Which little-used stations might be candidates for closure in the new age of cost-cutting?

[lachlan]

(of the Settle–Carlisle: )

10-20 miles is the sweet spot for a particular market – basically the bike hire/bikes-on-roofrack market. The Camel Trail, Monsal Trail etc. do very nicely from that.

But it's not the only market. If you look at Europe then there is a massive tourism industry around long-distance, significantly traffic-free cycle routes: the Loire and Danube routes, for example. Not everyone is doing the whole Loire from source to sea, of course, but there are thousands of people riding multi-day trips. I rode the Loire a couple of years ago and the number of family cycle tourists genuinely took me aback. Now that e-bikes are a thing, I suspect it's busier still.

We don't have anything like that in the UK. The closest we have are some of the long-distance National Cycle Network routes, but generally they're too hilly and too car-infested to appeal to family or novice cyclists. It wouldn't be outlandish to conceive of the Settle–Carlisle as the base for such a route, perhaps connecting somehow to the Leeds & Liverpool Canal towpath at Skipton and from there to the east coast.

(But it'll never happen.)

I strongly feel a national cycle network should be built from scratch with the interests of cyclists in mind and not from sacrificed railway lines or former track beds.

 

[Techniquest]

I strongly feel a national cycle network should be built from scratch with the interests of cyclists in mind and not from sacrificed railway lines or former track beds.

Can you imagine the sheer cost of such a build? I love the idea, given my love of cycling, of a purpose-built network of routes with cyclists in mind, but I have to ask what would you do with the former track beds? Given they're normally on no-hoper lines for ever coming back, then I think it's a worthwhile cause. If there was a genuine need for a railway instead of a cycle route, then that's entirely different.

From what I can tell, no one has any plans to rip up existing lines and put down a cycle route instead. Making final decisions on whether or not to use a track bed for a route, which the railway will clearly never use again, then yes this is happening and I hope said decisions will get made soon. That one near the Wensleydale line I'm primarily thinking of here.

Converting old lines to NCN routes, in an age where active travel is being encouraged, is just how it's going to be. The less cars on the roads, and indeed the safer cycling becomes, the better. I'd imagine that a good and safe cycling route from Builth Wells to Builth Road, on the Heart of Wales Line, would help increase passenger numbers. The demand from those who can't/don't drive in the town must be fairly significant, it's not a hugely long walk in the grand scheme of things but a walk on the verges of a rather busy A road puts off even me from thinking about using it!

 

[21C195 Brentor]

I used to live in the Surrey stockbroker belt and can think of a few lightly-used stations not many would miss. Boxhill & Westhumble is one, not even walkers use it much, it was mostly a request stop (even trains which were supposed to stop would often just sweep through), some services were not allotted a stop there, and generally it was very little used. The stations between Dorking and Horsham could go too. On the New Guildford Lines, Bookham is miles from the village it is supposed to serve and has little car parking, so consequently saw little use. Effingham Junction is a bleak, windswept place but it has a huge car park and the convenience of services to/from both the Leatherhead and Claygate lines, and I know a lot of Bookhamites would go there in preference to Bookham. Horsley is well used thanks to a good location, even if car parking is tight (again, Effingham offers a decent alternative if you want easier parking). Clandon never seemed to see much use even at peak times, for those going into Guildford it's quicker to just drive and for those commuting up to London from Guildford, they wouldn't even be on that line to start with! London Road Guildford desperately needed investment in passenger facilities, it was well used at peak times by students but there were no indoor waiting rooms, the buildings were mostly boarded up, and it could be a viciously inhospitable place to wait for a train on a cold winter evening.

Down here in Devon, I would certainly close all the stations between Crediton and Barnstaple, and Okehampton is the only station on that line worth keeping open. If I was in a less charitable mood, I'd point out that both LSWR routes have been massive money pits over the last few years and that the investment is unlikely ever to be recouped. Okehampton Station is inconveniently sited miles from the town, and the circuitous route the line takes via Crediton makes it a very slow way of getting to Exeter - by the time you've driven from the town centre or the new housing developments going up on the north side, you can save half an hour by just staying in your car and driving to Exeter. It would have been better left and developed as a preserved railway. The OkeRail campaign seemed to be primarily motivated by nostalgia anyway, as evidenced by their campaign vehicle (often seen parked around town festooned with signage) being a Riley RM...

