Happy Beeching Anniversary

[yorksrob]

Yet all the failings to make the most of the resources and provide the best service Gareth Marston describes happened under a nationalised and supposedly "pure public service" organisation, not tainted by commercial profit motives.

Regardless of whether the railways and freight loadings did or didn't turn a corner post Beeching (and note his plan wasn't completed, either the cuts or the investment), the retention of the network as was into the 70s with rampant inflation, huge industrial unrest, energy shortages, IMF bailouts and the political switch to the right, well, I can't see any scope for a brighter future. At least in the historical context, the rubbish was cut out and the reaction to the rest happened at a time when when it could be accommodated to some extent.

Plus, the investment of the 70s (APT, HST) and into the 80s (Sprinters) was predicated on having baselined the railways to some degree into something that at least didn't lose too much, and that which remained, did have some kind of a future.

Beeching or no Beeching, Marples or no Marples, the only difference would be the date and the spelling of the author of the report for much the same result.

Although if later, the report might be a tad longer and a bit more descriptive, as the fashion seems to have become since. (I've written longer reports on the design of a single component of an aircraft, let alone something equivalent to the entire aiarcraft user and production industry !).

It seems to me that a lot of the failings outlined by Gareth Marsden accrued from the Regions sticking to their pre-nationalisation silos and that many of improvements came with BR organised Nationally along business lines.

It does seem to me a little unrealistic to suggest that any report on reshaping Britain's Railways would have came up with the same list of closures, particularly given that there are all sorts of variables that could have been different.

The passenger head counts may have been compiled over a longer period giving a more accurate reflection of passenger usage, the cost/benefit calculation may have been different, cost saving measures may have been implemented on the route in the intervening period, provision for the public support of socially necessary services may have been made. Any of these variables could have affected the decision on whether to include a marginal route such as York - Hull via Market Weighton in the list for closure.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The Motorway network had to be paid for and there simply weren't enough road tax payers to fund that sort on investment in the early 60's (assuming hypothication) the money had to come from within the transport budget and the railways had been promised a 20 year investment plan in 1955 from Govt. The Modernisation Plan never run its course in terms of marshalling yards, diesels and DMU's built lines wired etc. Therefore the money that was earmarked for rail was diverted into road construction. The road lobby and Marples had to find the money for the motorway network taking it from the railway would also make the competitor to road uncompetitive and un-reformed. Beeching's Investment plans were ignored remember as they needed money the road dominated Ministry would not contemplate. At its most base level the report was part of a wider process to fund the road network pure and simple.

If Marples had not been made Minster in 1958 the outcome might have been different. Undoubtedly the Modernistion plan and some piecemeal closures would have continued to run its course but also there also have been pressure due to the losses, however a more rational, reasoned and contemplative look at the railway might have been made rather than a mad rush.

• A proper traffic analysis could have been done that took into account seasonal variation.
• Someone might have looked at an OS Map and a copy of the 1961 census results to see where the railways actually ran.
• They might have looked at cost cutting/revenue raising as an alternative to mad hacking to save money.
  It might not have entered the public and business conscious as closing the railway down and the railway having had its day.

1968 saw the establishment of annual government support to the railway anyway, a sensible network established by reasoned revue may have seen it earlier.

 

[jon0844]

What about buses? I can only assume that when everyone saw that the car was the future, someone must have thought buses would work better than rail in many rural areas. Even now that can be true if a train station is a long way from much of a town or village?

Another reason why the cuts were justified at the time. The 'crime' to me was not keeping the land form if/when things changed but why would you predict people would later give up the freedom of owning their own car?

 

[sheff'd victoria]

In terms of route miles and effect clearly Beeching. I'm sorry but the Woodhead was not all that important in the grand scheme of things and would only have become slightly useful in the last few years.

Which side are you referring too, if were on about the freight side then I tend to agree, however the passenger side could have made a comeback as early as 1974 if South Yorkshire PTE had reopen all the intermediate stations between Sheffield Victoria and Penistone

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Most reopenings were of lines that fortuitously stayed open for freight (eg the Ebbw Vale line, the Robin Hood line, Altrincham-Stockport etc).
They would not have stood a chance if the route had not been retained.

