Lines/stations that shouldn't have been reopened

[edwin_m]

Acknowledging your use of the word generally, it is a trade off.

If the trains typically have 400 people on it, and the extra stop results in each of them losing 2-3 minutes, for the benefit of 4 people getting on, then I'd say it's not worth it. The (rhetorical) question is, how big does the ratio of winners to losers, and the time value of each win and loss, need to be to make it worthwhile?

Not just rhetorical. Every station reopening (other than new or extended services) will need to consider this question somewhere in its business case.

 

[yorksrob]

Acknowledging your use of the word generally, it is a trade off.

If the trains typically have 400 people on it, and the extra stop results in each of them losing 2-3 minutes, for the benefit of 4 people getting on, then I'd say it's not worth it. The (rhetorical) question is, how big does the ratio of winners to losers, and the time value of each win and loss, need to be to make it worthwhile?

Not just rhetorical. Every station reopening (other than new or extended services) will need to consider this question somewhere in its business case.

It is indeed a trade off.

However, it does need to be acknowledged that the benefit per individual who gains access to the railway service is going to far outweigh the disbenefit per individual of a few minutes experienced by those already with a train service.

 

[Bald Rick]

It is indeed a trade off.

However, it does need to be acknowledged that the benefit per individual who gains access to the railway service is going to far outweigh the disbenefit per individual of a few minutes experienced by those already with a train service.

I think that's the issue. 'Far outweigh' doth butter no parsnips. It needs to be numerated, and that's where it starts getting difficult. Slowing down the journey of 10million people a year for the benefit of 1,000 a year is clearly not good. Conversely slowing down the journey of 1,000 per year to benefit 10million is clearly a good thing. The dividing line between good and bad is somewhere in between. Some method of assessment is required, and that is what makes a business case.


In my view, there should be a net gain to society, ie the time lost by the losers is more than outweighed by the time gained by the winners, all else being equal.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that's the issue. 'Far outweigh' doth butter no parsnips. It needs to be numerated, and that's where it starts getting difficult. Slowing down the journey of 10million people a year for the benefit of 1,000 a year is clearly not good. Conversely slowing down the journey of 1,000 per year to benefit 10million is clearly a good thing. The dividing line between good and bad is somewhere in between. Some method of assessment is required, and that is what makes a business case.


In my view, there should be a net gain to society, ie the time lost by the losers is more than outweighed by the time gained by the winners, all else being equal.

That's clearly a fairly extreme example. I rather hope that most reopenings get more than 1000 passengers a year. The point is providing someone with the ability to get to work/college/family in a decent time is of more value than the two minutes lost by someone who already has the opportunity to travel.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One beef I have with individual station reopenings is the extended journey times for everybody else.

I'm particularly thinking of Eastham Rake and Bromborough Rake on Merseyrail (especially if you are a Chester passenger).
That made it 16 stops to Liverpool Central instead of an already tedious 14.
Merseyrail make no effort to offer a skip-stop service to ameliorate this problem (barring the token omission of Capenhurst on alternate services).

There is though presumably another side to that: If new stations bring in more passengers, that might in some cases be enough to justify an increase in frequency, which thereby saves passengers some waiting time or gives some additional convenience, offsetting the slightly increased journey times. That would presumably happen if passenger levels have reached roughly the point at which increasing frequency is just marginally worth while - and then the small number of extra passengers from a new station could be enough to tip the decision into "definitely, increase the frequency".

Interestingly, in this context, the example you cite of Chester-Liverpool now sees trains every 15 minutes. I'm fairly sure it used to be every half hour, although I'm not sure exactly when that changed. Would you be able to justify every 15 minutes without the additional passengers from the new stations? In all probability, the new stations wouldn't have made enough difference, but it's impossible to be certain. Maybe, without them, it might have ended up as only every 20 minutes? Vague, speculation I know, but in principle, it's possible.

(I do agree with you though that the lack of semi-fast trains from Chester to Liverpool is unfortunate).