As for the Alton line in Hampshire, I've heard that, in the 1980s, BR offered it to the MHR, giving them the opportunity to take over the route as far as Farnham. The preservationists turned it down as their finances were not then in great shape (they'd already taken out a big bank loan to finance the Alton extension). Now, the MHR is debt-free, AFAIK, and Farnham would make an attractive destination for them, but maintenance and operational considerations would still apply. I'd be surprised if Alton generated so little traffic that NR/SWR want rid of the line, but Bentley was generally pretty quiet...

 

[bramling]

I used to live in the Surrey stockbroker belt and can think of a few lightly-used stations not many would miss. Boxhill & Westhumble is one, not even walkers use it much, it was mostly a request stop (even trains which were supposed to stop would often just sweep through), some services were not allotted a stop there, and generally it was very little used. The stations between Dorking and Horsham could go too. On the New Guildford Lines, Bookham is miles from the village it is supposed to serve and has little car parking, so consequently saw little use. Effingham Junction is a bleak, windswept place but it has a huge car park and the convenience of services to/from both the Leatherhead and Claygate lines, and I know a lot of Bookhamites would go there in preference to Bookham. Horsley is well used thanks to a good location, even if car parking is tight (again, Effingham offers a decent alternative if you want easier parking). Clandon never seemed to see much use even at peak times, for those going into Guildford it's quicker to just drive and for those commuting up to London from Guildford, they wouldn't even be on that line to start with! London Road Guildford desperately needed investment in passenger facilities, it was well used at peak times by students but there were no indoor waiting rooms, the buildings were mostly boarded up, and it could be a viciously inhospitable place to wait for a train on a cold winter evening.

Down here in Devon, I would certainly close all the stations between Crediton and Barnstaple, and Okehampton is the only station on that line worth keeping open. If I was in a less charitable mood, I'd point out that both LSWR routes have been massive money pits over the last few years and that the investment is unlikely ever to be recouped. Okehampton Station is inconveniently sited miles from the town, and the circuitous route the line takes via Crediton makes it a very slow way of getting to Exeter - by the time you've driven from the town centre or the new housing developments going up on the north side, you can save half an hour by just staying in your car and driving to Exeter. It would have been better left and developed as a preserved railway. The OkeRail campaign seemed to be primarily motivated by nostalgia anyway, as evidenced by their campaign vehicle (often seen parked around town festooned with signage) being a Riley RM...

As for the Alton line in Hampshire, I've heard that, in the 1980s, BR offered it to the MHR, giving them the opportunity to take over the route as far as Farnham. The preservationists turned it down as their finances were not then in great shape (they'd already taken out a big bank loan to finance the Alton extension). Now, the MHR is debt-free, AFAIK, and Farnham would make an attractive destination for them, but maintenance and operational considerations would still apply. I'd be surprised if Alton generated so little traffic that NR/SWR want rid of the line, but Bentley was generally pretty quiet...

I’d agree with most of the Barnstaple line ones, though I’d keep Yeoford, Copplestone and Umberleigh open, these seem to get used. The rest are virtually pointless.

 

[21C195 Brentor]

I’d agree with most of the Barnstaple line ones, though I’d keep Yeoford, Copplestone and Umberleigh open, these seem to get used. The rest are virtually pointless.

It's a line that would make more sense as a steam heritage route, honestly. It's got lovely scenery on its side, but Barnstaple just isn't a sufficiently important destination to make that line financially viable, neither does it generate much Exeter-bound commuter traffic. It only ever made sense when Barnstaple was the centre of a spider's web of lines all over North Devon, to Torrington, Ilfracombe and Taunton. Now it's just the terminus of one single-track line through the middle of nowhere, and thanks to all the pointless rural stops, it's much slower than driving down the A377.

 

[43172]

I’d agree with most of the Barnstaple line ones, though I’d keep Yeoford, Copplestone and Umberleigh open, these seem to get used. The rest are virtually pointless.

I'd add Eggesford to that list of stations to keep open, mainly as it's one of the points on the line where tokens are exchanged. Also worth noting is that in the 2019/20 time periord almost as many passengers used Eggesford (32228) as Umberleigh (32302). Of the others most have very little there and i do wonder how some stations on the line managed to survive the Beeching cuts

 

[21C195 Brentor]

I'd add Eggesford to that list of stations to keep open, mainly as it's one of the points on the line where tokens are exchanged. Also worth noting is that in the 2019/20 time periord almost as many passengers used Eggesford (32228) as Umberleigh (32302). Of the others most have very little there and i do wonder how some stations on the line managed to survive the Beeching cuts

Surely the token system is redundant with the advent of in-cab signalling? Eggesford is another pointless station in the middle of nowhere which only made any sense when the railways carried milk and cattle.

