Great Western Coffee Shop

Section 7 "The service specification" contains a clear threat to the future of some branch line stations. Quote:


In conjunction with this, the following quote should be noted:


Some of you may recall that "specialist advisors" tested an outline specification in the run-up to the current franchise being awarded. Interestingly their report (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/terwesternoutlinebusines1103.pdf), obtained by grahame as part of an FOI request in 2006, recommended the complete withdrawal of service calls from several "lightly-used" stations on a number of routes so that the final destination could be reached more quickly.

A cynic might argue that the only difference is that "specialist advisors" tested an outline specification before the (then) SRA consultation began, whereas this time round they will test an outline specification after the (now) DfT consultation ends. A cynic might further suggest that the results of the consultation could give a mandate to the "specialist advisors" to reach the same conclusions, and then pave the way for the DfT to implement them with "public support". After all, how many responses from passengers defending such "lightly-used" stations would they expect to receive, and would these outweigh those wanting faster overall journey times?

Of course you may feel that this is all conspiracy theory land, and that there is absolutely nothing to worry about.  You would be entitled to your opinion, and I wish you all the best.

However, if you do happen to be a passenger at such a station, then it might be worth dropping a quick line to the DfT before 31 March 2012, just to be on the safe side.

If axing the odd branch line stop speeds up the service, more passengers will travel by rail.

Seems evidently sensible to me. There is no need for trains to stop everywhere all the time. People want to get from a to b quickly, not crawling along to let 1 person off. That is not what railways do best.

I'm not avocating the mass closure of stations, just more sensible calling patterns.

Thats sirt of comment produces the 'Melksham' effect. Be careful what you wish for!

Look at all the request stops on the tarka line... Eventually they will vanish

I know what you mean, but the 'Melksham effect' is the cut back of an entire route, as opposed to reducing stops on individual stations on a route. It isn't as if Melsham stops have been withdrawn from a sped-up Swindon to Westbury service. Restoring the Melksham service would bring benefits across a wider network. On the other hand, if we look at stations like Appleford, or some of the halts at the eastern end of the Cotswold line, I think there is a need for a serious consideration of the cost to the wider network of providing stops at those stations. It isn't just about time savings, it is about the use of limited capacity. I'd be very interested to know, for example, what improvements could be made to services between Didcot and Oxford, and connections to other routes at those stations, if Appleford and Culham stops were cut back or removed entirely.

Indeed- this is nothing like Melksham. Even if Melksham was on a branch, it is big enough to justify everything stopping there. Barnstaple branch- if axing the request stops clearly used by few saves time, more people from far away may use the service. At least cut them from most services.

There are some stations that simply need to go or have services cut back. eg Cotswold halts, blatantly kept open by a stupid parliamentary service. They should have gone under Beeching (like most other such halts), saved by marginal politics (like the heart of Wales line), and it's only politics preventing them being bulldozed to the ground now.

There are others that deserve better. Ashchurch should have more stops. But it is not big enough for XC voyagers to call. It's about getting the balance right.

It is scandalous that Shipton has the same level of service to Melksham. Better in fact, as Shipton's times are usable.

Not many improvements I wouldn't have thought.  Hardly any trains stop at both stations, so you'd save around 1-2 minutes on journey time between Oxford and Didcot, and a slight net gain in capacity as a result.  Wow!

Appleford is a quiet station, no doubt about it, but Culham is actually quite busy during the peak hours with people commuting to the nearby research facility.  Take a look at its annual usage figures.  Over 55000 entries and exits - over two thirds of which are season ticket holders travelling to Culham for work.  That compares with stations like, for example Ivybridge, which is apparently worthy of half-a-dozen long distance HST services calling each weekday (annual usage of 56000).  Or Gunnislake, the terminal station on one of the hugely popular Devon and Cornish branch lines (annual usage of 51000).  Or Pershore on the Cotswold Line, a town that virtually all of the Cotswold Line trains call at (annual usage of 58700).

On that evidence, I certainly don't think Culham should be removed from the network!

