Talk:Parliamentary train

List removal

Would 91.106.6.150 and A1octopus please care to explain why they have deleted virtually all the good work that has been done (by at least three others) on this page over the past year, specifically to list known examples of parliamentary train in the 21st century.213.86.33.33 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the same person as 91.106.6.150, I had simply forgotten to sign in for some edits. The reason why most of those examples were deleted was because including every last example of a parliamentary train in UK is something for a specialist rail site, not wikipedia (per policy WP:UNENC (section 4) and the unofficial guidelines on fancruft and listcruft). All we need for a nice an accurate article on this subject are a handful of the most obvious or notable examples. Of course a specialist can site certainly be added as a reference or external link. A1octopus 13:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actual parlies

I'm not convinced the Gainsborough service counts - might it be explained by alternative flows or differeing traffic patterns on Saturdays? I know the ticket numbers are a bit erratic due to Lea Road getting most of the group allocation. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ealing Broadway

Can someone add the Ealing Broadway to south London ghost service in 2009? - it was a weekly coach replacement, and the Evening Standard took the subject up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.115.158 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Split article?

This article seems to be about two different things. I thought about editing it to make them more separate within the same article, but what do others think about making two distinct articles? --Northernhenge (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What two different things? Parts of the article talk about lines with infrequent services, & parts about lines with frequent services but particular stations being served infrequently, but I wouldn't consider that the distinction justifies two different articles, nor even necessarily any stronger separation within the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The distinction between the modern meaning and the (admittedly related) original meaning. I should have been clearer in my original comment.--Northernhenge (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Northernhenge is right. The original Parliamentary trains were established by Act of Parliament to open up access to the poor; the present-day situation where certain stations have a very limited service is quite different purpose, to avoid wasting money on little-used station calls.

The article is somewhat biased as well; the present-day train operating companies are portrayed as villains, but they are simply contractors to the DfT. It might be objectively appropriate to close a station, but the political process might make that awkward.

This and some other points need to be brought out more fully. Afterbrunel (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No-one has commented on this, so I will make an edit later. I notice that Jordan and Levi-Faur's paper is not properly credited. And I am uncomfortable with the Bluebell being cited in this article; although the post-Beeching legislation frustrated closure, there was never a skeleton train service. And a major omission is the Speller Act. There is also quite a lot of grammatical tidying up to do. But the main problem is the emphasis on the present day situation at a handful of places, which only we anoraks refer to as Parliamentary trains (or station calls) -- no-one else uses that term and it is not encyclopedia language. Afterbrunel (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have made some changes now. There is still a lot to do; in particular if anyone can help with providing citations, that would be very helpful. There is still a lot of politically loaded text here though (along the lines of all TOCs are crooks) which lessens the authority and impact of the article. Any suggestions?Afterbrunel (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This article definitely needs dividing - at the moment it makes about as much sense as having a single article for Trainspotting (hobby) and Trainspotting (novel). There's no connection other than in name ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Governments

Although Gladstone was a government minister at the Board of Trade in 1844, this was during the Conservative administration of Sir Robert Peel. Gladstone did not become PM until 1868, and was not even considered a Liberal until the 1850s. In fact he had essentially started his career on the extreme right. Whoever thought that Gladstone was a Liberal PM in 1844 was a long way wide of the mark, although right to highlight his effective administration at the BoT.

Walsall to Wolverhampton

Please clarify in article why Walsall to Wolverhampton is listed as an example. http://traintimes.org.uk/walsall/wolverhampton/09:15/today/changes=0 shows one direct train an hour. John a s (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Note how it takes an hour: this train travels via Birmingham New Street, which is like going from London to Paris via Moscow. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the 19:36 takes 14 minutes! John a s (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the one direct service. Otherwise just for freight services. I've updated the article with a note. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples of extant "parliamentary" trains

I'd suggest that the section "Parliamentary train#Examples of extant "parliamentary" trains" either be drastically trimmed to leave 2 or 3 entries, or retitled "List of extant parliamentary trains", with a comment that it is non-exhaustive (or maybe it is exhaustive - it's maassive). Pol098 (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"permanent replacement bus" examples can also be seen between York and Pickering, National Rail lists several regular services from York to Pikering (by bus), they're displayed on the train departure boards and are referenced Pickering_railway_station — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.117.18 (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Woodgrange Park - Willesden?