Meanwhile, I can't think why some of the survivors made it over some that didn't.
Wrexham-Bidston, for instance

Yes but the Robin Hood line involved much more than merely upgrading. It even involved the digging out of a buried tunnel, so not so simple as you think.

As far as survivors are concerned, I agree, and that is what made the whole episode so unjust. Why was Aberdare seen as a basket case but the Cardiff - Coryton line was seen as worthy of retention? The latter, at that time, carried a handful of passengers in peak hours only and the line was maintained for that traffic alone. There was no other traffic to share the costs. It meant the retention of a junction and signalbox which was only needed because the branch was there. It could easily have been replaced by plain track and an IBS had the branch been closed. The Aberdare line, by contrast, was still carrying a considerable amount of mineral traffic to share the costs and would do for many years into the future.

Such cases made a nonsense of the figures to justify closures. However, I'm glad that the Coryton line survived and is now serving a useful purpose. Had it closed, there is no doubt that it would now be beyond recovery and covered by 'Executive Homes'; it runs through some very well heeled areas of Cardiff. In contrast, the re-opened Aberdare line runs through some very deprived areas but is thriving as never before.

 

[corfield]

Gwenllian2001.
Please point to where I even remotely suggested Marples wasn't a first class ****.

Please try to incorporate accuracy before throwing round accusations of naivety.

But it doesn't matter does it. That's the point, if it hadn't been Marples & Beeching, it would have been Smith and Jones or Bill and Bob (which are some interesting images...).

If other lines, e.g. Swanage which is close to my heart, did close anyway - then surely that reinforces the message it wasn't individuals here, but the march to a drum that many different people in different places felt compelled to fall in step with.

"Many more lines" have reopened. Depends what you count as many, which if you look at re openings vs. what was closed, I don't think that even counts as "several". Plus what has privatisation vs. BR periods got to do with it ? logically if mistakes were made, you'd expect them to be sorted sooner rather than later, especially under a wonderful Pure Public Sector Service model. Oh wait.

As for HST being a wonderful in house project without filthy johnny foreigner being involved, well, see, anyone can just make stuff up about what you were writing can't they.

Good point on Tory press. That doesn't indicate a deep seated bias at all.

"by the end of its existence, BR was the most cost effective railway in Europe"
Do you have any evidence for that, at all ?

We do know what would have happened if Marples hadn't been there; almost certainly almost exactly the same results, and in almost exactly the same timeframe. You may want a picture and a name for your dartboard but I think it is very naive to think otherwise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Gareth Marston.

Is there any evidence that the money earmarked for rail did go into the roads?

After all, earmarking/ringfencing of funding is generally observed in Government spending by its absence.

In hindsight, given the investment made in the roads of the 50s/60s, it's hard to argue it hasn't been repaid in spadefuls through VED/fuel tax and economic growth - and I'd say impossible to argue it would have been better used keeping pointless parts of the pre Beeching network open.

As an opportunity cost, they were clearly right to go for roads. Marples may be (was !) a crook, but even crooks can get it right.

Of course, where we are now, with near roads saturation (although there are key areas that additional Motorways could be of economic and social benefit, e.g. Southern Trans-Pennine and some of the Cross Country directions e.g. A34/A43 in my part of the world), that investment has been done and the roads more than cover their costs, indeed, you could argue they are very much cross subsidising the railways.

@jonmorris "The 'crime' to me was not keeping the land form if/when things changed". But why not reuse the land if you've just decided it isn't valuable in it's current form ? if there is a better option (e.g. bypass or homes, of which we are desperately short, even of nasty orrible rich peoples "executive" type), then why on earth not take it ?
A system of grading lines to allow for retention/disposal might have been useful, but probably a nightmare to actually implement, and I suspect the majority of route mileage closed is still there, just still not actually needed or wanted for anything !

The Woodhead is another case for closure because it's core traffic would tail off and it's other roles duplicated routes that could handle it's capacity and had their own traffic anyway, but I believe wasn't Beeching's choice. Either way, it comes back to enthusiasts labelling lines "useful, alternatives, diversions" and "could have served a few settlements" which misses the point that the, any line, line costs a fortune to maintain, operate and provide stock on - which doesn't remotely add up to the very vague and woolly benefits it may offer.