The only way you could save time would be skipping Umberleigh, which is pointless as (a) it's the busiest station after Crediton, and (b) only saves seconds as the trains have to slow down for the adjacent crossing anyway.

Dropping stops at Copplestone, Morchard Road and Yeoford save nothing, because the trains have to pass each other at Eggesford and Crediton - and it could be argued that they might as well call at Lapford also, as the trains wait three or four minutes at Eggesford (northbound) and Crediton (southbound) for the train in the opposite direction.

I've been watching this topic develop with interest, as you can imagine  ;D

As I suspected it might, it has wondered off a bit. To be fair to the DfT, they did frame the question specifically on branch lines, rather than considering it in terms of "lightly-used" stations on main/secondary lines, such as Appleford, Culham or the Oxfordshire Halts.

So lets consider the question again:


It wont surprise you to learn that my answer is "no", but my reasoning might surprise you instead.

You see, I think a major lesson from the last few years is that the needs of most passengers have been better met by omission of some of the intermediate stops on some of the trains, but only when this has been part of an overall frequency improvement.

Lets look at the evidence:

ST IVES

When improved frequency services were introduced, the main loser was Lelant during the daytime. However, Lelant Saltings isnt that far away, and during the evening where reaching it in the hours of darkness might be an issue, trains do still call at Lelant itself.

FALMOUTH

When improved frequency services were introduced, some services were not scheduled to stop at Perranwell. However, Perranwell has still ended up with a better service overall.

NEWQUAY

The recent axing of the early morning Newquay line services may suggest that the improved frequency local services have not proved as popular as hoped. However, there is no evidence to suggest that not calling at the intermediate stations on the local services to save a few minutes has worked either.

In truth, the main driver of improving Newquay line fortunes will always be the continued development of direct summer links with London and CrossCountry destinations. Frankly, saving a few minutes on local services will have very liitle effect on the overall picture. Providing them will always be a question of social need, which is best served at present by leaving them broadly as they are.

This might change in future if the Newquay-St Austell line is ever restored, but lets face it, that prospect seems a very long way off.

LOOE

When improved frequency services were introduced, some intermediate service calls were missed out in some services, but this did not have a great impact on the overall service level provided at these stations. There have been peaks and throughs in the revisions since, but one fact seems obvious - the Looe line services will always load well during the summer, and significantly less well during the winter. This will remain the case regardless of overall journey time or calling patterns.

GUNNISLAKE

Frankly, it is difficult to see how improving the overall journey time by removing service stops would have any beneficial impact on this route. People mainly use it because in many cases it is their only means of getting to where they want to go.

I can see an important need for reduced journey times should the Tavistock link be restored, but it is likely that the infrastructure will be configured to allow all-stations Gunnislake-Plymouth and fast Tavistock-Plymouth services to co-exist.

EXMOUTH

This line has a successful, long established service pattern of 1tph all stations and 1tph limited stop. Indeed, even the "specialist advisors" who tested an outline specification in the run-up to the current franchise being awarded advised against altering this.

BARNSTAPLE

The current off-peak daytime hourly stopping pattern that TJ outlined was agreed by pretty much all the stakeholders along the route from FGW and local government right through to user groups and passengers. I cant see any obvious reason why this should be changed in the foresseeable future.

The request stops that I suspect Btline has more in his sights are the ones that arent included in the daytime hourly stopping pattern. To be frank, these have a very limited service now and are generally sparsely served (if at all) outside the peaks. Therefore the question, whether one wants to admit it or not, is should they exist at all?

Since my exit from the TransWilts campaign, I have extensively travelled on the Devon & Cornwall rail network to try and ensure I got my facts straight before the new franchise process got underway. This included getting off at the likes of Portsmouth Arms and Kings Nympton to see if anybody did actually use them. The answer is yes - not all that many I admit, but they are being used, and fulfill a clear need to those who do.

Looking at branches elsewhere on the FGW network, it would be a brave civil servant or TOC executive who risked the wrath of the locals by missing out stops on the Severn Beach Line and as far as the Thames Valley branches go, there just doesnt seem to be a case on any of them to deviate from the current calling pattern. Indeed, the debate there is likely to focus heavily on the future status of their direct links with London in the wake of electrification, Crossrail and IEP.

