I‘d tend to agree with what’s highlighted, in fact it might be why some are just tacked into the Saturday specification, as that’s definitely only once. I noted in an earlier post that DfT had stated in their consultation that Southern’s daily West London Line jaunt was for their own convenience and not actually required.
this example has been covered many times, but basically put the station was closed under the permitted reason of safety, and so the line was operated by an ECS move once a week (or may have been once a day) and replacement taxis offered for anybody who did wish to travel there. The parliamentary service was offered, but in a modified form permissable due to the safety concern. It also happened that you weren't allowed to or from Newhaven Marine as it's wholly within the port security boundary. The ferry terminal had long since moved to the north end of the wharf next to town station, and harbour station is adjacent to the port security office so there was no reason for anybody to get on or off. In the end the reason they bothered to go through the formal closure was to convert it into an aggregates terminal for railfreight, although I'm not entirely sure if the terminal hadn't been built before the official closure of Marine Station.
By the way, we had a thread about the Newhaven “closure” that ran for over 5 years, as @zwk500 has mentioned, you can see it here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-of-newhaven-marine-and-harbour-stations.122716/
Oops, sorry about bringing the old thread up on here!
All three examples are on private land so if the owners of the land refuse access to the public it's a waste of time for the train operator to call at them. MUFC Halt was only used for matchday specials and never offered a regular service, so its status has always been different to other stations on the network.
I would be interested in seeing what these are, please.
One is now closed and another no longer a station though it still has through rail fares...
Minor quibble: there's access to Kirkstall Forge from the canal towpath, which takes you in behind the northbound platform. Pretty sure it isn't gated, but I haven't been there since it opened.
It's the same legislation as for NR - the Railways Act 1993, with amendments and changes by the Transport Act 2000 and the Railways Act 2005.
Your comment is about station ownership. I think the item to which you responded was about the land around the station, so whoever controls that land controls access to the station.
Stations such as Filey and Heads of Ayr Holiday Camps, Cheltenham Racecourse and The Hawthorns, never had regular weekly services throughout the year. I suspect that if a hostile legal challenge was mounted, the railway could get away with surprisingly little service (once on every 29 Feb, permanently substituted by a bus.)
I don't think that can be right. Either of these stations could be reduced to being served by one early morning train on a Saturday in one direction to get a similar result for 'operational convenience'. However, this would have to be with the connivance of the franchise letting authority (DfT) to not specify any more frequent service.
No. This would be uselessly prescriptive, and you'd end up with cheap but useless stations being built where convenient to allow stations to close.
The 1968 Transport Act relieved BR from any need to subsidise closed railway replacement buses. Those which were uneconomic and provided by private operators (such as S&D) would have been withdrawn immediately. If provided by the National Bus Company (Govt. owned) they were usually assimilated into the local bus network, or withdrawn, gradually.
I suspect that management cut the service down to the minimum that could be got away with without too much uproar. After all, they didn't want to totally destroy the economics of the replacement bus services (which they were ultimately standing guarantee for).
Thanks for the link. Even on a skim-read, I can understand why operators are not rushing to make closure proposals.Bear in mind that DfT has issued formal guidance on how closure proposals must be assessed.
Railway closures guidance
Guidance on arrangements for making, assessing and determining applications to close rail services, stations and infrastructure.www.gov.uk
I'm not so sure. Take Wedgwood/Barlaston/Norton Bridge. The operator (or DfT?) has been paying a bus company for nearly 20 years to bustitute the route instead of, what, paying for 4 newspaper adverts and launching a consultation?Thanks for the link. Even on a skim-read, I can understand why operators are not rushing to make closure proposals.
For anything less than a complete line closure the cost of the process probably outweighs any potential savings for several years
Norton Bridge is formally closed. One of Wedgwood or Barlaston will reopen, the other will formally close. The amount paid to the bus company is miniscule. The (subsidised) bus route already runs, the TOC simply pays them a small amount for accepting a tiny amount of rail tickets. Wedgwood and Barlaston stations both fall within the Stoke plusbus boundary anyway, this generates more than actual tickets do!
