Looks like the government is determined not to allow the building of
the Coventry Arena station, despite it being highly needed, huge local
support, and the fact that it was to be an essential part of the now
open Arena development, which is now having all kinds of parking
problems because people don't really want to use the many "park and
walk" schemes or the limited park and ride schemes. No real surprise
there...

http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/news/default1.asp?id=923

The article has a very interesting line in it: "...before Network Rail
decided whether it was willing to change the Coventry to Nuneaton
railway line's current status as a freight and passenger route."

Change it to what? What change would be required to a railway that
already has passenger trains going along it to open a new station on
it?

A while ago, the council, in the local press, pretty much stated "we
want to build it, we have got most of the money to build it, so we are
just going to wait for the SRA to get abolished then build it anyway".
Looks like that plan has been scuppered now too with the DfT being just
as annoying as the SRA was.

Grr...

-- 
_n means nospam - remove it to reply

Phil Holbourn wrote:

> Looks like the government is determined not to allow the building of
> the Coventry Arena station, despite it being highly needed, huge local
> support, and the fact that it was to be an essential part of the now
> open Arena development, which is now having all kinds of parking
> problems because people don't really want to use the many "park and
> walk" schemes or the limited park and ride schemes. No real surprise
> there...
>


Trouble is, although it's obvious were the passengers are going to,
where are they coming from?

Coventry City is a small city football club that tends to generate most
of its support from within the city itself. The Coventry - Nuneaton
line could be used to bring in supporters from Bedworth and Nuneaton,
but to be frank many out there have traditionally not associated
themselves with Coventry much less its football team, looking more
towards clubs like Aston Villa.

Within the city there are only two other local stations neither of
which are on the Nuneaton line, and Coventry station itself is poorly
located for the bus station which could be feeding passengers to the
trains, were it not on the opposite side of the town.

mmm, the last post seems to have completely missed the point.  MOST of the 
people who would use this are Cov fans travelling from the city centre to 
the ground and back again.  Besides, Nuneaton is on the WCML, does that not 
provide a convenient change point for away fans????


"allan tracy"  wrote in message 
news:1124988979.377375.255690@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Phil Holbourn wrote:
>> Looks like the government is determined not to allow the building of
>> the Coventry Arena station, despite it being highly needed, huge local
>> support, and the fact that it was to be an essential part of the now
>> open Arena development, which is now having all kinds of parking
>> problems because people don't really want to use the many "park and
>> walk" schemes or the limited park and ride schemes. No real surprise
>> there...
>>
>
> Trouble is, although it's obvious were the passengers are going to,
> where are they coming from?
>
> Coventry City is a small city football club that tends to generate most
> of its support from within the city itself. The Coventry - Nuneaton
> line could be used to bring in supporters from Bedworth and Nuneaton,
> but to be frank many out there have traditionally not associated
> themselves with Coventry much less its football team, looking more
> towards clubs like Aston Villa.
>
> Within the city there are only two other local stations neither of
> which are on the Nuneaton line, and Coventry station itself is poorly
> located for the bus station which could be feeding passengers to the
> trains, were it not on the opposite side of the town.
> 

Gizmo wrote:

> mmm, the last post seems to have completely missed the point.  MOST of the
> people who would use this are Cov fans travelling from the city centre to
> the ground and back again.  Besides, Nuneaton is on the WCML, does that not
> provide a convenient change point for away fans????
>
>


Yes, but my point was that the station is not in the city centre or
near to the bus station, most fans would probably arrive in the city by
bus at Pool Meadow. So, much easier to catch another bus from there to
the ground, as the railway station is nearly 3/4 mile away and in the
wrong direction.

I hadn't considered away fans but my guess is that only direct trains
would be attractive when compared to car or coach.

Pax just don't like having to change trains.

On 25 Aug 2005 09:35:18 -0700, "Phil Holbourn" 
wrote:


>The article has a very interesting line in it: "...before Network Rail
>decided whether it was willing to change the Coventry to Nuneaton
>railway line's current status as a freight and passenger route."


Reading the whole story including a trite SRA/DfT comment about lack
of demand, I suspect changing its status from a line which is likely
to end up being closed (to regular passenger services) to one that
isn't.