 

[bramling]

I'd add Eggesford to that list of stations to keep open, mainly as it's one of the points on the line where tokens are exchanged. Also worth noting is that in the 2019/20 time periord almost as many passengers used Eggesford (32228) as Umberleigh (32302). Of the others most have very little there and i do wonder how some stations on the line managed to survive the Beeching cuts

Being honest, I forgot about Eggesford! Possibly could be alternated with Copplestone in order to keep end-to-end journey times down, that’s if the token stop is no longer required in the future (drivers also have to stop on the down to operate the level crossing, I believe).

So we’d be looking at Exeter - Crediton - Copplestone / Eggesford -
Umberleigh - Barnstaple. Seems reasonable to me.

I’m less sure about the value of Newton St Cyres.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’d agree with most of the Barnstaple line ones, though I’d keep Yeoford, Copplestone and Umberleigh open, these seem to get used. The rest are virtually pointless.

Would closing them allow a more frequent service or a move to clockface? If so there might be a benefit (the Swiss close stations like this fairly often), if not you're talking very small maintenance costs.

For instance I'd consider closing New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar because they would allow for a perfect half hourly clockface Southport line service and are barely used. But I wouldn't close Sugar Loaf or Berney Arms unless closing the lines, you gain very little.

 

[John Luxton]

Heysham can be busy though for the one train a day, I caught it once to go to the Isle of Man and there were 50 or so other passengers that alighted also catching the ferry

Heysham is important for Sail & Rail tickets sold by the Isle of Man Steam Packet.

Following the nationalisation of the company by the IOM Government in 2018 it may well be that the government would find it appropriate to underwrite any loses on the Heysham service.

IOM Govt have already gone well over budget on building a new permanent terminal at Liverpool which is due to open before next TT subsidising one train per day would be small change small change by comparison.

Unfortunately the new Liverpool terminal is a much longer walk to the nearest railway stations (James Street or Moorfields). Thus keeping the Heysham link for foot passengers could be important.

 

[Grecian 1998]

It's a line that would make more sense as a steam heritage route, honestly. It's got lovely scenery on its side, but Barnstaple just isn't a sufficiently important destination to make that line financially viable, neither does it generate much Exeter-bound commuter traffic.

A steam service running at a maximum 25mph over a 39 mile line would likely take more than 2 hours each way. I can't see much demand for that. I also can't see NR being keen on steam services running a mile over NR metals to St Davids, nor anyone being keen on constructing a new station on a flood plain at Cowley Bridge.

The currently hourly service has been achieved without any notable infrastructure upgrades and GWR consider the route generally merits 3 coach 158s rather than 2 coach 165s or 150s. Whenever I've travelled on it northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening, the services going the other way generally look to be between 60% - 80% of seats taken.

Like virtually all rural lines it will invariably run at a loss but it likely has far better economics than the Newquay or Gunnislake lines, never mind anywhere else in the country.

As an aside, I've read on another forum that BR wanted to close the line in the late 1960s to avoid hefty expenditure on the multiple river bridges, but were told in no uncertain terms that North Devon was not to be cut off from the rest of the network.

In terms of stations, GWR serve Newton St Cyres, Portsmouth Arms and Chapelton very infrequently and Lapford and King's Nympton somewhat infrequently anyway.

So we’d be looking at Exeter - Crediton - Copplestone / Eggesford -
Umberleigh - Barnstaple. Seems reasonable to me.

Yeoford is seen as essential as well - it's the only village on the route which is off the A377 and stopping trains there avoids the need to send a bus down narrow lanes.

Would closing them allow a more frequent service or a move to clockface?

It's already an hourly clockface service for most of the day, as is the Okehampton line on the Exeter - Crediton section. Half hourly services would require major infrastructure upgrades and there's no chance of that - no-one has even proposed it. Most daytime services don't stop at the most minor stations. Closure might make a few peak hour / weekend services more resilient by giving them more recovery time, but that's about it.

