Closure of Teesside Airport station

[mailbyrail]

Does anyone know when the station lost its last remaining eastbound train

My record shows Teesside Airport as

from 10/12/2017 reduced to only one Sundays Only Up train
Down platform officially out of use from 28 December 2019

 

[DarloRich]

When station 'usage' (based on ticket sales) is only in single or double figures over a year, I find it difficult to feel there's a problem.

there is, in my view, a problem closing a station without using the defined closure process.

How that stands in law when it comes to station closures would be something for the courts to decide, should someone wish to make a case of it.

At some point they will close a station that you do care about using these means. I have no problem closing stations ( except mine!) but the correct process should be followed.

 

[bearhugger]

Within the last couple of weeks, Loganair have cancelled flights to Heathrow over landing fees, which have increased. Full story in this link. Just shows how easy it can be to lose flights.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Within the last couple of weeks, Loganair have cancelled flights to Heathrow over landing fees, which have increased. Full story in this link. Just shows how easy it can be to lose flights.

The airport is pretty pointless, really. It should close and be replaced with an "eco village" centred on an upgraded station.

 

[ainsworth74]

Within the last couple of weeks, Loganair have cancelled flights to Heathrow over landing fees, which have increased. Full story in this link. Just shows how easy it can be to lose flights.

Bit off-topic here so I suggest seeing this thread:

Teesside Airport: London and Southampton routes cut by Loganair

In a truly shocking development: Teesside Airport's London route cancelled by Loganair A MAJOR route from a North East airport to London has shockingly been cancelled due to a sharp increase in costs which made it “unviable” to continue. Teesside Airport’s route to the capital has been...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[bearhugger]

Bit off-topic here so I suggest seeing this thread:

Teesside Airport: London and Southampton routes cut by Loganair

In a truly shocking development: Teesside Airport's London route cancelled by Loganair A MAJOR route from a North East airport to London has shockingly been cancelled due to a sharp increase in costs which made it “unviable” to continue. Teesside Airport’s route to the capital has been...

www.railforums.co.uk

Thanks, I've never looked at that subsection of the forum before.

 

[SargeNpton]

How that stands in law when it comes to station closures would be something for the courts to decide, should someone wish to make a case of it.

At some point they will close a station that you do care about using these means. I have no problem closing stations ( except mine!) but the correct process should be followed.

But I've never said that I don't care about this sort of station closure. There are 20 or more stations on private land, all of which could have their services effectively suspended if the landowners decided that they no longer wished to allow the public to cross their land to get to/from the station. If there is no protection in law for that access then the current processes for station closures are immaterial.

It may be that for some of those stations there is a covenant that guarantees right of way for rail passengers, but for others (especially those within industrial/commercial boundaries) there probably isn't - and was perhaps overlooked when the closure processes were devised.

 

[Graham H]

Marine to Harbour stations, ramp to ramp, was around 160m. Marine was really just an extra platform for Harbour, dedicated to ferry traffic, but, because it was on a line constructed under a different, later, Act of Parliament than that establishing Harbour station, it was classed as a separate entity legally so was subject to the full closure process, unlike many places where a platform has been removed from a station that otherwise remains without such formalities.

Without wishing to divert the thread there is a Dick Emery sketch on you tube where the station announcer is clearly calling out Newhaven Harbour and a platform 3 sign visible so for some period at least, Marine station was indeed considered an adjunct to the harbour.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Without wishing to divert the thread there is a Dick Emery sketch on you tube where the station announcer is clearly calling out Newhaven Harbour and a platform 3 sign visible so for some period at least, Marine station was indeed considered an adjunct to the harbour.

The Dick Emery sketch was evidently filmed before 1984 (*), which was the year that Newhaven Harbour (Boat Station) was renamed as 'Newhaven Marine'.

It had also sometimes been referred to as Platform 3 of Newhaven Harbour station.

(*) FWIW, Dick Emery died in 1983.

 

[Poolie]

And going totally off topic the Monty Python Communist Quiz doesn't hold up because Coventry City did win the FA cup after the sketch was broadcast.........still have to laugh

 

[Meole]

Does the line itself justify retention ? Appears to be little used, both Darlington and Teeside stations have direct access both north and south.

 

[Watershed]

Does the line itself justify retention ? Appears to be little used, both Darlington and Teeside stations have direct access both north and south.

Whilst it undoubtedly makes quite a loss (as with most other regional lines) it's certainly not as high up the list as the likes of the Whitby line...

 

[Darandio]

Does the line itself justify retention ? Appears to be little used, both Darlington and Teeside stations have direct access both north and south.

Speaking as a regular user or looking from afar? It's actually very well used.

