Relocating stations

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gathursty

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2011
Messages
2,103
Location
Wigan
The examples of Liverpool South Parkway, Rochester and Bromsgrove have made me think how far we could use the procedures that was gone through to relocate the old stations to the new sites insofar as moving stations much further down the track such as Scotscalder to Halkirk so it serves the local population more effectively.

Is it possible to use the procedures that the three examples above used to get around 'the high legal cost' of closing a station etc...?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,116
Rochester old station still had to go through the full DfT closure consultation and ORR ratification of the decision. Resiting doesn't remove that procedure AFAICS, it is probable the legal costs are less in practice than a full closure because there's much less likelihood of hundreds of objectors, but they are not avoided completely by resiting.
 

Cherry_Picker

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
2,714
Location
Birmingham
It got cocked up in Smethwick back in the 90s. When the Snow Hill lines were reopened, the route from Snow Hill station to Stourbridge met the route from New Street station just to the west of Smethwick Junction and just beyond that was Smethwick West station.

With the new route open it was possible to build a new station a hundred yards or so towards Birmingham and have a two level station which was connected to both New Street and Snow Hill allowing for interchange between the lines. This is the present day Smethwick Galton Bridge. I think someone forgot to put a stamp on an envelope or something when it came time to close the redundant Smethwick West because some paperwork was missing and both stations had to stay open for a year before West could be formally closed. I do wonder if this incident has made the powers that be more cautious when looking at relocating other stations on the network. Probably not, but I guess it can be used as a bad example by people who oppose a relocation.
 

Gathursty

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2011
Messages
2,103
Location
Wigan
Rochester old station still had to go through the full DfT closure consultation and ORR ratification of the decision. Resiting doesn't remove that procedure AFAICS, it is probable the legal costs are less in practice than a full closure because there's much less likelihood of hundreds of objectors, but they are not avoided completely by resiting.

I was always under the impression the legal cost was a fixed amount. You are saying it can alter with the amount of objectors. I raise the following questions.

Is there a magic number of objectors that would trigger a delay in procedures?
I ask this in the hypothetical instance of only one NIMBY objecting.

If there is no magic number, does it then depend on the 'quality' of the objection, ie: the council, residents association, an MP etc...?
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
5,524
Location
North Wales
If there is no magic number, does it then depend on the 'quality' of the objection, ie: the council, residents association, an MP etc...?

That sounds like you're describing the quality of the objector, as opposed to the quality of their objections. Both are possibilities.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,535
Time is money. The more objectors the longer the hearings, greater the paperwork, longer the debate.
 

infobleep

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
10,271
That sounds like you're describing the quality of the objector, as opposed to the quality of their objections. Both are possibilities.
Surely it's the power of the objector. An MP doesn't have to be quality, just because he's an MP but he will be listened to more one would hope.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 

The Quincunx

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2011
Messages
57
Location
West Ealing
Bear in mind that under the Railways Act 2005, there is no longer any such thing as an "objector": all you do is make a representation to a consultation. Nor is there any longer a provision for a public hearing to be held to help the passenger representative body determine whether the closure would cause any 'hardship' (and, if so, how that might be alleviated). The most obvious costs associated with a closure these days arise from the need to insert notices in newspapers. All other costs, including legal advice, are merely part of normal administration, so are unlikely to be a factor in considering whether or not to pursue a closure.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,116
I was always under the impression the legal cost was a fixed amount.

I don't think there has ever been any suggestion that the legal costs are fixed. Whatever they happen to be, they can be saved by not undertaking closure procedures, but I expect they always vary significantly between individual cases.

Something like a statutory notice in the London Gazette or wherever may have a fixed cost, but there'll be loads of associated work that will vary in complexity case by case.
 

steamybrian

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2010
Messages
1,361
Location
Kent
It was my impression that a station could be resited without closure procedures if..
1.the distance involved was less than 400 metres (440 yards)
2.Approval was given by the Local Authority (Councils).
In the South East this happened previously when for example Uckfield, Epsom Downs, Crawley and Polegate were resited without going through closure procedures.

The recent resiting of Rochester was 500 metres thus exceeding the maximum distance.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
23,984
Location
Scotland
Surely it's the power of the objector. An MP doesn't have to be quality, just because he's an MP but he will be listened to more one would hope.
I, for one, would hope not! I would hope that a reasoned, coherent argument from a 'nobody' would outweigh a nonsense objection from a professional arse baby-kisser.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
5,524
Location
North Wales
Surely it's the power of the objector. An MP doesn't have to be quality, just because he's an MP but he will be listened to more one would hope.

That is indeed the other interpretation I was hinting at. In the first instance, there's the idea that a good complaint (raising salient points) should get a response on its own merit. In the second, a complaint from an MP may gain more attention simply because it comes from an important person, irrespective of the content of the complaint.
 

The Quincunx

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2011
Messages
57
Location
West Ealing
These days, the process requires DfT to respond to all the issues raised in the closure consultation (by no matter whom) before making a final decision and sending it to ORR for ratification.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
2,410
Location
Hope Valley
So far as the status of MPs is concerned; in principle they represent tens of thousands of constituents (including those who didn't actually vote for them). If an MP makes arguments against a closure it saves loads of other people having to respond individually, reducing effort all round.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top