What actually happens if parliamentary services aren't run?

[Horizon22]

A few discussions over the years have suggested the Chiltern service wasn’t ever in their franchise spec, ie it might not really be a “parliamentary” anyway...

Can imagine it slipping through the cracks then due to Covid / franchises ending. Might be worthy of a new thread though.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Considering that these services are just a bit on the margin ,and the rail industry faces a severe challenge now and for the next few years (£2 Billion shortfall in funding ? - see Modern Railways just out) , apart from the deep interest it seems to engender in some , (if not real world issues) - perhaps a quick and dirty review and a "move on" might be appropriate.

There are far more positive things to be concerned about.

 

[sammyg901]

A few discussions over the years have suggested the Chiltern service wasn’t ever in their franchise spec, ie it might not really be a “parliamentary” anyway...

More to do with diversions I think if Marylebone is closed. They did run a service to West Ealing at least once that I remember in 2020 for connections to London Paddington. They can just terminate at West Ruislip of course (and divert a Birmingham service to Oxford for connections) and if you're travelling elsewhere in London then this isn't a big time penalty vs the wait at West Ealing and then dealing with London Paddington anyway (as long as you're using an appropriate ticket to save having to touch in where the ticket acceptance ends)

 

[Bevan Price]

I thought it was because there’s a weekday service and others for Saturday and Sunday. The least useful service could still be doing something once only on Sundays.

The least useful in recent years was once a week, in one direction only - on Summer Saturdays only. There was no service at all in Winter. That applied to Frodsham Jn to Halton Jn (Runcorn) until a couple of years ago.
That Halton curve line was then restored to bidirectional running, and now has daily services. (Covid permitting...)

 

[Merle Haggard]

The provision of a token service doesn't only occur when a service has declined to near extinction.

When Corby station re-opened the TOC did not have enough units, and the service at first was (from memory) one train each way a day. Presumably this represented some similar legal minimum level.

 

[WillPS]

The provision of a token service doesn't only occur when a service has declined to near extinction.

When Corby station re-opened the TOC did not have enough units, and the service at first was (from memory) one train each way a day. Presumably this represented some similar legal minimum level.

Similarly, after the Central Trains Crewe - Nottingham service was cut back to Derby there was a single weekly service that still did the full journey for contractual reasons. This continued in to EMT days, not sure if it's ongoing or not.

 

[Kite159]

Similarly, after the Central Trains Crewe - Nottingham service was cut back to Derby there was a single weekly service that still did the full journey for contractual reasons. This continued in to EMT days, not sure if it's ongoing or not.

Don't think so (although it will be coming back in May, with the Crewe trains extended to Newark Castle).

I believe there was one service which arrived in Derby from Crewe, than formed a Nottingham bound service in last summers timetable.

------------------

Talking about Paddington, is there still a Chiltern trains logo on some of the "Welcome to Paddington" signs near the entrance to the underground (District line)?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Don't think so (although it will be coming back in May, with the Crewe trains extended to Newark Castle).

I believe there was one service which arrived in Derby from Crewe, than formed a Nottingham bound service in last summers timetable.

------------------

Similarly, after the Central Trains Crewe - Nottingham service was cut back to Derby there was a single weekly service that still did the full journey for contractual reasons. This continued in to EMT days, not sure if it's ongoing or not.

The first train of the day from Crewe to Derby usually goes on to form a service to Nottingham on arrival, but it's not booked as a through Crewe-Nottingham train.

 

[Townsend Hook]

There is a good example for what can happen, when British Railways withdrew all passenger services over what is now the Bluebell Railway in 1955, without following the legal closure procedures and despite a minimum service being set out in the Act of Parliament. A legal challenge was mounted by local residents leading to BR reintroducing passenger services - at the minimum frequency required, only serving the stations specifically named in the Act and at awkward times, known as the ‘Sulky Service’ - until 1958 when the legal closure procedures were completed.

 

[zwk500]

There is a good example for what can happen, when British Railways withdrew all passenger services over what is now the Bluebell Railway in 1955, without following the legal closure procedures and despite a minimum service being set out in the Act of Parliament. A legal challenge was mounted by local residents leading to BR reintroducing passenger services - at the minimum frequency required, only serving the stations specifically named in the Act and at awkward times, known as the ‘Sulky Service’ - until 1958 when the legal closure procedures were completed.

The Sulky Service was specified as a clause in the original Lewes & East Grinstead Railway Act, which isn't a situation most of today's 'parliamentary' services face. The various acts to set up privatization have presumably overridden any that had lasted through the BR era.

 

[Taunton]

Notably when the Somerset & Dorset could not be closed at the last minute in 1966, because a replacement bus operator pulled out, the "minimum" service provided was not just one a week but four trains a day, at somewhat sensible times. When did it happen that the minimum required fell back from when there might be a demand for it to once a day, or once a week?

That was particularly noteworthy as the necessary staff who had been given redundancy notices somehow managed to stay on for several months.