 

[yorksrob]

"Many more lines" have reopened. Depends what you count as many, which if you look at re openings vs. what was closed, I don't think that even counts as "several". Plus what has privatisation vs. BR periods got to do with it ? logically if mistakes were made, you'd expect them to be sorted sooner rather than later, especially under a wonderful Pure Public Sector Service model. Oh wait.

As for HST being a wonderful in house project without filthy johnny foreigner being involved, well, see, anyone can just make stuff up about what you were writing can't they.

Good point on Tory press. That doesn't indicate a deep seated bias at all.

"by the end of its existence, BR was the most cost effective railway in Europe"
Do you have any evidence for that, at all ?

We do know what would have happened if Marples hadn't been there; almost certainly almost exactly the same results, and in almost exactly the same timeframe. You may want a picture and a name for your dartboard but I think it is very naive to think otherwise.

I think that the paucity of railway re-openings during the privatisation period illustrates the difficulty that railway has of instigating and carrying out medium sized projects on its own. And it's not as if it would have had to biild them all from scratch either. Dunstable and St Ives both had intact track beds just like many of the BR reopenings, yet the railway didn't have the ability to develop these projects to a reasonable budget, hence the guided busways.

Anyway, back on topic. Whilst not all closures recommended by Beeching took place (and some which weren't recommended were closed), the report formed the basis of what the core network should be. Subsequent closures and reopenings have pretty much tinkered woth that core network. Yes, closures and reopenings would have continued after anyone elses report just as it did Beechings, but you would have been starting from a different core based on different assumptions and this would have left us with a subtlely different network even after subsequent shaping by economic and political forces.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Gwenllian2001.
Please point to where I even remotely suggested Marples wasn't a first class ****.

Please try to incorporate accuracy before throwing round accusations of naivety.

But it doesn't matter does it. That's the point, if it hadn't been Marples & Beeching, it would have been Smith and Jones or Bill and Bob (which are some interesting images...).

If other lines, e.g. Swanage which is close to my heart, did close anyway - then surely that reinforces the message it wasn't individuals here, but the march to a drum that many different people in different places felt compelled to fall in step with.

Plus what has privatisation vs. BR periods got to do with it ? logically if mistakes were made, you'd expect them to be sorted sooner rather than later, especially under a wonderful Pure Public Sector Service model. Oh wait.

As for HST being a wonderful in house project without filthy johnny foreigner being involved, well, see, anyone can just make stuff up about what you were writing can't they.

Good point on Tory press. That doesn't indicate a deep seated bias at all.

"by the end of its existence, BR was the most cost effective railway in Europe"
Do you have any evidence for that, at all ?

We do know what would have happened if Marples hadn't been there; almost certainly almost exactly the same results, and in almost exactly the same timeframe. You may want a picture and a name for your dartboard but I think it is very naive to think otherwise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Gareth Marston.

Is there any evidence that the money earmarked for rail did go into the roads?

After all, earmarking/ringfencing of funding is generally observed in Government spending by its absence.

In hindsight, given the investment made in the roads of the 50s/60s, it's hard to argue it hasn't been repaid in spadefuls through VED/fuel tax and economic growth - and I'd say impossible to argue it would have been better used keeping pointless parts of the pre Beeching network open.

As an opportunity cost, they were clearly right to go for roads. Marples may be (was !) a crook, but even crooks can get it right.

Of course, where we are now, with near roads saturation (although there are key areas that additional Motorways could be of economic and social benefit, e.g. Southern Trans-Pennine and some of the Cross Country directions e.g. A34/A43 in my part of the world), that investment has been done and the roads more than cover their costs, indeed, you could argue they are very much cross subsidising the railways.

@jonmorris "The 'crime' to me was not keeping the land form if/when things changed". But why not reuse the land if you've just decided it isn't valuable in it's current form ? if there is a better option (e.g. bypass or homes, of which we are desperately short, even of nasty orrible rich peoples "executive" type), then why on earth not take it ?
A system of grading lines to allow for retention/disposal might have been useful, but probably a nightmare to actually implement, and I suspect the majority of route mileage closed is still there, just still not actually needed or wanted for anything !