IOW, don't waste your money on building a station as we won't serve it
for long.

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.

> Besides, Nuneaton is on the WCML, does that not
> provide a convenient change point for away fans????
>

The line is a useful route for anyone who wants to get from
Leicester/Nottingham to Coventry or the NEC which otherwise ivolves a
bit of a round trip (and a higher fare to the NEC at least)

>
>
> I hadn't considered away fans but my guess is that only direct trains
> would be attractive when compared to car or coach.


Perhaps a halt station would be appropriate for trains running for
special events.  Maybe the Nuneaton-Coventry service could stop there
morning and evening to allow commuting by train.

A ticket office wouldn't be necessary if few people would be starting
their journey there and tickets could be available on the train anyway.
 If the service is popular then the station and services could be
improved.

pete

Neil Williams wrote:

> On 25 Aug 2005 09:35:18 -0700, "Phil Holbourn" 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>The article has a very interesting line in it: "...before Network Rail
>>decided whether it was willing to change the Coventry to Nuneaton
>>railway line's current status as a freight and passenger route."
> 
> 
> Reading the whole story including a trite SRA/DfT comment about lack
> of demand, I suspect changing its status from a line which is likely
> to end up being closed (to regular passenger services) to one that
> isn't.


"Mr Twigg said: "The SRA has been keen to find and develop demand where 
it's economic to do so, but the reality is the Coventry to Nuneaton line 
does not generate a great deal of local demand."

That will be the line that:

  * was recently bustituted for yonks?
  * whose longer distance traffic was broken when through services from 
Nottingham ceased,
  * which will not now carry Nottingham - Oxford direct services, for 
which there is real demand and which were one of Central Trains aspirations?

It could be said that the travelling public is being taken for a ride, 
it's just unfortunate that the ride in question isn't on the railways.

>
> That will be the line that:
>
>   * was recently bustituted for yonks?
>   * whose longer distance traffic was broken when through services from
> Nottingham ceased,
>   * which will not now carry Nottingham - Oxford direct services, for
> which there is real demand and which were one of Central Trains aspirations?
>
> It could be said that the travelling public is being taken for a ride,
> it's just unfortunate that the ride in question isn't on the railways.


And of course, whilst all this bustitution or otherwise is going on,
the line remains open for freight traffic with its manual signalboxes
and the associated shift working so little is probably saved. Only two
or three freights per day must make for some very quiet shifts.

Phil Holbourn wrote:



> The article has a very interesting line in it: "...before Network Rail
> decided whether it was willing to change the Coventry to Nuneaton
> railway line's current status as a freight and passenger route."


Yes, it does say that, preceded by: "But in his letter Mr Twigg made it
clear he had no wish to take up the city's cause, merely stating it was
up to the city council to present a "viable and funded business case"
for the station".

Has a viable and funded business case been presented?  Or do you
consider such a thing to be needless detail?

Chippy wrote:


> Yes, it does say that, preceded by: "But in his letter Mr Twigg made it
> clear he had no wish to take up the city's cause, merely stating it was
> up to the city council to present a "viable and funded business case"
> for the station".


Ah, a relevant document awaits courtesy of the SRA

http://www.sra.gov.uk/pubs2/stratpolplan/new_railway_station/station_proposals

Some of that sounds very encouraging but when it comes to the crunch, 
how many stations will be opened say between 1997 and 2007?

___________________________________________________________________

Its foreword:

"Stations are the gateway to the National Rail network.  Yet station 
locations often reflect demands set in the 19th century.  As new houses 
are built, as urban areas expand and as new industrial areas develop new 
stations are proposed to provide additional access to railway services. 
  The SRA supports the provision of additional stations where it is 
realistic and feasible to do so,  and where this benefits both the 
community and the railway.  However, the SRA is also required to ensure 
that public investment in the railway provides value for money.  In a 
period when resources are constrained, affordability must also be 
considered. This guidance document has been developed by the SRA with 
industry partners as the planning of new stations involves issues 
relevant to a number of organisations.  Anumber of other stakeholders 
have advised on the documents contents and we thank them for their 
useful advice and input. Over 350 new stations proposals are currently 
in existence, ranging in the level of development  from fully assessed 
and appraised schemes to high level aspirations.  The SRA wants to 
ensure that before promoters and developers spend significant sums of 
money developing proposals assessment is made of the viability of the 
proposal, taking into account all the issues relating both  to the 
railway and to broader transport policy needs.  A large number of 
station proposals will not be acceptable to the industry.  This guidance 
note should highlight the pitfalls that need to be considered, and sets 
out a process to highlight early in the inception process when a station 
is likely to be unacceptable. The key aim of the document is to set out 
the approach that developers, local authorities and other interested 
parties should follow when engaging with the industry on new station 
proposals, to allow a consistent and realistic assessment of all aspects 
of such proposals.  Delivering new stations is a complex challenge.  The 
SRA wants to encourage best practice so that practical, beneficial and 
deliverable proposals are brought forward and supported across the 
industry. The document details the main issues involved in this 
initiative, and sets out a process for the development of station ideas 
from project inception through to implementation.  Every station 
proposal will be different, but this document aims to bring clarity to 
the process, and highlights when the SRA will engage with promoters on 
new station proposals."

"allan tracy"  wrote in message 
news:1124988979.377375.255690@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Phil Holbourn wrote:
>> Looks like the government is determined not to allow the building of
>> the Coventry Arena station, despite it being highly needed, huge local
>> support, and the fact that it was to be an essential part of the now
>> open Arena development, which is now having all kinds of parking
>> problems because people don't really want to use the many "park and
>> walk" schemes or the limited park and ride schemes. No real surprise
>> there...
>>
>
> Trouble is, although it's obvious were the passengers are going to,
> where are they coming from?
>
> Coventry City is a small city football club that tends to generate most
> of its support from within the city itself. The Coventry - Nuneaton
> line could be used to bring in supporters from Bedworth and Nuneaton,
> but to be frank many out there have traditionally not associated
> themselves with Coventry much less its football team, looking more
> towards clubs like Aston Villa.
>
> Within the city there are only two other local stations neither of
> which are on the Nuneaton line, and Coventry station itself is poorly
> located for the bus station which could be feeding passengers to the
> trains, were it not on the opposite side of the town.
>


Have things changed recently ? The last time I was in Coventry (earlier this 
year) , hardly any buses used the bus station, since it had been rendered 
almost inaccessible for many bus routes, due to city centre traffic 
mismanagement schemes.

Bevan

"Chippy"  wrote:


>Phil Holbourn wrote:
>
>
>> The article has a very interesting line in it: "...before Network Rail
>> decided whether it was willing to change the Coventry to Nuneaton
>> railway line's current status as a freight and passenger route."
>
>Yes, it does say that, preceded by: "But in his letter Mr Twigg made it
>clear he had no wish to take up the city's cause, merely stating it was
>up to the city council to present a "viable and funded business case"
>for the station".
>
>Has a viable and funded business case been presented?  Or do you
>consider such a thing to be needless detail?



Of course he thinks it is a needless detail.  It only would prove what
anyone with any sense already knows, that a station serving a venue
that hosts an event on average only once a fortnight will never be a
viable proposition, not by a very, very long way.

If the new arena suffers from traffic problems then that is the fault
of the stupid council for allowing it to be built without *first*
ensuring there was proper provision for public transport.  The people
of Coventry appear to have been very badly served.

"Tony Polson"  wrote

>
> Of course he thinks it is a needless detail.  It only would prove what
> anyone with any sense already knows, that a station serving a venue
> that hosts an event on average only once a fortnight will never be a
> viable proposition, not by a very, very long way.
>

There doesn't even seem to be a business case for a station to serve
Chelsea's ground, which gets far larger gates than Cov City, and the WLL
practically runs through the stand. Admittedly Chelsea is served by other
stations within reasonable walking distance.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:


> "Tony Polson"  wrote
> 
>>Of course he thinks it is a needless detail.  It only would prove what
>>anyone with any sense already knows, that a station serving a venue
>>that hosts an event on average only once a fortnight will never be a
>>viable proposition, not by a very, very long way.
>>
> 
> There doesn't even seem to be a business case for a station to serve
> Chelsea's ground, which gets far larger gates than Cov City, and the WLL
> practically runs through the stand. Admittedly Chelsea is served by other
> stations within reasonable walking distance.


