I understand the DfT have formerly approved the closure of this station
Last trains booked to call Friday 30th September 2005

-- 
Al

Alan Osborn wrote:

>I understand the DfT have formerly approved the closure of this station
>Last trains booked to call Friday 30th September 2005


Letter from the DfT to Central Trains is at:
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_039661.pdf>

ps: It's easier to find Etruria if you spell it properly!

Neil Sunderland
-- 
Braunton, Devon
Please observe the Reply-To address.

NP: Snow Patrol - One Hundred Things You Should Have Done In Bed (from the album 'Songs For Polarbears')

"Neil Sunderland"  wrote in message 
news:jf1kg1hajfkhflj5agkb44j9kuua8d7iq7@4ax.com...
snip

>
> Letter from the DfT to Central Trains is at:
> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_039661.pdf>
>

snip

Can anyone explain why it would cost 13-14m to retain and rebuild the 
station? If it has so little use surely a simple suspended platform would 
suffice?

Paul

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:10:31 GMT, Neil Sunderland
 wrote:


>Letter from the DfT to Central Trains is at:
><http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_039661.pdf>
>
>ps: It's easier to find Etruria if you spell it properly!


First of many?

Not only that, but the sad loss of a station with a most interesting
name!  It's also quite possible that both stations that had anything
to do with the Wedgewood pottery will end up closed, this being one of
them.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Sunderland"  wrote in message
news:jf1kg1hajfkhflj5agkb44j9kuua8d7iq7@4ax.com...

> Alan Osborn wrote:
> >I understand the DfT have formerly approved the closure of this station
> >Last trains booked to call Friday 30th September 2005
>
> Letter from the DfT to Central Trains is at:
>

<http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railw
ays_039661.pdf>

>
> ps: It's easier to find Etruria if you spell it properly!
>

Although CT is the station operator, its trains don't appear to have called
at Etruria since the Stoke blockade. A couple of down Northern trains call
there each morning, but none in the reverse direction. Has the up line
already been realigned to preclude up trains calling at the station?

Peter

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:21:50 +0100, "Paul"
 wrote:


>
>"Neil Sunderland"  wrote in message 
>news:jf1kg1hajfkhflj5agkb44j9kuua8d7iq7@4ax.com...
>snip
>>
>> Letter from the DfT to Central Trains is at:
>> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_039661.pdf>
>>
>snip
>
>Can anyone explain why it would cost 13-14m to retain and rebuild the 
>station? If it has so little use surely a simple suspended platform would 
>suffice?


There's very little there at the moment. The SRA is referring to the
cost of realigning the tracks over a half mile length with and without
station retention. We all know what the SRA attitude is to stopping
services between Birmingham and Manchester - must keep Mr Branson
happy - so it's hardly surprising the cost estimate is so high.

In fact there's lots of ongoing residential development in that part
of Stoke and it would make sense to retain the station if there were
any stopping services to serve it. As it is people will just drive
everywhere.

Longport next?

Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting     http://paulsherwin.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Paul Sherwin wrote:


> There's very little there at the moment. The SRA is referring to the
> cost of realigning the tracks over a half mile length with and without
> station retention. We all know what the SRA attitude is to stopping
> services between Birmingham and Manchester - must keep Mr Branson
> happy 


Does he operate services which would be significantly hindered by a stop 
at Etruria, then?


> In fact there's lots of ongoing residential development in that part
> of Stoke and it would make sense to retain the station if there were
> any stopping services to serve it.


Yes, we have a knack of closing things down just before they're most 
needed, havent we?  


> As it is people will just drive everywhere.


I suspect most of them already do.  On the occasions I've been on that 
line (Crewe-Nottingham CT trains, me travelling from Crewe to Longton or 
vice versa), even when the trains have been fairly full, the numbers of 
passengers disembarking or boarding at intermediate stations, other than 
Stoke itself, has been distinctly small.  The roads tell a different 
story.


> Longport next?


Uh-uh.  And the locals have expressed concern that Longton is for the chop 
too. But I don't think that's because of any hindrance caused to the 
Bearded One, you know.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:15:49 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
 wrote:


>I suspect most of them already do.  On the occasions I've been on that 
>line (Crewe-Nottingham CT trains, me travelling from Crewe to Longton or 
>vice versa), even when the trains have been fairly full, the numbers of 
>passengers disembarking or boarding at intermediate stations, other than 
>Stoke itself, has been distinctly small.  The roads tell a different 
>story.


The trouble with Stoke is that the station isn't where most people
want to go to do shopping etc - what would be regarded as the centre
(Hanley) is quite a way from the station.  It's therefore only really
any good for those wanting to connect into a longer journey, and there
is, as I understand it, a good bus service.  There may be a Manchester
commuter demand, but not, I'd have thought, a significant one.

Perhaps, in all practicality, not dissimilar to the situation with
Wolves-Walsall, except for that a specific station is involved this
time.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Alan J. Flavell wrote:


> I think we're at cross purposes here.  I'm not implying that the 
> Virgin trains would have to stop at Etruria, but musing whether they'd 
> be significantly hindered by some train that's presumably already 
> stopping at Longport and Stoke anyway, stopping also at Etruria.


   AIUI the issue is that the line through Etruria isn't 'straight' so 
some speed restriction will be in place that they feel if they remove it 
then timings will improve sufficiently to justify the work.