I agree with most of the points but here is a minor issue:

Perranwell has a brilliant service on the branch but if you want to connect at Truro  it is useless. It should be the other hourly train that calls [the --10 rather than --40]. One only has to look at table 39, it is almost like it was done deliberately. Sadly many in the village  including myself now go to Truro especially if you are going westwards. I have contacted FGW about this on occasions and never got a sensible reply. Seems a simple thing to sort out and annoying as the train goes though the village.

Lee - welcome back, and many thanks for raising this topic, which I've taken the liberty of splitting of into its own thread.  It's a very important topic, I think.    I don't know the Devon / Cornwall branches like you do, but operationally I would be pretty sure you're right - a look at the timetables for them leads to the question "what could you actually save ..."

Three points if I may / questions to lead this on:

a) I have seen some quite preposterous figures quoted for the cost (financial) of stopping and restarting a train.  Is it possible that the suggestion to consider cutting out stops might be to save money rather than minutes?

b) There's a psychological adversity for some through passengers to being on a train that seems to "stop at all the shacks", even if in practise that costs hardsly any time.   Is it possible that this suggestion is a "we're speeding up the trains" publicity thing?  i.e. That this is an engineered / biased question that consultees are being asked?

c) If a heavy "yes, cut the smaller stops" response is received that certain parties could use it as an indication of public support for a closure program?

Axe Lelant station! Do all trains call at Carbis Bay?

Surely Coombe should be axed (or Coombe Junction Wishing well halt, or whatever it's called this week).

Newquay - surely a more frequent fast service to Plymouth would drum up passengers, perhaps stopping at a P&R station near the A30.

Smaller stations near Plymouth - run a Newton A to Liskard shuttle calling everywhere (plus a few new stations East of Plymouth). Then axe all of these stops on expresses.

Run a new service from Yate into Bristol then axe stops on the Worcesters.

Extend more OXF fasts to Charlbury then axe all Hanborough and Halts stops on Worcesters (needs re-doubling).

Axe Malvern Link, Pershore, Honeybourne and Hanborough stops on a peak train to improve journey times to kick start getting Hereford and Worcester passengers back.

Axe some Didcot Parkway stops (I believe more Up trains stop than down or v versa - make it consistant by axing stops), esp after the Cheltenham service becomes hourly.

Axe some Swindon stops when frequencies get better.

Far too many stops on B&H for expresses. The odd Westbury stop is ok for connections, but the rest need to go.

When Crossrail comes in, axe stops on the Oxfords.

I hope you've got a deep pocket and a generous cheque book, Btline  ;D


etc.

The math of running more trains by cutting out stops and the four-time-daily run up to Coombe just doesn't add up, I'm afraid.

I'm thinking after IEP and with 150 cascades. ;D

My opinion here is that it depends very much on the individual situations of the stations involved.

There are various factors that need to be taken into account, with passenger numbers not necessarily regarded as the most important. I think it might be easier to explain using examples. However there are probably more factors (that I am unaware of) so I am not sure whether these examples really would be the best way forward.

Anyway, one example which has been mentioned already is the Heart Of Wales Line (HOWL). Here, the railway is probably the least un-economical (both in financial and environmental terms) of providing any form of public transport for much of the area served by the line. As such, I expect there is an environmental case for providing stops (by request) at these stations, since they are the sole alternative to private cars. However, the potential footfall is small so any increase in the number of services should be done by introducing faster services that call only at the stations that serve more significant settlements, which I believe need a rail service with far more attractive journey times.

However, on the Pembroke Dock line there are two stations (Kilgety and Saundersfoot) which are very close together by rail but probably beyond easy walking distance of Saundersfoot itself. To create an integrated public transport network there therefore should be a rail-link bus from Saundersfoot to the railway. Since a rail-link bus is probably required anyway and the stations are so close together it might be worth running the bus to Kilgety station (perhaps adding a ^for Saundersfoot^ suffix to the name-boards) and closing Saundersfoot station. In itself the time saving from this is unlikely to be particularly helpful, however coupled with upgrading several level crossings so that the train does not have to slow to a stand before them, this may save sufficient time to path an hourly service on the branch.