The Woodhead is another case for closure because it's core traffic would tail off and it's other roles duplicated routes that could handle it's capacity and had their own traffic anyway, but I believe wasn't Beeching's choice. Either way, it comes back to enthusiasts labelling lines "useful, alternatives, diversions" and "could have served a few settlements" which misses the point that the, any line, line costs a fortune to maintain, operate and provide stock on - which doesn't remotely add up to the very vague and woolly benefits it may offer.

'Marples or no Marples, the only difference would be the date and the spelling of the author of the report for much the same result'.

'We do know what would have happened if Marples hadn't been there; almost certainly almost exactly the same results, and in almost exactly the same timeframe'.

We simply do not know what a different Transport Minister might have thought or done. Marples had a personal financial interest in road building which was not a recipe for an impartial view of transport as a whole. By the way, I don't throw around 'accusations', just opinions, neither do I possess a dartboard.

Is there any evidence that the money earmarked for rail did go into the roads?'

That is not what I wrote.

'In hindsight, given the investment made in the roads of the 50s/60s, it's hard to argue it hasn't been repaid in spadefuls through VED/fuel tax and economic growth ..'

'... the roads more than cover their costs, indeed, you could argue they are very much cross subsidising the railways'.

Do you have any evidence to back up those claims? Where has been the economic growth in Merthyr Tydfil which was given a hugely expensive new trunk road? Have you seen the state of our roads recently? How long has it taken for the Forth Road Bridge to need replacement? Can anyone justify the cost of the upkeep of rural roads except for social reasons?

' .... and I'd say impossible to argue it would have been better used keeping pointless parts of the pre Beeching network open'.

I certainly never mentioned retaining 'pointless' parts of the network. How does anyone define pointless? Is it, perhaps that a railway goes from nowhere to nowhere else in particular or whether the service on offer is not what is best suited to it. Did a particular line become uneconomic because it didn't fit the framework as defined by the Report? Would a different picture have emerged had any effort been made to enact real economies? Many lines disappeared into oblivion having had fully staffed stations with Station Masters; Clerks and Porters et al until the last day when a Paytrain system would have done the same job.

Not all of the closures were necessary, or desirable, and in many cases the baby was thrown out with the bath water. The politicians of the day were dedicated followers of fashion and we all know how dated yesterday's fashions look.

 

[Mvann]

Woodhead was shut because, at the time of closure, there was over capacity on the trans penine routes and woodhead needed money spending on it.
As for road expenditure, our road system needs a lot of money spending on it, probably a lot more than the railways need. The Cambridgeshire busway probably takes very little traffic off of the a14, except for the bus services it replaced. It's already had two accidents to my knowledge.

 

[Gareth Marston]

A recent study by a German university argued that car users in the UK only cover 80% of their costs through tax, fuel duty etc when you take into account the external costs. HGV's even less.

Wales is a grand case study in the argument that roads dont promote economic regeneration. The A470 up the Taff Valley to Merthyr has already been mentioned this also runs past Pontypridd so it covers the 2 largest valleys towns which still feature on lists of deprived areas. Theres also a dual carrigeway link to Caerphilly from the A470 at Nantgarw and youi can get to Blackwood via the Rhymney valley on dual carrigeway roads. Torfaen county is also a regular on lists of deprived communities yet Cwmbran and Pontypool have had a dual carriageway to them from the M4 for 30 years. And try Ynys Mon the area with lowest GVA per capita in the UK it was claimed building the A55 Expressway across it 10 years ago would change all this... it didn't.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

A recent study by a German university argued that car users in the UK only cover 80% of their costs through tax, fuel duty etc when you take into account the external costs. HGV's even less.

Wales is a grand case study in the argument that roads dont promote economic regeneration. The A470 up the Taff Valley to Merthyr has already been mentioned this also runs past Pontypridd so it covers the 2 largest valleys towns which still feature on lists of deprived areas. Theres also a dual carrigeway link to Caerphilly from the A470 at Nantgarw and youi can get to Blackwood via the Rhymney valley on dual carrigeway roads. Torfaen county is also a regular on lists of deprived communities yet Cwmbran and Pontypool have had a dual carriageway to them from the M4 for 30 years. And try Ynys Mon the area with lowest GVA per capita in the UK it was claimed building the A55 Expressway across it 10 years ago would change all this... it didn't.

