What parliamentary trains have a future?

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mcr Warrior

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
1,714
As opposed to passenger services on seldom used sections of line?

By "Parliamentary train" are you referring to train(s) to station(s) with minimal service(s)?

Possibly, none have a worthwhile future, if they did, they would probably already be receiving a greater service provision than at present.
 

Mcr Warrior

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
1,714
Thanks for clarifying. It's often been asserted that the reason for continuing to operate minimal services to little used stations is due to the cost(s) of all the necessary procedures to formally close such a station. So, how much are these cost(s)?
 
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
217
Location
Wigan
If capacity and a suitable route could be found, I think Reddish South and Denton (more so Reddish) could have a reasonable level of untapped potential.
 

Mcr Warrior

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
1,714
Any thoughts??

Full list can be found at http://www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk/2020.html
Routes and stations with minimal services - eg Teesside Airport.
That is not actually a list of parliamentary services though, they are a very small subset of what’s being listed there.
The OP has since specified that they are referring to routes and stations with minimal services, but is a passenger train using an occasionally used section of track (maybe some Sunday morning working using an avoiding line) a "parliamentary train"?
 

gordonthemoron

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2006
Messages
6,125
Location
Milton Keynes
Not parliametary, but Radcliffe on Trent used to have a much better service in the 80s than it does today. If they ever get round to extending NET to Bingham or an extension of the Robin Hood Line, then that should enable a higher level of service, as it would for Netherfield
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,144
The OP has since specified that they are referring to routes and stations with minimal services, but is a passenger train using an occasionally used section of track (maybe some Sunday morning working using an avoiding line) a "parliamentary train"?
Not necessarily at all. It might well just be route knowledge maintenance for diversions.

Then there are complete oddballs in PSUL such as a junction used many times 7 days a week, namely Blackfriars Junction on the approach to Portsmouth & Southsea. Never understood that bring listed.

Also, look at the long list of entries PSUL has associated with the Reading station area, they’re almost all just normal day to day operations.
 
Last edited:

SargeNpton

Member
Joined
19 Nov 2018
Messages
109
" Parliamentary trains exist to comply with the Railway Regulation Act 1844 - "

Parliamentary Train as per the 1844 act has nothing to do with what these days are known as parliamentaries. Back then at least one train a day had to be offered at fares that could be afforded by workers, calling at all stations on the line of route. This is no longer a legal requirement, though I can't say exactly when it was repealed.

The current usage of the term - whether legally defined or not - is a train that, on a technicality, keeps a route or station open by offering a bare minimum scheduled service on a regular basis (even if that is as little as once per week) - and so avoiding the long expensive legal process for a closure.

Regarding IBM and Redcar British Steel... The stations themselves are on private land and were built to serve that location (though the tracks are Network Rail property. If that location closes and the landowners prevent access by the public, then it's impossible for a train operator to call there. Though I'm not sure that this situation is adequately covered by existing railway legislation. Southend Airport, Stanlow & Thornton and Lympstone Commando are other examples.
 

Mcr Warrior

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
1,714
The current usage of the term - whether legally defined or not - is a train that, on a technicality, keeps a route or station open by offering a bare minimum scheduled service on a regular basis (even if that is as little as once per week) - and so avoiding the long expensive legal process for a closure.
How expensive though? Presumably the closure of Etruria station in c. 2005 must have gone through the necessary procedures.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
3,437
Location
Gateway to the South West
Also, look at the long list of entries PSUL has associated with the Reading station area, they’re almost all just normal day to day operations.
Yes; PSUL is designed to inform of those moves you may not know about (occasional use but 'day to day'), not just if it's 'parliamentary' in the sense that we use the term nowadays.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
1,351
Thanks for clarifying. It's often been asserted that the reason for continuing to operate minimal services to little used stations is due to the cost(s) of all the necessary procedures to formally close such a station. So, how much are these cost(s)?
And why are those costs so high, or is it an urban myth? Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to identify all the Parliamentary trains which are not required, and for a Private Members Bill in the House to declare that they no longer need to be run. If there is no custom for these trains, then why do you need to have a public inquiry before they can be closed?
 

SargeNpton

Member
Joined
19 Nov 2018
Messages
109
And why are those costs so high, or is it an urban myth? Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to identify all the Parliamentary trains which are not required, and for a Private Members Bill in the House to declare that they no longer need to be run. If there is no custom for these trains, then why do you need to have a public inquiry before they can be closed?
The parliamentary trains are not there to see how much custom there is (the lack of custom is why there is only a token service in the first place). They exist just to avoid, for the time being, the costs of the closure process - putting off the problem until someone, somewhere, is prepared to pick up the bill.

Do some research on how long it took to get the Weymouth Tramway closed, or the Folkestone Harbour Branch. It's only now, after a decade or more of non-use, that Newhaven Marine is finally going though the the closure motions.

A Private Members Bill is no good, as the closure process is part of the exiting legislation governing the running of the railway network.
 
Last edited:
Joined
23 Apr 2012
Messages
219
Location
Greater manchester.
If capacity and a suitable route could be found, I think Reddish South and Denton (more so Reddish) could have a reasonable level of untapped potential.
I agree with you, Stockport to man Vic and beyond would be my choice. But then you have the busy layout at Stockport and available paths, Crossing the throat at Stockport and then joining the two track railway at Ashton moss with six trains per hour each way.
 

Mcr Warrior

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
1,714
Will be interesting to see whether patronage improves to any extent at Breich on the Glasgow Central to Edinburgh via Shotts line. (Had recently been enhanced to a broadly hourly service having had for a long time only the one service per day in each direction).
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
2,184
I agree with you, Stockport to man Vic and beyond would be my choice. But then you have the busy layout at Stockport and available paths, Crossing the throat at Stockport and then joining the two track railway at Ashton moss with six trains per hour each way.
That line is at least an active freight and diversionary route. Stopping passenger services would be downing tools (and whatever required for the stations) - rather than closing an actual railway. Surely the costs can't be that high.

