The future of Barlaston / Norton Bridge / Wedgwood railway stations.

[thenorthern]

Polesworth needs reopening and serving. There's little excuse not to, really - it doesn't need another footbridge, it just needs a path creating up to the road bridge and the area marked for pedestrians (look on Google Maps) moving to the station side from the offside.

Polesworth is a strange situation.

Back when I lived in nearby Wood End in the 1990s Polesworth was a strange station as the nearest stations to my house were Wilnecote, Polesworth, Atherstone and Tamworth in that order.

Back then though Wilinecote was served irregularly by the Nottingham to Birmingham sprinters while both Polesworth and Atherstone were served irregularly by the Stafford to Nuneaton local trains meaning that all of the stations except Tamworth were effectively useless to get anywhere.

Since then though both Atherstone and Wilnecote have been given an hourly service and both stations have their uses for travel. I can't see a Polesworth station ever getting more than 70,000 passenger per year but I would think if it was to reopen with an hourly service it would get some usage.

 

[onlinespotting]

There is another Bus Company that serves Barlaston but not sure about Wedgewood, D&G Buses service 14

The 14 is the replacement bus service

 

[All Line Rover]

I might write to the DfT telling them not to close Norton Bridge just be be one of those awkward people who stops it from closing.

I'm pleased that the DfT has given a reasonably comprehensive definition of the station for the archives. I never realised quite how close it is to Stone.

 

[The Planner]

You would need a new separate footbridge at Polesworth, you wouldn't get it past the DDA as it wouldn't be safe to put a wheelchair in the same road space as that bridge has now. I would also suggest that anyone from Polesworth is looking to travel more north south axis to Birmingham and Tamworth itself, therefore they are going to travel to Tamworth to get a train. Connection wise it would be difficult too as the LM service tends to be very close to any XC service on the top.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I suspect Barlaston would have a bus service if the station were to close. Probably not as good as now, but a service nevertheless. If the station were to remain open, and trains restored, I suspect the bus service would go.

Perhaps not.

If I remember correctly, Barlaston traditionally had a very poor bus service. A couple of buses on Tuesdays and Fridays to Stone (Bassetts) and a couple per day to Longton (Stevensons). If the LM support for D & G service 14 (the rail replacement service) is withdrawn, and Staffordshire County Council choose not to make up the shortfall, the 14 will I suspect be drastically cut back (school journeys only?). This is happening elsewhere, for example 32A - Oakamoor and Alton unserved, 31 - Dilhorne and Forsbrook unserved from December.

Barlaston Park (the estate adjacent to Wedgwood) had a better service, roughly hourly as an extension of the Blurton / Newstead services. Again, if the LM support is withdrawn, I doubt those extensions would return, leaving the estate unserved.

The advantage that many rural villages have, where they have managed to retain their station (and trains actually stop there!), is that they have a far better level of service than similar villages which are only served (or not) by bus services.

 

[OwlMan]

The DfT have put forward proposals to close Norton Bridge
see for full details
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/norton-bridge-station-closure

 

[A0wen]

The DfT have put forward proposals to close Norton Bridge
see for full details
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/norton-bridge-station-closure

Inevitable really - very low usage, changes to the track in the area make the 'old' station even less viable / easy to serve.

Of the 'closed' stations on the TV / Potteries line, this one is the least viable and most costly to re-open.

Polesworth would be easier to re-open as that just needs a new footbridge or access from the east side of the road over-bridge.

Wedgewood and Barlaston are both largely intact and apart from the pathing challenges would be relatively easy to re-open.

 

[A0wen]

Hopefully, bearing in mind absolutely nothing remains of the it! I believe the running lines got straightened through the site of the island platform.

Quite - and the loss of Etruria hardly caused hardship given it was only a mile or so to Stoke or Longport stations either side.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Having looked at local maps, following closure of Barlaston and Wedgwood, and withdrawal of the current rail replacement buses, I feel a diversion of the current 101 route north of Tittensor to the east onto the old road would not be too much of an imposition.

It would at least serve those two locations from the "end" of the village roads concerned.

The time taken to go round that route, needs an extra bus and two extra drivers putting in the cycle, which hits the profitability. The roads are a bit tight, so the bus has to be slower than down the A34 dual carriageway, the current frequency also means they meet there on the narrow roads! Also, the Trentham Monkey forest generates a lot of passengers. I'm not sure Trentham Estate would be impressed to loose the bus. The 101 will remain on the A34. There were protests from the passengers when they diverted it via Stoke station between Hanley and Newcastle as the route was longer, so they had to reroute on the fastest route between the two!

The original rail replacement X1 from Bakers was never popular because it took longer due to its diversion round Wedgwood and Barlaston. The route had to be tinkered with several times due to the narrow pavementless roads. There never was an ideal solution. D&G generally use smaller buses (they don't carry the students the X1 did) so it is less of an issue, but it also makes them less profit, without the LM money it's likely to go-or be drastically cut back.