That is exactly the point I was making about the imbalance of investment. None of those schemes have done anything inject new life into those areas. In the case of the A470, things have got worse since it was built. The latest folly is the monumental sum being spent on the A465. I confidently predict that it will be money down the drain and do nothing to help the Heads of the Valleys area. The one bonus, it seems, according to a local councilor, is that it might shorten the bus journey to Abergavenny, although I am at a loss to figure out how.

A very interesting article below outlines the scheme and its cost, which is positively eye watering. And what would extending the railway to Ebbw Vale Town and Hirwaun cost?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...iageway-but-not-1bn-on-the-m4-91466-32641713/

 

[tbtc]

A recent study by a German university argued that car users in the UK only cover 80% of their costs through tax

Although, in fairness, that's a higher percentage than the cost of railways covered by train users

Where has been the economic growth in Merthyr Tydfil which was given a hugely expensive new trunk road?

Has Ebbw Vale had significant quantifiable economic growth since the railway was reopened?

I did see that Duncan Smith chap extol the benefits of the Stagecoach X4 from Merthyr to Cardiff via the dual carriageway as a way of getting people into jobs in the big city.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Although, in fairness, that's a higher percentage than the cost of railways covered by train users



Has Ebbw Vale had significant quantifiable economic growth since the railway was reopened?

I did see that Duncan Smith chap extol the benefits of the Stagecoach X4 from Merthyr to Cardiff via the dual carriageway as a way of getting people into jobs in the big city.

Yes it may be but there also huge hidden costs to the road system including Policing and Emergency Services as well as the cost to the NHS.

Ebbw Vale itself is hard to quantify, at the moment, since hardly anybody uses the railway to get there. The line stops short of the town and really needs to be extended as soon as possible. On the other hand the line is certainly busy and getting busier all the time which has resulted in the recent strengthening of the trains. I was on the 1235 Cardiff - Ebbw Vale on Thursday and was being worked by a 150/2 + 153. The opposite working was a 150/2 + 158. If you are interested, the figures are available on line. There is little doubt that the re-opening has enabled people to travel to work in Cardiff in a reasonable time. That will, of course, result in more money being put into local businesses. It also means that places like Risca and Newbridge are much more attractive places to live. Have you seen the price of property in Cardiff?

Oh yes, that Duncan Smith. He knows as much about Merthyr Tydfil as I know about downtown La Paz

 

[Bald Rick]

To be fair I would say that Ebbw Vale has seen regeneration / growth in the past few years, and more than it would have done without the railway. I visit about twice a year, and the difference to Abertillery next door is growing. Also the new houses near Rogerstone / Risca (about 1500 of them) has provided some custom that simply didn't exist before.

But, and this is the big but, I'm pretty sure this was planned, ie railway opening as part of economic regeneration of the area. Certainly the same has applied for almost all other reopenings in the past 20 years - Robin Hood, Alloa, Larkhall, etc etc.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

An interesting comment from Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport.

This week has been marked by two important milestones for rail in Britain. One of them was the 50th anniversary of a Government report which was meant to herald the managed decline of the railways. It is an important, if misguided, part of the industry’s rich history. The other was the announcement of a comprehensive Government programme of franchising. This will be an integral part of its extremely bright future.
The passage of time has proved Dr Beeching was wrong about British railways. Far from being on the way out, the industry has never been stronger.

Better the sinner that repent although I don't agree with his comments on franchising.

 

[Gareth Marston]

That is exactly the point I was making about the imbalance of investment. None of those schemes have done anything inject new life into those areas. In the case of the A470, things have got worse since it was built. The latest folly is the monumental sum being spent on the A465. I confidently predict that it will be money down the drain and do nothing to help the Heads of the Valleys area. The one bonus, it seems, according to a local councilor, is that it might shorten the bus journey to Abergavenny, although I am at a loss to figure out how.