 

[21C195 Brentor]

@Grecian 1998 true, but it would do more for the local economy than the present service does, and if journey time is your chief consideration, driving it is far faster than the train anyway. Newquay is needed for peak summer tourist traffic - but Gunnislake really ought to be axed. It's a monumentally expensive line to maintain, difficult to operate and carries very little passenger traffic - even in the summer, Gunnislake is hardly a major destination for anyone. I don’t understand why they cut it back from Callington but kept it open as far as Gunnislake - either keep the whole thing open or close it completely. It would have been good if the original builders had extended it the modest distance from Callington up to Launceston to link up with GWR and LSWR services there... which might in turn have saved the Withered Arm from closure, if not the GWR Lifton to Lydford branch...

 

[daodao]

@Grecian 1998 true, but it would do more for the local economy than the present service does, and if journey time is your chief consideration, driving it is far faster than the train anyway. Newquay is needed for peak summer tourist traffic - but Gunnislake really ought to be axed. It's a monumentally expensive line to maintain, difficult to operate and carries very little passenger traffic - even in the summer, Gunnislake is hardly a major destination for anyone. I don’t understand why they cut it back from Callington but kept it open as far as Gunnislake - either keep the whole thing open or close it completely. It would have been good if the original builders had extended it the modest distance from Callington up to Launceston to link up with GWR and LSWR services there... which might in turn have saved the Withered Arm from closure, if not the GWR Lifton to Lydford branch...

The Gunnislake line has survived so far because of the area's geography and lack of road bridges over several rivers, making road access to the places it serves, particularly in the Plymouth direction, very poor.

 

[yorksrob]

It's a line that would make more sense as a steam heritage route, honestly. It's got lovely scenery on its side, but Barnstaple just isn't a sufficiently important destination to make that line financially viable, neither does it generate much Exeter-bound commuter traffic. It only ever made sense when Barnstaple was the centre of a spider's web of lines all over North Devon, to Torrington, Ilfracombe and Taunton. Now it's just the terminus of one single-track line through the middle of nowhere, and thanks to all the pointless rural stops, it's much slower than driving down the A377.

Really ?

Do you think that passengers at Barnstaple would would welcome a service that costs £20 for an end to end return, only runs three days a week and stops at 18:00 ? Heritage railways are not public transport.

Not everyone has the option of driving down the A377.

@Grecian 1998 true, but it would do more for the local economy than the present service does, and if journey time is your chief consideration, driving it is far faster than the train anyway. Newquay is needed for peak summer tourist traffic - but Gunnislake really ought to be axed. It's a monumentally expensive line to maintain, difficult to operate and carries very little passenger traffic - even in the summer, Gunnislake is hardly a major destination for anyone. I don’t understand why they cut it back from Callington but kept it open as far as Gunnislake - either keep the whole thing open or close it completely. It would have been good if the original builders had extended it the modest distance from Callington up to Launceston to link up with GWR and LSWR services there... which might in turn have saved the Withered Arm from closure, if not the GWR Lifton to Lydford branch...

Not if your aim is to enable people to get from A to B.

And I can't emphasise enough that not everyone does, or is always in a position to drive (I don't understand why motorists seem to have difficulty grasping this point, but they do).

Gunnislake is important due to the local geography, but yes continuing to a larger settlement would have been better.

 

[Techniquest]

Using the Barnstaple line as a heritage railway has to be one of the most nuts things I've heard all year. My own experience of the line, from some years back now but still a valid view, is that the line is well used from one end to the other. I would imagine now it's 158s and not 143s, as it was when I last went, then it must be a nicer journey to do as well.

The small stations on the route, I can't comment on too fairly because my knowledge of the area is not that good. From what I can gather, they must be considered useful for keeping links to minor communities otherwise they'd have surely been closed a long time ago.

I have to concur with @yorksrob on the driving thing. Not all of us can or want to drive, so taking the railway away is not really an option for a lot of people.

 

[RPI]

It's a line that would make more sense as a steam heritage route, honestly. It's got lovely scenery on its side, but Barnstaple just isn't a sufficiently important destination to make that line financially viable, neither does it generate much Exeter-bound commuter traffic. It only ever made sense when Barnstaple was the centre of a spider's web of lines all over North Devon, to Torrington, Ilfracombe and Taunton. Now it's just the terminus of one single-track line through the middle of nowhere, and thanks to all the pointless rural stops, it's much slower than driving down the A377.

Is this parody or something? A) its quicker by train than driving down the A377, even with the stops, B) the morning commuter train into Exeter (0732) is one of the biggest headaches of the Devon Metro as it can only be a maximum 3 car 158/16x and is full and standing before leaving Barnstaple! I belive it has the highest number of scholar passes as an origin station on the Devon Metro.