I'll use HS2 as my final example, where I would very much like to see a limit to the linespeed if it is just going to be a London - Birmingham service because (particularly with the amount of fossil fuel generation in the national grid's supply) a few minutes time saving doesn't attract many more off the roads to save CO2 emissions once the road journey time is sufficiently beaten. This is not strictly relevant here, but the point is once rail has beaten the journey time of rival modes by a fairly comfortable margin, or perhaps even just equals it, there is less need for speed. Then, providing higher standards of service or comfort is perhaps a more important means of attracting custom.

Away from branch lines, there should really be more local services (and perhaps extra tracks through stations for non-stop trains to overtake stoppers) to avoid Intercity trains having to stop at the likes of Swanline stations (served by some Manchester ^Carmarthen/Milford Haven trains), and probably some stations on the Reading ^ Taunton via Westbury route, rather than closures.

Sorry, not a particularly coherent post but I hope you get the gist.

Since when did the hst's serve any of the Swanline stations. I think FGW have got the right mix of stopping at Neath etc although I do think trains could be sped up by not stopping at didcot and perhaps at Swindon as well especially when the new extra services start.

Please don't think that this is going off topic... I hope to make a valuable link...


In rural Hampshire, many former buses have been replaced by taxibuses - and there are two sorts.

Firstly, there are services which run to a dedicated timetable - just like a bus - but are operated with much smaller vehicles - cars or people carriers or minibuses. 

Secondly, there are services which are scheduled to run on certain days between x and y and various areas are outlined as being served e.g. on Tues, Thurs Sats a taxi bus will run between x and y and will make picks in a, b, c, d,.  However, and obviously NOT so convenient, these services have to be pre-booked 24 hours in advance.

AND SO MY POINT AND LINK TO THE THREAD

Could TOCs begin making contracts with taxi companies in very rural areas and then a ticket could be bought e.g. Hanborough to Reading    route taxi + Oxford and then the passenger turns up at Hanborough according to a published timetable - is taxied to Oxford for train connection and vice-versa.  The taxi driver could also offer the opportunity to carry heavy backage - especially useful for disabled or vulnerable travellers.

I always use the service thats just after 00 from penryn, and the staff always seem to stop on request anyway from what ive seen. Maybe down to the staff on the day though.

It does, indeed - it raises the whole question of integrated transport, and bearing in mind that most FGW train users connect in or out of something else, I've used it as one of the seeds for a whole new thread -

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10051.0

The 0801 from Penryn is scheduled to stop at Perranwell at 0807. But sadly all day from the Penryn 0904 all trains whistle through Perranwell at --10 with no scheduled stop until the evening. It is only the --40  with lousy connections at Truro that is timetabled to stop on request.

When adding new trains it might be acceptable that the new trains miss some less used stops.

Indeed, after Crossrail, they'll be plenty of Thames Turbos that can't fit anywhere else. These can be used to improve local services, while HSTs/IEPs can actually stretch their legs and long suffering commuters don't have to stop every 5 minutes.

For once I agree with our Welsh contributor in his reference to station footfall. The number of station entrances and exits is not necessarily a good reference as to the financial viability of a station. At my home station of Hanborough, 10 years ago footfall was much less than now but also the average fare per journey was also very low as the vast majority of journeys were between Hanborough and Oxford - just 7  rail miles long. Today the number of users has increased considerably but whereas the journeys were short distance, the majority of journeys are now by daily commuters to London. Many people who in the past used rail to get to Oxford do not now but drive to the Oxford Park and Ride as it is no longer possible to park at the station after 06.30 as the car park is filled by the London commuters who need to set off for work much earlier than Oxford commuters. Hanborough is therefore now a very lucrative source of revenue for FGW and any TOC considering responding to pleas for journeys to be a few minutes faster from Worcester by cutting out Hanborough stops would be committing financial suicide. The political outcry to local MP (a certain David Cameron) would also be significant.
Re HS2, this should not be considered as just a London to Birmingham railway, it is just the first (proposed) stage of a new railway to the North and to Scotland and the North and Scotland has most to be gained from this project if it goes ahead.

