Rail Campaign Group Wants Stations Closed

[deltic]

Couldn't agree more with Bald Rick - around a quarter of all stations on the network are used by only 1% of passengers.

There are numerous proposed stations that will easily generate 100,000 passengers plus a year which cant get funding while there are dozens of stations kept going used by less than 10 people a day.

There will always be a limited pot of money and using it for the benefit of a handful to the detriment of many it crazy.

 

[bnm]

deltic, I think you are Dr Beeching in disguise and I claim my £5.

 

[yorksrob]

But does it really cost that much to keep them open ? I could maybe understand if it were in the way on a mainline but how much time would it actually save on these country routes.

 

[bnm]

Cost a 5h!t load more to close the intermediate stations. Public Inquiries and the like. And for what? So Messrs. Adams and Gulliver can get to Exeter/Barnstaple all of 15 minutes (by their calculations) quicker. :roll:

 

[neilmc]

It's always been a temptation to wreck the railway infrastructure for the sake of minor savings then have to pay multiple times the cost to reinstate the facility once there is a change in demand or a future government decrees otherwise.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. And potentially so much disruption to many communities.

 

[DavidBrown]

I think that the only station on the line that could be justified for closure is Chapelton - I really can't see any sort of demand for it starting anytime soon. I think that if a couple of other stations such as Lapford and Copplestone saw major changes, potentially even relocation, to make them more accessable, then they would see passenger numbers grow substantially - the Tarka Rail Association has mentioned the possibility of a "Copplestone Parkway", which whilst it almost certaintly wouldn't carry the Parkway name, would certaintly act like one with good car parking facilities at a main road junction (A377/A3072). Copplestone itself is a growing village and would certaintly benefit with better links to Exeter. Lapford doesn't need anything as lavish, but it does need the basics to make it usable. At the moment, it has no car parking at all - not even a layby or driveway used as a drop-off point.

The other thing to look at long term is whether there's enough capacity between Crediton and Cowley Bridge to cope with a potential Okehampton service, or whether dualling here may be needed.

 

[TerminalJunkie]

I think that the only station on the line that could be justified for closure is Chapelton.

What about Portsmouth Arms?

 

[pemma]

What's the distance between the stations? If there's 3 stations over less than 3 miles then removing a low-usage one is less of an issue than 3 stations over 10 miles.

 

[merlodlliw]

today is march 1st, mad as a march hare comes to mind. They sound a real load of Grockles these North Devon public transport users group, note its not an association with a constitution, just a group, not to be taken serious.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Maybe not eleven stations but this discussion cropped up a few weeks ago. There was an article in Modern Railways about it and how some of the stations are only used by on average 5 people a day. With many of the stations useage figures hovering around 1000.

Looking at the stats i think 11 is far to excessive and it shouldn't be that many. A few passsing loops would help matters more to be honest.

Who collects these figures? Never noticed anyone noting the information.
A lot of visitors to the Tarka line use day ranger tickets.
The 'commuter' train to Exeter (07.00) passes another train at Eggesford, so speeding it up is not that straight forward. The other passing loop is at Crediton, which was then double track to Exeter.

 

[tbtc]

We all want more people to use the railway. We also know that improvements in journey times attract more people. So if in this case knocking out 11 stops reduces journey times to the extent that, say, twice as many new passengers were gained by the railway than lost, it would be a good thing?

Increased revenue, reduced operational cost, and for no up front investment.

Couldn't agree more with Bald Rick - around a quarter of all stations on the network are used by only 1% of passengers.

There are numerous proposed stations that will easily generate 100,000 passengers plus a year which cant get funding while there are dozens of stations kept going used by less than 10 people a day.

There will always be a limited pot of money and using it for the benefit of a handful to the detriment of many it crazy.

I agree with you both - there's a danger that we focus too much on the 1% and try to preserve/conserve everything.

I work by Attercliffe station in Sheffield, which was busy in the days when there was a lot of industry around there, but travel patterns change and its now closed. The inconvenience to the handful of people still using Attercliffe was cancelled out by the larger number of people who benefitted from their trains not stopping there. It sounds cruel, but the 99% are more important than the 1%.

 

[Badger]

He said: "There are people in north Devon who already have to travel 10 miles [16km] or more to reach their rail link.

"We think it's reasonable and fair to ask people further along the line to do that kind of thing too."

Wow. Completely backwards thinking.

"Some people have it bad, so all people should have it bad"

Some places (Dudley) don't have a train service at all, so all places shouldn't have a train service. Bad logic.

Perhaps things should be built around the stations to make them more useful. They're being used after all, (five people a day is still five people!)


-- take Chapleton for example. There is enough land around the station for perhaps a small village to be built. Between the A377 and the railway line. Also move the bus stops to actually serve the station entrance nicely.

But somebody would complain about loss of a small inaccessible field undoubtedly.

 

[Drsatan]

Wow. Completely backwards thinking.

"Some people have it bad, so all people should have it bad"

Some places (Dudley) don't have a train service at all, so all places shouldn't have a train service. Bad logic.

Perhaps things should be built around the stations to make them more useful. They're being used after all, (five people a day is still five people!)