At Man Utd of course we have "the halt", but IME they only run 3 class 
323's per game. If they ever extend the South Stand over the railway 
[1], the line *will* run through the stand !  There is also plans for a 
stadium station on the proposed Metrolink extension to the Trafford Centre.

I wonder if they will rename Arsenal tube station once the Arse move to 
their new ground ?

[1] and presumably build an obligatory Tesco as well.

"matt"  wrote

>
> I wonder if they will rename Arsenal tube station once the Arse move to
> their new ground ?
>

Didn't the club start off as Woolwich Arsenal?

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:


> "matt"  wrote
> >
> > I wonder if they will rename Arsenal tube station once the Arse move to
> > their new ground ?
> >
> Didn't the club start off as Woolwich Arsenal?


It did indeed.  So far as Tube stations are concerned, it seems odd
that the new stadium will be served by Holloway Road, which has lifts,
while Arsenal station was specially designed with a sloping passageway,
divided to enable a 'tidal' flow of passengers.

Incidentally, is there any other Tube station that is situated in the
middle of a row of houses in a suburban road?  Or which doesn't have
any bus routes in the immediate vicinity?

On 25 Aug 2005 18:25:15 -0700, "Chippy"  wrote:

<snip>

>Incidentally, is there any other Tube station that is situated in the
>middle of a row of houses in a suburban road?  Or which doesn't have
>any bus routes in the immediate vicinity?


Do buses pass Covent Garden station ?
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson wrote:


> On 25 Aug 2005 18:25:15 -0700, "Chippy"  wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Incidentally, is there any other Tube station that is situated in the
> >middle of a row of houses in a suburban road?  Or which doesn't have
> >any bus routes in the immediate vicinity?
>
> Do buses pass Covent Garden station ?


Good point, and I'm not sure of the answer.  However, I'm sure that
routes are a lot nearer than at Arsenal, where you are looking at 500
yards or so.

I'd guess that there are a few stations that don't have buses past the
door, but I can't think of another that is so much the sole transport
link for an area.

Allan Tracy wrote:


> my point was that the station is not in the city centre or
> near to the bus station, most fans would probably arrive
> in the city by bus at Pool Meadow. So, much easier to
> catch another bus from there to the ground, as the
> railway station is nearly 3/4 mile away and in the wrong
> direction.


I would imagine that far more fans travel by scheduled
train service than travel by scheduled coach, not least
because from the other big cities there is much more
capacity on the railways (you'd need ten coaches to
carry as many people as you can shift on one intercity
train). I would guess that fans travelling by coach will
normally be using charter services that drop them at
the ground.

There were certainly a lot more people travelling by
train than by coach last time I was at a Coventry game,
although admittedly that was three years ago.


Matt Ashby

Matt Ashby wrote:

>
> I would imagine that far more fans travel by scheduled
> train service than travel by scheduled coach, not least
> because from the other big cities there is much more
> capacity on the railways (you'd need ten coaches to
> carry as many people as you can shift on one intercity
> train). I would guess that fans travelling by coach will
> normally be using charter services that drop them at
> the ground.
>
> There were certainly a lot more people travelling by
> train than by coach last time I was at a Coventry game,
> although admittedly that was three years ago.


How do you know?  Were you at both the station and the ground?  I would
guess that the means of transport varies according to which team is at
Coventry.

All of which doesn't alter the fact that a station isn't viable - or
has a viability/business case been made?

You might like t consider the case of Watford Stadium Halt.  This was
built when Watford FC were on the up, but had fallen into disuse befoe
the Croxley branch closed.  The fact that Coventry FC are no longer a
Premiership side, and realistically are unlikely to return, will no
doubt affect any plans at Coventry.

