Blaydon and Dunston stations

[thenorthern]

As of today (8th of December) Dunston and Blaydon stations are being served regularly by Northern Rail which made me think how much will the amount of passengers using the stations increase now and will it pay off?

It also made me think are there any other lightly served stations where if more services called there there would be a large amount more passengers using the station.

 

[edwin_m]

Most of the lightly served stations are in rural areas where quite probably there isn't enough catchment to justify more frequent stops (edit: although I see from another topic that Manea now has a better service!). Off the top of my head I can't think of any others in urban areas that have a reasonably frequent passing service that could be stopped, except perhaps Peartree.

 

[Stats]

I have always thought that Cramlington has a lot of suppressed demand from poor frequencies - especially during the morning peak - and poor rolling stock.

 

[W-on-Sea]

Of the one-train-a-day, each way, halts on the North Cotswolds line, I'd expect Finstock (despite its proximity to Charlbury - although it would really need a car park, and probably better promotion of the reasonably decent bus service it has) and Ascott-under-Wychwood to have quite some scope for growth if the train service became more usable. (That Ascott is on one of the re-duelled stretch of the line may help: the new platforms there are possibly lengthier than at the other halts, too). Combe probably doesn't offer such hope, though: the station is both remote (in terms of its micro-location: on a country lane some way outside the village from which it takes its name) and rather close (for drivers) to Hanborough.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I warmly welcome the increased frequency of stops at Blaydon, now 10 each way each day, rather than just 2 in the morning and one in the evening until now (though it might help even more commuters if the 6:25 from Carlisle arriving Newcastle at 08:04 also stopped at Blaydon). I hope it does bring more passengers onto the trains.

The real barrier to increased use of Blaydon station now isn't to be found in the rail service - its the access to the station, which is cut off from the town by the high-speed dual carriage way, the A695 'Blaydon Highway'.
So very near, but so hard to reach.

[Yes, there is a footbridge over the A695, but its a very long walk, highly exposed to any miserable weather, and it doesn't connect with the station footbridge which connects the 2 platforms.]

 

[HowardGWR]

I warmly welcome the increased frequency of stops at Blaydon, now 10 each way each day, rather than just 2 in the morning and one in the evening until now (though it might help even more commuters if the 6:25 from Carlisle arriving Newcastle at 08:04 also stopped at Blaydon). I hope it does bring more passengers onto the trains.

The real barrier to increased use of Blaydon station now isn't to be found in the rail service - its the access to the station, which is cut off from the town by the high-speed dual carriage way, the A695 'Blaydon Highway'.
So very near, but so hard to reach.

[Yes, there is a footbridge over the A695, but its a very long walk, highly exposed to any miserable weather, and it doesn't connect with the station footbridge which connects the 2 platforms.]

Do they run a shuttle bus over there. Otherwise I agree it's barmy. Why did they not put the station near the roundabout - and where's the car park?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Why did they not put the station near the roundabout - and where's the car park?

Well, I guess the railway was there first!
The car park is on the opposite side of the dual carriageway from the station, along with the bus station, the shops, banks, cycle racks, cafes and of course the homes where Blaydon folk work and the businesses where they work.

 

[HowardGWR]

Well, I guess the railway was there first!
The car park is on the opposite side of the dual carriageway from the station, along with the bus station, the shops, banks, cycle racks, cafes and of course the homes where Blaydon folk work and the businesses where they work.

I've had another look. You'd get soaked, walking across there and how dispiriting the whole layout looks. Perhaps I'm being unfair to the planners but it really looks inhuman to me.

 

[Eagle]

Off the top of my head I can't think of any others in urban areas that have a reasonably frequent passing service that could be stopped, except perhaps Peartree.

Bordesley and Ardwick are frequently mentioned in this respect.

The increase for Blaydon and Dunston follows a similar increase for Manors a couple of years ago.

 

[thenorthern]

Peartree is a good example and I reckon Polesworth would have more passengers if more trains stopped Dronfield has got much better now more trains stop there.

I think Longport would be so much better if Northern and London Midland stopped there but thats just personal opinion.

 

[Eagle]

Polesworth is a rural village station with no obvious catchment area (all larger settlements nearby have their own stations). I'm not sure how many extra passengers you could attract by stopping more trains there. At best you'd just attract passengers who would have gone to Tamworth or Wilnecote.

 

[thenorthern]

Polesworth is a rural village station with no obvious catchment area (all larger settlements nearby have their own stations). I'm not sure how many extra passengers you could attract by stopping more trains there. At best you'd just attract passengers who would have gone to Tamworth or Wilnecote.

Polesworth is quite big as well as the villages around Polesworth like Dordon. When I lived in Wood End I used Polesworth a couple of times.

If it can get 1000 passengers a year with 1 train per day I think with more trains it could get more than 40,000.

 

[Eagle]

Yes, but as I say, most of those will be existing rail passengers.