 

[ainsworth74]

Does the line itself justify retention ? Appears to be little used, both Darlington and Teeside stations have direct access both north and south.

If we're going to shut the line then we're going to be closing an awful lot of other railway lines at the same time considering its no more a "drain" on resources than a dozen or more other similar lines.

 

[Haywain]

Does the line itself justify retention ? Appears to be little used, both Darlington and Teeside stations have direct access both north and south.

Undoubtedly it justifies retention, it is an important link between Middlesbrough and the East Coast main line.

 

[Howardh]

As a mere outsider, if you have a station near an airport that no-one uses because there's no link between them, make a link? Either dedicated shuttle buses or a moving walkway? Why close the station down when you could make money out of it through increased ticket sales??

Will admit though it's on a bit of a useless line where those coming from the south would have to change (Darlington for one) but a frequent Stockton/Teeside/Darlington shuttle would counter that?

I'd use it as an alternative to Manchester Airport but it's just that bit too far away. If only Leeds/Bradford had a direct rail link!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a mere outsider, if you have a station near an airport that no-one uses because there's no link between them, make a link? Either dedicated shuttle buses or a moving walkway?

I believe it was tried and didn't work. The same is true of East Midlands Parkway which has been an utter flop in just about every way - there was a dedicated bus but it's long gone as nobody used it.

 

[Haywain]

As a mere outsider, if you have a station near an airport that no-one uses because there's no link between them, make a link?

The problem is that insufficient people use the airport at all.

a frequent Stockton/Teeside/Darlington shuttle would counter that?

The line has a reasonably frequent service of exactly that nature.

 

[swt_passenger]

I believe it was tried and didn't work.

It doesn’t really work as an airport either…

 

[Howardh]

The problem is that insufficient people use the airport at all.

Why not? Not enough flights? Go to the wrong places? maybe even lack of rail connectivity?!

We could do with shifting people away from Manchester and Leeds right now - Manchester in particular can't cope at peak times; might be an idea to divert flights to Teeside - put on free shuttles and take the pressure off. That being said, Teeside would need more of what Manchester hasn't got...staff!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not? Not enough flights? Go to the wrong places? maybe even lack of rail connectivity?!

It's pointless as an airport - too small and serving too small an area to get a decent number of flights when you've got Newcastle, Manchester, Doncaster-Sheffield and Leeds-Bradford within reasonably easy reach. Flattening it and building an eco-town (centred on a reinstated station) would be a better plan.

We could do with shifting people away from Manchester and Leeds right now - Manchester in particular can't cope at peak times; might be an idea to divert flights to Teeside - put on free shuttles and take the pressure off. That being said, Teeside would need more of what Manchester hasn't got...staff!!

The problem with Manchester Airport is solely one of staffing. The infrastructure is perfectly capable of coping with the traffic and has done for years.

 

[Agent_Squash]

It's pointless as an airport - too small and serving too small an area to get a decent number of flights when you've got Newcastle, Manchester, Doncaster-Sheffield and Leeds-Bradford within reasonably easy reach. Flattening it and building an eco-town (centred on a reinstated station) would be a better plan.

It's hardly pointless - it's one of the busiest airports for air freight in the UK...

 

[ainsworth74]

It's hardly pointless - it's one of the busiest airports for air freight in the UK...

Erm, according to the Civil Aviation Authorities own stats less than 1 tonne of cargo was moved through Teesside Airport in 2021...

See attached (source).

 

[mde]

Northern have disclosed a range of reports from Network Rail under FoIA today - along with some correspondence with the airport, who are perhaps 'reluctant' to pay to fix the station.

It is clear that the station platforms are in a poor state of repair and requires a vast amount of remedial
work to bring it up to a safe standard. The most immediate cause for concern is the possible movement
and distortion of the platform concrete piers, which in worst case scenario could lead to a structure
collapse. Another immediate cause for concern would be the severe wet rot to the plywood platform
surface, which to Platform 02 has not been appropriately repaired; this is likely to lead to a passenger or
a member of the rail staff tripping on the defective surface, potentially falling onto the adjacent track.


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/858643/response/2049537/attach/5/63NAE0520 TEE 04 2122 Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 (page 2)

TIAL requires three options to be costed:
o Option 1 – full demolition and removal.
o Option 2 – demolition of bridge and northside platform, with repair of southside platform.
o Option 3 – full repair.
 TIAL will require advice from Network Rail on the ‘legislative’ implications of each option – i.e, for example,
would Option 2 enable the station to stay ‘open’ or would those works constitute closure?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/858643/response/2049550/attach/7/Email 12 Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 (page 2)

 

[ainsworth74]

Cripes!

