Is this a serious question? Do you envisage a demand from the Peak District/Backewell area to Ardwick?
Pedantic diversion, but if it went via Guide Bridge and Chinley then I think it can be done using the Dore south curve.
Stupid question, but if it is a like-for-like replacement, would there not be no room for a lift shaft? (Plus issues with the narrow platform.)
I think Bletchleyite's answer covers what I would have said basically.
I was replying to the comment by @185 which I took to be humorous (or at least the second part was). The comment being fully quoted in the post.
Yes, indeed. I just jumped in thinking of the existing Avanti service (which is every 20 minutes) which would either require new 'mainline' platforms at Ardwick or diversion of the service, but then didn't think of the full routeing. Plus there are lots of threads, and real-world proposals, for the reinstatement of the line through Millers Dale to Bakewell and Matlock.
I think it would be very difficult to add lifts.
True - I was thinking more about close/move at any point where expensive improvements are suggested.
There's a 50-storey tower planned for the east end of the Mayfield site so the big ones are spreading further east, creeping glacially towards Ardwick station.
If a development doesnt put in a new access to Ardwick station then can’t see anyone from there using the train - it’s a long grotty way round, you would just jump on a bus.
The difference is that IBM and British Steel Redcar were built to serve specific premises and were restricted to legitimate users of the adjacent premises. Now if Ardwick had been 'Ardwick GUS Halt' the same would apply. Polesworth and Pilning are still open. Norton Bridge was (eventually) closed through the proper procedure following a long period being served by rail replacement bus. Stanlow serves a specific premises as per IBM.
The same question but in reverse.
But, for IBM at least, it's just awaiting development of Spango Valley before reopening as a commuter station to Glasgow. Are you suggesting that there would need to be some legal ownership transfer when this happens to remove IBM from some kind of ownership or control of the station?
Barely. Just like Ardwick.
Ardwick needs the bridge for any train to stop, even if its just a single train to keep it open. Pilning and Polesworth didn't so any closure process can be swept under the carpet.
Not necessarily ownership/control of the station, access to the station without trespassing through private land.
Even though IBM no longer exists on that land - do they still own it?
Not as a renewal it wouldnt have been, there isnt the money for that.
Whether or not IBM still own it or not, if it is private land with no public access, then Operating a public railway service would presumably create additional liabilities for the landowner for no benefit (except to shack bashers). At a location like Ardwick with short to medium term growth potential, it makes sense to keep things going until growth forces a rebuild. Close it now and it’s gone forever.
But then there is the Norton Bridge.
Whilst originally the case at Norton Bridge, subsequent track alterations mean the platform faces are on the fast lines and no longer on the Stoke line. And Norton Bridge was officially closed too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spango_Valley states that IBM sold its site in “around“ 2009 and leased the space it needed for its remaining operations until 2016. I went there in early 2008 when I worked for IBM to visit someone, it was interesting to use.
Presumably the leased space didn't include the station or its access?