 

[Jonny]

I was thinking Chester-le-Street on the ECML (which happens to be my local station) is in a similar position, very much suffering from the poor service off peak (OK so the am peak to Newcastle is pretty good, but a 17:32 to 18:52 gap (dep. NCL, arrive CLS 17:41 or 19:01 respectively) at Newcastle is awkward for someone who might be leaving the office at 6pm) and not falling within the current TWPTE/Nexus area (although the local authority has begun to push for improvements, and an expansion of the PTE area to cover Chester-le-Street is on the cards (with the NECAT scheme due to cover Northumberland and County Durham)).

Sure, I would like to see what happens in May 2014 when TPE service levels basically double but I can see some scope to stop more services that fit within the (relativley short) platform length without making much of an impact on performance or journey times of trains on that route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Polesworth is a rural village station with no obvious catchment area (all larger settlements nearby have their own stations). I'm not sure how many extra passengers you could attract by stopping more trains there. At best you'd just attract passengers who would have gone to Tamworth or Wilnecote.

Ah, but you save them having to go to the other station. It then takes the strain off the other station, particularly if that station has a better service but an awkward and/or congested surrounding road layout or approach. I would dare to say that Chester-le-Street is in a similar position on both sides (Durham and Newcastle).

 

[edwin_m]

Ah, but you save them having to go to the other station. It then takes the strain off the other station, particularly if that station has a better service but an awkward and/or congested surrounding road layout or approach. I would dare to say that Chester-le-Street is in a similar position on both sides (Durham and Newcastle).

You may do that, but the benefits to society of a passenger boarding at new station B instead of existing station A are much less than those of a passenger who previously made their entire journey by car or didn't travel at all. The train operator may be worse off (hence requiring more subsidy or less premium) if the fare for the journey made is less from B than from A.

In both cases any benefit from the new station needs to be offset against the disbenefit of a slower journey for those who are travelling through B but have no wish to board or alight, and the increase in station and train operating costs.

I agree Chester-le-Street sounds a good candidate for a better service. Driving into either Newcastle or Durham is difficult so there should be a fair number of both local and longer-distance journeys attracted from the car and my guess is these would comfortably outnumber those who previously caught the train from a different station. The reason Chester-le-Street has few calls today is down to the operational difficulties of stopping there.

 

[Eagle]

Sure, I would like to see what happens in May 2014 when TPE service levels basically double but I can see some scope to stop more services that fit within the (relativley short) platform length without making much of an impact on performance or journey times of trains on that route.

TPE aren't doubling the service to Newcastle, the Liverpool to Newcastle train they're introducing is at the expense of cutting the Manchester Airport to Newcastle train back to York.

 

[thenorthern]

Bromsgrove has definitely benefited from more trains stopping there. I often hear Nuneaton and Tamworth should have more WCML trains stopping there but I doubt that is ever going to happen.

 

[YorkshireBear]

TPE aren't doubling the service to Newcastle, the Liverpool to Newcastle train they're introducing is at the expense of cutting the Manchester Airport to Newcastle train back to York.

Yep.

But in Dec 2016, it will double. Maybe he was getting that mixed up.

 

[tractakid]

I find it somewhat amusing that despite both stations receiving a greatly improved service each, they only manage two trains per day between them despite being only two stops apart. :P

 

[thenorthern]

I find it somewhat amusing that despite both stations receiving a greatly improved service each, they only manage two trains per day between them despite being only two stops apart. :P

I would never see the two of them as stations that would be common to travel between personally.

In an ideal world there would be a Ryton station as well.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Ryton station wouldn't get any use at all, which is most of the reason why it was shut in the first place. It is a very steep walk up through the woods to Ryton village, there is nothing by the railway apart from the old ferry house at the end of Ryton Meadows.

You could probably just about justify a station at Stella, because of the industrial units and the massive housing estate on the site of Stella South power station, not to mention Newburn village on the other side of the river. But even then you'd be struggling really.

Chester le Street should have an hourly train service with all TPE trains calling there. I don't know why this doesn't currently happen, but it needs to happen and fast. When Go North East can run, commercially, a bus every 10 minutes to Newcastle, it gives you some idea of the demand.

 

[Jonny]

TPE aren't doubling the service to Newcastle, the Liverpool to Newcastle train they're introducing is at the expense of cutting the Manchester Airport to Newcastle train back to York.

I'm guessing that they couldn't get the paths then... apparently they're going to have 185s to spare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yep.

But in Dec 2016, it will double. Maybe he was getting that mixed up.

I probably did, it will be interesting to see what happens when the cascades out of Lancashire/Greater Manchester start (that will be the approximate timetable)...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What I would ideally like to see is something 100mph-capable, running as stoppers along the ECML and covering the North-of-York section, ideally all the way to Berwick. It seems so inefficient that a lot of journeys "under the wires" (on 25kV AC lines) are run with diesels. The trouble is that when Tyne Valley electrification is considered, it is an "all-or-nothing" approach when a stage-wise approach, possibly along with line speed-raising works (the speeds seem low for such a straight line west of Blaydon; OK there are a few tight bends) might deliver more benefits.

