Is Lenham station under threat of closure?

[telstarbox]

Letter from Network Rail here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P29fufdUOPTbddRH0EbJ8c6psBV8y5vG/view

This clearly states that any new station (and possible closure of Lenham) would be on the Maidstone line not HS1:

We agree with the four potential station options you have outlined for consideration:
1. Improvements to Lenham station and access to it from the proposed development (possibly a new Lenham station east of Headcorn Road to allow a transport interchange).
2. A new station (Lenham-Heathlands) approximately midway between Lenham and Heathlands to serve both communities.
3. New station at Heathlands in addition to Lenham.
4. Replacement of Lenham by Heathlands with improvements to access from Lenham to Harrietsham (west) and Heathlands (east).
To confirm that there is a business case there is also a need to consider other modes in order to demonstrate
that rail is the right answer.

 

[Mollman]

The alternative would be for services to alternate between stopping at Lenham and Charring. This would give an hour peak and two-hourly off peak service to each.

 

[yorksrob]

Letter from Network Rail here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P29fufdUOPTbddRH0EbJ8c6psBV8y5vG/view

This clearly states that any new station (and possible closure of Lenham) would be on the Maidstone line not HS1:

So in that case, the petition is addressing a very real proposal.

 

[Bertie the bus]

So in that case, the petition is addressing a very real proposal.

No it isn't. The statement on the petition is clearly untrue.

If there are 4 potential station options then

The only way MBC can make their ‘new town’ look sustainable is to rob the existing Lenham village community of their 140 year old rail station on the Southeastern Railway mainline and move it 2 miles down the road to the middle of the proposed development - currently open and green countryside.

is quite obviously not factual.

I would be very surprised if trying to "save our station" is the real reason for this petition. I suspect if one looked deeper into it the people behind the petition will be trying to stop the development from happening and this will just be one part of their campaign.

 

[pdeaves]

Letter from Network Rail here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P29fufdUOPTbddRH0EbJ8c6psBV8y5vG/view

This clearly states that any new station (and possible closure of Lenham) would be on the Maidstone line not HS1:

I'm not convinced that the NR letter clearly states that; in my view there's some ambiguity in the wording, whether 'Lenham' refers to the station or the settlement. However, if that is the correct interpretation, it's clearly at odds with the proposal document someone linked on the first page, which labels a potential station site on HS1. Something is 'out' somewhere!

 

[telstarbox]

The first document is from 2019 and the NR letter is from 2021, so perhaps the proposals have been refined since then?

 

[pdeaves]

The first document is from 2019 and the NR letter is from 2021, so perhaps the proposals have been refined since then?

Could be; I hadn't seen (well, hadn't looked for) the dates.

 

[XAM2175]

I would be very surprised if trying to "save our station" is the real reason for this petition. I suspect if one looked deeper into it the people behind the petition will be trying to stop the development from happening and this will just be one part of their campaign.

Given the negative response to the development expressed by one of our members, let alone the locals, this strikes me as highly likely.

 

[Paul Jones 88]

Too much development in Kent at the moment, go somewhere else for a change, southeast is full.
As for Lenham, the existing station is needed for a lot of the people that work at Lenham Storage.

 

[yorksrob]

No it isn't. The statement on the petition is clearly untrue.

If there are 4 potential station options then

is quite obviously not factual.

I would be very surprised if trying to "save our station" is the real reason for this petition. I suspect if one looked deeper into it the people behind the petition will be trying to stop the development from happening and this will just be one part of their campaign.

Balderdash. If closing the station has been acknowledged as an option by NR then it is clearly a real threat to be countered.

 

[Ediswan]

I would be very surprised if trying to "save our station" is the real reason for this petition. I suspect if one looked deeper into it the people behind the petition will be trying to stop the development from happening and this will just be one part of their campaign.

That is the way I read it. The petition is inconsistent. It includes the text "The large majority of current residents rely heavily on private car to get about due to limited public transport with hourly train and bus services". Which current residents ? It can't be the new town as that does not yet exist. The only other current residents in context are those of Lenham. If the large majority of current residents already prefer the car, how is the existing station a "much used community asset" ?

 

[yorksrob]

That is the way I read it. The petition is inconsistent. It includes the text "The large majority of current residents rely heavily on private car to get about due to limited public transport with hourly train and bus services". Which current residents ? It can't be the new town as that does not yet exist. The only other current residents in context are those of Lenham. If the large majority of current residents already prefer the car, how is the existing station a "much used community asset" ?

I took it to mean the rather more scattered residents on Lenham Heath, where the new town is proposed, rather than the village. Their nearest stations would be Charing and Lenham which are hourly.

 

[Edsmith]

Aside from the opposition to the development itself the idea of having to sacrifice the existing Lenham station in order to build a new one seems utterly ridiculous. Surely trains can call at both? Pre covid trains terminated at Ashford or Canterbury West and had quite a bit of recovery time at Ashford.