On 25 Aug 2005 20:34:39 -0700, "Chippy"  wrote:


>Charles Ellson wrote:
>
>> On 25 Aug 2005 18:25:15 -0700, "Chippy"  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >Incidentally, is there any other Tube station that is situated in the
>> >middle of a row of houses in a suburban road?  Or which doesn't have
>> >any bus routes in the immediate vicinity?
>>
>> Do buses pass Covent Garden station ?
>
>Good point, and I'm not sure of the answer.  However, I'm sure that
>routes are a lot nearer than at Arsenal, where you are looking at 500
>yards or so.
>

Doing a rough calculation from:-
<http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf>
the nearest bus in any direction seems to require about a quarter mile
of walking from Covent Garden station. Applying some form of
equalisation factor WRT distance from Charing Cross would tend to give
the cigar to Covent Garden.

<snip>
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson wrote:


> Doing a rough calculation from:-
> <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf>
> the nearest bus in any direction seems to require about a quarter mile
> of walking from Covent Garden station. Applying some form of
> equalisation factor WRT distance from Charing Cross would tend to give
> the cigar to Covent Garden.


'Give the cigar to Covent Garden'? 'Equalisation factor WRT distance
from Charing Cross'?  This takes the biscuit, never mind cigar, for
trainspotter barminess.

On 26 Aug 2005 09:13:52 -0700, "Chippy"  wrote:


>Charles Ellson wrote:
>
>> Doing a rough calculation from:-
>> <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf>
>> the nearest bus in any direction seems to require about a quarter mile
>> of walking from Covent Garden station. Applying some form of
>> equalisation factor WRT distance from Charing Cross would tend to give
>> the cigar to Covent Garden.
>
>'Give the cigar to Covent Garden'? 'Equalisation factor WRT distance
>from Charing Cross'?  This takes the biscuit, never mind cigar, for
>trainspotter barminess.


Dunno about trainspotters but "local" in one place is not always
"local" in another. Compared with other stations in central London
Covent Garden is _relatively_ remote from the nearest bus but moving
out to Arsenal station puts you somewhere with a much less dense
distribution of buildings and people where such a distance is likely
to be regarded as a short, quick walk down the road and not "remote"
in any sense to the locals.

(mutter, mumble... kids today... they don't know they're born) ;-)
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On 26 Aug 2005 06:11:33 -0700, "Chippy"  wrote:


>You might like t consider the case of Watford Stadium Halt.  This was
>built when Watford FC were on the up, but had fallen into disuse befoe
>the Croxley branch closed.  The fact that Coventry FC are no longer a
>Premiership side, and realistically are unlikely to return, will no
>doubt affect any plans at Coventry.


Didn't Watford FC move, so it became redundant - or am I just thinking
of Ramsline Halt in Derby?

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.

In article ,
   Neil Williams  wrote:

> >You might like t consider the case of Watford Stadium Halt.  This was
> >built when Watford FC were on the up, but had fallen into disuse befoe
> >the Croxley branch closed.  The fact that Coventry FC are no longer a
> >Premiership side, and realistically are unlikely to return, will no
> >doubt affect any plans at Coventry.

> Didn't Watford FC move, so it became redundant - or am I just thinking
> of Ramsline Halt in Derby?


Watford FC are still where they were, but the halt was not really very
convenient. I think the idea was to keep home and away fans apart, but as
most of them didn't come by rail it wasn't used very much.

Derby FC did move.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

David H Wild wrote:

>
> Derby FC did move.


To Pride Park stadium.  The footbridge at Derby station was then
extended over to Pride Park, but closed on match days...

"Peter Masson"  wrote:


>There doesn't even seem to be a business case for a station to serve
>Chelsea's ground, which gets far larger gates than Cov City, and the WLL
>practically runs through the stand.



Exactly.  

A large crowd of hooligans once a fortnight (and bugger all for the
rest of the time) is exactly what the railway does *not* want as a
customer base.  Anyone who thinks a railway station at a provincial
football ground is a sensible place to invest millions of pounds of
taxpayers money is about as daft as they come.

Tony Polson wrote:

>  Anyone who thinks a railway station at a provincial
> football ground is a sensible place to invest millions of pounds of
> taxpayers money is about as daft as they come.
> 
> 


What if the owners of the stadium wanted to put in all the investment 
required?

