How could unsatisfactory branch shuttles be improved?

[Meerkat]

P & R is Park and Ride sorry. The P and R would be more for those commuting into/shopping in Henley to park outside for a small charge, take a cheap and reliable train into the town centre and save money/fuel on limited parking in Henley town centre.
It would be even more useful during Regatta times.
For the benefit of other non-local users, Henley town centre has narrow streets and some of the worst pollution and congestion hotspots in the UK, and a population that skews older, so there is a health incentive to invest in this project.
An intensive network of P and R buses wouldn't work, because of the narrow streets, congestion issues and a weak bridge on the road to one of the only potential park and ride sites.

I really don't think a P&R for a train ride of less than a km is in any way realistic! Unless there were trains every 5 mins it would be quicker to walk.

 

[randyrippley]

The disused Glasson branch swings westwards from Lancaster platforms 1 & 2 and for its first half mile heads directly towards the Lune, to a point opposite the former Midland line which was on the opposite bank. I'm pretty sure the recent housing developments have left most of the Glasson branch embankment intact; so a bridge over the river would join two former alignments in the most direct route possible from Lancaster to Morecambe.

The highways people would love to have a bridge in the same place, to get HGVs from the Lune industrial estate onto the new "bypass" (Bay Gateway as they call it). So a combined road/rail bridge might actually be desirable. The problem might be the outrcry if rails were put back on the Midland route, such is its popularity for cycling and walking.

The bridge would probably impinge on the Morecambe Bay RAMSAR area, so you may have a problem getting permission

 

[Pinus contorta]

The bridge would probably impinge on the Morecambe Bay RAMSAR area, so you may have a problem getting permission

I think the proposals for the link road around Lancaster ( opened to public consultation in 1997 or 98) had a south western option, and a bridge that was ruled out for the same reason.

 

[Energy]

Leamington to Coventry to Nuneaton

Right now, and for a lot of covid, it is a bus service. Apparently the Leamington to Coventry bit via Kenilworth wasn't that popular, probably because the frequency was 1tph and when my sister was using it she said it was late a lot of the time. Meanwhile the local buses are slower but if you miss one you aren't waiting an hour.

 

[43066]

Yes it's a shame. I personally think the Bakerloo extension should go that way instead of Hayes - you'd still have to try and tunnel under Grove Park somehow but you could do intermediate stations at Catford. As you say high cost. The timetable could integrate a little better though at Grove Park.

Bromley North is very poorly used yet the station is in a very suitable catchment area (as is Sundridge Park to a reasonable extend). Bromley South serves Victoria and the "eastern" side of C. London/West End. Therefore some sort of connection to the DLR or maybe even an extension of the Bakerloo line (instead of the Hayes / Beckenham plan) would be more beneficial. It wouldn't be at all practical to link Bromley N & South with a rail / tram connection and it's a flat walk anyway. It's not running as frequently as it could - its basically one unit back and forth. The connections at Grove Park are not great, but that's what you get with one diagram and 5 minute (or longer) turnarounds at each end.

If Bromley North had no conflicts to access the relief lines of the SEML his wouldn't really be an issue but - much like the Windsor branch on the GWML - its now a quirk of railway geography in that it is connected to a busy mainline.

I take it you’ve read the (excellent) London reconnections article on the subject? They conclude as follows:

The Past and Future of the Bromley North Branch - London Reconnections

The leading source for independent news and analysis about transport in London and beyond. Award-winning coverage of transport infrastructure and politics alongside stories about the history of the Capital's transport networks.

www.londonreconnections.com

It is really hard to see anything radical that can be done in practice to increase usage of the Bromley North branch when considered as a standalone project. It does seem another problem destined for the “too hard” pile. Perhaps a better idea is simply to single the completely unnecessary double track when the track comes up for renewal and then radically simplify the signalling so that the line can be run as economically as possible without affecting the quality of service. Then one day in the distant future maybe, just maybe, a radical scheme will evolve to relieve the railway congestion in inner south east London and, with the train paths released, the through trains from Bromley North to London can be reinstated or incorporated into a grand new scheme.

In the meantime the line will continue to stand out as the only remaining suburban shuttle service in London that is south of the river. Something future LR Quiz entrants would perhaps do well to mentally note…

Which I think sums things up pretty well.