-- take Chapleton for example. There is enough land around the station for perhaps a small village to be built. Between the A377 and the railway line. Also move the bus stops to actually serve the station entrance nicely.

But somebody would complain about loss of a small inaccessible field undoubtedly.

Gosport (population 76,000) is the largest town in the UK not to have a railway station. Playing devil's advocate here the loss of a train service to 76,000 people is a far greater loss than the loss of a train service to the 676 people who used Portsmouth Arms between 2009-10

 

[tsr]

...the 676 people who used Portsmouth Arms between 2009-10

As another poster said, there will have been additional passengers using tickets with no fixed start/destination - perhaps visitors exploring the area.

My view on this situation (in general) has always been that you cannot compare large, busy stations in towns and cities to many stations with far lower usage. It is completely preposterous to suggest that all railway journeys need to be made between large stations. Also, the beauty of the UK's system is that, even with station closures over the years, we have flexibility to travel point-to-point between all sorts of locations all over the country, some of which may be of benefit that is simply not statistically proven, but which allows people to have a better quality of life, enjoy rail travel and not worry about having to switch modes of transport. Just as people are given the choice between living in a small hamlet and living in larger settlements, so people should have the choice to use stations of smaller size. I am sure anyone in their right mind would agree that a station of lower usage on this line does not need a half-hourly service, but no service at all would be a chronic mistake.

Through the services of Dr Beeching and many others, we have lost enough stations which have served a valuable purpose in conveniently connecting communities with the rest of the country (and, through the wider network, much of North-West Europe, too). This is particularly ridiculous, considering pressures on roads and air travel.

Having said all this, I do accept that there are a small number of stations which are almost completely useless and do not serve any economic or social purpose. I can also see the need for more stations to be served only during specific event, or at certain times of the year.

P.S. I know you said you were playing Devil's Advocate. Here, I am replying as if you were 100% serious.

 

[pemma]

Some places (Dudley) don't have a train service at all, so all places shouldn't have a train service.

There is a station within 1 mile of the town centre though. Some towns/cities that do have stations don't have them in the centre.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Gosport (population 76,000) is the largest town in the UK not to have a railway station.

Oldham doesn't have one any more and it's population is 103,544.

Regarding population and transport usage. Moneysupermarket employ around 400 people at a site in Ewloe, near Chester with many of them getting a shuttle bus from Chester station. The population of Ewloe is 4,800 so the 400 or so commuters could justify a station being built in a small town if there was a pre-existing more direct train line between Chester and Ewloe.

 

[D1009]

Regarding North Devon, I think the Barnstaple service is fine as it is, for the type of line it's a reasonable average speed. Like other Devon branches it could do with longer trains, though some are already 4 cars. There may be room to build a village at Chapelton, but I don't think anyone has proposed one and I'm not sure anyone wants one. If there were any plans for major development then the planning authorities can insist that developers fund public transport enhancements. I believe this is already happening on the other side of Exeter where there is a large development near Exeter Airport and a new station is being planned at Cranbrook between Pinhoe and Whimple.

 

[TheWalrus]

Surely we could achieve a shorter journey time without closing them, just have fewer intermediate calls and only call at times where the service is required?

 

[yorksrob]

I also really don't agree with the argument that "x has a greater population than y and it doesn't have a station, therefore the station at y should close".

In most of these cases the closure of a whole number of y's simply wouldn't save the money to re-open x, therefore it's a non-argument. If anything, it suggests that there needs to be a concerted effort and funding provided to open stations at x (something I'm fairly consistent in arguing for on this forum), along with the use of modular designs for example to bring down the costs of re-opening instead.

 

[bluenoxid]

Cost a 5h!t load more to close the intermediate stations. Public Inquiries and the like. And for what? So Messrs. Adams and Gulliver can get to Exeter/Barnstaple all of 15 minutes (by their calculations) quicker. :roll:

Early morning Sunday train during summer timetable would justify the service. By pausing this, we buy time and revenue to improve this route. It might seem a bit surprising but there is money to be saved and a lot to be earned by picking up speed on routes

 

[tsr]

Surely we could achieve a shorter journey time without closing them, just have fewer intermediate calls and only call at times where the service is required?

I also really don't agree with the argument that "x has a greater population than y and it doesn't have a station, therefore the station at y should close".

In most of these cases the closure of a whole number of y's simply wouldn't save the money to re-open x, therefore it's a non-argument. If anything, it suggests that there needs to be a concerted effort and funding provided to open stations at x (something I'm fairly consistent in arguing for on this forum), along with the use of modular designs for example to bring down the costs of re-opening instead.

Regarding North Devon, I think the Barnstaple service is fine as it is, for the type of line it's a reasonable average speed. Like other Devon branches it could do with longer trains, though some are already 4 cars. There may be room to build a village at Chapelton, but I don't think anyone has proposed one and I'm not sure anyone wants one. If there were any plans for major development then the planning authorities can insist that developers fund public transport enhancements. I believe this is already happening on the other side of Exeter where there is a large development near Exeter Airport and a new station is being planned at Cranbrook between Pinhoe and Whimple.

I pretty much agree with all of you, except that I am afraid I have not read up on the developments at Cranbrook, and therefore I feel I shouldn't comment on this.