"Chris Johns" <cmj@eh.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.0508231223280.19905@charlotte.local...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Stephen Hughes wrote:

> > Can anyone explain why it would cost 13-14m to retain and rebuild the
> > station? If it has so little use surely a simple suspended platform
would
> > suffice?
>
>    My thoughts also - assuming they can put up a simple platform after
> realigning the tracks, I can't see how it could cost 13m to do so. The
> only possibility I can think is signalling-related - if they were going
> to remove some signals that are only needed for the station, but even
> then I can't see how it would cost so much.


Or just they don't want to do it, so stick in an estimate thats so over
the top that they won't have to.

Absolutely.. a senior figure from Network Rail gave a talk to the Modern
Railways/Railway Forum lunch meeting a few months ago where he defended NR
against the charges of inflating costs and not knowing what a job costs by
saying "If someone was building you a conservatory or extension you wouldn't
waste time asking them to itemise the costs you'd know that the builders had
got it right..." (honest - I nearly fell off my seat..)

I am currently sitting in the dust created by the team who are extending my
house and not only are they doing the job after winning a competitive tender
sent to several builders but I have resourced several major items to ensure
they don't put a mark up on them as well. By doing this the job is costing
less than 50% of the highest quote - AND I'm using a company that was
recommended by a neighbour who is a retired builder as the only company he'd
trust to do the job properly. Clearly the others were out to make a very
significant profit for doing exactly the same job - which I guess is what is
happening to Network Rail, but their managers feel it is wrong to ask a
company to explain its costs... need I say more?

TM

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Stephen Hughes wrote:


>   AIUI the issue is that the line through Etruria isn't 'straight' so some
> speed restriction will be in place that they feel if they remove it then
> timings will improve sufficiently to justify the work.


I see, thanks.  Pity that so many system changes seem to involve
*reducing* future options!

Alan J. Flavell wrote:


> I see, thanks.  Pity that so many system changes seem to involve
> *reducing* future options!


   Quite, although it is difficult in many ways to get a good compromise 
in situations like this. Places such as Etruria, Norton Bridge and the 
others on the WCML threatened with closure certainly deserve a service 
but it is also obvious that the stations as they currently are and the 
type of services you would need to run will cause problems for the 
longer distance runs. Mind you, it would be interesting to know just how 
many people use the VXC and VWC services that would be speeded up 
compared to the number of commuters who use the various stations that 
are seen to 'impede' these services.

"Stephen Hughes"  wrote in message
news:KkKOe.212$py3.208@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> > I think we're at cross purposes here.  I'm not implying that the
> > Virgin trains would have to stop at Etruria, but musing whether they'd
> > be significantly hindered by some train that's presumably already
> > stopping at Longport and Stoke anyway, stopping also at Etruria.
>
>    AIUI the issue is that the line through Etruria isn't 'straight' so
> some speed restriction will be in place that they feel if they remove it
> then timings will improve sufficiently to justify the work.


Hmm... I just don't buy this. The layout is not restrictive, and there's
plenty of width in the formation either side of the island platform to allow
the Voyagers to pass at whatever speed might be appropriate for them to have
accelerated to from a standing start in Stoke station.

Incidentally what are the speeds between Stoke and Harecastle?

Regards

Jonathan

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:53:18 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:



>Not only that, but the sad loss of a station with a most interesting
>name! 


Indeed!  I attended an all-day lecture on the Etruscans earlier this
month and found the topic fascinating.


> It's also quite possible that both stations that had anything
>to do with the Wedgewood pottery will end up closed, this being one of
>them.
>
>Neil



Guy Gorton

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:15:49 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
 wrote:


>
>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Paul Sherwin wrote:
>
>> There's very little there at the moment. The SRA is referring to the
>> cost of realigning the tracks over a half mile length with and without
>> station retention. We all know what the SRA attitude is to stopping
>> services between Birmingham and Manchester - must keep Mr Branson
>> happy 
>
>Does he operate services which would be significantly hindered by a stop 
>at Etruria, then?


WCML / VXC.

Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting     http://paulsherwin.co.uk

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Stephen Hughes wrote:

> > Can anyone explain why it would cost £13-14m to retain and rebuild the
> > station? If it has so little use surely a simple suspended platform would
> > suffice?
>
>    My thoughts also - assuming they can put up a simple platform after
> realigning the tracks, I can't see how it could cost £13m to do so. The
> only possibility I can think is signalling-related - if they were going
> to remove some signals that are only needed for the station, but even
> then I can't see how it would cost so much.


Or just they don't want to do it, so stick in an estimate thats so over
the top that they won't have to.
-- 
 Chris Johns

Paul wrote:


> Can anyone explain why it would cost 13-14m to retain and rebuild the 
> station? If it has so little use surely a simple suspended platform would 
> suffice?


   My thoughts also - assuming they can put up a simple platform after 
realigning the tracks, I can't see how it could cost 13m to do so. The 
only possibility I can think is signalling-related - if they were going 
to remove some signals that are only needed for the station, but even 
then I can't see how it would cost so much.

   Are they obliged to keep the replacement bus running? It doesn't say 
in the document and the fact that there are no conditions attached to 
the closure would suggest not.

   Strikes me that the sooner they get sorted out and build a HSL 
network for this country, the better so the existing tracks can be used 
to serve the smaller settlements and feed in to the faster services.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Paul Sherwin wrote:


> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:15:49 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
>  wrote:
> 
> >Does he operate services which would be significantly hindered by a stop 
> >at Etruria, then?
> 
> WCML / VXC.


I think we're at cross purposes here.  I'm not implying that the 
Virgin trains would have to stop at Etruria, but musing whether they'd 
be significantly hindered by some train that's presumably already 
stopping at Longport and Stoke anyway, stopping also at Etruria.

cheers