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

[onlinespotting]

I think my issue is that although the station was not well used towards the end, the lack of the bus service will potentially cause elderly people to be stranded in effect, and the unknown future of Wedgwood and Barlaston opens this up wider
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The train stations would be an option for them without the bus service

 

[childwallblues]

Mom

As is Kidsgrove - it's a mystery to me how the ticket office has survived there when there are no other staffed local stations between Derby and Crewe, despite places like Uttoxeter and Blythe Bridge seeming to have far more passengers.

Edit - a quick look at the usage figures shows that Kidsgrove is busier - so that would probably be the reason!

Kidsgrove BO is operated by Northern isn't it?

 

[thenorthern]

Will the DfT give consent to close Norton Bridge Station?

Since privatisation most stations closed without a direct replacement have been minimum service level station with low usage but with Norton Bridge it was getting around 5,000 passengers per year in 1997 and had a semi regular service.

It could in theory therefore be argued that Central Trains and London Midland were to blame for the closure of the station but making it unattractive to use.

Kidsgrove BO is operated by Northern isn't it?

East Midlands Trains.

 

[6Gman]

Will the DfT give consent to close Norton Bridge Station?

Since privatisation most stations closed without a direct replacement have been minimum service level station with low usage but with Norton Bridge it was getting around 5,000 passengers per year in 1997 and had a semi regular service.

It could in theory therefore be argued that Central Trains and London Midland were to blame for the closure of the station but making it unattractive to use.

Isn't that 8 people a day joining trains there and 8 alighting?

Which I would term "low usage".

 

[thenorthern]

Isn't that 8 people a day joining trains there and 8 alighting?

Which I would term "low usage".

It is low yes but remember this is the 1990s when passenger numbers across the whole were less than 1/3 of what they are now and there were many stations with numbers like that such as Atherstone, Peartree, Rugeley Trent Valley and others.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is low yes but remember this is the 1990s when passenger numbers across the whole were less than 1/3 of what they are now and there were many stations with numbers like that such as Atherstone, Peartree, Rugeley Trent Valley and others.

The 2014/5 annual passenger usage of Rugeley Trent Valley was 146,592. I think that you really should not have included that station in the examples quoted above.

 

[thenorthern]

The 2014/5 annual passenger usage of Rugeley Trent Valley was 146,592. I think that you really should not have included that station in the examples quoted above.

Back in 1997 it had 1861 passengers per year compared to Norton Bridge's 5058.

 

[All Line Rover]

Trouble is that Rugeley Trent Valley is a reasonable distance from both Stafford and Lichfield Trent Valley and its location poses no limitations on which WCML services can call there. Norton Bridge is different in both respects.

 

[thenorthern]

Trouble is that Rugeley Trent Valley is a reasonable distance from both Stafford and Lichfield Trent Valley and its location poses no limitations on which WCML services can call there. Norton Bridge is different in both respects.

I know that I was using it as an example of how although in 1997 Norton Bridge station's passenger numbers were rather low but nowhere near low enough to justify closure and it could be argued that Norton Bridge was a viable station in 1997 that TOCs deliberately reduced the number of passengers for so it could be closed.

According to the figures though Wedgwood station was used by 16,000 passengers per year which might not seem alot but like Norton Bridge is not a figure that would justify closure.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

We can say all we want about theories that Norton Bridge's usage figures adjusted for various permutations over the past few years should it have had a train service, but the fact of the matter is that even if the closure proposal does fall through, there's zero chance of it ever hosting a train again as it is, we'll just carry on with the frankly ridiculous situation we've had over the past decade. Perhaps if they'd have factored in a resited station on the new Slow line / flyover alignments you might have had some hope for it (judging by Google Maps though it wouldn't have taken the station any closer to civilisation and I've no idea how accessible the lines are to actually build a station), as it is though the current site has no chance of a northbound train passing through, and unless LM use the chord (I have no idea if they do or plan to) then you're never going to get a local train passing through southbound either, and that's before you magic up funding for the new footbridge (presumably DDA compliant) and however much you'd need to do to the platform after over a decade mothballed. As a standalone scheme I doubt for the usage you could ever justify rebuilding it on the new running lines either. I appreciate people will be concerned about what some locals may do if the RRB vanishes, but it is time to put the final nail in its coffin, certainly as far as a train service is concerned.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Back in 1997 it had 1861 passengers per year compared to Norton Bridge's 5058.

Can you suggest any reason why Rugeley Trent Valley had such an astronomical annual passenger usage increase to 146,952 from 1,861, as that seems way above the norm in the period from 1997 to 2014.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can you suggest any reason why Rugeley Trent Valley had such an astronomical annual passenger usage increase to 146,952 from 1,861, as that seems way above the norm in the period from 1997 to 2014.

