Closure of Teesside Airport station

[Basil Jet]

How busy was Southend Airport when they opened a railway station there?

It had 42k passengers in 2011

Teesside appeared to be 3x the size pre-covid

In my opinion, the airport, the station, repairs and possible relocation are for the local political hierarchy to lead on funding for. A station might not be the best value for current numbers but future forecasted numbers may be more supportive

Southend Airport station is also the local station for a fair number of houses, unlike Teesside Airport.

 

[Trainfan2019]

Is there any reason why the station wasn't built nearer, in a more convenient location to Teesside Airport? Surely when it was being planned and built, it could have been in a more suitable location.

 

[skyhigh]

Is there any reason why the station wasn't built nearer, in a more convenient location to Teesside Airport? Surely when it was being planned and built, it could have been in a more suitable location.

Not knowing the local area personally, but looking on Google Maps I can't see an obviously better location for it

 

[AlterEgo]

Is there any reason why the station wasn't built nearer, in a more convenient location to Teesside Airport? Surely when it was being planned and built, it could have been in a more suitable location.

Where would you have built it?

 

[Watershed]

The closure is apparently due to the remaining platform having being been condemned. A friend of mine passed by the station today, and remarked that the reason for the condemnation was not obvious to him. In fact, the platform remains accessible to the public (see attached images which he sent me).

Whilst admittedly not in great condition, it certainly does not seem any worse than other wooden-platformed stations of a similar era and design. So the sudden closure is rather perplexing.

Is there any reason why the station wasn't built nearer, in a more convenient location to Teesside Airport? Surely when it was being planned and built, it could have been in a more suitable location.

As with many airports in Britain, the railway crosses the runway approach path at an oblique angle - or rather, the other way around as the railway definitely came first, being part of the Stockton & Darlington which opened in 1825 - and the terminal is halfway along the runway.

With runways at commercial airports typically being on the order of 1.5 - 2 miles long, that means there's a considerable walk, no matter where you position the station on the line. Given the relative position of the runway, terminal and railway line, the station couldn't really be much closer without having its own branch.

The question we should really be asking is - why did they twice refurbish the terminal (effectively rendering it brand new) in the same position as the old one, rather than building a new terminal closer to the station? It's not as if there is a shortage of available land around the airport.

Whilst the airport and hence the station is never going to be massively busy, there are some quick wins here that aren't being taken up. For all that the Mayor talks about sustainability, he hasn't even bothered to organise a minibus to shuttle between the station and the terminal, let alone pushing Northern to run a useable train service.

As for the footbridge, it surely would not be beyond the wit of mankind to erect a temporary structure, as was used at Workington North for example, if it is deemed to expensive to repair the existing footbridge.

 

[thenorthern]

The Office of Rail and Road are the ones who decide closure and if the contract is being met or not. They would only likely investigate if someone made a complaint.

 

[Haywain]

Is there any reason why the station wasn't built nearer, in a more convenient location to Teesside Airport? Surely when it was being planned and built, it could have been in a more suitable location.

When it opened in 1971 the location was probably considered quite convenient. However. I would guess that usage of the station would have been fairly low then and reducing as car ownership and the availability of other airports, such as Newcastle, increased.

 

[The exile]

How busy was Southend Airport when they opened a railway station there?

It had 42k passengers in 2011

Teesside appeared to be 3x the size pre-covid

In my opinion, the airport, the station, repairs and possible relocation are for the local political hierarchy to lead on funding for. A station might not be the best value for current numbers but future forecasted numbers may be more supportive

The essential difference is surely that Southend Airport station was built and paid for by the Airport operators, wasn’t it? He who pays the piper….

 

[alistairlees]

In the next week Teesside Airport has 48 departures - fewer than 7 a day. It's the only airport where I've ever seen a whole week's departures on one page.

There are 52 departures from Newcastle tomorrow (Monday 2nd May), 44 from Leeds / Bradford, and 238 from Manchester.

 

[AndyW33]

When it opened in 1971 the location was probably considered quite convenient. However. I would guess that usage of the station would have been fairly low then and reducing as car ownership and the availability of other airports, such as Newcastle, increased.

The passenger terminal was close to the station in 1971. Then the airport owners relocated the passenger terminal to a different part of the airfield that is quite some way away from the station, which rather shows how small a proportion of air passengers started/finished their journeys by train even then, or they'd have chosen a different site. There isn't any way of getting the station nearer to the current passenger terminal without completely rerouting the railway itself. The idea of a shuttle bus was tried and hardly anybody used it, so it was abandoned. There were frequent scheduled buses from the airport to Darlington and to the Teeside towns, but these have dwindled away too.