 

[Bald Rick]

That's clearly a fairly extreme example. I rather hope that most reopenings get more than 1000 passengers a year. The point is providing someone with the ability to get to work/college/family in a decent time is of more value than the two minutes lost by someone who already has the opportunity to travel.

It was deliberately extreme (and fictional) to demonstrate the point, which is that there is a tipping point between non-viable and viable, and that is what business classes, and research that goes into them, are designed to find.

 

[yorksrob]

It was deliberately extreme (and fictional) to demonstrate the point, which is that there is a tipping point between non-viable and viable, and that is what business classes, and research that goes into them, are designed to find.

I think I've made the point in relation to the Dawlish thread that I'm not convinced the current methodology strikes the right balance in that respect.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

East Midlands Parkway is another which seems to attract criticism for not reaching passenger targets.

EMP's problem is that it doesn't connect well with the airport , so travellers from Nottingham, derby, loughborough or Leicester are likely to get o nthe skylink bus which deposits them right outside the doors. also not sure where it;s 'park way' customismeant to be from especially given that nottingham direction traffic wantign to parkand ride are more likely to use the tram or existing bus P+R

 

[backontrack]

A good example of such a reopening would be Boston - Lincoln. Serving intermediate stations at Bardney (pop. 2000), Woodhall Spa (4000), Tattershall (6500). It could provide a sub-40 minute journey time (around 20 minutes quicker than the car, there is no bus service) as well as through journeys to Skegness.

A small diversion would bring the route to Coningsby (pop. 3800) between Tattershall and Boston.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd say that these (re)openings are necessary:

HS3 (a proper HS3, from Liverpool to York and Hull (not just Manchester to Leeds) with a main line going Liverpool > Manchester > Leeds > York, with a branch from Leeds to Hull and a branch from Manchester to Sheffield, meeting HS2 to get to Leeds)
Inverkeithing-Perth via Halbeath and Kinross
Fleetwood
Ashington/Blyth
Portishead
Ripon
Stocksbridge
Tavistock

Portishead, Stocksbridge, Fleetwood and possibly Ashington/Blyth could all be operated by PPMs. For Ripon I'd extend the Knaresborough/Harrogate terminators instead and run into Leeds.

 

[edwin_m]

That's clearly a fairly extreme example. I rather hope that most reopenings get more than 1000 passengers a year. The point is providing someone with the ability to get to work/college/family in a decent time is of more value than the two minutes lost by someone who already has the opportunity to travel.

If everyone's journey is extended by two minutes, a few of them will decide to use a different mode of transport or not to travel instead. Research by British Rail, based on the results of actual service changes, indicated that a 10% journey saving would result in 9% more passengers and conversely a 10% longer journey is likely to lose 9% of the passengers.

Against this you get some extra passengers from the new intermediate station, but as it is intermediate their journeys are probably shorter than those of the passengers already using the train. The social and environmental benefits of rail mostly depend on the number of passenger-miles, so may actually be negative if a new station attracts very few new riders but drives away many existing ones.

These sort of calculations also allow for the effect of frequency - something called "generalised journey time" is actually used, which includes a frequency-dependent figure for waiting for the train and also a time penalty for changes en route. If a frequency increase is proposed, the business case must also consider the extra operating costs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

EMP's problem is that it doesn't connect well with the airport , so travellers from Nottingham, derby, loughborough or Leicester are likely to get o nthe skylink bus which deposits them right outside the doors. also not sure where it;s 'park way' customismeant to be from especially given that nottingham direction traffic wantign to parkand ride are more likely to use the tram or existing bus P+R

EMP was all about attracting London business travellers from the rather affluent surrounding rural area, for whom driving to somewhere like Grantham is less hassle and quicker overall than driving to a more urban station on the MML. Access to the airport was only ever going to be icing on the cake and possibly to persuade the more gullible amongst the approval bodies to give it the nod. Park and ride to any closer centres would only ever work if the trains ran every 15min or better to each destination and the parking was free.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

