Beeching & beyond Lines that should have been kept open

[yorksrob]

I'd be more likely to be convinced if you could identify any other route serving similar populations with similar characteristics (parallel route linking both ends, negligible onward journey opportunities either end) which operates a successful train service.

Apart from the impossibility of finding two routes which are geographically identical, I disagree with your assertion of there being negligible onward journey opportunities, particularly if Bath trains were continued onward to Bristol.

There isn't a parallel route linking both ends, without a change of trains and a deviation in direction (as you yourself identify). Your whole argument seems to rest on the presence of this "parallel" route, which is supposedly so much quicker and more convenient than the direct route would have been as to sap any demand for travel between the Bournemouth/Poole conurbation and Bath/Bristol, which I find unconvincing.

This is why I see the the East Suffolk line as probably the closest in similarity, although passenger services on other longish routes such as the Settle - Carlisle could also be seen as similar in many respects.

 

[edwin_m]

I've suggested how the parallel route would take the same time end-to-end as the S&D even including a change at Southampton. Nobody has provided any evidence to refute this.

I've pointed out that if there was enough end-to-end market between Bath and Bournemouth someone would be running a through train via Southampton. This might need a bit more infrastructure to provide capacity but nowhere near as much as the 100+ miles of the S&D. Nobody has provided any evidence to refute this.

I've already explained how the East Suffolk is different. Nobody has provided any evidence to refute this.

I've tried to suggest that the populations and locations of intermediate settlements are inadequate to contribute much to a through service, though there may be some scope for local journeys at the south end. And guess what, nobody has provided any evidence to refute that either!

Onward journeys into Bristol would require the Midland route out of Green Park to be open, which has little intermediate traffic on the rural section though the urban part in Bristol might be a different matter. Or some expensive infrastructure to connect Green Park to the GWR route. Without even more infrastructure there would still be a time-consuming reversal in Bath, and of course the parallel route serves Bristol by a faster and more direct alignment.

The Settle and Carlisle does have some similarities, being a long route linking a fairly small city with a fairly large one and with many end-to-end journeys catered for by other routes. The big difference is that both in the 1960s and today (though not for some of the period in between!) the S&C has significant potential to carry through freight. After the working out of the Somerset coalfield the S&D had negligible freight potential and this would still be the case today (there could be quarrying but the stone would go east rather than north or south).

As I'm aware that I'm starting to change from a scratched record into a cracked pot on this subject, I won't be responding to any further posts unless someone provides some evidence rather than unsubstantiated opinions or rose-tinted sentiment.

 

[yorksrob]

I've suggested how the parallel route would take the same time end-to-end as the S&D even including a change at Southampton. Nobody has provided any evidence to refute this.

If it does take the same time, then obviously the majority of people will choose a direct train without a change.

I've pointed out that if there was enough end-to-end market between Bath and Bournemouth someone would be running a through train via Southampton. This might need a bit more infrastructure to provide capacity but nowhere near as much as the 100+ miles of the S&D. Nobody has provided any evidence to refute this.

It simply doesn't work like this. Many people will be put off by having to travel a round about way involving a change. No one thought that places such as Hartlepool and Hull could support a direct all day service to London until somebody actually put on the said service.

I've already explained how the East Suffolk is different. Nobody has provided any evidene to refute this.

All you've proved is that given a direct route between two large population centres, people will use it. Frankly, you have no more "evidence" to say that this wouldn't be the case between Bristol/Bath and Bournmouth/Poole than I have to say that it would, short of actually building and opening the thing.

I've tried to suggest that the populations and locations of intermediate settlements are inadequate to contribute much to a through service, though there may be some scope for local journeys at the south end. And guess what, nobody has provided any evidence to refute this!

There are any number of busy stations serving similar populations across the Country, many of which contribute to regional/rural lines which would otherwise be marginal.

Onward journeys into Bristol would require the Midland route out of Green Park to be open, which has little intermediate traffic on the rural section though the urban part in Bristol might be a different matter. Or some expensive infrastructure to connect Green Park to the GWR route. Without even more infrastructure there would still be a time-consuming reversal in Bath, and of course the parallel route serves Bristol by a faster and more direct alignment.

The midland route might have been less direct, however, if you look at the maps, it passes through a substantial area of suburban Bristol. That said, links to consolidate services on single stations weren't unknown, so I wouldn't rule out a link to the GWR. As for a "time consuming reversal", these happen all over the network everyday and really aren't a problem with multiple unit working.

 

[edwin_m]

I have already responded to all these points in previous posts. End of.

 

[yorksrob]

I've already pointed out twice that a direct train would be possible in a similar length of time by another route, if there was enough demand to justify one.

That does not in any way prove that a direct train, taking a similar length of time over the S&D and encompassing the intermediate settlements there on, would not be a busy and useful service today, and would not generate passenger usage by way of opening up direct travel opportunities between Bournemouth/Poole and Bath/Bristol.

 

[edwin_m]

As you say I can't prove it definitively, but I've tried to offer some evidence to justify why it wouldn't be worthwhile, whereas you have offered none in support of your own view.