I'm not talking about this specific case either.... if say a company 
wanted to build a shopping complex or stadium with an integrated 
(perhaps even internal) station on an existing line, and was willing to 
pay for all the associated works/rolling stock etc... would NR be 
willing to let the works go ahead?

Assuming they did (Tesco tunnel comes to mind), even if a TOC declined a 
service, would an open access agreement be available?

Chippy wrote:


> How do you know?  Were you at both the station and
> the ground?


Yes, I walked between the two, and then walked back
again after the game. Since I lived in Cov at the time I
have also been at both the NR station and Pool Meadow
during the build up to home football games and I can only
remember seeing decent numbers of football fans at the
former.

I would imagine that this reflects a national trend: more
people travel to away games by scheduled train than by
scheduled coach. This is certainly the case at Leicester,
where away fans are escorted by the police from the
railway station to the Walker's Stadium in groups, while
there is barely an away fan to be seen at St. Margaret's
Bus Station (the stopping point for National Express and
Megabus).


> All of which doesn't alter the fact that a station isn't
> viable


I never suggested that it did. I was merely pointing out
that more people travel to away games by train than by
scheduled bus (rather than chartered bus). I do not know
if there is a business case for building a station at the
stadium or not. At a guess, if the DfT were committed to
running a decent service over this line then it wouldn't be
too much trouble to stop trains there on match days,
after the (small) initial outlay of bunging a couple of
platforms in. Sadly, I don't think the DfT have that
commitment, so the whole debate's a bit academic.


Matt Ashby

"Andrew Bell"  wrote

>
> Assuming they did (Tesco tunnel comes to mind), even if a TOC declined a
> service, would an open access agreement be available?


Read the Grand Central saga on the ORR website to understand what's needed
to get an open access agreement, especially if existing TOCs think you'll be
abstracting their business, and Network Rail doesn't think it's got spare
track capacity to sell.

Peter

Andrew Bell wrote:


> .... if say a company 
> wanted to build a shopping complex or stadium with an integrated 
> (perhaps even internal) station on an existing line, and was willing to 
> pay for all the associated works/rolling stock etc... would NR be 
> willing to let the works go ahead?


Wasn't Horwich Parkway partly financed by developers and the football
stadium operators?

Charlie

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:46:40 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>A large crowd of hooligans once a fortnight (and bugger all for the
>rest of the time) is exactly what the railway does *not* want as a
>customer base.  Anyone who thinks a railway station at a provincial
>football ground is a sensible place to invest millions of pounds of
>taxpayers money is about as daft as they come.


Depends on what else is there.  Horwich Parkway made a fair bit of
sense[1], because there is a large retail park co-located with the
Reebok stadium at Middlebrook, and also because it was a handy place
to put a nice big car park to attract Manchester commuters.  I have no
idea how much of its traffic can be attributed to the P&R and how much
to the football, mind - I wouldn't be surprised if the footy was the
minor business.

Then, they went and lost a lot of passengers in one swoop by
installing a Passenger Information System that worked for about 3
weeks, then failed and wasn't repaired.  Poor.

[1] Not profitable, but it had a fair case for GMPTE subsidy.

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.

Andrew Bell  wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>>  Anyone who thinks a railway station at a provincial
>> football ground is a sensible place to invest millions of pounds of
>> taxpayers money is about as daft as they come.
>> 
>> 
>
>What if the owners of the stadium wanted to put in all the investment 
>required?



It is unviable whoever pays for it, because services that run only one
day a fortnight will never produce a return on the money invested.
They are certain to lose a lot of money.  

Even if the stadium owner or developer is prepared to pay for it,
there is the question of who pays for the train service - the rolling
stock hire, the track access charges and the station staff.  There is
also the cost of security and/or policing.  All this presupposes that
rolling stock will be available, which is of course extremely
unlikely.

There can be few more inefficient ways to provide public transport to
a sports stadium.

On 26/8/05 00:15, "matt"  wrote:

>
> I wonder if they will rename Arsenal tube station once the Arse move to
> their new ground ?


Gillespie Road wasn't it?

Stimpy wrote:


> On 26/8/05 00:15, "matt"  wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if they will rename Arsenal tube station once the Arse move to
> > their new ground ?
>
> Gillespie Road wasn't it?