A small diversion would bring the route to Coningsby (pop. 3800) between Tattershall and Boston.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd say that these (re)openings are necessary:

HS3 (a proper HS3, from Liverpool to York and Hull (not just Manchester to Leeds) with a main line going Liverpool > Manchester > Leeds > York, with a branch from Leeds to Hull and a branch from Manchester to Sheffield, meeting HS2 to get to Leeds)
Inverkeithing-Perth via Halbeath and Kinross
Fleetwood
Ashington/Blyth
Portishead
Ripon
Stocksbridge
Tavistock

Portishead, Stocksbridge, Fleetwood and possibly Ashington/Blyth could all be operated by PPMs. For Ripon I'd extend the Knaresborough/Harrogate terminators instead and run into Leeds.

Interestingly everybody seems to think HS2/HS3 should go to York but nobody ever mentions Bradford which is a much larger city than our county town.

The ECML only ever went through York thanks to the political shenanigans of a certain George Hudson. As a consequence, passengers from Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford and Leeds have to suffer a long diversion on their way to Newcastle and Edinburgh. Why do HS lines have to duplicate existing lines?

 

[backontrack]

Interestingly everybody seems to think HS2/HS3 should go to York but nobody ever mentions Bradford which is a much larger city than our county city.

The ECML only ever went through York thanks to the political shenanigans of a certain George Hudson. As a consequence, passengers from Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford and Leeds have to suffer a long diversion on their way to Newcastle and Edinburgh. Why do HS lines have to duplicate existing lines?

Fixed that for you

Oh, and, you're wrong. I'm not letting it miss York. There's no question of that. It will go to York. York's an important transport hub, with a university... there's no question. I also resent your suggestion that York shouldn't have the ECML. It's a darn sight more important than you think it is. York should be served by HS3, no question.

That doesn't mean that Bradford shouldn't be served; in fact, it should certainly be served by a high speed railway, I agree, it's a large city which also serves places like Keighley, Huddersfield and Halifax and it's very important. But should it be on the main line, or a loop off it? Would serving Bradford negate any potential time saving? If not, then I'm all for it.

 

[HSTEd]

Also it should be remembered that the terrain north of YOrk is much easier than the terrain north of Bradford.
This would have had a significant effect when the ECML was being built - its purpose was to run fast after all, and long gradients kill firemen.

 

[MarkyT]

If everyone's journey is extended by two minutes, a few of them will decide to use a different mode of transport or not to travel instead. Research by British Rail, based on the results of actual service changes, indicated that a 10% journey saving would result in 9% more passengers and conversely a 10% longer journey is likely to lose 9% of the passengers.

I expect in a real case local factors would have a big part to play such that if rail is already significantly faster than other alternatives then a small extension of journey time to accommodate an additional stop is unlikely to have a significant impact on longer distance numbers. Conversely if rail is already a marginal choice for many existing customers then the effect of even a very short extension could be catastrophic on some rural routes. Personally I'm very much in favour of removing most of the stops on the Barnstaple branch in Devon to help speed up the service between main markets but even though customers at some of those request halts can be counted on one hand daily, the political ramifications of the the dreaded word closure would make this course of action highly unlikely.

These sort of calculations also allow for the effect of frequency - something called "generalised journey time" is actually used, which includes a frequency-dependent figure for waiting for the train and also a time penalty for changes en route.

I'd say that is a most important consideration. Take for instance Metrolink conversions of suburban routes around Manchester. Here in most cases extra stops and more tortuous routing in places increased journey times compared to previous heavy rail, but this was more than made up for by greatly increased frequency, better access in the city centre and (of course) the 'newness factor'.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think Sugar Loaf was the best suggestion so far, although one or two of those Barnstaple line halts are indeed a good case for review. I presume Berney Arms is a given, although perhaps it was never closed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think Sugar Loaf was the best suggestion so far, although one or two of those Barnstaple line halts are indeed a good case for review. I presume Berney Arms is a given, although perhaps it was never closed.