They don’t really consider the Bakerloo going that way but (off the top of my head) intermediate stations at Catford (and presumably Hither Green?) would be extremely expensive and would be catering for areas which are already pretty well served by both mid Kent and the Catford Loop line, and the SEML (Hither Green) the only place that would really benefit would indeed be Bromley North itself. Much cheaper (and more cost effective) to simply convert the Mid Kent line into the tube route, which would also benefit the Catford/Hither Green catchment area.

The extension of London Overground from New Cross is an interesting idea - and seems more workable on the face of it - but as always capacity limits on the south eastern mainline, needing to move the trains across the fasts with little room to build any kind of grade separated junction with Hither Green and GPK depots also in the way.

I reckon if we were able to travel thirty years forward in time we’d find the Bakerloo line hasn’t been extended to Hayes, and the Bromley North shuttle is pretty much exactly as it is today, sadly!

 

[Glenn1969]

Have there and could there ever been through trains from Southampton or Bournemouth to Lymington or has it always been a shuttle ?

 

[Wychwood93]

Have there and could there ever been through trains from Southampton or Bournemouth to Lymington or has it always been a shuttle ?

Yes! A look through the RPS (Railway Performance Society) archive sees a log timed by OS Nock from 1952 - the run was the 0942 Waterloo to Lymington Pier. A U1 2-6-0 from Waterloo to Brockenhurst and then a Class Q 0-6-0 onwards to the Pier. A return journey the same day. An undated run with a 2-HAP on a Lymington to Eastleigh service and a pair of 4-CIGs on a Lymington to Waterloo service - also undated and without a log.

 

[JonathanH]

Have there and could there ever been through trains from Southampton or Bournemouth to Lymington or has it always been a shuttle ?

Always generally a shuttle but in the Winter 1993 timetable, the first service from Lymington ran to Eastleigh and the next two to Waterloo (as stoppers). Fresh units ran from Eastleigh or Winchester to replace the ones which had run off the branch.

Clearly running the primary services to Bournemouth and on towards Weymouth is always going to take precedence over running direct services to Lymington. The track layout at Brockenhurst presents no issue with running through services.

 

[JonathanH]

P & R is Park and Ride sorry. The P and R would be more for those commuting into/shopping in Henley to park outside for a small charge, take a cheap and reliable train into the town centre and save money/fuel on limited parking in Henley town centre.
It would be even more useful during Regatta times.

Henley railway station isn't anywhere near central enough in the town to be used for a Park & Ride scheme. The car parks in Henley aren't that oversubscribed (although I concede that the Waitrose car park does get busy). Ironically, the station car park is probably the easiest one to find space in. The railway line doesn't really run on the route of the primary car flow in any case.

The pollution and congestion in Henley is rather more the result of through traffic than people actually visiting Henley but there is no suitable route for a bypass anywhere nearby. It is one of those places where the primary need is to divert through traffic away from the area completely rather than construct a local bypass. Clearly the downgrading of the A423 many years ago did this in conjunction with the A404/M40 but it remains a convenient through route for many flows.

An intensive network of P and R buses wouldn't work, because of the narrow streets, congestion issues and a weak bridge on the road to one of the only potential park and ride sites.

No one would use an intensive network of park and ride buses either. I'd imagine a large amount of the traffic in Henley is from the outlying villages around it in any case.

 

[tbtc]

I take it you’ve read the (excellent) London reconnections article on the subject? They conclude as follows:

The Past and Future of the Bromley North Branch - London Reconnections

The leading source for independent news and analysis about transport in London and beyond. Award-winning coverage of transport infrastructure and politics alongside stories about the history of the Capital's transport networks.

www.londonreconnections.com

Which I think sums things up pretty well.

They don’t really consider the Bakerloo going that way but (off the top of my head) intermediate stations at Catford (and presumably Hither Green?) would be extremely expensive and would be catering for areas which are already pretty well served by both mid Kent and the Catford Loop line, and the SEML (Hither Green) the only place that would really benefit would indeed be Bromley North itself. Much cheaper (and more cost effective) to simply convert the Mid Kent line into the tube route, which would also benefit the Catford/Hither Green catchment area.