As an aside, is there ever likely to be the scope to put a third platform line in at Metro Centre (as in the former Gateshead Metrocentre)? This would mean that a train coming in from the Dunston/Newcastle direction with a booked turnaround would be able to turn around without affecting through services.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm guessing that they couldn't get the paths then... apparently they're going to have 185s to spare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I probably did, it will be interesting to see what happens when the cascades out of Lancashire/Greater Manchester start (that will be the approximate timetable)...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What I would ideally like to see is something 100mph-capable, running as stoppers along the ECML and covering the North-of-York section, ideally all the way to Berwick. It seems so inefficient that a lot of journeys "under the wires" (on 25kV AC lines) are run with diesels. The trouble is that when Tyne Valley electrification is considered, it is an "all-or-nothing" approach when a stage-wise approach, possibly along with line speed-raising works (the speeds seem low for such a straight line west of Blaydon; OK there are a few tight bends) might deliver more benefits.

As an aside, is there ever likely to be the scope to put a third platform line in at Metro Centre (as in the former Gateshead Metrocentre)? This would mean that a train coming in from the Dunston/Newcastle direction with a booked turnaround would be able to turn around without affecting through services.

The spare 185s plus the ones saved by reducing the Newcastle service to York will be used to create a Newcastle to Liverpool service. via Victoria.

2016 that service becomes two trains per hour.

2018 those services becomes electric with the completion of North Transpennine electrification. But i digress this is not for this thread.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The Tyne Valley will never be electrified, I can't imagine anyone ever being able to make the business case for it. As for a third platform at MetroCentre, the station would have to be rebuilt from scratch as there isn't enough room due to the existing buildings on the coach park side of the station. Again, I can't see the business case being made for it, especially as the MetroCentre shuttles never have anybody on them anyway.

 

[Buttsy]

Of the one-train-a-day, each way, halts on the North Cotswolds line, I'd expect Finstock (despite its proximity to Charlbury - although it would really need a car park, and probably better promotion of the reasonably decent bus service it has) and Ascott-under-Wychwood to have quite some scope for growth if the train service became more usable. (That Ascott is on one of the re-duelled stretch of the line may help: the new platforms there are possibly lengthier than at the other halts, too). Combe probably doesn't offer such hope, though: the station is both remote (in terms of its micro-location: on a country lane some way outside the village from which it takes its name) and rather close (for drivers) to Hanborough.

Since the redoubling of Charlbury - Ascott, I'm at a loss to see why the short workings to Moreton-in-Marsh haven't had stops at Ascott and Shipton added in to see if there is any off-peak demand at these stations. There seems to be sufficient lay-over time in Moreton to allow for the extra stops in both directions.

With regard to Chester-le-le-Street, once there are sufficient EMUs available, could the current Morpeth services be run by an EMU to Durham rather than a DMU to Metro Centre?

 

[SeanG]

As an aside, is there ever likely to be the scope to put a third platform line in at Metro Centre (as in the former Gateshead Metrocentre)? This would mean that a train coming in from the Dunston/Newcastle direction with a booked turnaround would be able to turn around without affecting through services.

I can't think of the space to be honest

 

[thenorthern]

I still think a Gateshead station on the Derwentwater Road area would be a good for Gateshead council to be able to tell people visiting to travel to Gateshead station and not to Newcastle or MetroCentre stations.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Derwentwater Road is not Gateshead. Building a station there isn't the daftest idea I've ever heard, but it is pretty close.

Morpeth trains could run to Durham, though they would have to get across the flat junction from the down main to the up platform to turn around. Pathing issues mean that they probably wouldn't. Using platform 4a at Darlington may be more likely and sensible, to help with connections to Middlesbrough.

I also agree that an all-stations EMU from York or Darlington to Edinburgh would be a very good idea, allowing the EC/XC trains to run faster than they do now. Pathing would possibly be an issue though.

 

[william]

Derwentwater Road is not Gateshead. Building a station there isn't the daftest idea I've ever heard, but it is pretty close.

Morpeth trains could run to Durham, though they would have to get across the flat junction from the down main to the up platform to turn around. Pathing issues mean that they probably wouldn't. Using platform 4a at Darlington may be more likely and sensible, to help with connections to Middlesbrough.

I also agree that an all-stations EMU from York or Darlington to Edinburgh would be a very good idea, allowing the EC/XC trains to run faster than they do now. Pathing would possibly be an issue though.

Or run direct to Middlesbrough from Durham via Stillington, leaving the ECML at Ferryhill.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Not sure you'd get very far down the Stillington line in an EMU