 

[onlinespotting]

I sent an email: In response to the proposal for closure of Norton Bridge, and the unknown future of nearby Barlaston and Wedgwood; it is important to understand the impact on the local community following the loss of funding to the replacement bus service. Yes many of those using the bus may have concessionary passes and not train tickets and may prefer Hanley or Stafford Sainsbury's to Stafford or Stoke station, but if there is no bus service they won't have the option of travel (with a senior railcard discount) at all as there will be no rail service. In effect they may become stranded or have to pay taxi charges to travel.

 

[thenorthern]

I sent an email: In response to the proposal for closure of Norton Bridge, and the unknown future of nearby Barlaston and Wedgwood; it is important to understand the impact on the local community following the loss of funding to the replacement bus service. Yes many of those using the bus may have concessionary passes and not train tickets and may prefer Hanley or Stafford Sainsbury's to Stafford or Stoke station, but if there is no bus service they won't have the option of travel (with a senior railcard discount) at all as there will be no rail service. In effect they may become stranded or have to pay taxi charges to travel.

I have written a letter as well.

 

[Class 170101]

You would need a new separate footbridge at Polesworth, you wouldn't get it past the DDA as it wouldn't be safe to put a wheelchair in the same road space as that bridge has now. I would also suggest that anyone from Polesworth is looking to travel more north south axis to Birmingham and Tamworth itself, therefore they are going to travel to Tamworth to get a train. Connection wise it would be difficult too as the LM service tends to be very close to any XC service on the top.

What could be done to make the existing bridge safe and not build a footbridge as building one will inevitably bust the budget. The railway needs to look for viable and cheap alternatives.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Since then though both Atherstone and Wilnecote have been given an hourly service and both stations have their uses for travel. I can't see a Polesworth station ever getting more than 70,000 passenger per year but I would think if it was to reopen with an hourly service it would get some usage.

Railway people live at Wilnecote so I'm told.

 

[The Planner]

Look at Google Streetview at the bridge at Polesworth. You are doing nothing to that to fit a safe path over that, especially as it is traffic light controlled and narrow.

 

[bluenoxid]

How much development could be feasibly placed around Polesworth to justify reopening or a replacement station. There is a lot of green around there.

 

[thenorthern]

How much development could be feasibly placed around Polesworth to justify reopening or a replacement station. There is a lot of green around there.

Difficult to say as Tamworth is a very car dependent town and many of the areas of employment are in fact closer to Polesworth Station than Tamworth station. There may be some passengers who would use the station to get to Nuneaton but not that much.

Many people in that area also work in Birmingham so a re-opened Polesworth station wouldn't work for them. A direct service to Coventry would make the station worthwhile.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Look at Google Streetview at the bridge at Polesworth. You are doing nothing to that to fit a safe path over that, especially as it is traffic light controlled and narrow.

In that case, building a footpath to the unserved platform and utilising the existing road bridge is the simple, low cost, quick win solution. Simply integrate a pedestrian phase into the traffic light sequence. I have seen this done (on a permanent basis, not for roadworks) where there is a single lane bridge and no footway across it. Where there are two traffic lanes pedestrians seem to be expected to take their chances in the road and expect cars to pass them on the remainder of the road! As an example, visible on Google Streetview, there is one to the west of Beasdale Station on the West Highland line. The footway terminates either side of the rail overbridge, there is a sign for cyclists to dismount and use the pedestrian crossing. Normally traffic operates in alternate directions, passenger (or cyclist) demand interrupts the light sequence and you walk through with traffic stopped in both directions. Pedestrian usage in that location must be pretty low (to say the least) but the cost of a set of lights must have been justified somehow. If only my local Highway Authority were as generous in their provision for pedestrians!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Look at Google Streetview at the bridge at Polesworth. You are doing nothing to that to fit a safe path over that, especially as it is traffic light controlled and narrow.

Look at Google Streetview on the bridge at Polesworth and you will see that there is a marked footway over it. It wouldn't take much to make it an actual pavement, though I wonder if it is like it is to allow wider vehicles across. For ease of station access it just needs to swap sides.

 

[All Line Rover]

Simply integrate a pedestrian phase into the traffic light sequence. I have seen this done (on a permanent basis, not for roadworks) where there is a single lane bridge and no footway across it. Where there are two traffic lanes pedestrians seem to be expected to take their chances in the road and expect cars to pass them on the remainder of the road! As an example, visible on Google Streetview, there is one to the west of Beasdale Station on the West Highland line. The footway terminates either side of the rail overbridge, there is a sign for cyclists to dismount and use the pedestrian crossing. Normally traffic operates in alternate directions, passenger (or cyclist) demand interrupts the light sequence and you walk through with traffic stopped in both directions.