 

[jayah]

Letter from Network Rail here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P29fufdUOPTbddRH0EbJ8c6psBV8y5vG/view

This clearly states that any new station (and possible closure of Lenham) would be on the Maidstone line not HS1:

Utterly moronic and the worst and worst of the UK planning system on display. Kent is full of rural stations with little nearby housing, yet frequent direct train services to London and they continue to build more and more suburbs in greenfield countryside. Network Rail seriously suggest building a new £15m station a mile from either settlement, neither in the new or current town? They should call their proposed station Barking.

If Lenham has footfall of 120,000 p.a and the rule of thumb is 10 journeys per resident, a new station at £15m probably won't do much better. The fact Lenham punches above its weight probably shows a good number are already coming from south of the M20. £3k per house isn't great value for money either.

Down the road at East Malling you have a mainline station with green fields on one side and a huge sprawling suburb 3 miles away at the 'brownfield' former airbase, requiring a new dual carriageway to connect it to the M20.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Presumably it's down to not wanting to recast the timetable at Ashford just to add in an extra station stop - bearing in mind this may have consequences on HS1 services (with Ashford only having 2 domestic platforms on that side of the layout) and across the region.

Lenham station doesn't appear to be massively used, despite having an hourly direct service to London, with half-hourly services during the peak. In the ORR statistics for 2019/20 (for an almost entirely pre-pandemic background) it saw 120,000 passengers. With roughly 26 trains each way per day, that's an average of 6 passengers per train.

So I suppose it, and many stations like it, are considered candidates for closure if there is a potentially more 'lucrative' location the train could otherwise stop at.

There really wouldn't be an issue. Ashford International really isn't that congested, it has spare capacity. The biggest issue you would have is with the Channel Tunnel Freight, but considering that half the WTT clashes with the Channel Tunnel Freight anyway, and like 95% of the Channel Tunnel Freight never runs its not an isurmountable issue.

There would be suffucient capcity to accomidate it in my view with a valid WTT.

 

[jayah]

There really wouldn't be an issue. Ashford International really isn't that congested, it has spare capacity. The biggest issue you would have is with the Channel Tunnel Freight, but considering that half the WTT clashes with the Channel Tunnel Freight anyway, and like 95% of the Channel Tunnel Freight never runs its not an isurmountable issue.

There would be suffucient capcity to accomidate it in my view with a valid WTT.

Currently Kemsing has a similar off peak service to Charing, despite one having 90,000 footfall and the other 20,000.
Today there was no Channel Tunnel freight through Ashford between 0700 and 1630.

 

[telstarbox]

On the other hand it's unrealistic to expect all stations of a similar size to have the same patronage - there are lots of factors in play.

 

[jayah]

On the other hand it's unrealistic to expect all stations of a similar size to have the same patronage - there are lots of factors in play.

This is true, but Lenham already has a population of 3.5k with a wide catchment south of the M20. A new development of 5k houses is not going be on a radically different scale, yet the proposal is to close the first station and spend £15m on a new one. In one scenario this would be equally inconveniently sited for both towns.

Perhaps the planners should be invited to return to their drawing board?

 

[pdeaves]

Network Rail seriously suggest building...

Is it NR's proposal? Funding for such things likely comes from external sources and 'he who pays the piper...'. NR obviously has to have some involvement and will administer consultations, etc., on the other party's behalf.

 

[hwl]

This is true, but Lenham already has a population of 3.5k with a wide catchment south of the M20. A new development of 5k houses is not going be on a radically different scale, yet the proposal is to close the first station and spend £15m on a new one. In one scenario this would be equally inconveniently sited for both towns.

Perhaps the planners should be invited to return to their drawing board?

There are several option on the table because the most sensible option (3.) of a new station with no changes to the existing station or services levels has to be show to work and have the good /best BCR. People are choosing to focus on the non preferred options and are unnecessarily getting wound up about things in them.

I'd suggest some reading up on the old NR GRIP process especially the option selection part. You can't magically produce a single chosen scheme out of thin air...

 

[jayah]

There are several option on the table because the most sensible option (3.) of a new station with no changes to the existing station or services levels has to be show to work and have the good /best BCR. People are choosing to focus on the non preferred options and are unnecessarily getting wound up about things in them.

I'd suggest some reading up on the old NR GRIP process especially the option selection part. You can't magically produce a single chosen scheme out of thin air...

Some of the options are so stupid I can't help but think they only exist to make other daft options look slightly less bonkers.

People are right to be concerned about a consultation where closing a local station is on the table, just as when the Mayor of London put the idea of closing the Bakerloo Line on the table.

 

[Class 466]

Just serve both, the MDE line service is painfully slow as it is so I doubt anyone would notice

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Upgrade the Lenham loops for passenger trains so that channel tunnel freight can overtake if necessary

 

[brad465]

I hardly think a new station opening 2 miles away counts as being 'moved', although it's unclear whether that is the distance by rail or road (if the latter, it may be that there isn't a very direct road route to the new station).