Because it went from having an infrequent and fairly useless local service to having a very usable if slightly slow hourly service to London. I think there was also an increase in the Birmingham service.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The 2014/5 annual passenger usage of Rugeley Trent Valley was 146,592. I think that you really should not have included that station in the examples quoted above.

I agree.

Rugeley Trent Valley it should be noted, had 30,694 interchanges however, and serves as a railhead for the town for those travelling WCML rather than Chase Line to Walsall / Birmingham.

Usage figures for intermediate stations along the Trent Valley (Nuneaton to Stoke-on-Trent via Stafford) will have 'unusual' usage figures over the years due to the poor service previously provided (compared to the 'recently' introduced direct, hourly, service to London) and due to the permanent temporary rail replacement bus service along the Stafford to Stoke-on-Trent section.

The figures for Stone show this best. Poor service, then bus service, then a decent service showing a massive rise. I would not expect Norton Bridge to show anything near those figures though!

I don't have timetables to hand but Stafford to Nuneaton was served by a single unit shuttling between the two at times which, if you were lucky, were convenient in both directions for your journey. Otherwise wholly unattractive. No point having a train to work / school / college if you have to wait two hours at the end of the day to return home!

Similarly Stoke-on-Trent to Stafford once had, I think, an hourly service (Birmingham to Manchester all stations) which was cut to a Stoke to Stafford shuttle. Did some extend to Nuneaton?

 

[DarloRich]

While the process of closure must be complied with it is a little preposterous in the case of Norton Bridge. It has been closed for donkeys and is not worth rebuilding.

Can you suggest any reason why Rugeley Trent Valley had such an astronomical annual passenger usage increase to 146,952 from 1,861, as that seems way above the norm in the period from 1997 to 2014.

because it now has a decent LM service on an hourly basis.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Back in 1997 it had 1861 passengers per year compared to Norton Bridge's 5058.

Comparable figures should be used. Average growth figures could be added to the older figures for Norton Bridge but it is easier to use the older figures available and assume growth would have occurred at similar rates to the remainder of the network.

In 1997/98, Norton Bridge was ranked at 271st least used. If we assume it were similarly ranked for 2014/15 that would give it annual usage of 12,464.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We can say all we want about theories that Norton Bridge's usage figures adjusted for various permutations over the past few years should it have had a train service, but the fact of the matter is that even if the closure proposal does fall through, there's zero chance of it ever hosting a train again as it is, we'll just carry on with the frankly ridiculous situation we've had over the past decade. Perhaps if they'd have factored in a resited station on the new Slow line / flyover alignments you might have had some hope for it (judging by Google Maps though it wouldn't have taken the station any closer to civilisation and I've no idea how accessible the lines are to actually build a station), as it is though the current site has no chance of a northbound train passing through, and unless LM use the chord (I have no idea if they do or plan to) then you're never going to get a local train passing through southbound either, and that's before you magic up funding for the new footbridge (presumably DDA compliant) and however much you'd need to do to the platform after over a decade mothballed. As a standalone scheme I doubt for the usage you could ever justify rebuilding it on the new running lines either. I appreciate people will be concerned about what some locals may do if the RRB vanishes, but it is time to put the final nail in its coffin, certainly as far as a train service is concerned.

Compared to the £250m cost for the new line, the cost of providing a suitable station would have been affordable. How much did the new footbridge cost to the north-east of the station, how many people actually use that footpath? and would it not have been cheaper to simply divert the pat through the fields alongside the line instead. Money can always be found when necessary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't that 8 people a day joining trains there and 8 alighting?

Which I would term "low usage".

271st in the list. Should all low usage stations close? That's 1,218,228 entries and exits for 2014/15. Or the equivalent of Chislehurst or Clapham High Street.

 

[thenorthern]

Comparable figures should be used. Average growth figures could be added to the older figures for Norton Bridge but it is easier to use the older figures available and assume growth would have occurred at similar rates to the remainder of the network.

In 1997/98, Norton Bridge was ranked at 271st least used. If we assume it were similarly ranked for 2014/15 that would give it annual usage of 12,464.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Compared to the £250m cost for the new line, the cost of providing a suitable station would have been affordable. How much did the new footbridge cost to the north-east of the station, how many people actually use that footpath? and would it not have been cheaper to simply divert the pat through the fields alongside the line instead. Money can always be found when necessary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


271st in the list. Should all low usage stations close? That's 1,218,228 entries and exits for 2014/15. Or the equivalent of Chislehurst or Clapham High Street.

