open' with ticket holders conveyed by taxi as required as no trains actually call.

I would have thought that a Norton Bridge solution could work by using "rail replacement" buses to serve the airport from Eaglescliffe to Dinsdale and timed to be as useless as possible, so that no one actually uses it, therefore the RRB can be axed and as the platforms have closed Teeside Airport railway station then enters the history books.

 

[ainsworth74]

so that no one actually uses it

No one uses the station anyway! It doesn't even average one exit/entry per day!

 

[johnnychips]

Totally agree with above. Is there actually any public transport to the airport entrance, for example a bus from Darlo or Middlesbrough?

 

[Darandio]

Totally agree with above. Is there actually any public transport to the airport entrance, for example a bus from Darlo or Middlesbrough?

Still a half-hourly Arriva service 12 I believe, from Darlington.

 

[ainsworth74]

There's a bus from Darlington that drops off about a five minute walk from the airport terminal. But no bus that goes directly to the airport.

The airport website used to include details on getting the bus but now just focuses on the parking (because everyone drives as it's the most convenient way of getting to th airport).

 

[a_c_skinner]

I seem to recall a bus from Darlington Station to the airport did run for a while. All this is academic, the issue isn't that no one gets trains there, it is that so few people fly from there.

 

[Darandio]

The airport website used to include details on getting the bus but now just focuses on the parking (because everyone drives as it's the most convenient way of getting to th airport).

Oh, it still does. http://www.durhamteesvalleyairport....t/getting-to-the-airport-by-public-transport/

A range of Arriva bus services link us to the towns and villages surrounding the airport, including the number 12 from Darlington.

I'd say describing it as a 'range' is stretching it a bit. I also believe that the number 12 goes to the International Fire Training Centre, it probably gets much more patronage than the airport.

I also liked this bit....

Getting to the airport by public transport is easy. A major rail stop with over 40 trains per days from Durham, York and Newcastle, Darlington train station is just six miles away.

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh, it still does. http://www.durhamteesvalleyairport....t/getting-to-the-airport-by-public-transport/

So it is! Have to go onto a seperate page to get the link rather than Car Parking which gets front and centre on the home page. Then again they make money out of the car parking...

I'd say describing it as a 'range' is stretching it a bit. I also believe that the number 12 goes to the International Fire Training Centre, it probably gets much more patronage than the airport.

Yes I had a poke around on street view and the bus stop does seem to be directly opposite them.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

No one uses the station anyway! It doesn't even average one exit/entry per day!

No I ment the rail replacement bus that could be laid on, which would replace the station anyway as the platforms would be closed. The rail replacement, which would be timed to be useless on purpose, is then axed as its deemed unviable since its carting fresh air about.

In effect NR would be killing two birds with one stone so to speak.

 

[ainsworth74]

No I ment the rail replacement bus that could be laid on, which would replace the station anyway as the platforms would be closed. The rail replacement, which would be timed to be useless on purpose, is then axed as its deemed unviable since its carting fresh air about.

Or, we just close the station. No one uses it! There's no need to go through the farce of a rail replacement bus to determine that anything to do with the station is unviable. It is already 100% obvious to anyone that the station needs to shut.

 

[PR1Berske]

Or, we just close the station. No one uses it! There's no need to go through the farce of a rail replacement bus to determine that anything to do with the station is unviable. It is already 100% obvious to anyone that the station needs to shut.

As we all know, closing stations ain't easy. @NorthernSpirit has hit upon a very British solution: create an administrative nightmare by launching a RRB which doesn't quite fit the current flight pattern, lumber through the cumbersome ORR closure process while pointing quite clearly at all the empty buses you're "forced" to run, and by pure force of theatrical farce, you get a valid case for closure within the year.

Teeside isn't Briech, there'll be no government reprieve. Just go through the paperwork and help it along a tad by deliberately running useless buses!

 

[WatcherZero]

Actually they say the closure of one platform and reduction of services to one direction is just the first step and they are going through the legal process of applying for the full closure of the station and replacement with a new one.

 

[Kite159]

It doesn't surprise me, that platform did feel a bit cheap so removing it rather than spending money on a pointless rebuild (including the footbridge) seems wasteful.

Although the station probably won't close until the remaining platform is deemed unsafe, then a rail replacement taxi can be used to shift any passenger(s) from Dinsdale if they hold a ticket to the airport. Just get a H&S person to inspect the remaining platform.

 

[Jonny]

Would it not be better to do a 'swap' and replace it with a new station nearby for Middleton St. George? (with a lot more services).

 

[MarkyT]

It doesn't surprise me, that platform did feel a bit cheap so removing it rather than spending money on a pointless rebuild (including the footbridge) seems wasteful.

Although the station probably won't close until the remaining platform is deemed unsafe, then a rail replacement taxi can be used to shift any passenger(s) from Dinsdale if they hold a ticket to the airport. Just get a H&S person to inspect the remaining platform.

And if anyone is ever foolish enough to get the RRT insist the driver takes them right past the front entrance to the terminal, but refuses to drop them off. Make sure they are deposited a further kilometer away in a draughty wasteland near the end of the runway instead. That'll teach 'em.

 

[ainsworth74]

Would it not be better to do a 'swap' and replace it with a new station nearby for Middleton St. George? (with a lot more services).

Unless it's been demolished since I was last up that end of the line I believe that function is ably carried out by Dinsdale Railway Station