The extension of London Overground from New Cross is an interesting idea - and seems more workable on the face of it - but as always capacity limits on the south eastern mainline, needing to move the trains across the fasts with little room to build any kind of grade separated junction with Hither Green and GPK depots also in the way.

I reckon if we were able to travel thirty years forward in time we’d find the Bakerloo line hasn’t been extended to Hayes, and the Bromley North shuttle is pretty much exactly as it is today, sadly!

That seems a fair summary - I like their explanations for things, very good at explaining the problems/ solutions/ alternatives

This is what could be seen as largely the main premise of Beeching's arguments for the mass railway decimation of the 1960s! (And I must add, a premise that has proved to be largely fallacious in terms of services and income etc. Cutting off these will injure the main railway network.)

Cutting of branches will "injure" the main railway network, sure

But it'd be a mild graze, in the grand scheme of things

If there were only a handful of people using a branch line then cutting the branch will impact upon main line passenger numbers but not by a great deal if there were only a handful of people on the branch line

A quite longstanding one was the Maiden Newton to Bridport line. This was crewed, and indeed operated, from the nearest Western Region depot, at ... Westbury, 45 miles and well over an hour's travel each way away. Crews spent half their shift travelling to and fro on the cushions, plus the single car had to return there for refuelling

That kind of cost is one that people don't always appreciate about some rural lines (given the need for either tiny depots in remote areas or very long/inefficient ECS moves etc)

We all have constructed names and even money among many other things is a construct, a make-believe. None of us know what the truth is or what reality is even.

So if a branch line doesn't bring in much money, the correct response should be that money is a made up concept and that there's no way of knowing what a "profit" or "loss" is since these are abstract ideas with no grounding in reality (whatever "reality" even means)

Even more dodgy cost accounting- St Andrews to Leuchars

That's a tricky one... I can see why it was closed at the time - I can see why it could be very busy at certain times today - but I don't know what kind of service you'd run on it (given that there's nothing that terminates at Leuchars, so any Edinburgh service diverted to St Andrews would be at the cost of some through trains from Edinburgh to Dundee) - if it'd just be a shuttle and going no further into St Andrews than the old train station site adjacent to the bus station then would it really offer much that the frequent bus service doesn't? (given that the bus service continues beyond the bus station to serve a lot of the rest of St Andrews)

But there are some Student/ tourist flows that will be significant at certain times, so it's a lot more interesting as an idea than some of the rural villages that are regularly brought up on re-opening threads

That's an interesting article, thanks for the link, and it does seem to me that if the line to Hunstanton, like those to Swanage, Keswick and Caernarvon, had survived a little longer we might still have them today. But making a profit ? I cannot see any way that fare income from such a route could have covered all its costs; Track maintenance and renewal, signalling ditto, structures ditto, train and traincrew costs, etc, without subsidy; And if it was truly making a profit, why on earth was BR so determined to close it ?

A lot of people seem to think of profit/loss in terms of "farebox revenue" and "the wages of the staff on the train at the time" without understanding the additional costs that you mention

I've no idea how profitable lines were in the 1960s but I cannot believe that there were many genuinely profitable lines on the network (given the staffing required/ maintenance and renewal costs/ cost of the trains themselves) yet alone genuinely profitable lines that were closed

didnt BR use 'originating revenue' to decide a lines income? dodgy accounting cos holiday areas would have little originating revenue but many passengers would go there with return tickets.

It's not dodgy at all - it shows where people buy tickets

For example, if the stations on branch line to Town X generate very few ticket sales then closing the line means that people from cities may travel to Town Y or Town Z instead as alternative holiday destinations

What's the alternative? That we allocate revenue equally between the "origin" and "destination" stations? In which case the numbers for a lot of branches would look poor because the "city" station would take half the money (e.g. if you decide that half the money of an Ebbw Vale - Cardiff return bought at Ebbw Vale station should be allocated to Cardiff then you'll find that Ebbw Vale brings in a lot less money - since very few Cardiff people will be commuting to Ebbw Vale or shopping there, whereas Cardiff is a popular destination for the people of Ebbw Vale)... be careful what you wish for!