Either way, I can certainly appreciate that the residents of Lenham may be aggrieved, as the proximity of a reasonably served rail station is something which buoys property values - quite apart from the effect on anyone who regularly uses the station.

Given the spacing of stations on this line, opening a new station 2 miles from Lenham might as well be putting one right next to Charing station.

I do wonder how politically sustainable this development will actually be; we've already had one by-election that saw the seat change hands on the basis of southern development being an issue, and Kent as a whole will have enough political problems with Op Brock, the Ashford Lorry park and other problems linked to you know what.

 

[WesternBiker]

As has been pointed out above, this 'new town' will have only 5,000 houses - equating to around 10,000 population (taking the average occupancy). There are lots of larger places on lines with no provision, so I presume this is only being considered because the developers will chip in to the cost. That said, my experience of such developments is that it never happens quite as in the glossy brochure, and, almost always, house building is much more gradual than initially suggested.

As ever, plans need to become rather more concrete (and the NR letter suggests a lot more has been happening since there is no mention of a line on HS1).

As an aside, I particularly note the glossy brochure language: "Connectivity through modern forms of rapid public transit networks will be established that will provide regular, reliable and efficient services to connect the settlement to nearby transport corridors and railway networks". Does that mean a bus...?

 

[hwl]

, so I presume this is only being considered because the developers will chip in to the cost.

There is DCLG backing via Homes England in addition to developer funding so similar to the recent "Surrey Canal Road" station announcement.

 

[nw1]

This is news to me and I have two issues.

First of all, this is the garden of England. For those of you lucky enough to have travelled this line, you will be aware of how beatiful the countryside is around there. Since growing up in the area, it's already been strained environmentally with the construction of the M20 and HS1. It doesn't need a sodding great town in the middle of it.

Secondly, even if they do build the town and open a new station, I'm very much against closing the original station. When visiting friends in the area we often use the train to visit a couple of nice pubs in the village. It looks as though it will be equi-distant between Lenham and Charing anyway, if they must build this town they should build an additional station, not close Lenham.

I'm not fussed if they put a new station on HS1 though.

I only vaguely know this area, I've travelled through it on the way to the continent but I do remember that it is rather a nice area.

Is it not an AONB? It's adjacent to the North Downs is it not (or just a few miles to the south of them)?

Surely there must be somewhere else they can build these houses that isn't so 'green'?

What about in North Kent somewhere for instance, which has always (well, since the 80s when I first passed through) been semi-industrialised? New housing really needs to be concentrated in areas which have always (in recent times) had some industry or existing development dotted around, where people are used to seeing something other than green space all around them.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I only vaguely know this area, I've travelled through it on the way to the continent but I do remember that it is rather a nice area.

Is it not an AONB? It's adjacent to the North Downs is it not (or just a few miles to the south of them)?

Surely there must be somewhere else they can build these houses that isn't so 'green'?

What about in North Kent somewhere for instance, which has always (well, since the 80s when I first passed through) been semi-industrialised? New housing really needs to be concentrated in areas which have always (in recent times) had some industry or existing development dotted around, where people are used to seeing something other than green space all around them.

This is one of the only areas of Mid Kent not in an AONB. North Kent could fit a bit more development, yes, but there is a planned theme park on one of the major housing sites on the Swanscombe Peninsula, plus the IoG is not suitable for housing as there's an active oil terminal I believe there (rail services recently restarted to the terminal) and
there's an unstable ship in the Medway nearby with lots of explosives on, I wonder if it's in an Emergency Planning Zone.

 

[yorksrob]

I only vaguely know this area, I've travelled through it on the way to the continent but I do remember that it is rather a nice area.

Is it not an AONB? It's adjacent to the North Downs is it not (or just a few miles to the south of them)?

Surely there must be somewhere else they can build these houses that isn't so 'green'?

What about in North Kent somewhere for instance, which has always (well, since the 80s when I first passed through) been semi-industrialised? New housing really needs to be concentrated in areas which have always (in recent times) had some industry or existing development dotted around, where people are used to seeing something other than green space all around them.

This is one of the only areas of Mid Kent not in an AONB. North Kent could fit a bit more development, yes, but there is a planned theme park on one of the major housing sites on the Swanscombe Peninsula, plus the IoG is not suitable for housing as there's an active oil terminal I believe there (rail services recently restarted to the terminal) and
there's an unstable ship in the Medway nearby with lots of explosives on, I wonder if it's in an Emergency Planning Zone.

I'm surprised that is not an AONB.

I think that if you want more houses in those sorts of areas, small extensions to existing settlements are the way to go

 

[SynthD]

That typically doesn’t get past nimbys. There are homes younger than the residents, who think they have guaranteed right to see the fields.