Likewise the 15:19, 16:20 and 17:20 departures from Exeter St Davids are always full.

And as for weekends, particularly when Chiefs are at home then every departure from Barny from the 083x to around midday are rammed too.

 

[stuu]

@Grecian 1998 true, but it would do more for the local economy than the present service does, and if journey time is your chief consideration, driving it is far faster than the train anyway.

I have never heard anyone describe driving into Exeter as quick! It has a terrible road network for a city of it's size, which is in part responsible for the high use of rail travel into it. Google Maps gives a time a few minutes longer by car than the train.

 

[RPI]

@Grecian 1998 true, but it would do more for the local economy than the present service does, and if journey time is your chief consideration, driving it is far faster than the train anyway. Newquay is needed for peak summer tourist traffic - but Gunnislake really ought to be axed. It's a monumentally expensive line to maintain, difficult to operate and carries very little passenger traffic - even in the summer, Gunnislake is hardly a major destination for anyone. I don’t understand why they cut it back from Callington but kept it open as far as Gunnislake - either keep the whole thing open or close it completely. It would have been good if the original builders had extended it the modest distance from Callington up to Launceston to link up with GWR and LSWR services there... which might in turn have saved the Withered Arm from closure, if not the GWR Lifton to Lydford branch...

Again, clearly you've never travelled on the early (2nd) train into Plymouth in the morning then? Likewise the 16:40 (ish) train to Gunnislake? A journey from Gunnislake/Calstock to Plymouth is an absolute nightmare by road and far longer than by train, thats the very reason the line survived the proposed closure in the 1960's

 

[Railwaysceptic]

And I can't emphasise enough that not everyone does, or is always in a position to drive (I don't understand why motorists seem to have difficulty grasping this point, but they do).

I assure you that some motorists are fully aware that many people don't drive. Sensible motorists don't want more cars on the road which is why you never see a motoring organisation campaigning for rail closures! Motorists would like other people to give up their cars so they could have the roads to themselves!

 

[yorksrob]

I assure you that some motorists are fully aware that many people don't drive. Sensible motorists don't want more cars on the road which is why you never see a motoring organisation campaigning for rail closures! Motorists would like other people to give up their cars so they could have the roads to themselves!

In that case, it's surprising how often the "it's quicker to drive" line gets trotted out on here in support of some half baked closure suggestion.

 

[bramling]

Using the Barnstaple line as a heritage railway has to be one of the most nuts things I've heard all year. My own experience of the line, from some years back now but still a valid view, is that the line is well used from one end to the other. I would imagine now it's 158s and not 143s, as it was when I last went, then it must be a nicer journey to do as well.

The small stations on the route, I can't comment on too fairly because my knowledge of the area is not that good. From what I can gather, they must be considered useful for keeping links to minor communities otherwise they'd have surely been closed a long time ago.

I have to concur with @yorksrob on the driving thing. Not all of us can or want to drive, so taking the railway away is not really an option for a lot of people.

The smallest stations are utterly pointless. Lapford, Kings Nymphton, Portsmouth Arms and Chapelton serve no purpose at all, and see very little use. Lapford indeed is pretty dangerous to reach as there’s no parking and reaching it on foot means walking along a main road across an awkward bridge with no pavement. These four could go with no ill-effect at all. The rest do generate some level of use as stated, but still not massive. Umberleigh is a bit of a railhead. There is significant end-to-end demand, hence why in this case getting rid of never-used stops, and removing barely-used ones from some services, would benefit the majority.

 

[yorksrob]

I can't help thinking that it would be a shame to lose a station with a name such as King's Nymphton

 

[bramling]

I can't help thinking that it would be a shame to lose a station with a name such as King's Nymphton

Same goes for Portsmouth Arms to be fair.

From an enthusiasts point of view I’d hate to see them go, but from the point of view of anything else they’re hard to justify (though of course closing them has a cost as well, which may well be why they’re still there).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The smallest stations are utterly pointless. Lapford, Kings Nymphton, Portsmouth Arms and Chapelton serve no purpose at all, and see very little use. Lapford indeed is pretty dangerous to reach as there’s no parking and reaching it on foot means walking along a main road across an awkward bridge with no pavement. These four could go with no ill-effect at all. The rest do generate some level of use as stated, but still not massive. Umberleigh is a bit of a railhead. There is significant end-to-end demand, hence why in this case getting rid of never-used stops, and removing barely-used ones from some services, would benefit the majority.