So there are three options: do nothing, and wait for the station to fall down (which is what has actually happened), or move the terminal building again, or move the entire trackbed. Since the last two involve very large amounts of public money which would be very hard to justify even if every single airport passenger and worker used the train (because there are so few of them) it is most unlikely anything will happen at all unless the airport closes and is redeveloped for commercial/housing/industrial purposes. The airport is once again in public ownership and the local elected mayor has a lot of political capital invested in this, so...

 

[LowLevel]

I wonder if they're inspecting certain types of platform. Lichfield Trent Valley platform 3 was condemned the other day with the Cross City line being bustituted from Lichfield City UFN.

 

[Darandio]

They should just run a shuttle bus from the station in the area that matters: Darlington.

Considering the Sky Express shuttle bus was withdrawn some years ago do to poor ridership when the airport had many more flights I cannot see this working ever again!

 

[skyhigh]

A friend of mine passed by the station today, and remarked that the reason for the condemnation was not obvious to him.

To be fair, looking at that first picture the platform is clearly undulating and there's a visible bit of rot on the surface towards the camera. I can imagine an inspection has shown that while the platform is currently safe enough (hence no need to shut the platform off) it will need urgent remedial work.

Any significant work to repair the platform would probably need a possession arranged, which would cost a fair amount. Add in the cost of materials and labour and I can see the cost being pretty high - for a station that sees one train a week.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder if they're inspecting certain types of platform. Lichfield Trent Valley platform 3 was condemned the other day with the Cross City line being bustituted from Lichfield City UFN.

I noticed on Friday that MKC P3 has a load of scaffolding under it holding it up, plus there was Cheddington...

 

[omnicity4659]

Considering the Sky Express shuttle bus was withdrawn some years ago do to poor ridership when the airport had many more flights I cannot see this working ever again!

The number 12 to/from Darlington runs to the airport a few times a day after they entered a partnership with Arriva.

 

[Trainfan2019]

The passenger terminal was close to the station in 1971. Then the airport owners relocated the passenger terminal to a different part of the airfield that is quite some way away from the station, which rather shows how small a proportion of air passengers started/finished their journeys by train even then, or they'd have chosen a different site. There isn't any way of getting the station nearer to the current passenger terminal without completely rerouting the railway itself. The idea of a shuttle bus was tried and hardly anybody used it, so it was abandoned. There were frequent scheduled buses from the airport to Darlington and to the Teeside towns, but these have dwindled away too.

So there are three options: do nothing, and wait for the station to fall down (which is what has actually happened), or move the terminal building again, or move the entire trackbed. Since the last two involve very large amounts of public money which would be very hard to justify even if every single airport passenger and worker used the train (because there are so few of them) it is most unlikely anything will happen at all unless the airport closes and is redeveloped for commercial/housing/industrial purposes. The airport is once again in public ownership and the local elected mayor has a lot of political capital invested in this, so...

Thank you for the explanation about the location of the station in relation to the airport. I do not know the area at all so this reply with some history behind the location is really helpful.

 

[Western Lord]

Whilst the airport and hence the station is never going to be massively busy, there are some quick wins here that aren't being taken up. For all that the Mayor talks about sustainability, he hasn't even bothered to organise a minibus to shuttle between the station and the terminal, let alone pushing Northern to run a useable train service.

No need for a minibus, a tandem would be more than sufficient.

 

[WesternBiker]

I used the airport a couple of times when I was working in Middlesbrough in the early 2000s, and it was a delight to use - as very small airports often are: no long queues, no trekking miles to the gate (it’s about 50ft).

But the station has always been a bit out in a limb, and the “passenger accommodation” has never been very inviting. It would be interesting to know how many people used it at its “busiest”.

 

[The Quincunx]

The Office of Rail and Road are the ones who decide closure and if the contract is being met or not. They would only likely investigate if someone made a complaint.

No - ORR's role is to "ratify" all closures after procedure has been completed. They merely confirm that all the legal requirements have been followed correctly. DfT is responsible for the actual decision to close or keep open.

I don't know the reasons behind ceasing to call at Teesside Airport station but hope that it can sensibly be deemed to be just "temporary", i.e. there is a realistic chance it will re-open within 5 years. Otherwise, DfT should hold either Northern or, more likely, Network Rail (who are responsible/funded for maintaining the station infrastructure) to account.