 

[randyrippley]

It's not dodgy at all - it shows where people buy tickets

For example, if the stations on branch line to Town X generate very few ticket sales then closing the line means that people from cities may travel to Town Y or Town Z instead as alternative holiday destinations

What's the alternative? That we allocate revenue equally between the "origin" and "destination" stations? In which case the numbers for a lot of branches would look poor because the "city" station would take half the money (e.g. if you decide that half the money of an Ebbw Vale - Cardiff return bought at Ebbw Vale station should be allocated to Cardiff then you'll find that Ebbw Vale brings in a lot less money - since very few Cardiff people will be commuting to Ebbw Vale or shopping there, whereas Cardiff is a popular destination for the people of Ebbw Vale)... be careful what you wish for!

But its a wrong model
To make sense the cash should be allocated to traffic flows, not static points.
Railways are about movement, you can't represent that by allocating revenue to an immovable station

 

[Peterthegreat]

But its a wrong model
To make sense the cash should be allocated to traffic flows, not static points.
Railways are about movement, you can't represent that by allocating revenue to an immovable station

Even back in the eighties the BR computer system "CAPRI" enabled one to interrogate how many tickets were sold both to and from stations regardless of station of issue. I am not sure what system is in place now but I doubt it is less able.

 

[Edsmith]

I take it you’ve read the (excellent) London reconnections article on the subject? They conclude as follows:

The Past and Future of the Bromley North Branch - London Reconnections

The leading source for independent news and analysis about transport in London and beyond. Award-winning coverage of transport infrastructure and politics alongside stories about the history of the Capital's transport networks.

www.londonreconnections.com

Which I think sums things up pretty well.

They don’t really consider the Bakerloo going that way but (off the top of my head) intermediate stations at Catford (and presumably Hither Green?) would be extremely expensive and would be catering for areas which are already pretty well served by both mid Kent and the Catford Loop line, and the SEML (Hither Green) the only place that would really benefit would indeed be Bromley North itself. Much cheaper (and more cost effective) to simply convert the Mid Kent line into the tube route, which would also benefit the Catford/Hither Green catchment area.

The extension of London Overground from New Cross is an interesting idea - and seems more workable on the face of it - but as always capacity limits on the south eastern mainline, needing to move the trains across the fasts with little room to build any kind of grade separated junction with Hither Green and GPK depots also in the way.

I reckon if we were able to travel thirty years forward in time we’d find the Bakerloo line hasn’t been extended to Hayes, and the Bromley North shuttle is pretty much exactly as it is today, sadly!

I can't see a LO extension from New Cross to Bromley North being at all workable unfortunately, not only would it need to cross the fast lines at Grove Park there would also be conflicting movements at New Cross and the lines through St John's are pretty much at full capacity with Cannon Street services.

 

[Lytham Local]

I agree. Loops initially. Then electrify. If massive increase double track in places.

Interestingly enough, the business plan for the upgrade for the South Fylde line was published here and one of the things being considered was a low cost electrification option (well, one sentence). I didn't think there was such a thing in the railway world as a "low cost" option!

 

[zwk500]

Interestingly enough, the business plan for the upgrade for the South Fylde line was published here and one of the things being considered was a low cost electrification option (well, one sentence). I didn't think there was such a thing in the railway world as a "low cost" option!

I think that is more along the lines of 'if you want to achieve your goals you will need to find a low-cost solution'. My money would be on batteries if it happens.

 

[SargeNpton]

Even back in the eighties the BR computer system "CAPRI" enabled one to interrogate how many tickets were sold both to and from stations regardless of station of issue. I am not sure what system is in place now but I doubt it is less able.

The modern day equivalent of CAPRI is LENNON.

 

[Taunton]

About 50 years ago, 1970s, Modern Railways magazine ran a series "London Branch Lines", where the looked at each such contender in turn, one each month. A number have been raised above, such as Bromley North, or Romford to Upminster.

It's apparent that, apart from periodically replacing the stock, the situation with usage, or not, and general value to the locality, or not, is pretty much the same today as it was half a century ago, the answer to both being "not a lot". Off peak patronage being woefully thin/non-existent is just the same now as then. Potential passengers gravitating to the nearest through service is normal. Bromley South, for example, has a usage 20 times that of Bromley North, despite the latter, after the Grove Park change, seeming to offer a better selection of London termini.