The question on what to do at "less used stops" is - surely - to ask why are they less used, and to have informed decisions on future service level be made on the basis of those reasons.

Why may a station be "less used"?
a) Because it serves a catchment which has low travel requirements
b) Because there are no trains calling there at the time that people want to travel (for a local / regional / commuter service that means getting both ends of the day right and co-ordinated to give proper round trips)
c) Because the trains that call don't go where people want to go
d) Because the services are very infrequent compared to the length of the journey
e) Because there's a much better served station nearby
f) Because of access / parking issues at the station
g) Because people feel unsafe at the station
h) Due to lack of [easy to use] information available to potential travellers about the station and its services
i) Because the fares are too high

A single reason from the list above can lead to "low use" ... though usually multiple will apply.

Coombe Junction Halt has been quoted as an example of a less used station.  And I would guess that the following may apply:
a) Yes - Not many people live in its catchement, which is quite small anyway due to the proximity of Liskeard station. Tourist things near, though?
b) Yes - The only trains that call are within a couple of hours of each other in the morning. Day trips are not practical.
c) Yes - People wanting to go anywhere but Looe are Liskeard would need to change
d) Yes - average, one train in 6 hours. Average journey on that train - no more that 10 minutes?
e) Yes - Liskeard
f) Yes - I don't think there's a car park or bus service at all?
g) No - Not a problem, I wouldn't think
h) I don't know
i) I don't know

Melksham was also mentioned earlier in this thread as a station that has few passengers at present.  Agreed.  Why? :
a) No - The catchment is urban - around 24,000 people, and many of them commute to neighbouring rail served towns. There are also business / visitor flows into the town - but not arriving by train.
b) Yes - There is a huge gap between the train that calls at 07:17 to Chippenham and Swindon and the one that gets back at 19:11.  And it's even worse bweeen the 06:40 to Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster and Salisbury and the train that gets back from the south at 19:47.  It rules out any two-way commuting opportunities.  In addition, longer distance travellers cannot get into the station in the morning because the trains run from Westbury / Swindon before there are any useful connections, and they cannot leave after working in the town / visiting until so late that they'll be very late indeed if they're headed for home in London.
c) No - not really.  Popular destinations on this travel flow are Swindon, Trowbridge, Chippenham and Salisbury, which are directly served (alas - nothing comes BACK from  Salisbury). Other flows are to Bath, Bristol, Reading, London, Oxford and Southampton - all possible with an easy change.
d) Yes - the same average as Coombe with one train in 6 hours - but average joureney times are probably more like 20 minutes that 10.
e) Not really - it's a 20 pound taxi fare to Chippenham, and those of us with cars tend to use Chippenham, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, Westbury or Andover - but by necessity, rather than by choice.
f) No - there is currently sufficient car parking but only for the current level of service / use
g) Not really - although the station is in the back of an industrial area which concerns the more nervous after dark (and there are no daylight weekday trains at all in winter!)
h) Yes - The timetable displayed at the station does not show connections to Bath and Bristol, and only shows some London connections.  Many people don't even know that Melksham station exists, and online journey planners sometime make mysterious ommissions of it.
i) Yes - in some cases. A mixed story.  If I had a lunchtime meeting in London on 19th Jan, I could travel up from Chippenham for 13.50, and return for 15.50 ... but from Melksham, I'm being quoted 73.00 (up) and 50.50 (back).   BUT -local fares are reasonable or even underpriced (should I whisper that).

Conclusion?   

Coombe Junction Halt is, and would probably remain, a "low usage" station even if many more services called there. That's not to say it would always be the case - in 10 years time, we may have an urbanised Looe Valley, with housing around all the stations, petrol at 10 pounds per litre and a through commuter rail service from Plymouth to Looe running every hour, calling at Coombe.  And it would then be used, me thinks.