 

[zwk500]

Notably when the Somerset & Dorset could not be closed at the last minute in 1966, because a replacement bus operator pulled out, the "minimum" service provided was not just one a week but four trains a day, at somewhat sensible times. When did it happen that the minimum required fell back from when there might be a demand for it to once a day, or once a week?

That was particularly noteworthy as the necessary staff who had been given redundancy notices somehow managed to stay on for several months.

The bluebells act also specified 4 trains a day each way, although not the timse, so it's possible the S&D had clauses in its act, and the 1 per week requirement is set by later acts of Parliament that didn't repeal any existing higher requirements

 

[swt_passenger]

The bluebells act also specified 4 trains a day each way, although not the timse, so it's possible the S&D had clauses in its act, and the 1 per week requirement is set by later acts of Parliament that didn't repeal any existing higher requirements

It’s odd that in all the years the question‘s been asked here no one has been able to locate the explanation.

 

[zwk500]

It’s odd that in all the years the question‘s been asked here no one has been able to locate the explanation.

Indeed. My guess is that it will be related to the way the franchise contracts are structured.

 

[Egg Centric]

It’s odd that in all the years the question‘s been asked here no one has been able to locate the explanation.

Exactly. I think they should just do it and challenge the complainants to launch a judicial review. "Everyone knows" is an insufficient explanation.

 

[zwk500]

Exactly. I think they should just do it and challenge the complainants to launch a judicial review. "Everyone knows" is an insufficient explanation.

Who gains what from this needlessly confrontational approach?

 

[Egg Centric]

Who gains what from this needlessly confrontational approach?

Ultimately tax and fare payers. Look at what a waste of time, money, and resources e.g. West Ruslip - Paddington is.

Another less confrontational option would be passing some kind of law which says "nonwithstanding other laws, there is no need for any service level for any amount of track / station to be considered open" (or something like that) but if no one can actually point to the laws/regulations that say parliamentary services are necessary I'm starting to come to the conclusion there is no such law and it's just received wisdom. And I would consider weekly service provisions made in franchising specifications merely to be enforcing this received wisdom unless there is some deeper driver.

 

[Taunton]

It's actually worse in the USA, where because railways are federally regulated from Washington the most convoluted approach is necessary to various abandonments, or even company mergers. The major Rock Island railway finally collapsed after 10 years, no less, of negotiation of it being merged. The same applied to ending a number of passenger services

 

[30907]

Notably when the Somerset & Dorset could not be closed at the last minute in 1966, because a replacement bus operator pulled out, the "minimum" service provided was not just one a week but four trains a day, at somewhat sensible times. When did it happen that the minimum required fell back from when there might be a demand for it to once a day, or once a week?

In this case, presumably there were actual passengers who used these trains, and the replacement bus services were a due ondition of closure.

The most quoted modern examples are services which serve(d) minimal actual purpose.

 

[Taunton]

In this case, presumably there were actual passengers who used these trains, and the replacement bus services were a due condition of closure.

Possibly not. The replacement buses ran for a couple of years with nobody in them (in part because they were far less convenient than the long-established bus services in the area, which is where most of the custom had long gone anyway, such as Radstock to Bath), and were then taken off without much if any hoopla.

 

[zwk500]

Ultimately tax and fare payers. Look at what a waste of time, money, and resources e.g. West Ruslip - Paddington is.

Only if the legal costs of a judicial review don't exceed the operational costs. West Ruislip-Paddington doesn't run anymore, it's only Greenford-West Ealing (I think). This service doesn't cost very much at all to run.

Another less confrontational option would be passing some kind of law which says "nonwithstanding other laws, there is no need for any service level for any amount of track / station to be considered open" (or something like that) but if no one can actually point to the laws/regulations that say parliamentary services are necessary I'm starting to come to the conclusion there is no such law and it's just received wisdom. And I would consider weekly service provisions made in franchising specifications merely to be enforcing this received wisdom unless there is some deeper driver.

I've pointed to several that state a minimum service must be run. There's the 1844 Railways Act, the 1963 Transport Act and the individual laws authorizing the lines themselves. 1 per week may just be the most convenient way for the modern railway to do so, rather than say 1 every timetable (6 months) or whatever.
Not to mention the fact that many of these lines the railway wants to keep because of future potential traffic, but it's just the case that at the moment the demand/money isn't there right now. Look at the Halton Curve. It ran with 1 service per week in 1 direction for decades, and now it's been restored to an all-day 1 or 2tph link between Liverpool and Chester. The Greenford branch could become very popular once OOC with XR/HS2 has opened.

 

[SargeNpton]

As far as I can tell, it's the Railways Act 2005 that is the legislation currently in force, as here...

Railways Act 2005

An Act to amend the law relating to the provision and regulation of railway services; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Part 4 deals with the withdrawal of services from stations and routes.

 

[swt_passenger]

As far as I can tell, it's the Railways Act 2005 that is the legislation currently in force, as here...

Railways Act 2005

An Act to amend the law relating to the provision and regulation of railway services; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Part 4 deals with the withdrawal of services from stations and routes.

I think many of us know that. But that legislation doesn’t actually define the minimum service that is just enough to avoid closure action, which was the subject in question...

