Passenger service lines that deserve to close

[Cliveblackpool]

I take the liberty of re-posting mine of January 2015 in a very similar thread:

When I was a student (post-grad. Urban & Rural Planning) in the 60s we had a Canadian in the year-group. Transport planning was part of our remit, but the studies, as far as they went, were almost entirely road oriented – cars per household, origin and destination surveys, highway capacity, road and junction design, parking provision – that sort of thing. But I and my Canadian colleague, and one or two others in the group were well aware of the growing unease in academic quarters about the unbridled growth of road traffic, and we, and others besides us, foresaw the problems of congestion we now experience. So we suggested, as part of the course project work, that a part of transport planning should require the protection of existing transport assets for the future, whether they were wanted just then or not. My Canadian friend talked about the rail closures he had seen in Canada, surprised that ''closure" in the UK also meant dismantlement and ultimate destruction of the asset.
"Why do you go to so much trouble to rip them up?" he asked me. " I dunno" I answered, then "So what do you do in Canada?"
"Leave 'em be - let 'em rust" he answered.
But we were only students, and the motor vehicles on roads was the way forward as far as officialdom was concerned. I remember Mrs. Thatcher, in some speech or other, proclaiming “The railway is old 19th century technology. Roads and road transport are 20th century technology” – or something like that.
But how grateful we would be today if the “Let ‘em rust” policy had appertained here in the 60s! I think of the Bedford-Cambridge problem, for example.
If, ultimately, after all your deliberations you decide you must 'close' these lines, so be it. But for goodness sake don't destroy them as well! Who knows what the future holds?

Destroying a transport corridor to me is complete stupidity.
Even now in some major cities they continue to build on them, demolish major bridges etc. Creating a new corridor through a city/town is extremely expensive.

 

[DT611]

I take the liberty of re-posting mine of January 2015 in a very similar thread:

When I was a student (post-grad. Urban & Rural Planning) in the 60s we had a Canadian in the year-group. Transport planning was part of our remit, but the studies, as far as they went, were almost entirely road oriented – cars per household, origin and destination surveys, highway capacity, road and junction design, parking provision – that sort of thing. But I and my Canadian colleague, and one or two others in the group were well aware of the growing unease in academic quarters about the unbridled growth of road traffic, and we, and others besides us, foresaw the problems of congestion we now experience. So we suggested, as part of the course project work, that a part of transport planning should require the protection of existing transport assets for the future, whether they were wanted just then or not. My Canadian friend talked about the rail closures he had seen in Canada, surprised that ''closure" in the UK also meant dismantlement and ultimate destruction of the asset.
"Why do you go to so much trouble to rip them up?" he asked me. " I dunno" I answered, then "So what do you do in Canada?"
"Leave 'em be - let 'em rust" he answered.
But we were only students, and the motor vehicles on roads was the way forward as far as officialdom was concerned. I remember Mrs. Thatcher, in some speech or other, proclaiming “The railway is old 19th century technology. Roads and road transport are 20th century technology” – or something like that.
But how grateful we would be today if the “Let ‘em rust” policy had appertained here in the 60s! I think of the Bedford-Cambridge problem, for example.
If, ultimately, after all your deliberations you decide you must 'close' these lines, so be it. But for goodness sake don't destroy them as well! Who knows what the future holds?

That would also be my feeling on the matter

 

[David Goddard]

I am still in shock that we have a board on here discussing which lines should be closed. Have we had any new members called Marples and Beeching?
What we should be discussing is how to develop patronage on these more lightly used lines, to promote their growth.

 

[Agent_c]

Only two problems I can see with that, first Pleasure Beach is already served by trams and they are closer to the Pleasure Beach than Blackpool South....

But what about Pleasure Beach station?

 

[NoMorePacers]

If this thread must exist, may I suggest ripping up all the train lines and replacing them with motorways just for coaches and a bigger coach fleet.

 

[backontrack]

If this thread must exist, may I suggest ripping up all the train lines and replacing them with motorways just for coaches and a bigger coach fleet.

No, you can't.

Happy now?

 

[HowardGWR]

I think there may be a case for substituting heavy rail with something else on perhaps a more useful trajectory.