Melksham, on the other hand, is principally a low use station because none of the trains that call there are at the times / offer the round trips that people need.  Many attempts at forecasting future traffic have been made. I would anticipate that the number of annual journeys made in 5 years time (after a ramp up period), given an hourly peak / 2 hourly offpeak service each way, would be about equal to the current Bradford-on-Avon figure, a town that's about half the size of Melksham.  In other words, I'm forecasting a rise from 10,000 to 370,000 (37 fold) for a 5 fold rise in trains.  Viewed another way, that's 1000 journeys per day.

By providing extra trains matters (d), (e) and (g) are also dealt with. Also (assuming the current pricing regime continues), matter (i) would also be dealt with.  Local publicity, closer working with the train operating company via the CRP (already First taking a keen interest, but much more could be done wth a quantum leap in passenger numbers), etc would also help matter (h).  Ironically - with that quantum leap in passenger numbers, parking and access could become a problem - except for the fact that there are plans afoot under the LSTF to deal with this and other growth pain matters.

*Whenever I go through hardly anyone gets on/off and passenger figures must be one of the lowest for a station where InterCity trains stop.
*The new Water Eaton Parkway, with cheaper fares, faster journey times, better reliability, double the frequency and more destinations, will grab most London commuters.
*I doubt the Oxford daytrippers will return to rail as the P&R is cheaper and drops you off right outside Debenhams, not 10-15 minutes West of the centre. If they do, they'll probably use Water Eaton for the reasons above!
*Surely if FGW thought the station had any future they would have invested in it and its car park. Like Chiltern and most of their stations.
*I would happily bet that the passengers won back to the railway by a faster Worcester service would far outweigh any at Hanborough - and besides, they'll have Water Eaton, so what have they got to moan about? Think of us stuck in Worcester with a slow train!

So, ots you & who else from Worcester wants ti go to London regularly?

You have to show a denand before demanding a proper service, and I refuse to believe the demand is there. How are they getting there at the moment? Those that aren't currently using the rails, I mean....

Anyone else tired of this old record?   ::)

I'm sure there are enough people from Hereford - Worcester - Vale of Evesham to travel to London to make a decent service worthwhile. There are plenty of lesser cities that have a decent service.
If you apply that logic then no railways, motorways or any basic infrastructure would ever have been built. Of course the demand is there - have you seen the queues in Worcester - they start at 1pm (no jokes) and finish at 6pm. I have never seen such a long "rush hour".
Commuters have deserted the line in droves - look at the car park at Warwick Parkway. People also drive to B'ham International. The fact that Worcestershire's road access is so poor should be exploited by the railways. At the moment, it isn't. So people don't travel to/from the region as much as they would, and the region's economy does not reach its full potential.

Yes ... but a new franchise IS a time to play those old records again, I think - just to make sure that we've not overlooked an old master in the back of the woodshed.

However, for a case to go forward in the new franchise, it need to be very thoroughly researched, evaluated, and tested in various ways.  That's very hard (I too used to think it was near impossible), but it can be done; it needs numbers, BCRs to industry standards that work, even with "optimism factors" removed, and studies from different angle all pointing to having each element working.  And the cost / costing issue, especially in the ramp-up period - needs to be looked at.  I'm not sure that I see such data here yet - and it's a big (and expensive) task to commission and compile.

This evening, I've been drafting an initial response to rail services in my own area - looking to put forward a case that's strong and confirmed by businesses and councils in the area, that would work operationally, and does indeed offer actual figures.   It's under review at the moment - better not to spoil a cake by putting too much icing on it, me thinks.

To be fair, though, I believe that the figures you have seen generally relate to stopping/restarting trains on fast or semi-fast intercity or regional services, which are an entirely different kettle of fish to stopping and restarting a train on a branch line where the costs of doing so are generally significantly lower.


If so, then it creates an interesting contradiction for the DfT, because of their continuing commitment to the Community Rail concept which is designed to enable train companies to work more closely with community rail partnerships to better design services to meet local need.

