Beeching II - you wield the axe.....

[deltic]

and our bigger cities would immediately seize up, and pollution would worsen beyond its current illegal (and grossly not cost-effective) levels. The market has so far proved itself to be totally inadequate and too unreliable to be trusted with anything important. Prisons? Probation services? Big hospitals? Electricity and gas supplies? New nuclear power stations?
You couldn't imagine eliminating the "subsidies" to the road sector because they are almost impossible to track down - like small rural parishes having to pay for the traffic light at road junctions that don't really serve the village.
So why can't we accept that the rail network is part of our national infrastructure, and by definition there will be more- and less-heavily used bits. Would you advocate cutting back the electricity distribution network because a lot of rural users don't use enough to pay for the lines in their area?

This is in the speculative section

Examples you give of the market relate to contracting out or regulated services - to get new connections to utilities often does require large additional payments for more remote areas.

I support road pricing which would help to get rid of subsides

 

[RichJF]

Not much would close in my area in the SE in terms of lines; but I could see a few of the smaller stations on some of the lines such as Stonegate or Fishersgate or the like being wound down to speed up overall services on the lines.

 

[Esker-pades]

Bag... Worms...
but every station that has less than 500 people a year should just close.

Post taken from another thread but moved here to prevent thread drift.

Blanket closure is always a bad idea. The question should be "why do people use this station?" If the answer for the vast majority is "to visit the station" then the station is pointless. The best example of this is Teesside Airport.

But one has to take each station as an individual case. Some stations have a low patronage because the service is awful. Others because it just serves a small populus. Of the 31 stations below 500 this year, 20 (Barry Links, Breich*, Reddish South, Golf Street, Elton & Orston, Denton, Sampford Courtenay, Scotscalder, Acklington, Thorpe Culvert, Coombe Junction Halt, Pilning, Clifton, Kirton Lindsey, Culrain, Locheilside, Nethertown, Achanalt, Kinbrace and Wressle) are nearby or in a settlement/houses meaning that they have a legitimate reason to exist. They serve a local population. Some of them are small but others large but untapped due to poor service levels. See the proposal to increase the services on the Retford to Barnetby Line (including Gainsborough Central, Kirton Lindsey and Brigg) to hourly either at the next timetable change or the one after.

*The debates on Breich are long and complicated and have been done to death on this forum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do think that now more mainline services run via Victoria the idea of reinstating an hourly Stockport-Stalybridge or Stockport-Manchester Vic service (probably the latter) does have some strength behind it.

 

[Meerkat]

are nearby or in a settlement/houses meaning that they have a legitimate reason to exist.

Are you suggesting you mustn’t close any station that has a village near it? Wressle has 272 people living there according to Wiki and that’s probably for the whole parish.
Surely these days someone could very quickly knock up a spreadsheet with the cost of maintaining the station and stopping trains against the passenger count and revenue?
The railway is a very inefficient way of connecting villages, and connecting them detracts from how well it can do the things it is good at.

 

[Esker-pades]

Are you suggesting you mustn’t close any station that has a village near it? Wressle has 272 people living there according to Wiki and that’s probably for the whole parish.

Yes I am.

Surely these days someone could very quickly knock up a spreadsheet with the cost of maintaining the station and stopping trains against the passenger count and revenue?
The railway is a very inefficient way of connecting villages, and connecting them detracts from how well it can do the things it is good at.

I am willing to place a reasonable amount of my own money that people living in those villages would not want to loose their public transport links, especially given the fragility of local bus networks given council budget cuts.

 

[Meerkat]

Of course they don’t want to lose stuff, who does?
But all the other villages around there must cope somehow.
It is a ridiculous place to be stopping trains - the longer journeys probably cost more passengers than they pick up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am willing to place a reasonable amount of my own money that people living in those villages would not want to loose their public transport links, especially given the fragility of local bus networks given council budget cuts.

Would a better situation not be to protect the bus services better?

 

[tbtc]

This thread illustrates the problem that some people treat every bit of railway as sacred - if you can't accept closing the weakest of lines (those with a Parlimentary service or very token services, e.g. Knottingley to Goole) then there's no point trying to have a rational debate about the finite budget we have.

And if your answer is "but, before we close it, we should run services there at a significantly increased frequency for a five year trial, before we can reach a decision about viability" then you are just dodging the difficult question - the numbers might go up from one man and a dog to two men and a dog but it still won't be enough to sustain a station.

The railway is a very inefficient way of connecting villages, and connecting them detracts from how well it can do the things it is good at

Excellently put - the railway is great at doing some things (mass transportation, more effectively than cars or coaches), but it isn't the answer to everything - we should focus on doing what we do best (serving large conurbations, providing faster journeys than other modes of transport) rather than trying to compete on all fronts - sometimes air/car/coach/ dial-a-ride minibus will be more appropriate.