Difficult to say with the Norton Bridge figures as back then it was just the irregular Stafford to Stoke-on-Trent local service I would expect more now if the London Euston to Crewe local service stopped there.

Currently the bus figures suggest around 2,000 passenger per year are using the station however if the station was reopened I think the figure would be much higher as there would be some traffic from Eccleshall because at present its unlikely someone from Eccleshall would travel to Norton Bridge at the moment to catch a rail replacement bus when they already have the facilities in Eccleshall.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Difficult to say with the Norton Bridge figures as back then it was just the irregular Stafford to Stoke-on-Trent local service I would expect more now if the London Euston to Crewe local service stopped there.

Currently the bus figures suggest around 2,000 passenger per year are using the station however if the station was reopened I think the figure would be much higher as there would be some traffic from Eccleshall because at present its unlikely someone from Eccleshall would travel to Norton Bridge at the moment to catch a rail replacement bus when they already have the facilities in Eccleshall.

The bus usage figures used in the closure document should not be relied on. They are extremely selective in the DfT's favour. They state only passengers using the specific stop outside the station. If you were previously a daily user of the rail service, lived two stops up the road but previously walked to the station to catch the train, would you: a) walk to the station and catch the bus from there or; b) catch the bus at the stop nearest to your home and thus not be caught by the DfT's criteria as a potential user of the future rail service. It's Doctor Beechings cooked books all-over again.

The projected figure for average growth I give above is, therefore, an underestimate. If we factor in the significantly improved train service the figure would be even higher.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Currently the bus figures suggest around 2,000 passenger per year are using the station however if the station was reopened I think the figure would be much higher as there would be some traffic from Eccleshall because at present its unlikely someone from Eccleshall would travel to Norton Bridge at the moment to catch a rail replacement bus when they already have the facilities in Eccleshall.

But if you live in Eccleshall and would drive to Norton Bridge, driving a little further to Stone or Stafford isn't likely to be a major problem (and the London service from Stafford is hugely better).

There genuinely doesn't seem to be any other significant traffic source in the area.

I wouldn't close it if there wasn't a genuinely good reason to in terms of the line rearrangement (which is why Polesworth hacks me off). But to serve it properly you would need to build a new station on the flyover lines (which wouldn't even be in Norton Bridge). It certainly doesn't justify that.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

But if you live in Eccleshall and would drive to Norton Bridge, driving a little further to Stone or Stafford isn't likely to be a major problem (and the London service from Stafford is hugely better).

There genuinely doesn't seem to be any other significant traffic source in the area.

I wouldn't close it if there wasn't a genuinely good reason to in terms of the line rearrangement (which is why Polesworth hacks me off). But to serve it properly you would need to build a new station on the flyover lines. It certainly doesn't justify that.

Free parking at Norton Bridge, especially if a new station had been provided on the new line. Stafford Station is Virgin parking prices, Stone has limited on-street parking, always fully utilised. Traffic congestion heading to Stafford and Stone, none to Norton Bridge.

Better still, why not build the replacement station at the intersection with the HS2 line slightly to the east, where the construction compound / maintenance depot is currently being consulted upon, then you get a North Midlands HS2 parkway interchange. No need to stop HS2 at Stafford, Crewe or Stoke and all the associated expense. Directly fed from the M6. The cost of the replacement Norton Bridge station would be less than loose change down the back of the sofa in the HS2 budget.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Free parking at Norton Bridge, especially if a new station had been provided on the new line. Stafford Station is Virgin parking prices, Stone has limited on-street parking, always fully utilised. Traffic congestion heading to Stafford and Stone, none to Norton Bridge.

I recognise the congestion issue, but excessive parking charges are not a reason to spend a fortune building a new station. It would be cheaper to subsidise a parking charge discount for people able to prove they live in the affected area.

In any case those parking charges may be a price worth paying for the improved service from Stafford. There are after all enough people who drive to MKC rather than Bletchley despite parking at the latter being about half the price.

And would the inhabitants of a quiet village want it turning into a massive Parkway like Tring? They might well be happier to lose their station than that.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

In any case those parking charges may be a price worth paying for the improved service from Stafford. There are after all enough people who drive to MKC rather than Bletchley despite parking at the latter being about half the price..

I've been to Bletchley (Bletchley Park by train). I wouldn't leave your car anywhere near the place, never mind my own! But perhaps the car park is better than the high street?

And would the inhabitants of a quiet village want it turning into a massive Parkway like Tring?

I suspect not, especially all the new residents in the new 'executive' ghetto at Yarnfield. The most recent arrivals to greenfield housing developments are generally the most vociferous objectors to any further development spoiling 'their' village.