Is that really such a good example for a parliamentary service? True, it runs only once a day Monday to Friday in one direction only, but it's definitely not the remnant of a more frequent service. It also isn't needed to keep a bit of line open - if actually necessary, Kensal Rise to Willesden Junction Low Level was and still is covered by NLL trains running at the start and finish of service, and before this service was introduced, the direct connection between GOBLIN and NLL, bypassing the platforms at Gospel Oak, didn't have any passenger service for a very long time. In fact this is more or less simply a peak time extra. For some reason or other (possibly capacity reasons), it doesn't terminate at Gospel Oak to return to Barking, so for connectivity to the NLL it had to run one station further to Hampstead Heath. Because you can't sensibly reverse a train there either - not without holding up the rest of the NLL - it then continued to the bay platform at Willesden Junction Low Level. At first, it ran empty from Hampstead Heath, but eventually the whole route was included in the passenger timetable, because terminating at Hampstead Heath still took too much time. JanTH (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Cost of formal closure

The article doesn't cover what these costs actually are, so er what are these costs? Seems weird that the costs of running a single train now and then is still less than the costs to close the line. It would be nice if the article explained what the costs are and why it's cheaper to run the ghost trains rather than closing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.162.140 (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The cost is political. The general public is often careless of railway detail, and closure of one station, however little used, would be portrayed as the thin end of a wedge, etc etc. No amount of explaining "only 7 passengers a week" or something of the kind would work, for the activists would say "If only the fares were cheaper / trains more comfortable / frequent / faster, more people would travel."

To illustrate the "careless" point, editors may remember that when the DB open access service from Wrexham to Marylebone was closed down, BBC and other national news media announced that the Shrewsbury to London Line was closing. Some political pressure groups count the number of stations in GB and carelessly use that for political gain. Editors may remember that the "closure" of the Manchester - Bury line stations resulted in a large apparent closure total. Of course the stations had been revived as Metrolink (tram) stations, but political activists do not care about such things. Afterbrunel (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

York - Pontefract Baghill - Sheffield

I doubt this can be described as a "Parliamentary Train". It's only twice a day Mon-Sat, but at convenient times, and it's reasonably well-used. Fares undercut the more frequent routes via Leeds or Doncaster. So the operator isn't acting as if the aim is to close it down, and the line would probably still be needed for mineral freight. Grahamsands (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Accordingly I've now deleted that example. The Sheffield - Brigg - Cleethorpes service is similar, it's sparse but doesn't look as if the operator wishes it didn't exist.

A previous contributor asked: so what is this complicated UK legal process, that makes it impractical to close non-viable railway services? I've not seen a response and the question is still valid - that process should be outlined in the article, in the interests of balance. We'd soon be on the operators' side if it's something that even an Aztec high priest would baulk at. Grahamsands (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The process was formalised by section 56 of the Transport Act 1962, which has been superseded by later legislation (mainly the Railways Act 1993 and the Railways Act 2005). Have a look at Part 4 of the last-named Act - it's horrifically complex. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Bustitution--needs enhancement?

Should the text acknowledge cases where the "parliamentary" substitute bus has been absorbed into regular bus service (but still receives some railway subsidy, and there is still some evidence in National Rail timetables on national rail website)? Example is Peterborough - Wisbech - Dereham (which used to be shown on national rail map and is in national rail planner). This is now a First express bus with onwards service to Norwich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.50.120 (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The word "bustitution" might confuse readers: it is a pun? Does it refer to substitution or another word ending in -ution? Maybe use another word or phrase as header of that paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.122.211 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Bus Substitution, pure and simple. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Newhaven Marine-add as significant example to closed parley service table

Newhaven Marine has now started formal closure process, which will mean the parly service will also go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:b378:ac00:59d2:c96:6941:40ec (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Therefore it will move into the 'Former' table when it closes. IamMattDavies (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Clitheroe - Hellifield service

Is the summer Sunday Dalesrail service classed as a parliamentary train as it is the only regular passenger train that uses the line between Clitheroe and Hellifield

I wouldn't have said so. If the definition talks of services "... run to avoid the cost of formal closure of a route ...", this doesn't apply here. Clitheroe station and its services were closed many years ago. When it reopened the services were only in the Blackburn direction, so I don't think that there is a route to be protected from closure in this way. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

4 Sunday services use this route each week (albeit irregularly - check NRE). This in turn means that, apart from semi-regular excursions, there aren't many trains that use this route, and in theory, could be worthy of inclusion beneath Bordesley as example of having a low service, but without an intent on reducing the service. IamMattDavies (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added this section and updated the title of the section respectively. If anyone disagrees, then please delete it as you wish. If anyone can find Northern or NR saying they don't intend to close the line, then brilliant. IamMattDavies (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The significant thing about Clitheroe-Hellifield is that it has already been through formal closure, this occurred several decades ago. The line's current status is that of a freight-only line which is kept available for diversions, such as when there is engineering work between Preston and Lancaster. The "Dalesrail" service is of the nature of a special/excursion working - if it is intended to be withdrawn, all that the TOC need do is stop selling tickets and reimburse passengers who already hold advance bookings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Heysham Port service

This really shouldn't be listed as a parliamentary service. It's the Isle of Man boat train. The ferry arrives at 1215 and departs at 1415.2A02:C7D:2E1B:EC00:1C6A:C144:FC5C:1AB5 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

added Heysham back to the table as the Heysham - Lancaster service operates via reversal at Carnforth(talk) 23.20 19 August 2020

London Underground

The Metropolitan line services that operates between Watford East Junction & Watford North Junction (Watford North curve) is this just for route knowledge or do they have to run the services

References

Helsby to Ellesmere Port

Should this service be on the list there is only two services in each direction on the line and no other passenger services use the line. Its the only service that calls at Ince and Elton (talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)