I am willing to place a reasonable amount of my own money that people living in those villages would not want to loose their public transport links, especially given the fragility of local bus networks given council budget cuts.

Of course, if you ask them, people will say that they don't want to lose their public transport links (just like I don't want to lose a local shop/restaurant that I don't go into every year but would be mildly sad if it ever closed).

But if villages are so small that they can't sustain commercial bus services (and therefore reliant upon council subsidies) then heavy rail is a very blunt instrument to try to solve that problem.

Look at how much it costs to provide a minibus compared to the cost of a train (two members of staff where each of them is on a benefits package significantly above what one bus driver requires - much higher fuel costs, plus the signalling and permanent way maintenance...) and tell me that heavy rail is the most effective way of serving rural villages.

 

[Esker-pades]

Look at how much it costs to provide a minibus compared to the cost of a train (two members of staff where each of them is on a benefits package significantly above what one bus driver requires - much higher fuel costs, plus the signalling and permanent way maintenance...) and tell me that heavy rail is the most effective way of serving rural villages.

That's a vast overestimate. The real cost would be the additional fuel and wear & tear used to break and accelerate on a service which would otherwise fly straight through.

Even more parliamentary services (as opposed to services which just have an additional stop a few times per day) like Leeds to Goole via Knottingley or Sheffield to Cleethorpes via Brigg could have larger passenger flows if they were a regular service.

It's not as if I'm suggesting keeping open an entire line that just serves stations like Duncraig. I'm not suggesting keeping stations open for the sake of keeping open (see my previous comments on Teesside Airport etc.). I'm suggesting that stations which serve a populus should not be closed.

 

[Meerkat]

The real cost would be the additional fuel and wear & tear used to break and accelerate on a service which would otherwise fly straight through.

Plus using the section for longer, maintaining the station, losing passengers because the service is too slow....
The bus can also serve the village better by driving right through it, other local villages, and wherever the local town is, rather than wherever the railway goes.

 

[Esker-pades]

Plus using the section for longer, maintaining the station, losing passengers because the service is too slow....

Yeah. Great. 2 minutes lost stopping. Disaster.

The bus can also serve the village better by driving right through it, other local villages, and wherever the local town is, rather than wherever the railway goes.

A bus service would be better. But, buses are getting thinner on the ground for such villages, so the railway should stick around.

 

[Meerkat]

Yeah. Great. 2 minutes lost stopping. Disaster.

That’s not a great attitude for the railway is it? Especially how much gets spent to save a minute here and there - someone must have a revenue value for every minute??
And it’s only just 2 minutes if there is only one such stop on the route that the majority of passengers are taking.

 

[Esker-pades]

That’s not a great attitude for the railway is it? Especially how much gets spent to save a minute here and there - someone must have a revenue value for every minute??
And it’s only just 2 minutes if there is only one such stop on the route that the majority of passengers are taking.

Let's take an example: The small stations around Hull. Those being Wressle, Eastrington, Saltmarshe and Broomfleet.
There is currently an hourly stopping service from Hull to Sheffield (it sometimes originates from Beverley or Bridlington). That could alternatley serve Broomfleet and Saltmarshe giving a bi-hourly service at both stations and having no effect on the fastest journey times (there is another limited stop service from Hull to Sheffield which people making end-to-end journey times would use).
There is also an hourly service from Hull to York, which sometimes serves Eastrington and Wressle. If this alternately served those two stations, one would have the same end-to-end journey time every hour. With clever timetabling then one can minimise the effect on other passengers to the point where most wouldn't notice.

 

[RT4038]

Even more parliamentary services (as opposed to services which just have an additional stop a few times per day) like Leeds to Goole via Knottingley or Sheffield to Cleethorpes via Brigg could have larger passenger flows if they were a regular service.

And so they might, but would the additional revenue cover the additional costs of providing that regular service? Probably not.

 

[Esker-pades]

And so they might, but would the additional revenue cover the additional costs of providing that regular service? Probably not.

Making an additional stop on an already existing service would cost very little.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah. Great. 2 minutes lost stopping. Disaster.


A bus service would be better. But, buses are getting thinner on the ground for such villages, so the railway should stick around.

Or maybe the UK could sort out its pathological inability to operate bus services properly (in particular the use of them to supplement and connect properly to the rail network and its fares system and timetable) and then we could do this all a bit better and a bit more cheaply too?

It's not hard. To see it working, you just need to take a trip to another European country.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Simple. My axe would be wielded not on lines, but on high up management. They're not the ones who bare the brunt of their actions.

 

[Esker-pades]

Or maybe the UK could sort out its pathological inability to operate bus services properly (in particular the use of them to supplement and connect properly to the rail network and its fares system and timetable) and then we could do this all a bit better and a bit more cheaply too?

It's not hard. To see it working, you just need to take a trip to another European country.