 

[DarloRich]

I've been to Bletchley (Bletchley Park by train). I wouldn't leave your car anywhere near the place, never mind my own! But perhaps the car park is better than the high street?

what are you talking about? Bletchley Park is in a decent residential area and the station has a secure, camera monitored, 2 level car park. Car crime is quite low in the area generally and most of the residential streets have a parking permit system.

There is more crime at the car parks near MK station that in Bletchley!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In any case those parking charges may be a price worth paying for the improved service from Stafford. There are after all enough people who drive to MKC rather than Bletchley despite parking at the latter being about half the price.

it is easier to get to from the main roads and offers faster and more frequent trains to London and Birmingham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've been to Bletchley (Bletchley Park by train). I wouldn't leave your car anywhere near the place, never mind my own! But perhaps the car park is better than the high street?

Don't be fooled by the high street, which is basically charity-shop-central because all of the significant shopping has moved away, either to MKC or the Stadium development (the latter is arguably now the de-facto Bletchley high street). Bletchley is actually quite a reasonable place. Just under the railway bridge and up the hill and there are some very expensive and large houses, for instance, and two large premium new developments on Bletchley Park's old land (this is how they have funded making it what it now is). Your car is absolutely fine left there. And to add to that the station car park has CCTV.

And given that I live in Bletchley my car is left there all the time, thus far without any theft or vandalism

 

[The Planner]

Everyone would have had suitable chances to object or put forward a new station site. The re-modelling of Norton Bridge would have gone through public inquiry, TWAO/DCO etc etc... was there any local pressure from councils, user groups etc? I assume not.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Everyone would have had suitable chances to object or put forward a new station site. The re-modelling of Norton Bridge would have gone through public inquiry, TWAO/DCO etc etc... was there any local pressure from councils, user groups etc? I assume not.

You are correct but did anyone state that Norton Bridge was to close as part of the DCO process? It could clearly be inferred, given that the new lines are the slow lines, that stopping services are generally placed on the slow lines, and that the whole purpose of the scheme was to increase capacity / remove conflicts etc.

You can only object (or make representations) on what is proposed at the time, that actual scheme as set out in drawings and documents, not some inferred impact sometime down the line. The proposals for the new line did not preclude Norton Bridge from being served in future, as the reversible chord clearly allows this, however unlikely. To propose an additional station in addition to the existing Norton Bridge station would have been dismissed as wasteful without a statement from Network Rail / Franchisee / DfT that Norton Bridge would not be served as a result of the proposals being put forward.

 

[The Planner]

So why couldn't have anyone have asked "if you are building this, will trains now call at Norton Bridge?"

 

[Baxenden Bank]

So why couldn't have anyone have asked "if you are building this, will trains now call at Norton Bridge?"

Perhaps they did.

Regardless, I can write the official reply for you now:

Nothing in the proposed scheme precludes the provision of services at Norton Bridge.

Whether you then add further information is up to you. Not recommended as the more you say, the more you commit yourself to future actions and open up further opportunities for 'representations'.

For example the reply could include reference to the franchise agreement requiring X, the RUS suggesting Y, the DfT policy of Z, that station closures were not on the national agenda, that no closure proposals have been published, or that no closure procedures were being considered at that time. Always a useful phrase, at that time . Is that this second, minute, hour, week, month, year or eternity?

I've just had an awful conspiracy theory thought. Does the reversible chord, with all its £0.5m per time point ends, exist purely to get the DCO approved without having to deal with the closure of Norton Bridge Station as part of the process?

 

[DarloRich]

To all intents and purposes the station has been closed since 2004. Does it serve any decent sized communities and is it worth the cost of rebuilding it. I would suggest no. I don't like to see stations close on an emotional level but practically what is the point of spending the money to rebuild a station to modern standards that few will use?

 

[The Planner]

I've just had an awful conspiracy theory thought. Does the reversible chord, with all its £0.5m per time point ends, exist purely to get the DCO approved without having to deal with the closure of Norton Bridge Station as part of the process?

Take the tin foil hat off, it's there to allow the flyover to be closed for maintenance and still have a route to/from Stone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

it is easier to get to from the main roads and offers faster and more frequent trains to London and Birmingham.

Indeed so. My point was that they are happy to pay for that privilege, just as those from the surrounding area of Stafford are likely to be willing to pay for the vastly superior service that has over what would be Norton Bridge's absolute best case once the LM timetable is reshuffled to allow 8-car on the Crewes, which is an hourly 4-car 350/2 to either Crewe/Liverpool or Birmingham.