 

[SargeNpton]

I think many of us know that. But that legislation doesn’t actually define the minimum service that is just enough to avoid closure action, which was the subject in question...

In that case I can only think that the minimum service level is then as shown in the franchise specification (or equivalent document for direct awards and Covid support)...

 

[Llandudno]

Only if the legal costs of a judicial review don't exceed the operational costs. West Ruislip-Paddington doesn't run anymore, it's only Greenford-West Ealing (I think). This service doesn't cost very much at all to run.

I've pointed to several that state a minimum service must be run. There's the 1844 Railways Act, the 1963 Transport Act and the individual laws authorizing the lines themselves. 1 per week may just be the most convenient way for the modern railway to do so, rather than say 1 every timetable (6 months) or whatever.
Not to mention the fact that many of these lines the railway wants to keep because of future potential traffic, but it's just the case that at the moment the demand/money isn't there right now. Look at the Halton Curve. It ran with 1 service per week in 1 direction for decades, and now it's been restored to an all-day 1 or 2tph link between Liverpool and Chester. The Greenford branch could become very popular once OOC with XR/HS2 has opened.

It also makes you wonder if the one train per week during the summer had not been retained on the Halton Curve, the line would have been closed ‘completely’ and never reopened because the costs would be too high, or some of the alignment may have been built on?

 

[zwk500]

It also makes you wonder if the one train per week during the summer had not been retained on the Halton Curve, the line would have been closed ‘completely’ and never reopened because the costs would be too high, or some of the alignment may have been built on?

If it had closed properly and the junctions removed it'd almost certainly never have reopened.

 

[tbtc]

Not to mention the fact that many of these lines the railway wants to keep because of future potential traffic, but it's just the case that at the moment the demand/money isn't there right now. Look at the Halton Curve. It ran with 1 service per week in 1 direction for decades, and now it's been restored to an all-day 1 or 2tph link between Liverpool and Chester. The Greenford branch could become very popular once OOC with XR/HS2 has opened.

If there wasn't sufficient demand for at least an hourly service on lines at the pre-Covid peak of passenger numbers (after pretty much a generation of year-on-year growth) then I'm not sure when they'd ever be viable - I can see that argument working in the 1980s/1990s but if a station/ service/ line wasn't viable in pre-Covid times then I don't think it'll ever wash it's face.

That said, the Halton Curve is an interesting example - whilst many "parliamentary" services were one a week, Halton was apparently okay to keep open with only a weekly *summer* service - I don't know what the exception was in this case (that didn't apply to, say, Stockport - Stalybridge)?

 

[Carlisle]

I think many of us know that. But that legislation doesn’t actually define the minimum service that is just enough to avoid closure action, which was the subject in question...

Indeed, perhaps it mainly reflects current cross industry consensus on what’s seen practically as the minimum necessary to ensure a routes ongoing suitability for passenger services.

 

[zwk500]

If there wasn't sufficient demand for at least an hourly service on lines at the pre-Covid peak of passenger numbers (after pretty much a generation of year-on-year growth) then I'm not sure when they'd ever be viable - I can see that argument working in the 1980s/1990s but if a station/ service/ line wasn't viable in pre-Covid times then I don't think it'll ever wash it's face.

There's a lot of factors at play. I agree there are some that should probably just accept their fate (Denton Junction), but there's others where wider network changes could change their fortunes (Polesworth)

That said, the Halton Curve is an interesting example - whilst many "parliamentary" services were one a week, Halton was apparently okay to keep open with only a weekly *summer* service - I don't know what the exception was in this case (that didn't apply to, say, Stockport - Stalybridge)?

Maybe the franchise agreement just perpetuated whatever BR had been doing. As far as I can see from the legislation, the TOCs are compelled to comply with the service spec in the franchise, but there's no restrictions on what the specifier actually has to put in for a route to be 'open'. I suspect the 1 per week is just the easiest thing to write when all other trains are specified in the framework of a single week. There's probably various other bits of precedent and contract law at play here as well, but I'm not a lawyer so have no idea what applies to which aspects.

 

[domcoop7]

I think many of us know that. But that legislation doesn’t actually define the minimum service that is just enough to avoid closure action, which was the subject in question...

I tried tracing the legislation back to the Transport Act 1962 and various Railways Act from the Victorian era, and can't see anything. My guess is it's an "inertia" thing. Someone, somewhere, sitting in an office in the British Rail headquarters probably had a reason for determining that services should be run once every 'x' days in one direction. It possibly came out of court challenges to closures.

That memo then got passed down to the TOCs / DfT / ORR / Whoever and it's just kind of been followed ever since.

Except, a bit of research shows it hasn't been followed, in fact. On the ORR website, they've issued a Closure notice for Newhaven Marine station. The consultation period was from January to April 2020.

Only problem is, the last train ran there in 2006 and they demolished the station (apart from one platform face) in 2017!! Despite this, nobody seems to have realised they needed to run a "Parliamentary" service, or go through a closure notice until last year! And nothing seemed to happen. I'd be interested to know what would happen if they refused to close a line? Has that ever occurred in recent years?