It doesn't! I saw a TV Interview with the Director of the Bevan foundation who made the same claim as some sort of sop to it(the road) will improve pubic transport too. The slow journey time of the X4 buses between Merthyr and Abergavenny are nothing to do with the A465 being sub standard or congested. The climb up from Merthyr town center to Dowlais Top is never going to be quick anyway (it climbs several hundred feet in a couple of miles) and doesn't use the A465 until Dowlais Top is reached anyway where its dual carriageway already until the bus drops down the Sirhowy valley for a couple of miles to serve Tredegar town then its back up to the A465 for a mile or too before its detours to drop down to Ebbw Vale town center and then the same again for Brynmawr. If you ran a bus direct to Abergavenny it would be quicker but very lightly loaded and you'll still have the issue of journeys between those towns I mentioned.

That £800 million of road spend is being justified because local stakeholders/representatives in the area dont understand the geography and bus timetables of their own area is frightening.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although, in fairness, that's a higher percentage than the cost of railways covered by train users



Has Ebbw Vale had significant quantifiable economic growth since the railway was reopened?

I did see that Duncan Smith chap extol the benefits of the Stagecoach X4 from Merthyr to Cardiff via the dual carriageway as a way of getting people into jobs in the big city.

With Ebbw Vale you have to also consider the £ millions that have been chucked at redeveloping the old steelworks site as well. The town has a new hospital, secondary school, primary school, FE college, business units, leisure center all built on it.

X4/T4 is 15 min frequency down the valley and is competitive with rail in journey time at moment but more expensive.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

The latest folly is the monumental sum being spent on the A465. I confidently predict that it will be money down the drain and do nothing to help the Heads of the Valleys area. The one bonus, it seems, according to a local councilor, is that it might shorten the bus journey to Abergavenny, although I am at a loss to figure out how.

It doesn't! I saw a TV Interview with the Director of the Bevan foundation who made the same claim as some sort of sop to it(the road) will improve pubic transport too. The slow journey time of the X4 buses between Merthyr and Abergavenny are nothing to do with the A465 being sub standard or



X4/T4 is 15 min frequency down the valley and is competitive with rail in journey time at moment but more expensive.

It is noticeable, that where an alternative exists, people will readily choose train over bus. A lot of research was done into Merthyr services in the Eighties and the impact of the 'Merthyr Trunk Road'. John Davies, Wales Passenger Manager, and his team, came to some interesting conclusions. There were some who were firmly wedded to the bus and others who would never consider it. The overwhelming consensus, however, was a demand for a better train service.

When the Maesteg line re-opened, with an hourly service, the local bus service, then operated by Badger Line under the alias of Brewers, went from hourly to four an hour and was equipped with brand new buses. The people of the Llynfi Valley were unimpressed; they were only too happy to get their train service back and the bus service quickly reverted to hourly.

Other post Beeching re-openings seem to have had a similar effect. In the case of the Vale of Glamorgan, the bus journey from Llantwit Major to Bridgend took forty to fifty minutes, a journey that only the desperate would choose to make. The re-introduction of trains services quickly changed all that with a sub fifteen minute journey. Overnight there was a thriving passenger trade between the two towns. Where did all those people come from? They were not former bus passengers and car ownership in the area, one of the wealthiest in Wales, is very high, although even a car journey cannot compete with the railway as far as time is concerned.

It seems that an adequate train service, over medium distances,will get people out of their cars, if only to avoid the hassle of parking fees; road works and everything else that can make road travel a misery. Only the dedicated petrol head would think of driving into Cardiff from Maesteg. They have more sense.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Other post Beeching re-openings seem to have had a similar effect. In the case of the Vale of Glamorgan, the bus journey from Llantwit Major to Bridgend took forty to fifty minutes, a journey that only the desperate would choose to make. The re-introduction of trains services quickly changed all that with a sub fifteen minute journey. Overnight there was a thriving passenger trade between the two towns. Where did all those people come from? They were not former bus passengers and car ownership in the area, one of the wealthiest in Wales, is very high, although even a car journey cannot compete with the railway as far as time is concerned.


