That is not actually a list of parliamentary services though, they are a very small subset of what’s being listed there.
Routes and stations with minimal services - eg Teesside Airport.
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"?That is not actually a list of parliamentary services though, they are a very small subset of what’s being listed there.
So no longer a legal requirement pursuant to the original 1844 Act?Parliamentary trains exist to comply with the Railway Regulation Act 1844 -
Parliamentary train - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Not necessarily at all. It might well just be route knowledge maintenance for diversions.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"?
So no longer a legal requirement pursuant to the original 1844 Act?
How expensive though? Presumably the closure of Etruria station in c. 2005 must have gone through the necessary procedures.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.
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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
What about the end-door 156s on the Lime Street-Oxford Road route?
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.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?
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.