I know the footfall is extremely low but as its an operational platform theoretically we could stop there in an emergency to detrain customers (up to 200 on a busy 158 service) and judging by the report its extremely likely this could cause the platform to collapse.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Erm, according to the Civil Aviation Authorities own stats less than 1 tonne of cargo was moved through Teesside Airport in 2021...

See attached (source).

I was reading East Midlands Parkway - doh!

 

[ainsworth74]

I was reading East Midlands Parkway - doh!

I did wonder

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was reading East Midlands Parkway - doh!

Yes, the station has been a flop but in that case the airport is valuable even if it doesn't have much of a passenger service.

 

[mde]

Cripes!

I did ponder if that might have been an attempt at “centring minds”, given the Airport’s apparent reluctance to spend any money on an asset they had responsibility for…

As can be noted from an even older Northern email chain, this isn’t a new problem either - a previous operator (Peel) had a similar reticence to part with funds:

You may remember that a couple of months ago we were asked to consider the closure of Teesside Airport Railway Station. This was because the station is only served by one train on Sunday and is officially the nation’s fourth lowest footfall station. Last year we saw only 98 people through the station, the year before it was 32 and officially the nation’s lowest. The increase this year being solely due to a visit made by and his friends from Chester- le-Street to the station last autumn; they actually hired a coach to take them home again!

The real issue is not footfall however, it is the unique tenancy arrangements in place at the station.

Whilst the station belongs to Network Rail and is built on Network Rail’s land. It was built specially at the behest of the then Airport Authority (at that time part of the now defunct Cleveland County Council). There was no viable business case for the venture, so the British Railway Board (BRB) would only build the station on the strict understanding that the airport maintained and renewed it.

Since it was opened in 1971 the airport was sold and is now owned by Peel Holdings, but the liability for the station still stands with them. It would appear that BRB were correct because the station never attracted significant numbers, even when the airport was thriving. No it gets its Parliamentary service and the airport only sees seven return flights per day, serving Aberdeen (for the oil industry) and Amsterdam through KLM for longer distance connections. Last year just 132,369 passengers used the airport; whilst in the same year Newcastle Airport handled 4,807,906.

The maintenance liability is becoming onerous however, with Network Rail claiming that the entire structure (predominantly constructed of steel) is fast becoming unsafe.

Therefore Peel Holdings want to close the station and ask Network Rail to dismantle it.
This gives us several potential issues/questions:
 Actions Short of Closure: If we were to close this station we could be mired in potential controversy; plus the fact that regenerating (actually purchasing) the airport is a key proposal of the new elected mayor, any closure is unlikely to be supported. One possible shortcut would be to cease calling at the far platform and only use the Darlington (west) bound platform. This would mean that the footbridge and the Middlesbrough bound platform could be closed and possibly removed. Network Rail were good with this concept, as it would not be a closure per se, and should traffic return Peel Holdings would remain responsible for funding the station’s resurrection; as they would for the maintenance of the remaining platform. Question: tells me we would not be in breach of our franchise by changing calls to the westbound services. is our SLA ok with it and could we change the calls in May 18 (or sooner)?

 Reputation: There is a risk here because despite it being the right thing to do (it serves no purpose now) closing the station may cause friction locally, especially with the new Combined Authority and the Mayor’s
plans. Therefore whilst I think we should support the scheme in principle, we will not lead on it, there is no tangible saving to us and any focus on low footfall will be met with “well run more trains then”. The truth is we could stop everything there but it would not make a difference as the station is still a mile from the airport’s entrance and as said above, nothing really flies from there anymore!

 Next Steps: Peel Holdings intend to progress the scheme to close the station they have a Board Meeting on the 20th Oct when representatives from all five Teesside Authorities (who sit on the Board) will be there. Their play will be quite simple and brutal, the liability incumbent with the station could put the entire future of the airport at risk. Peel are confident of this as they used the same argument successfully (and perfectly legitimately) when they closed down the airport’s final salary pension scheme last year. I expressed my fears that the Combined Authority may say no, and if they do then we couldn’t support the scheme, therefore we will go to meet TVCA with Peel’s stakeholder person, to see how the ground lies. Of course this all may become moot if we can stop trains on the westbound platform, as this would take away the lion’s share of the station’s maintenance cost.

Sorry this has been a bit of a ramble, but the subject is a tad complex and the risk is real; plus unless we are careful, we will be a somewhat downstream from Peel’s actions

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ.../3/Email 20 Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 (page 3)

 

[Watershed]

Some of those email chains are rather revealing about the rail industry's priorities!

The one question that was raised was if we go to RNP with our internal comms would that be confidential and not put into the public arena, they are very keen that the messaging is joint and essentially they don’t want the public finding out before any joint comms are put out