Lapford is near a settlement, albeit a small one. If reaching it is unsafe, fix that.

The others do appear to serve rather little purpose, but probably also cost very little to retain. Make them request stops, then if the odd walker wants to use them, great.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

In that case, it's surprising how often the "it's quicker to drive" line gets trotted out on here in support of some half baked closure suggestion.

I assume they believe the numbers are so small that it wouldn't make much difference! I don't know if driving is quicker, but certainly that would not on its own be a justification for closing stations. A parallel bus service providing a similar service might be although I know you're not keen on that idea!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Same goes for Portsmouth Arms to be fair.

From an enthusiasts point of view I’d hate to see them go, but from the point of view of anything else they’re hard to justify (though of course closing them has a cost as well, which may well be why they’re still there).

There's little point closing stations like those "just because". They don't cost much to keep when they're a single unstaffed platform, just very basic maintenance, little more than a bus stop, plus the cost of LED lighting which is next to nothing. The cost of diesel for stopping at them is going to be small and can be reduced by making them request stops (these already are).

It's only worth closing that sort of station where there's something significant to be gained by doing so. For instance, if the running time on the line was, say, 58 minutes, a reliable two hourly single unit service (or hourly two unit one) wouldn't be possible, and closing them may enable that. But the end to end running time is 70 minutes. Nothing is really gained by reducing that to 65 or even 60, you need more off it than omitting those stations will get you to be useful. So they might as well stay.

As I think I said above, an example of where closures would make a positive difference is the Southport line - get rid of New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar (or at least one of them so you can skip stop the other two) then you could do half hourly perfect clockface, which would be a benefit to most users due to the more memorable timetable.

 

[yorksrob]

Same goes for Portsmouth Arms to be fair.

From an enthusiasts point of view I’d hate to see them go, but from the point of view of anything else they’re hard to justify (though of course closing them has a cost as well, which may well be why they’re still there).

I'm imagining Charles II arriving in a horse drawn carriage to be greeted by lots of dancing nymphs !

I assume they believe the numbers are so small that it wouldn't make much difference! I don't know if driving is quicker, but certainly that would not on its own be a justification for closing stations. A parallel bus service providing a similar service might be although I know you're not keen on that idea!

Well, buses have their uses (I'm a regular bus user myself). I can't think of many cases where the one would easily replace the other !

 

[21C195 Brentor]

I have never heard anyone describe driving into Exeter as quick! It has a terrible road network for a city of it's size, which is in part responsible for the high use of rail travel into it. Google Maps gives a time a few minutes longer by car than the train.

I've driven into Exeter from every direction, and while it is busy in the rush hour, I've never encountered traffic anywhere near as bad as I was used to in Surrey. Guildford was a whole 'nother level of traffic hell. I've also driven the A377 end to end in considerably less time than Google Maps suggests is possible without speeding - if you drive to the limit, it's a quick enough road, certainly faster than the train, which, in the time when I stayed in a property overlooking the line in the autumn of 2019, mostly looked to be running empty. Barnstaple is mostly a town of retired geriatrics and, being so far removed from anywhere else, is quite well-provided-for in terms of its own needs and facilities. I cannot imagine that demand for rail travel to Exeter is strong, or else it wouldn't need to be so heavily subsidised.

Again, clearly you've never travelled on the early (2nd) train into Plymouth in the morning then? Likewise the 16:40 (ish) train to Gunnislake? A journey from Gunnislake/Calstock to Plymouth is an absolute nightmare by road and far longer than by train, thats the very reason the line survived the proposed closure in the 1960's

I haven’t, admittedly, but again, I know the Launceston to Saltash and Tavistock to Plymouth roads very well, and at no time have I ever encountered conditions on them that I could call nightmarish. Google Maps says 38 minutes by car from Gunnislake to Plymouth (in good conditions it’s doable in half an hour) vs 45 minutes by train.

 

[yorksrob]

I caught the Okehampton train in April, and the Barnstaple train we passed coming the other way looked packed to the rafters.

 

[HSTEd]

Honestly the Gunnislake branch, given the horrible terrain, could honestly be mostly replaced with a 3S aerial tramway without hurting journey times that much - and obviously the waiting times for services would go off a cliff.