Theresa Villiers recently reiterated this commitment on FGW turf in October 2011 - http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20111010 :


As far as branch lines go, almost all of the ones in Devon & Cornwall are Community Rail designated either as a line or service. People like RichardB and his CRP team, user groups like the Tarka Rail Association, local authorities and others are closely involved with FGW in how the timetables are shaped, and each features a range of calling patterns designed to fit the markets they serve. They dont just concentrate on purely local need either - bringing in passengers from further afield is crucial to maintaining the viability of these lines, and I believe their approach reflects this.

If the passenger figures in recent times are anything to go by, they have been the authors of spectacular success, and as somebody who had my doubts on their ability to pull it off, I'm happy to salute that success.

Why change that? What's the alternative? - micro-management of those timetables by the civil servants in London running completely counter to the overall looser specification strategy the DfT says it wants to persue?

That really would be a contradiction.


I've set out a potential scenario along these lines in my opening post, and left it down to forum readers/watchers to make their own mind up.


Axing Lelant station would be pointless at present, as its future service pattern along with that of Lelant Saltings and Carbis Bay will be fundamentally shaped by the St Erth Park & Ride issue. See quote below:




I can give you my opinion as to why its still there:

- No rolling stock/crewing costs to escape through closure.

- No lighting costs to escape through closure.

- Line through Coombe would have to remain to serve Moorswater, so no costs to escape there.

- Passenger trains have to reverse/change direction near there anyway, even if they dont call at the station.

- A significant sum would be payable to consultants conducting a cost/benefit analysis under the closure guidance.

- A consultation would have to be held into the closure, during which someone will undoubtably seek to frustrate the process in order to avoid a precedent being set for stations elsewhere.

- The media would descend upon Coombe, as they always seem to when they want a story regarding potential closures.

Some excellent points and interesting analyses Grahame.

Taking point e nearby statons. This can often be played out as rivalry even if served by same TOC. Take Taplow and Bourne End they can be seen as rivals particularly by the branch as Taplow has a more frequent (halfhourly as opposed to hourly) shorter journey times, you're already on the Mainline no change at Maidenhead (off peak), cheaper fares. They are 6.2 miles apart by rail and 4.9 by road. We have lots of free parking admittedly on the road. The only disadvantage is we don't have Sunday service.

High Wycombe and Beconsfield are also rivals to Bourne End but that's good because it's competition FGW versus Chiltern see other posts on this board.

Re Coombe Halt one of the problems is that it is 10 chains or 220 yards beyond the junction so a train has to do an extra 1/4 mile to serve it. I wonder if there is case for experimenting with making it an automated request stop. i was thinking CCTV and a phone to Lisguard box (Thames Valley Control centre later) plus a light signal at the junction to indicate if the train is to stop.

Re service patterns I am wondering if in places like Cornwall there should be a DB type pattern of service IC Inter City, Regional Express RB Regional Bus (All stations) This would probably mean more trains overall but giving say larger stations like Truo at least 2 tph each direction, lesser stations Bomin Road 1 tph and smaller stations one train every two hours. ICs would be through to Padd, Some REs and RBs could start from say Falmouth or Newquay. The RE's would end at Bristol perhaps being overtaken at Truro, Plymouth, Newton Abbot, Exeter, Taunton and/or Weston super Mare.  RBs terminate at Plymouth or Exeter. The whole servcie intergrated with ICs and RBs starting from Paignton. Don't see much point in REs from Torquay as apart from Torre there aren't any stations to be left out. The RB could connect into the Cornwall Bristol RE at Newton Abbot. The trouble is most of the overtaking staions would require additional to to allow overtaking and possibly cross platform interchange.

Also think it could work for Melksham if Bradford North curve was reopened then the Bristol London RE would go via Bradford on Avon and Melksham, leaving the mainline clear for the ICs to miss Chippenham on some journeys.

It would as I say also require more trains perhaps slightly less intensively used than current stock at present . But that should improve reliability but will greately upset the "Bean Counters" who think stock should be turning a wheel 25 hours a day.

Tehre is a form of this service in teh thames Vally where off peak it is often possible to change at Slough or Reading from or to teh Fast Oxfors from or to an intermediate station. Thus i take the Fast Oxford to Slough and change for Taplow. You could also do this for Hayes Reading changing into the fast Oxford at Slough.