How much time would be saved if Sugar Loaf was closed? And how much would that saved time boost ridership on the route? With the present frequency I'd suggest that the answer to both would be "not much". If the line had 1tp2h I imagine that would boost usage far more than closing a couple of the smaller stations (which are request stops anyway) but keeping the present service pattern. More services means more subsidy of course, but there's a political case to be made.

 

[Parallel]

I think Sugar Loaf was the best suggestion so far, although one or two of those Barnstaple line halts are indeed a good case for review.

I wasn't aware any of the Barnstaple line halts had closed - Some do have very low usage though - But there again, the services to a few of them are also very bad. I think the hourly service for the busier request stops (as per now) is fine but maybe there could be an 'all request stops' service every two hours, a bit like how ATW run the Cambrian Coast line. Obviously, some stations (Especially Chapelton) probably wouldn't see that bigger increase, but it would help to improve usage on the line, and also encourage the local residents to use it more (not forgetting, if nobody wants to get on/off, then the train won't stop!)

 

[edwin_m]

How much time would be saved if Sugar Loaf was closed?

Not very much. This is partly because the line speed is only 45mph, but also because the working timetable appears to assume that some but not all request stops are made on a particular journey. Thus the times in the timetable are unattainable if all the stops shown are made (there is extra time allowed at loops and main stations to catch up). The shortening of scheduled journey time by removing one stop would be less than the actual time penalty of making that stop.

 

[MarkyT]

I wasn't aware any of the Barnstaple line halts had closed - Some do have very low usage though - But there again, the services to a few of them are also very bad. I think the hourly service for the busier request stops (as per now) is fine but maybe there could be an 'all request stops' service every two hours, a bit like how ATW run the Cambrian Coast line. Obviously, some stations (Especially Chapelton) probably wouldn't see that bigger increase, but it would help to improve usage on the line, and also encourage the local residents to use it more (not forgetting, if nobody wants to get on/off, then the train won't stop!)

You still have to include time for possible stops at request halts although it is unlikely you'd ever have to stop at every one. That makes planning regular interval services with precisely timed passes difficult, and in practice means trains will hang about at passing loops longer than strictly necessary. That in turn extends journey time reduces stock utilisation etc etc. If it is so unthinkable to ever close a halt no matterhow small the patronage then the corollary to that is we should build ever more new halts at decreasing intervals on rural railways regardless of their business case. If you really want the existing halts to improve passenger numbers then massive housing estates need to be planned around each one, but the land isn't really suitable with the line following the bottom of valleys for the most part, hence a high flooding risk!

 

[Waverley125]

Bus service Boston to Lincoln - IC5

which serves Woodhall and tattershall ( and then runs south of the river - to Metheringham and onwards towards Lincoln )

http://www.lincsinterconnect.com/maps.phtml

Yes, there is a bus service. It takes 1hr 45 mins end-to-end, and as such is only used by people who have no other option at all.

This is the thing that several on the thread don't quite understand - in rural areas, car ownership is pretty much a requirement, so bus services will usually not get great patronage.

A train that is more comfortable, more reliable and the quickest option is likely to be viable in a way that bus services are not. As such, saying that 'well, there's only X buses a day so clearly a train service wouldn't be viable' is to badly misunderstand the nature of the situation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A small diversion would bring the route to Coningsby (pop. 3800) between Tattershall and Boston.

No it wouldn't. Coningsby and Tattershall are two villages that basically run into one another, the quoted population is for the Tattershall-Coningsby conurbation. Coningsby used to have a station on the line to Skegness, which diverged from the Lincoln - Boston line just north of the villages.

 

[Parallel]

You still have to include time for possible stops at request halts although it is unlikely you'd ever have to stop at every one. That makes planning regular interval services with precisely timed passes difficult, and in practice means trains will hang about at passing loops longer than strictly necessary. That in turn extends journey time reduces stock utilisation etc etc.