An example I have in mind is in my birth city of Bristol, where the suburban railway lines don't really go where they need to go. Both the entertainment and shopping areas are a fair step from Temple Meads and only latterly has the business area moved near the station. Would one close part of the suburban lines as presently constituted, and design a tram system that perhaps could make use of part of some of the heavy rail infrastructure, as is now happening in Sheffield, a very similar city to Bristol in many ways (hilly being one!!)?

It's not all about preserving lines. Our city centres need a fresh approach and look at what has happened in Nottingham, another good example of one or two useless old lines having been abandoned and new tram routes substituted that end up serving where folk actually want to go. Nottingham Midland, Temple Meads, Sheffield Midland don't really do that.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But what about Pleasure Beach station?

The Blackpool South line, like the Whitby line, is one where growth is constrained by the poor service level albeit on different scales. With the long blockade of Blackpool North to come, a loop really should have been installed on the South line to allow it to take some of that traffic. If the increased service level was then kept on a trial basis for the following 6 months we'd than have much more of an idea of whether the route could support 2tph long-term.

 

[yorksrob]

If this thread must exist, may I suggest ripping up all the train lines and replacing them with motorways just for coaches and a bigger coach fleet.

It's not as though you'd be the first to suggest such a thing

 

[Lankyline]

I am still in shock that we have a board on here discussing which lines should be closed. Have we had any new members called Marples and Beeching?
What we should be discussing is how to develop patronage on these more lightly used lines, to promote their growth.

Surely you can't be advocating a policy that never ever considers closure, realignment, conversion to tram or tram/train. Closure can also be as a result of environmental and/or climate issues, Dawlish is a case in question with its exposure to major storms. So yes there are potential cases that could result in closure or partial closure of a line, this is not about promoting Beeching like closures !

Why not start a thread on your last point ?

 

[Camden]

Some of the Metrolink lines in Manchester are a good example of that. Tired lines, old trains, not much future as they were. New lease of life as tram lines though.

 

[6Gman]

If this thread must exist, may I suggest ripping up all the train lines and replacing them with motorways just for coaches and a bigger coach fleet.

You may.

But it's a stupid idea.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am still in shock that we have a board on here discussing which lines should be closed. Have we had any new members called Marples and Beeching?
What we should be discussing is how to develop patronage on these more lightly used lines, to promote their growth.

You can, of course, start a thread "How to develop patronage on lightly used lines".

In the meantime, this thread can discuss potential closures.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Some of the Metrolink lines in Manchester are a good example of that. Tired lines, old trains, not much future as they were. New lease of life as tram lines though.

Not much future? Who's to say the Bury and Altrincham lines couldn't have had a strong new lease of life with new trains etc.? The Altrincham line could have supported more/faster trains from Northwich if it hadn't been converted to tram, and perhaps even the Bury line could have got substantially more custom if some semi-fast trains had been added to give faster journey times. I don't doubt that the tram conversion has provided a good new service in other ways, but it has come at some cost in lost rail opportunities - and given the locations, I'd bet both of those lines would today be thriving even if they'd still been heavy rail

 

[yorksrob]

Not much future? Who's to say the Bury and Altrincham lines couldn't have had a strong new lease of life with new trains etc.? The Altrincham line could have supported more/faster trains from Northwich if it hadn't been converted to tram, and perhaps even the Bury line could have got substantially more custom if some semi-fast trains had been added to give faster journey times. I don't doubt that the tram conversion has provided a good new service in other ways, but it has come at some cost in lost rail opportunities - and given the locations, I'd bet both of those lines would today be thriving even if they'd still been heavy rail

Indeed. I can imagine an alternative outcome in which the Bury line had got a fleet of slightly adjusted two or three carriage networkers and continued happily with a three trains per hour service.

I have less experience of the Altrincham routes to be able to comment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looks like we might have to agree to disagree, 30 years is not a practical timescale to forecast even for planning major infrastructure projects, but I do agree that a major flaw in the Beeching report was to ignore new town / expansion.
I know statistics can be twisted, political influence for good or bad is always a factor and these days enviromental impact is a major consideration, but railways have to evolve as the needs of the economy, population, climate and industry change, i'm not advocating closure for closure's sake but merely looking at the possibility of realignment and/or relocation of track/stations to meet those changes.
I would also throw into this discussion that closing the route through Dawlish could be a possibility in the future as we have all seen the devastating impact of the weather on this section of line, personally I hope not, but could we actually think it may never happen?