I've never seen that before. I'm impressed!

 

[The Planner]

Look at Google Streetview on the bridge at Polesworth and you will see that there is a marked footway over it. It wouldn't take much to make it an actual pavement, though I wonder if it is like it is to allow wider vehicles across. For ease of station access it just needs to swap sides.

Would it meet DDA requirements like I suggested before?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it meet DDA requirements like I suggested before?

What are those requirements specifically, as applied specifically to railway station entrances onto public highways? (it is not, and cannot be considered to be, part of the station)

FWIW, in my view it's a nonsense having a rule of "if it isn't financially feasible to make it fully accessible, nobody can have it at all", provided a reasonable alternative (say a free taxi) is provided to those who do not have access.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And, FWIW, it would be more accessible than it was, as previously it only had a stepped footbridge, whereas with this entrance it would be wheelchair accessible.

And in any case it's an existing station. Should Cheddington close because it only has a stepped footbridge? I doubt it makes any sense at all to provide lifts there, because there is so little housing nearby - anyone requiring wheelchair access could drive to Tring (which does justify lifts being added - I wonder if it will get them any time soon?).

 

[onlinespotting]

Maybe we should all write a letter in favour of keeping norton Bridge open

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Maybe we should all write a letter in favour of keeping Norton Bridge open

You may very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment...

 

[The Planner]

I hope that wasn't a serious proposition...

 

[daodao]

In that case, building a footpath to the unserved platform and utilising the existing road bridge is the simple, low cost, quick win solution. Simply integrate a pedestrian phase into the traffic light sequence. I have seen this done (on a permanent basis, not for roadworks) where there is a single lane bridge and no footway across it.

An example of this solution (for a canal bridge) can be found at Seamon's Bridge over the Bridgewater Canal in Oldfield Brow, Altrincham, Cheshire.

 

[6Gman]

Maybe we should all write a letter in favour of keeping norton Bridge open

I wonder how many residents of the immediate area will?

I wonder how many residents of the immediate area used it when it was open?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Two points / questions regarding the closure proposal.

1) Why is a permanent rail replacement bus not an option for consideration? The costs are outlined in the DfT document but no discussion of why it is not a long term option. The document assumes that the DfT saving of £40k per year will result in similar reductions in costs to the bus operator. NO, unless it is assumed that the bus is to be withdrawn. The £40k will simply transfer from one public budget (DfT) to another (Staffs CC). No saving to be realised.

2) If the footbridge had remained in place, would the station now be being considered for closure? Further, if the footbridge had remained in place, and stopping services had been re-instated in 2004, would the station now be being considered for closure?

It is simply an easy win for the DfT to take £40k out of its budget in order to meet it's savings target. Even if the closure procedures costs, say, an additional £40k in the short term, the savings will accrue longer term.

Station Usage:
1997/98 - 5,058
1998/99 - 6,412
1999/00 - 6,622
2000/01 - 5,155
2001/02 - 4,815
2002/03 - 4,793
2003/04 - no figures
2004/05 - 2,080
2005/06 - 585
2006/07 - 341
2007-08 onwards, apparently zero, despite DfT's closure document indicating that rail tickets are still available, and are still sold to/from Norton Bridge. Perhaps the station usage figures are unreliable?

2003 onwards indicates the impact of withdrawing a service temporarily (and then not re-instating it through underhand means) and then constantly jiggering about with the bus service.

 

[The Planner]

As SWT has mentioned previously, with the station where it is/was, you wouldn't have been able to do the Norton Bridge upgrade, the station would have had to have moved further south towards Little Bridgeford junction to keep it on both slow lines which moves it away from any population.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Moving the station would not necessarily reduce usage. I would assume that the previous users were not all within walking distance of the present station. Driving an extra few hundred yards to a relocated station would not be a problem nor impact on usage for most previous / existing / potential users.

Had a replacement station been built on the new line, at the same time as the line was being built, the costs would be substantially lower than the £18m quoted in the DfT document - no need to work on operational lines, no possessions required, greenfield site, management and contractors on site anyway and set up with compounds, haul roads etc.

That's all water under the bridge but, yet again, the public has been stuffed by underhand tactics. Just like the closure of Etruria. And the professionals wonder why they are no longer held in high esteem after constantly deploying such 'clever' tactics.

 

[The Planner]

Arguably it probably would have been the thing to do as I expect it would have got the people of Eccleshall using it.

 

[Ianno87]

I wonder how many residents of the immediate area will?

I wonder how many residents of the immediate area used it when it was open?

And I wonder how many current residents remember/realise that there was ever a station there at all (until a nice letter arrives through their doors from the DfT)?