When the bid came to the SRA for the VoG , passenger forecasts for Bridgend - Llantwit were around 4 passengers per train. The loadings now are around 25 per train ! A mystery where the come from ....the railway has created a modest new flow unexpectedly. Good job we did a calculated gamble on that as not running the whole length was not a real option ! (I think the zonal fare structure helped with cheap fares)

 

[LE Greys]

Similarly, Airdrie to Bathgate was reopened as a double-track, electric railway with a half-hourly service. Passenger numbers are so far exceeding expectations. It seems that the best way to reinstate a line is to do it properly, rather than one Pacer every hour along a single-track section with bus shelters. Provided it's in the right place, it can be done properly.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

When the bid came to the SRA for the VoG , passenger forecasts for Bridgend - Llantwit were around 4 passengers per train. The loadings now are around 25 per train ! A mystery where the come from ....the railway has created a modest new flow unexpectedly. Good job we did a calculated gamble on that as not running the whole length was not a real option ! (I think the zonal fare structure helped with cheap fares)

It is no mystery. The answer is fairly obvious. Bridgend is a substantial town with everything that goes with it. The station is very convenient for the town centre; the covered market; resaurants and bars etc.

Prior to the railway re-opening to passengers, public transport links were hopelessly unattractive. Four passengers per train! I wonder who came up with that forecast? I suppose it was somebody who had no knowledge of the area, standing with a clipboard, outside the White Hart and noting the number of people on the buses. Very few of them would have been destined for Bridgend but would have been going to Atlantic College or some of the small coastal villages. Wasn't anyone with local knowledge consulted?
Having worked on the line, before closure, I quite accurately forecast that Bridgend would become a popular destination from Llantwit. A senior railway manager, now retired, confidently retorted that he would eat his hat if services were not cut back to Llantwit within a year. He must have seen that forecast. He had not, however, been involved with the line in the past.

Those now using rail simply did not use public transport before, unless they were desperate. The car was the only convenient option although the expense of parking was not attractive but considered as part of the expense of the journey. The difference now is that those unable to drive, either by being too young or elderly or 'car widows' during the week can come and go freely without having to depend on Dad, at the weekend or a friendly neighbour when convenient. The fares certainly helped but many of those using the service think that they are too low and would be happy to pay a bit more.

 

[John07]

Similarly, Airdrie to Bathgate was reopened as a double-track, electric railway with a half-hourly service. Passenger numbers are so far exceeding expectations. It seems that the best way to reinstate a line is to do it properly, rather than one Pacer every hour along a single-track section with bus shelters. Provided it's in the right place, it can be done properly.

There are four trains an hour on Airdrie-Bathgate for most of the time.

It did open with a half-hourly service because of delays in delivery of rolling stock.

 

[Bald Rick]

Similarly, Airdrie to Bathgate was reopened as a double-track, electric railway with a half-hourly service. Passenger numbers are so far exceeding expectations.

Is it? I haven't seen any news or data on this, and usually good news such as this is hurried out.

 

[swcovas]

It is no mystery. The answer is fairly obvious. Bridgend is a substantial town with everything that goes with it. The station is very convenient for the town centre; the covered market; resaurants and bars etc.

Prior to the railway re-opening to passengers, public transport links were hopelessly unattractive. Four passengers per train! I wonder who came up with that forecast? I suppose it was somebody who had no knowledge of the area, standing with a clipboard, outside the White Hart and noting the number of people on the buses. Very few of them would have been destined for Bridgend but would have been going to Atlantic College or some of the small coastal villages. Wasn't anyone with local knowledge consulted?
Having worked on the line, before closure, I quite accurately forecast that Bridgend would become a popular destination from Llantwit. A senior railway manager, now retired, confidently retorted that he would eat his hat if services were not cut back to Llantwit within a year. He must have seen that forecast. He had not, however, been involved with the line in the past.

Those now using rail simply did not use public transport before, unless they were desperate. The car was the only convenient option although the expense of parking was not attractive but considered as part of the expense of the journey. The difference now is that those unable to drive, either by being too young or elderly or 'car widows' during the week can come and go freely without having to depend on Dad, at the weekend or a friendly neighbour when convenient. The fares certainly helped but many of those using the service think that they are too low and would be happy to pay a bit more.