I'm confident that the Dawlish line can have a long and happy future - provided a decent alternative route through Okehampton is built for when seas are rough.

 

[Upton]

Not so much a closure. More of a change of use.

I was wondering whether the c2c line west of Barking to Fenchurch Street will ever be changed over to the DLR? The reason for this is that in the last couple of years several trains have started to be diverted through to Liverpool Street. I know this is probably to catch the trade going to Westfields Stratford, but I sometimes wonder whether Liverpool Street could cope with extra traffic?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not so much a closure. More of a change of use.

I was wondering whether the c2c line west of Barking to Fenchurch Street will ever be changed over to the DLR? The reason for this is that in the last couple of years several trains have started to be diverted through to Liverpool Street. I know this is probably to catch the trade going to Westfields Stratford, but I sometimes wonder whether Liverpool Street could cope with extra traffic?

More capacity will be available at Liverpool Street once Crossrail is up and running. I imagine that there'll be a faìr few regulars for whom Fenchurch Street is more convenient for their workplace though. Those people might not be very happy...

 

[PeterC]

More capacity will be available at Liverpool Street once Crossrail is up and running.

1. LT&S services would have to share tracks with Crossrail from Forest Gate junction to Stratford.
2. I believe that the capacity being released at LST is already spoken for to improve GEML services.

There are a number of lines that are suitable candidates for conversion to tram operation but only as part of a wider network. It wouldn't be cost effective to have dedicated stock and maintenance facilities just to replace a shuttle like Romford - Upminster or Watford Junction - St Albans Abbey although both would bare examination as part of a wider scheme.

 

[Y961 XBU]

What about Heysham Dock, only 1 Train a day and the track feels ready to fall apart!

 

[deltic08]

It sounds as if the mentality of Blackpool council has not improved since the 1960s - it was their suggestion to close Blackpool Central so they could get hold of some former railway land. So, passengers now get decanted at South - a good mile from the town centre. It would improve usage if the line was extended back to a new, smaller station near the site of Blackpool Central - apart from the car park, there is little (other than £££) to prevent this.

I completely support this view.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

It sounds as if the mentality of Blackpool council has not improved since the 1960s - it was their suggestion to close Blackpool Central so they could get hold of some former railway land. So, passengers now get decanted at South - a good mile from the town centre. It would improve usage if the line was extended back to a new, smaller station near the site of Blackpool Central - apart from the car park, there is little (other than £££) to prevent this.

That would make a big difference to the economy of South & Central Blackpool. Closing Central station was /is a huge mistake. Building a tramway to North station is poor value for money. Spend it on the South /Central Railway.
Bloomfield bridge has been removed, and United Utilities have dug 200 foot pits in parts of the car park (Holding tanks for storm water) I am sure it would still be feasible though.

 

[yorksrob]

There's certainly room to extend back to Central - it would make the South Fylde branch a much more useful metro. And there's no need for the full ten track extravaganza of old, so Blackpool council could even keep it's motorway !

 

[deltic08]

This thread is a potentially dangerous can of worms to start to open - to invite suggestions of closure on the basis of usage statistics.

The old adage that there's lies, damn lies and statistics rings true. Just look at how the passenger surveys under-pinning the Beeching report were allegedly carried out. Even with todays technology, it's all to easy to make a case for closing based on the abuse of statistics - whereas it's much more difficult to do this to get a line re-opened.

I've lost count of the time people have said:

"No passengers use the line/station" - sometimes that's because only one train per day stops there, at an incredibly inconvenient time of day, and it's not advertised.

On the other hand, just look how some re-opened lines have had passenger figures well in excess of the initial forecasts (the Borders Line for example).

Maybe some lines will never be used again, but for most lines there are questions really need to be asked about why some of the usage figures are so low, and what has been done to try to increase them first.