Yes! Please! Please make this a thing. Integrated transport would be wonderful.

 

[Meerkat]

having no effect on the fastest journey times (there is another limited stop service from Hull to Sheffield which people making end-to-end journey times would use)

It makes a difference to everybody on the train.....and anybody deciding whether to use the train
And I would argue it has a bigger PR effect than you might think - trains dawdling along to stop at places no one gets on or off really feel very very slow (the Network Express to Exeter hahahaha!)

 

[Esker-pades]

It makes a difference to everybody on the train.....and anybody deciding whether to use the train
And I would argue it has a bigger PR effect than you might think - trains dawdling along to stop at places no one gets on or off really feel very very slow (the Network Express to Exeter hahahaha!)

2 minutes and 1 stop. Makes sod all difference on a journey of an hour plus.

 

[Meerkat]

2 minutes and 1 stop. Makes sod all difference on a journey of an hour plus.

You pointed out yourself that it’s really several stops, and it’s only an hour if you go the whole way.
Why do we spend so much money making trains faster if it makes sod all difference?

 

[Esker-pades]

You pointed out yourself that it’s really several stops, and it’s only an hour if you go the whole way.
Why do we spend so much money making trains faster if it makes sod all difference?

You've missed a few points.
1: There are several stations but not all of them are served by all trains. I spent a whole post outlining how it was easy to give each station an acceptable service whilst not stopping all trains at all stations and not elongating end-to-end journey times by more than a couple of minutes.
2: An additional 2 minutes on a journey of over an hour is a negligable increase. Money is spent on substantial journey time savings, or getting them down to a round, headline time (4h15m to 4h for example). You're slightly ignoring the nuances of my points.

 

[AndrewE]

2 minutes and 1 stop. Makes sod all difference on a journey of an hour plus.

A dozen of them certainly do... Anyway, with the current pantomime of stopping, guard's door opening, check platform, open train doors... and then all that in reverse again it rarely feels like 2 minutes for a stop (unlike the 1/2 minute in the old working timetable for slam-door stock and 20 secs for a slam door EMU!)
I do agree though that it's often better if if buses pick up in villages (which tend to be built around the road, unlike most stations!) and connect into trains. I have a 20- or 30-year old Swiss timetable that shows such a pattern all around the country.

 

[Meerkat]

Exactly
A passenger sitting through a couple of iterations of that performance, for the benefit of nobody, won’t be thinking ‘it’s only a couple of minutes’ they will be thinking ‘come on, this taking AGES!”

The railways are mass movers not dial a ride

 

[Esker-pades]

A dozen of them certainly do... Anyway, with the current pantomime of stopping, guard's door opening, check platform, open train doors... and then all that in reverse again it rarely feels like 2 minutes for a stop (unlike the 1/2 minute in the old working timetable for slam-door stock and 20 secs for a slam door EMU!)
I do agree though that it's often better if if buses pick up in villages (which tend to be built around the road, unlike most stations!) and connect into trains. I have a 20- or 30-year old Swiss timetable that shows such a pattern all around the country.

The 2 minutes refers to the amount of time lost overall.

Exactly
A passenger sitting through a couple of iterations of that performance, for the benefit of nobody, won’t be thinking ‘it’s only a couple of minutes’ they will be thinking ‘come on, this taking AGES!”

The railways are mass movers not dial a ride

I have already demonstrated that it is possible to have trains that don't serve every single tiny stop. Again: Every train serves a single small station so that each of them gets a train every couple of hours whilst end-end journey times only loose 2 minutes.

 

[tbtc]

Maybe we should play Poorly Used Station Idol and threaten to remove the least used intermediate stop from various unreliable services (to allow them to therefore be sped up a bit) - that'd being an element of jeopardy to the release of the annual passenger stats!

That's a vast overestimate. The real cost would be the additional fuel and wear & tear used to break and accelerate on a service which would otherwise fly straight through.

Even more parliamentary services (as opposed to services which just have an additional stop a few times per day) like Leeds to Goole via Knottingley or Sheffield to Cleethorpes via Brigg could have larger passenger flows if they were a regular service.

It's not as if I'm suggesting keeping open an entire line that just serves stations like Duncraig. I'm not suggesting keeping stations open for the sake of keeping open (see my previous comments on Teesside Airport etc.). I'm suggesting that stations which serve a populus should not be closed.

Well, yes, if you stopped more service there then the passenger numbers might go up...

...but then that's true of Waterloo, Paddington, Victoria, London Bridge and every other station in the UK - the question ought to be "if Northern had a spare DMU then is the best use of it trundling along routes through relatively empty parts of the countryside that don't uniquely serve any large places, or for additional capacity on lines that are already busy".