But I do agree, in an ideal world, could be something run on this line - Stockport to Victoria locals, but possibly also regional options to Huddersfield/Leeds - and from somewhere else like Crewe. But that involves a throat crossing. The other issue (one of many) is the viaduct, and that 2-3 car services shouldn't be taking up paths, even today. More platforms at Stockport on the west side might enable 0 for this.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
57,176
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But I do agree, in an ideal world, could be something run on this line - Stockport to Victoria locals, but possibly also regional options to Huddersfield/Leeds - and from somewhere else like Crewe. But that involves a throat crossing. The other issue (one of many) is the viaduct, and that 2-3 car services shouldn't be taking up paths, even today. More platforms at Stockport on the west side might enable 0 for this.
One thought I had to get the Class 158s off Castlefield (leaving doors-at-thirds units only, once TfW have changed theirs) would be to run the EMR Liverpool-Norwich via Chat Moss, Victoria and Denton. Wouldn't need to cross the formation to get to the bay then.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
3,928
Location
Liverpool
One thought I had to get the Class 158s off Castlefield (leaving doors-at-thirds units only, once TfW have changed theirs) would be to run the EMR Liverpool-Norwich via Chat Moss, Victoria and Denton. Wouldn't need to cross the formation to get to the bay then.
What about the end-door 156s on the Lime Street-Oxford Road route?
 

BayPaul

Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
220
One thought I had to get the Class 158s off Castlefield (leaving doors-at-thirds units only, once TfW have changed theirs) would be to run the EMR Liverpool-Norwich via Chat Moss, Victoria and Denton. Wouldn't need to cross the formation to get to the bay then.
Could a new Stockport North Station be built somewhere just before the Denton line joins the mainline, and used as a 'west facing' terminating bay for trains coming through Victoria, to reduce the number of trains needing to terminate at the airport simply because of a lack of west facing platforms? I would have thought that at least 2tph could comfortably terminate here, and as a bonus provide a decent frequency service to Denton, Reddish, and potentially one or two other new stations.
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
2,226
What about the end-door 156s on the Lime Street-Oxford Road route?
They don't, to be fair, service Piccadilly P13/14, but they could be replaced with something else - 150s or ideally 195s (the acceleration would make a huge difference for the many local stations on the CLC)
195s are often used on Liverpool to Manchester stoppers, my mate uses them (possibly never again though since March) and he said they made a massive difference in keeping to schedule.
 

Brissle Girl

Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
896
Pilning station could be a very useful local station. A massive industrial and distribution centre has gone up in the last 10 years around a mile away. Maybe slightly too far for walking, but a bus looping around the area linking into the rail service could attract workers who don't have a car and thus are currently unlikely to take employment on the estate.

It could also be used as a P&R station for people just over the bridge (particularly in the Chepstow area) travelling into central Bristol employment centres, most notably Temple Quay and the new University Campus adjacent to Temple Meads.
 

markymark2000

Member
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
926
Location
Cheshire
Based on the Wiki list above, here are my opinions.


Ruislip-West Ealing: May continue purely because of the benefits it brings to driver knowledge.
Bristol East Curve: Bit useless. Just as easy to change at Temple Meads. I think skipping Temple Meads will drop the passenger numbers considerably.
Ely Queen Adelaide Loop: Freight uses the line regularly so the parly train isn't needed.
Battersea Park Overground: I see little future in the line. It's useful however for line closures. If there was that much potential for Clapham North/Wandsworth Road to Victoria, it would be best having South Eastern run the service (infact, good plan. Scrap the Battersea Park Parly and replace it with 2 or 3 South Eastern stoppers to Vic. More likely to generate usage than going to Battersea Park)
LO Lea Valley service via South Tottenham: Scrap it. The service generally doesn't run this way anyway. The south Tottenham to Seven Sisters curve could be shut but it probably provides a decent emergency diversion.
Bare Lane - Hest Bank: Scrap it. The curve is basically useless now. I believe it has no future potential and provides no benefit operationally.
Goole via Pontefract: Some potential. Could be worth trialling every few hours calling Witley Bridge and Snaith. Other stations I don't think are worth it.
Brigg line: Unless there is significant through demand, just sack off passenger services. Freight uses the line so it's still needed.
Stockport-Stalybridge: Echo comments about about potential for the Kirkby terminators to extend?.
Beckenham Jct-New Beckenham curve: No need for passenger service, the line provides a great operational diversion however and should remain in place.
Sittingbourne West Junction Curve: Not sure. Someone who knows the demand of the 'through' services would be helpful.
Streatham Hill - Tulse Hill: No potential for very regular passenger services as you're just creating a belt service which will be as unreliable as heck with too many choke points. Should remain open though as it's useful for getting trains back to the depot (whether in service or not)
Wolverhampton-Walsall fast: Potential here. Already plans in the making from West Midlands Combined Authority
SouthEastern to Wandsworth Road/Clapham High Street: See above 'Battersea Park Overground'
Soho South-Perry Barr South Jcts: No potential but a great line for turning trains around or a good way to divert trains if there's an issue.
Alrewas line: Potential for regular services but they need to stop. I think if it was going to happen, it would have to be Derby to Birmingham via this line. XC or EMT operated.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,144
Do people proposing that the current parliamentary service into Battersea Park extends to Victoria realise there’s no track connection anymore?

P1 has no track, and the P2 track terminates at a set of buffers behind the 10 car extension of P3, which resulted in the complete removal of the junction.
 
Last edited:

Top