I know Bridgend well and while not liking the town very much (no one could say it's an attrractive place!) I know that it's a really "buzzing" town in many ways. It's worth noting that statrion use has incresed from 625,000 15 years ago to 1.6m in the most recent station stats. A phenomenal increase! Not that many years ago there was one train an hour to Cardiff and one would have to plan your journey. Today there are 4/5 an hour (if you include the Vale line) and hopefully this will increase further if/when Maesteg and the Vale go half hourly and possibly Swanline going hourly. Provide a service and people will use it!

 

[amcluesent]

The increase use of intercity rail services has only really come about because the over-reaction to 9/11 and the 'security theatre' makes air travel so unattractive.

I recall in the 1990's you could turn up, walk onto a plane until 15 mins before departure and you were way. It really was like a bus service.

Plus, of course, we've had NuLabour's 'war on the motorist' and using the driver as a cash-cow with nonsense fines for this, that and the other.

The railways are overcrowded and expensive, but they are currently the 'least worst' way of getting across England.

 

[Morgsie]

I am not sure this is relevant here, the trend of passenger increases started in 1983 which Patrick McLoughlin ignored. He said it was since privatisation. I hated that he partially answered questions and that he is not interested in who owns our railways.

 

[tbtc]

When the bid came to the SRA for the VoG , passenger forecasts for Bridgend - Llantwit were around 4 passengers per train. The loadings now are around 25 per train !

I know that Wales & Borders is a subsidised franchise (26 pence per passenger mile according to http://www.thefreelibrary.com/pound...es'+North-South+air+link+'good...-a0178700098), but I'm amazed that the "Vale" line to Bridgend was reopened using a prediction of only four passengers per service.

Even twenty five would mean around 85% of seats on a 150 were empty (and the introduction of EMUs in a few years time and a proposal for a half hourly service would mean even more empty seats).

Then again, there are apparently only five passengers per train on the Fishguard services (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...-because-of-low-use-by-locals-91466-32202777/), so twenty five seems positively busy in comparison.

 

[LE Greys]

I am not sure this is relevant here, the trend of passenger increases started in 1983 which Patrick McLoughlin ignored. He said it was since privatisation. I hated that he partially answered questions and that he is not interested in who owns our railways.

I quite agree. Back in 1983, there was a combination of factors. BR's new HSTs were finally faster than cars on motorways, they marketed them as 'The Journey Shrinkers'. Inter-City as a brand was emerging, and sectorisation was just around the corner. It had its down sides, IC's 47s were no longer available for parcels workings for instance, but it meant that BR's highest-earning services were split from the rest and able to be run effectively. This could cross-subsidise the rest of BR.

 

[Morgsie]

I quite agree. Back in 1983, there was a combination of factors. BR's new HSTs were finally faster than cars on motorways, they marketed them as 'The Journey Shrinkers'. Inter-City as a brand was emerging, and sectorisation was just around the corner. It had its down sides, IC's 47s were no longer available for parcels workings for instance, but it meant that BR's highest-earning services were split from the rest and able to be run effectively. This could cross-subsidise the rest of BR.

I did read a while ago that Network South East and Inter-City as you have said were subsiding the other's during the Sector years.

Wasn't there rationalisation in the early 1980s? I find it ironic that Maggie hated the railways yet BR thrived

 

[Manchester77]

In 1982 sectorisation occured. BR passenger services were split into InterCity, London and South East and Provincial. InterCity operated long distance routes as well as Airport Express services, London and South East was relaunched by Chris Green in 1986 as Network SouthEast operating commuter services in and around London and Provincial was renamed Regional Railways in 1989 operated other services with funding from local PTEs.

Basically during the 80s the government just let BR get on with it which is best!

 

[Morgsie]

In 1982 sectorisation occured. BR passenger services were split into InterCity, London and South East and Provincial. InterCity operated long distance routes as well as Airport Express services, London and South East was relaunched by Chris Green in 1986 as Network SouthEast operating commuter services in and around London and Provincial was renamed Regional Railways in 1989 operated other services with funding from local PTEs.

Basically during the 80s the government just let BR get on with it which is best!

Correct me if I am wrong but NSE came into existence in 1986 I read somewhere

EDIT: correction it was renamed in 86.