I know it's not as romantic, but I think they'd attract more passengers to the network if they did something boring and urban like using that resource to beef up corridors like Halifax/ Harrogate/ Knottingley - Leeds... or maybe Rochdale/ Wigan/ Warrington - Manchester.

Goole - Knottingley or Gainsborough - Cleethorpes won't give any significant places a daytime service (that don't already have a daytime service).

Let's take an example: The small stations around Hull. Those being Wressle, Eastrington, Saltmarshe and Broomfleet.
There is currently an hourly stopping service from Hull to Sheffield (it sometimes originates from Beverley or Bridlington). That could alternatley serve Broomfleet and Saltmarshe giving a bi-hourly service at both stations and having no effect on the fastest journey times (there is another limited stop service from Hull to Sheffield which people making end-to-end journey times would use).
There is also an hourly service from Hull to York, which sometimes serves Eastrington and Wressle. If this alternately served those two stations, one would have the same end-to-end journey time every hour. With clever timetabling then one can minimise the effect on other passengers to the point where most wouldn't notice.

2 minutes and 1 stop. Makes sod all difference on a journey of an hour plus.

If you are talking about the stopper (rather than the semi-fast) then that leaves Hull at xx:53 and takes around 1h50 to get to Sheffield (xx:30 from Sheffield to Hull). Just under two hours to cover just under sixty miles (and people say that the 60mph Class 230s couldn't cope with timings on Northern Rail...).

So, it's tediously slow already without adding in extra stops.

But if you add in a few of minutes per stop (not just dwell time but braking and accelerating) then you're going to be leaving Hull five minutes earlier to ensure that you keep to the limited slot to cross the ECML on the flat at Doncaster. That might put it into conflict with other services in Hull, that might make the diagram too long to accommodate current PNBs or require an additional train or more staff (because it knocks the rotas out (knowing how tightly Northern diagram everything to squeeze as much as possible out of their limited resources!).

It's a bit like the "just have longer dwell times at each station" idea for putting hits onto XC - a minute here and a minute there and suddenly you're needing to rip up the timetable.

(and then we'll spend huge sums getting line speeds increased so that we can shave off a couple of minutes...)

 

[Esker-pades]

Maybe we should play Poorly Used Station Idol and threaten to remove the least used intermediate stop from various unreliable services (to allow them to therefore be sped up a bit) - that'd being an element of jeopardy to the release of the annual passenger stats!

Well, yes, if you stopped more service there then the passenger numbers might go up...

...but then that's true of Waterloo, Paddington, Victoria, London Bridge and every other station in the UK - the question ought to be "if Northern had a spare DMU then is the best use of it trundling along routes through relatively empty parts of the countryside that don't uniquely serve any large places, or for additional capacity on lines that are already busy".

I know it's not as romantic, but I think they'd attract more passengers to the network if they did something boring and urban like using that resource to beef up corridors like Halifax/ Harrogate/ Knottingley - Leeds... or maybe Rochdale/ Wigan/ Warrington - Manchester.

Goole - Knottingley or Gainsborough - Cleethorpes won't give any significant places a daytime service (that don't already have a daytime service).


If you are talking about the stopper (rather than the semi-fast) then that leaves Hull at xx:53 and takes around 1h50 to get to Sheffield (xx:30 from Sheffield to Hull). Just under two hours to cover just under sixty miles (and people say that the 60mph Class 230s couldn't cope with timings on Northern Rail...).

So, it's tediously slow already without adding in extra stops.

But if you add in a few of minutes per stop (not just dwell time but braking and accelerating) then you're going to be leaving Hull five minutes earlier to ensure that you keep to the limited slot to cross the ECML on the flat at Doncaster. That might put it into conflict with other services in Hull, that might make the diagram too long to accommodate current PNBs or require an additional train or more staff (because it knocks the rotas out (knowing how tightly Northern diagram everything to squeeze as much as possible out of their limited resources!).

It's a bit like the "just have longer dwell times at each station" idea for putting hits onto XC - a minute here and a minute there and suddenly you're needing to rip up the timetable.

(and then we'll spend huge sums getting line speeds increased so that we can shave off a couple of minutes...)

I was referring to the York to Hull service. The slow Hull to Sheffield has the alternative fast service, which most people go for anyway.

If I had the time, I would make a sample timetable to show what I am proposing. I'm sorry it's such a difficult thing to get across in words.

 

[AndrewE]

Well, yes, if you stopped more service there then the passenger numbers might go up...
...but then that's true of Waterloo, Paddington, Victoria, London Bridge

It would be difficult to stop any more services at these termini: I can't imagine any trains that don't stop there!

 

[Esker-pades]

It would be difficult to stop any more services at these termini: I can't imagine any trains that don't stop there!

Sorry to be pedantic, but London Bridge has these services passing:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W43140/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W49783/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W43393/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W43397/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W44023/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W42718/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W43646/2018/11/28/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W43030/2018/11/28/advanced