 

[RT4038]

I used the airport a couple of times when I was working in Middlesbrough in the early 2000s, and it was a delight to use - as very small airports often are: no long queues, no trekking miles to the gate (it’s about 50ft).

But the station has always been a bit out in a limb, and the “passenger accommodation” has never been very inviting. It would be interesting to know how many people used it at its “busiest”.

In the 1980s I believe there was a Teachers Training Centre/College close to Teeside Airport Station, which generated a fair amount of passengers. Not there now.

 

[swt_passenger]

No - ORR's role is to "ratify" all closures after procedure has been completed. They merely confirm that all the legal requirements have been followed correctly. DfT is responsible for the actual decision to close or keep open.

I don't know the reasons behind ceasing to call at Teesside Airport station but hope that it can sensibly be deemed to be just "temporary", i.e. there is a realistic chance it will re-open within 5 years. Otherwise, DfT should hold either Northern or, more likely, Network Rail (who are responsible/funded for maintaining the station infrastructure) to account.

Why shouldn’t DfT be allowed to accept a station closure proposal by either Northern or Network Rail if properly justified? It’s clearly what the 2005 Act allows for, it’s in paragraph 1.3 of the DfT closure guidance.

 

[Watershed]

To be fair, looking at that first picture the platform is clearly undulating and there's a visible bit of rot on the surface towards the camera. I can imagine an inspection has shown that while the platform is currently safe enough (hence no need to shut the platform off) it will need urgent remedial work.

If it's safe enough for the public to be allowed access then surely it's safe enough for trains to call?

Any significant work to repair the platform would probably need a possession arranged, which would cost a fair amount. Add in the cost of materials and labour and I can see the cost being pretty high - for a station that sees one train a week.

Firstly there are possession opportunities on the route every night of the week - 4 hours Monday-Friday nights, 7.5 hours Saturday night and 4.5 hours Sunday night. Now that might not be enough on its own, but if you used some joined up planning (shock horror!) and combined it with some other work that needs doing, say S&C work, PLTR or reballasting, then you could minimise or possibly totally avoid any Schedule 4 costs.

Obviously the repair still carries its own costs, but it is dishonest to refuse to do so and yet maintain the fiction that the station hasn't closed. If NR/Northern want to avoid the cost of closure proceedings then they need to repair and reopen the station. They can't have their cake and eat it.

As for only having one train a week, again it's a chicken and egg situation. If all trains stopped, and had a connecting minibus included in the price of the rail and flight ticket, surely the station would see a reasonable amount of use. Even just some calls scheduled around the time of the flights would be better than nothing.

Perhaps the Mayor could even introduce drop off/pick up charges to encourage people to use rail rather than driving.

It's all perfectly feasible, there is just no political will to do it

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It’s a shame in my opinion. It’s not like the airport itself is getting smaller, on the contrary it’s expanding. So it’s a real shame that they are closing the station

We really should be moving away from small regional airports with low passenger numbers being carried on low capacity aircraft.

Oh hang on, I forgot that the big push for decarbonisation doesn't apply to the aviation sector for some reason.

 

[bearhugger]

.... an industrial park would deliver far more to the area than a necrotic regional airport. Teesside is easily within the catchment of Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds Bradford, which are all much more useful airports.

As a Teessider, i would tend to agree. There is currently a Fire Training School, some sort of defence firm that has announced it's expanding its operations, plus flying schools, and other business in the airport boundary. Get rid of the passenger stuff - it's easy to get to Newcastle. Leeds/Bradford & Manchester airports, and expand and concentrate on the freight & commercial side.
When I was a bus driver, coming from Middlesbrough & Stockton area rather than Darlington, if I had 2 passengers getting off at Teesside airport then that was busy!
Probably easier to rip up the station in an overnight possession considering the state it's in. If passenger demand for a station ever increases then rebuilding is a better option in my view.

 

[Kingspanner]

There was an announcement recently about a new access road to facilitate industrial growth on the south side of the airfield.

Huge Step Forward As Plans For Airport Business Park Unveiled - Teesside International Airport

Details of the £200million airport business park set to be established on the southside of Teesside International Airport, and which will create thousands of skilled, well-paid jobs, have been unveiled today (7 February). Plans for such a development had been proposed for years but following...

www.teessideinternational.com

The first phase will see the creation of four new units along a through road, with the ability to split them into as many as ten smaller units, covering 130,000sq ft. Subsequent phases would see plots of between one to 200 acres developed as more businesses look to base themselves at the airport.