It is situated there, and was originally so named (and still is in the
tilework on the platforms).

It had a period as (I think) 'Arsenal (Highbury Hill)'.

Tony Polson wrote:


> It is unviable whoever pays for it, because services that run only one
> day a fortnight will never produce a return on the money invested.
> They are certain to lose a lot of money.
>
> Even if the stadium owner or developer is prepared to pay for it,
> there is the question of who pays for the train service - the rolling
> stock hire, the track access charges and the station staff.  There is
> also the cost of security and/or policing.  All this presupposes that
> rolling stock will be available, which is of course extremely
> unlikely.


Yes, but going back to the specific situation of Coventry Arena - there
will be very little additional costs involved in running the train
service, because it already runs. The route has an hourly passenger
service already going through it - the only issue is building the
station and getting the trains to have one additional stop. The funding
is mostly secured, though private and council backers, it's just the
SRA/DfT being annoying that's stopping it.

Answering another point raised - it's not really just a football
ground. It's specifically designed as an arena that serves many
purposes and events, not just football. The recent Brian Adams concert
that sold out very quickly shows that point well. It's also being built
up as a good shoppin area - it's got the biggest Tesco store in
Britain, a huge M+S, boots, borders, a few others, and one of the
govt's planned 'super casinos' has a very strong interest in it as a
preferred site...

Also, the station would serve that area of Coventry - it would provide
a good local station for the people who live around that area too. I've
got a friend who lives there and he says that the locals would
certainly use the station if it was built.

Lastly, all the plans for transport to the area relied on the station
being built - a lot of effort was put into access arrangements, relying
heavily on the train service, so the traffic problems, the residents
parking schemes and the park and ride or park and walk schemes are not
quite what was desired...

Changing tack altogether, I did hear a rumour that the plans were back
on - from an employee of Tesco Arena, who would be directly served from
the station and are interested. Totally unconfirmed, and it might come
to nothing, but it's a hope, and Coventry people need hope! ;-)

Phil

On 5 Sep 2005 07:12:43 -0700, "Phil Holbourn" 
wrote:


>Yes, but going back to the specific situation of Coventry Arena - there
>will be very little additional costs involved in running the train
>service, because it already runs. The route has an hourly passenger
>service already going through it 


Which is probably not sufficient for the purpose, certainly if it's a
single dogbox as I suspect it is.  Without checking, I suspect by its
nature it also has an early (before 2300) finish, which would be
useless for concerts etc.

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 Williams wrote:

> Which is probably not sufficient for the purpose, certainly if it's a
> single dogbox as I suspect it is.  Without checking, I suspect by its
> nature it also has an early (before 2300) finish, which would be
> useless for concerts etc.


Good point - it's a 2 car most of the time, but a 1 car occasionlly.
I've never seen any more than 2. Also true about the timetable - last
train arrives in Coventry at 22:48. I'd not really thought about that
part!

Phil

On 6 Sep 2005 05:39:11 -0700, "Phil Holbourn" 
wrote:


>Good point - it's a 2 car most of the time, but a 1 car occasionlly.
>I've never seen any more than 2. Also true about the timetable - last
>train arrives in Coventry at 22:48. I'd not really thought about that
>part!


That's a fair way later than I thought it was, but I'd still not
chance it (or indeed any public transport) if I was going to a concert
there.

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.

In article , 
phil_n@daftmoo.co.uk (Phil Holbourn) wrote:


> Good point - it's a 2 car most of the time, but a 1 car occasionlly.
> I've never seen any more than 2. Also true about the timetable - last
> train arrives in Coventry at 22:48. I'd not really thought about that
> part!


In the days when they used MML 170s it was quite often a 3-car one (only 2 
opening at Bedworth). But since the re-start of the service this summer I 
have only ever seen the same dogbox.

---

Peter Beale

Peter wrote:

> In article , 
> phil_n@daftmoo.co.uk (Phil Holbourn) wrote:

> In the days when they used MML 170s it was quite often a 3-car one (only 2 
> opening at Bedworth). But since the re-start of the service this summer I 
> have only ever seen the same dogbox.
> 


A 156 has turned up on occasions, but it's always booked a dogbox.