Fair comments - I think the main issue would be between Eggesford and Barnstaple as Umberleigh is the only booked call (by request) on most trains. Kings Nympton gets some random calls thoughout the day, so a train booked to call at every station from Eggesford to Barnstaple on its return would probably only be able to call at Umberleigh. The next train would do the opposite and would call only at Umberleigh, and then every station on the return back to Eggesford. You would need a time for every booked station call, but other lines (HoWL, Cambrian Coast) assume that the train won't stop at every station. Although some trains do have dwell time at Crediton and/or Eggesford, it doesn't help that turn-around time at Barnstaple is fairly tight.

All stations (bar Chapelton) are at least at 1,500 per annum for passenger numbers now - There are stations elsewhere in the UK that get a similar usage with a more frequent service, and with passenger numbers currently at their highest in 10 years at Crediton, Yeoford, Morchard Road, Lapford, Portsmouth Arms, Umberleigh and Barnstaple, this shows now could be a good time to capitalise on it.

(Obviously other projects in Devon would come first, like making the Paignton locals half-hourly, possible all year round Okehampton service but with the Tarka line, the stations are there and maintained, the trains are already running, Tarka line advertising is in place all over the GWR network - It seems like a relatively low cost way of encouraging more people to travel by train.)

 

[Mitch in Notts]

A good example of such a reopening would be Boston - Lincoln. Serving intermediate stations at Bardney (pop. 2000), Woodhall Spa (4000), Tattershall (6500). It could provide a sub-40 minute journey time (around 20 minutes quicker than the car, there is no bus service) as well as through journeys to Skegness.

Surely as a starter a two hourly Lincoln-Sleaford-Boston service using existing infrastructure and a single unit would be a sound idea. I would say the journey time(approx 55minutes) would be comparable to that of a car (one internet source suggests 51minutes by road).

 

[backontrack]

All stations (bar Chapelton) are at least at 1,500 per annum for passenger numbers now - There are stations elsewhere in the UK that get a similar usage with a more frequent service, and with passenger numbers currently at their highest in 10 years at Crediton, Yeoford, Morchard Road, Lapford, Portsmouth Arms, Umberleigh and Barnstaple, this shows now could be a good time to capitalise on it.

Don't forget that Copplestone is enjoying healthy passenger numbers.

 

[Blamethrower]

Bit off topic but.....

Would re-openings stand more of a chance if it was done on a heritage scale.

What I mean is that groups of local and non-local volunteers help to build the line piecemeal, running heritage trains in the interim to generate capital.

Then as the years pass, track upgrades/relaying can take place, more through trains added and then eventually a TOC adds their own revenue service (working in between the heritage trains)

This will give the following advantages:

- more heritage railways in south wales
- a line built by the people who will use it
- massively reduced costs
- acts as an acid test whether or not to start a TOC operated national service
- verifies demand

And some disadvantages, but I'm sure others will be able to point those out. If people want re-openings then they will have to contribute, especially if there are no major population centres to serve.

I base this on the Aber - Camarthen reopening.

 

[edwin_m]

Bit off topic but.....

Would re-openings stand more of a chance if it was done on a heritage scale.

What I mean is that groups of local and non-local volunteers help to build the line piecemeal, running heritage trains in the interim to generate capital.

Then as the years pass, track upgrades/relaying can take place, more through trains added and then eventually a TOC adds their own revenue service (working in between the heritage trains)

This will give the following advantages:

- more heritage railways in south wales
- a line built by the people who will use it
- massively reduced costs
- acts as an acid test whether or not to start a TOC operated national service
- verifies demand

And some disadvantages, but I'm sure others will be able to point those out. If people want re-openings then they will have to contribute, especially if there are no major population centres to serve.

I base this on the Aber - Camarthen reopening.

It's an interesting concept, but I doubt it would work. Two objections would be that the standard of work might be only good enough for 25mph heritage operation and need re-doing for inclusion in the national network, and a substantial proportion of the volunteers will feel short changed if their railway is (as they see it) taken away from them as soon as they finish it.