 

[Meerkat]

How much money does rationalisation save these days? Judging by the lonely signals protecting unused lines its very expensive to get rid of them. I guess singling does dramatically improve maintenance access.

 

[Edsmith]

About 50 years ago, 1970s, Modern Railways magazine ran a series "London Branch Lines", where the looked at each such contender in turn, one each month. A number have been raised above, such as Bromley North, or Romford to Upminster.

It's apparent that, apart from periodically replacing the stock, the situation with usage, or not, and general value to the locality, or not, is pretty much the same today as it was half a century ago, the answer to both being "not a lot". Off peak patronage being woefully thin/non-existent is just the same now as then. Potential passengers gravitating to the nearest through service is normal. Bromley South, for example, has a usage 20 times that of Bromley North, despite the latter, after the Grove Park change, seeming to offer a better selection of London termini.

I'm not at all surprised that Bromley South is much busier, apart from the level of service it's also in a more prime location. It's also significant that there are two frequent bus routes almost parallel with the Bromley North branch which go right into the town centre.

 

[davetheguard]

About 50 years ago, 1970s, Modern Railways magazine ran a series "London Branch Lines", where the looked at each such contender in turn, one each month. A number have been raised above, such as Bromley North, or Romford to Upminster.

It's apparent that, apart from periodically replacing the stock, the situation with usage, or not, and general value to the locality, or not, is pretty much the same today as it was half a century ago, the answer to both being "not a lot". Off peak patronage being woefully thin/non-existent is just the same now as then. Potential passengers gravitating to the nearest through service is normal. Bromley South, for example, has a usage 20 times that of Bromley North, despite the latter, after the Grove Park change, seeming to offer a better selection of London termini.

I remember that series in Modern Railways.

As well as the ones you mention above, it also included the then DMU operated line from North Woolwich to Tottenham Hale. That service has had a mixed existence in the years since to say the least!

Closure of Stratford to Tottenham Hale & the intermediate station at Lea Bridge to passengers; third rail electrification to North Woolwich & diversion of services along the North London Line; 25Kv electrification of Stratford to Tottenham Hale & re-opening to passengers; West Ham interchange platforms built; conversion of part of the route south of Stratford to the Docklands Light Railway; re-opening of Lea Bridge station; closure of North Woolwich station; conversion of part of route to Crossrail/Elizabeth Line.

Obviously the area has changed enormously in that time too -definitely not "pretty much the same today as half a century ago"- in fact parts of it are totally & utterly transformed. As a result, I don't think anyone would regard the remaining, now electric, services on the route as candidates for closure?

Has any other line in Britain seen quite as many changes as this one has?

 

[Taunton]

I remember that series in Modern Railways.

As well as the ones you mention above, it also included the then DMU operated line from North Woolwich to Tottenham Hale. That service has had a mixed existence in the years since to say the least!

Obviously the area has changed enormously in that time too -definitely not "pretty much the same today as half a century ago"- in fact parts of it are totally & utterly transformed.

I'm well aware of all this - in fact we now live there!

The North Woolwich line however, far from being a nucleus of all this, never picked up at all from its third rail electrification, and eventually became a supreme irrelevance. It was all closed in 2006, having lost any purpose to those transport developments all around it which you describe. At Canning Town shortly before that closure there would be full DLR trains, full Jubilee Line trains, and alongside completely empty North London Line trains. It was always the first target for cancellations if there was any dislocation, and there was never any substitute provision, one was just referred to the existing local bus service. I believe. Because it was never any use to me either.

 

[randyrippley]

Interestingly enough, the business plan for the upgrade for the South Fylde line was published here and one of the things being considered was a low cost electrification option (well, one sentence). I didn't think there was such a thing in the railway world as a "low cost" option!

something like a modern version of the MER with tram wires and trolley poles???????

 

[Requeststop]

. In Cornwall, a similar example is the St. Ives branch. The main reason for being is to serve the summer holiday destinations. They're probably ghost trains in the winter (guessing here).

Actually the St Ives Branch is a success story even in winter now that we have the half hourly shuttle. Wintertime the numbers are lower but the Park and Ride scheme at St Erth does provide a number of passengers during daylight hours. Admittedly after dark the number are very low, except at weekends. If anything, numbers at Carbis Bay seem to have picked up from what I have seen but my old home station at Lelant, is now just an hourly request stop; the Saltings is now a dump of a concrete monstrosity with just the single daily service early in the morning. Most of the traffic is St Erth-St Ives return.