The new 1.5km A67 link road, running direct to the southside area will lead to the creation of a new roundabout close to Wilkinson’s Plant Centre.


Construction on the scheme should begin within weeks, with work starting on the new road infrastructure. Once this is complete, work will begin on the business park, which is due to be completed by this summer.

There was also talk of moving the station a few hundred metres west to serve new housing developments at Oak Tree while not being appreciably worse-placed for the terminal but this would no doubt have marginal financials.

I'm all for closing the place and covering it in affordable housing.

 

[ainsworth74]

As for only having one train a week, again it's a chicken and egg situation. If all trains stopped, and had a connecting minibus included in the price of the rail and flight ticket, surely the station would see a reasonable amount of use. Even just some calls scheduled around the time of the flights would be better than nothing.

Even when the airport was busier, most trains called and even when they did try using a minibus no-one used the station. It's a waste of time and money to do anything with it other than mothball it and probably just tear it down if its gotten rotten enough. I appreciate your drive to improve the rail/air link but there is just no sign that anything has fundamentally changed to get people to use public transport to the airport rather than drive.

Just close the station and be done with it rather than faffing around with pie in the sky ideas of trying to get people to use it. Then close the airport itself and save the taxpayers who are now the owners of the ruddy thing the expense when it all eventually all ends in tears once the subsidy or whatever deals have been done to lure in Loganair and before them Eastern to provide the Mayor with the good publicity of having "saved the airport!".

The whole thing is like the last bank in the village scenario. Everyone likes the idea of having a local bank in their village but all those people that kick up a fuss when its proposed for closure when asked when they last used it or when they will next use won't have an answer. Same thing here. Lots of people like the idea of having an airport. None of them use it. They all fly from Newcastle, Leeds or Manchester. Close the airport, close the station, redevelop the land and be done with it. Possibly re-site the station if the redevelopment ends up being in place where serving it by rail is actually practical.

 

[The Quincunx]

Why shouldn’t DfT be allowed to accept a station closure proposal by either Northern or Network Rail if properly justified? It’s clearly what the 2005 Act allows for, it’s in paragraph 1.3 of the DfT closure guidance.

A proposal implies something that you are going to do in the future, not something you have already done. If there is no chance that services will ever call there again, by all means let either Network Rail or Northern (or both jointly) submit a proposal to DfT for consideration sooner rather than later. There have been a number of after-the-event closures - Sinfin branch, Pendleton, Croxley Green branch, Folkestone Harbour, Newhaven Marine - which drag the legal process into disrepute.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A proposal implies something that you are going to do in the future, not something you have already done. If there is no chance that services will ever call there again, by all means let either Network Rail or Northern (or both jointly) submit a proposal to DfT for consideration sooner rather than later. There have been a number of after-the-event closures - Sinfin branch, Pendleton, Croxley Green branch, Folkestone Harbour, Newhaven Marine - which drag the legal process into disrepute.

Are any of those services/stations missed? Other than by people who now can't tick them off?
Sinfin was an oddity; Pendleton was replaced; Croxley wasn't exactly bursting at the seams; nor was Folkestone Harbour.

As for Newhaven Marine, it no longer served any useful purpose. What "drags the legal process into disrepute" is that it took so long to formally close Marine, and for most of that time an empty train had to run once a week or whatever to a platform that had no public access for safety reasons anyway.

 

[Darandio]

The number 12 to/from Darlington runs to the airport a few times a day after they entered a partnership with Arriva.

Which has always seemed like yet another pointless token gesture of a service that got Houchen another picture opportunity in the Echo.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was an announcement recently about a new access road to facilitate industrial growth on the south side of the airfield.

Huge Step Forward As Plans For Airport Business Park Unveiled - Teesside International Airport

Details of the £200million airport business park set to be established on the southside of Teesside International Airport, and which will create thousands of skilled, well-paid jobs, have been unveiled today (7 February). Plans for such a development had been proposed for years but following...

www.teessideinternational.com

There was also talk of moving the station a few hundred metres west to serve new housing developments at Oak Tree while not being appreciably worse-placed for the terminal but this would no doubt have marginal financials.

I'm all for closing the place and covering it in affordable housing.

I am inclined to agree - stick something like Buckshaw Village there instead.

Buckshaw Parkway was of course a new build (sadly not including any features reminiscent of the old wartime art deco-ish Euxton ROF platforms which were still there until the 1990s), and realistically this would need to be as well (so as to provide lifts etc), so no great harm properly closing it in the meantime.