Beeching deceived the 8,000 residents of Ripon by making the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton line look as if it was losing £18,000 per annum when it was making a profit of £13,000. Harrogate also lost through trains both north and south at the same time.

The population of Ripon has doubled since 1967 and is due to double again by 2045. No forward thinking or planning here by local authorities.

10,000 houses are being built in East Leeds either side of the former Cross Gates-Wetherby trackbed together with P&R on the A64 yet Leeds City Council refuses to reinstate two miles of trackbed to cater for upwards of 20,000 residents believing they can bus commuters into Leeds in the peaks. A £100m Ring Road is being built instead to connect this development to the MI which will not help City commuters one iota. No forward planning here either but there is no excuse as potential numbers are already known. Barking.

 

[John Luxton]

I don't know the area but would the line to Gunnislake fall into this ?

i holiday in this area and occasionally take a trip. Gunnislake Bere Alston appears quite well used. i have seen whole families just do Bere Alston to Calstock one stop as the crossing of the viaduct provides what is essentially a ferry service. It is a few miles round by road.

John

 

[Lankyline]

That would make a big difference to the economy of South & Central Blackpool. Closing Central station was /is a huge mistake. Building a tramway to North station is poor value for money. Spend it on the South /Central Railway.
Bloomfield bridge has been removed, and United Utilities have dug 200 foot pits in parts of the car park (Holding tanks for storm water) I am sure it would still be feasible though.

When you consider that Beeching recommended Blackpool North to close and the council lobbied to have it overturned as they wanted the land Central Station occupied, you've got to admit they've made brilliant use of the land so far....not But since they are going ahead with the tram link to North Station, surely someone with brains on the council could see the benefit of linking North and South stations even if it was to extend south further up the car park

 

[deltic]

Even with hindsight would we have kept open every passenger railway line that was open in the early 1950s. There was a missed opportunity to rationalise the network after nationalisation - admittedly money was short but as cities were rebuilt duplicate stations could have been removed and better connections made across the network.

For example, why did we have to wait for Beeching to get rid of Chester Northgate station and allow better interchange with just a single Chester station. There are lots of similar examples across the country.

I agree that if lines are to close then the trackbed should be protected for a certain period of time and there needs to be far more flexibility in opening and closing of stations as others have suggested. It took 3 days to build the emergency station at Workington - imagine if it took just a month to put up temporary stations to see if the demand was there or to accommodate special events. We could see a far more dynamic and successful railway.

 

[najaB]

...imagine if it took just a month to put up temporary stations to see if the demand was there or to accommodate special events.

It can do - there is an experimental station process.

 

[AndrewE]

10,000 houses are being built in East Leeds either side of the former Cross Gates-Wetherby trackbed together with P&R on the A64 yet Leeds City Council refuses to reinstate two miles of trackbed to cater for upwards of 20,000 residents believing they can bus commuters into Leeds in the peaks. A £100m Ring Road is being built instead to connect this development to the MI which will not help City commuters one iota. No forward planning here either but there is no excuse as potential numbers are already known. Barking.

I have an envelope franked "Leeds: Motorway city of the 70's" - when even then it was already apparent that encouraging yet more traffic was not the way to cut congestion! As you say, barking. But politicians get elected by pandering to their constituents' most selfish whims.

 

[deltic]

It can do - there is an experimental station process.

This seems to be a way of getting out of going through the standard closure process rather than genuinely rapidly trailing new stations

 

[najaB]

This seems to be a way of getting out of going through the standard closure process rather than genuinely rapidly trailing new stations

The lengthy closure process is a disincentive to trialling new services. Who is going to take a risk trial running a service knowing that it's going to cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and many months (even years) to cease if it's not as profitable as predicted?

 

[Marton]

Looking solely at the finances I can see your point with some of these, particularly the Conwy Valley which gets washed out every winter and is a bit of an anomaly from an operation point of view. Whitby though I think would do reasonably well if it had an hourly or even two hourly service. It'd still need a subsidy but it could potentially be a real asset to the communities it serves.

It is already. The school services are rammed; not much room for walkers and others sometimes.

When it gets the early service to Middlesbrough again it will be much better. I forget if there is a plan for a later service to Whitby. 1740 is a bit early.