The Falmouth Branch is well used because of the student population at the University; The Newquay branch is in need of a passing loop and an overhaul of the timetable. Though not my favourite of Cornish towns Newquay does have the winter population for a much better service than it gets presently. There is not much room for any improvement of the Looe Branch. It's still a great ride and I like to look down on the line as I pass over it in and out of Liskeard.

 

[davetheguard]

The North Woolwich line however, far from being a nucleus of all this, never picked up at all from its third rail electrification, and eventually became a supreme irrelevance.

It certainly was a pretty poor sight in its last days: down to single track, and the boarded up station building (with its closed museum) at North Woolwich. Are there any plans locally to do anything with what is still potentially an attractive building?

To return to your mention of the '70s Modern Railways "London Branch Lines" articles, I remember they stretched geographical limits a bit to include Twyford to Henley; Maidenhead to Marlow; & Slough to Windsor in the series too.

In the case of almost all the lines, the author's conclusion seemed to be: there's not much you can do with these basket cases. Yet luckily most are all still with us.

 

[norbitonflyer]

It certainly was a pretty poor sight in its last days: down to single track, and the boarded up station building (with its closed museum) at North Woolwich. Are there any plans

In the case of almost all the lines, the author's conclusion seemed to be: there's not much you can do with these basket cases. Yet luckily most are all still with us.

One of them was the Croxley Green branch, which definitely isn't with us any more, although its proposed resurrection was on the cards not so long ago. expected

 

[stew]

The Sunday before Christmas saw the South Fylde line operate a shuttle every 4 hours from Preston to Blackpool South. The timetabled ”every 2 hours service” was amended the day before I believe

 

[bramling]

Actually the St Ives Branch is a success story even in winter now that we have the half hourly shuttle. Wintertime the numbers are lower but the Park and Ride scheme at St Erth does provide a number of passengers during daylight hours. Admittedly after dark the number are very low, except at weekends. If anything, numbers at Carbis Bay seem to have picked up from what I have seen but my old home station at Lelant, is now just an hourly request stop; the Saltings is now a dump of a concrete monstrosity with just the single daily service early in the morning. Most of the traffic is St Erth-St Ives return.

The Falmouth Branch is well used because of the student population at the University; The Newquay branch is in need of a passing loop and an overhaul of the timetable. Though not my favourite of Cornish towns Newquay does have the winter population for a much better service than it gets presently. There is not much room for any improvement of the Looe Branch. It's still a great ride and I like to look down on the line as I pass over it in and out of Liskeard.

I wonder how long Lelant Saltings will last, now it serves absolutely no purpose.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I wonder how long Lelant Saltings will last, now it serves absolutely no purpose.

Forever. Have you tried closing a station? The service may deteriate further (just one train a week, in one direction only) but it'll battle on.

 

[nw12398]

I wonder how long Lelant Saltings will last, now it serves absolutely no purpose.

The ORR stats suggest that Lelant Saltings got more passengers in 2020/21 than Coombe Junction Halt has in any year over the past ~20 years, despite COVID, having 1 train per day each way compared to Coombe's 2, and the P&R and timetable changing in summer 2019. Although of course these figures are based on ticket sales - I suspect a non-negligible number were passengers who bought a Lelant Saltings ticket in advance and only found out that the P&R had moved since their last visit when they arrived!

 

[Oxfordblues]

Greenford - West Ealing. A diesel oasis which provides a very poor frequency to the three exclusive stations it serves (Drayton Green, Castle Bar Park and South Greenford). Crossrail has scuppered its chances of ever having a regular service into Ealing Broadway and Paddington, the current direct trains are for operational convenience, so it is left trundling back and forth through suburbia carrying very few passengers.

Chiltern Trains have a serious aspiration to divert some Marylebone-bound trains from South Ruislip via Greenford and a reinstated "Birkenhead" line to the new West London mega-hub at Old Oak Common. This would give vastly-improved connectivity compared with the existing terminus at Marylebone and potentially make Greenford a "mini-hub" for connections between the Central Line and High Wycombe/Oxford/Birmingham.