 

[yorksrob]

I've offered plenty of evidence of why a direct route between two large population centres and serving numerous settlements along the way would most likely be a busy and well used link were it still available today.

What you've not done is convinced me that the presence of different route to a different destination and serving completely different intermediate settlements in any way negates the above proposition, which is supported by the existence of numerous surviving routes today.

 

[tbtc]

Put it this way - if there hadn't been a direct link between Bournemouth/Poole and Bath/Bristol that was withdrawn then I doubt it'd be high up anyone's list for a new line - the enthusiast arguments tend to be dominated by the past.

As an example closer to me, I see plenty of enthusiasts suggesting Matlock to Buxton as a link through the Peak District (between two towns with a combined population of around thirty thousand), but I've never seen a suggestion for a Sheffield to Stoke line (two cities with a combined population of around three quarters of a million people).

The difference being that one would be reopening an old line (even though it wouldn't be as simple as just laying a few tracks), so has a lot of nostalgic appeal - and that seems to matter a lot more to some people.

I'm sure that the "love" for HS2 would be a lot greater if it were on the trackbed of some failed railway from generations ago.

 

[The Planner]

You mean like the Great Cent....no I'll stop.....

 

[HSTEd]

I keep seeing all this quotes about freight congestion in the London area and it makes me wish we could have a railway line that went north south east of london, built to the largest feasible loading gauge. (Channel Tunnel for future proofing purposes since I doubt it would cost much more than GC).
Would connect to Thamesport as well.

Would require a combined road-rail Thames Estuary crossing though.

 

[yorksrob]

Put it this way - if there hadn't been a direct link between Bournemouth/Poole and Bath/Bristol that was withdrawn then I doubt it'd be high up anyone's list for a new line - the enthusiast arguments tend to be dominated by the past.

In this country, we had such a dense network of railways, there aren't many pairs of nearby towns of any reasonable size that weren't linked at one time. Sheffield and Stoke are unusual in that respect, but I'm sure if someone had built a line between the two, it would work for the same reasons.

Let's face it, if we had to justify the majority of our existing routes in terms of modern business cases, they wouldn't be built. That doesn't mean that they're not useful now.

As an example closer to me, I see plenty of enthusiasts suggesting Matlock to Buxton as a link through the Peak District (between two towns with a combined population of around thirty thousand), but I've never seen a suggestion for a Sheffield to Stoke line (two cities with a combined population of around three quarters of a million people).

The difference being that one would be reopening an old line (even though it wouldn't be as simple as just laying a few tracks), so has a lot of nostalgic appeal - and that seems to matter a lot more to some people.

Whilst most of these cases are to a large extent hypothetical, the Peak route is one which I think should be strongly considered for re-opening anyway.

For such a short route you get:

• a local route linking Buxton and Matlock

• A station for Bakewell

• A relief London - Manchester route

• Vastly improved connectivity between the North West and the East Midlands, relieving crowded cross country services

• Relief for freight on the Hope valley

All that for a short reinstatement of track. And unlike HS2, it feeds into the existing network, so there are no issues about parkway stations miles away from the areas they're supposed to serve !

As I understand it, the Doctor didn't list that one. He managed to get some things right !

 

[The Planner]

This is another one I have always been puzzled by, if this ever got anywhere (considering all the re-doubling, re-signalling etc...) what/who would serve it? Are we presuming extra services or diverted ones? Dumping stuff out at Ambergate and then threading it through Derby isn't going to be the easiest of tasks.

 

[yorksrob]

This is another one I have always been puzzled by, if this ever got anywhere (considering all the re-doubling, re-signalling etc...) what/who would serve it? Are we presuming extra services or diverted ones? Dumping stuff out at Ambergate and then threading it through Derby isn't going to be the easiest of tasks.

Well, you could perhaps start with one local train an hour (the extending the existing service past Matlock), and achieve an InterCity by joining one of these newfangled DEMU's to one of the services from Sheffield.

Once this route is growing nicely, you could consider enhancements south of Derby (which would probably be needed at some stage anyway).

 

[edwin_m]

Matlock to Buxton would allow another regional express type service between, for example, Leicester and Manchester. In this case there are plenty of onward journey opportnities beyond both Buxton and Matlock rather than trying to justify it just as a link between two smallish towns.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

This is another one I have always been puzzled by, if this ever got anywhere (considering all the re-doubling, re-signalling etc...) what/who would serve it? Are we presuming extra services or diverted ones? Dumping stuff out at Ambergate and then threading it through Derby isn't going to be the easiest of tasks.

Well the current All stops Derby > Matlock and Manchester Piccadilly > Buxton services could be joined up and call at any reopened stations on route.

For faster express services between Manchester and Notts/Derby you could reroute the Liverpool > Norwich service calling only at one intermediate station like Matlock. This frees up a path on the Hope Valley for an extra service.

Isn't some work due to take place on the approaches to Derby anyway?

 

[tbtc]

Whilst most of these cases are to a large extent hypothetical, the Peak route is one which I think should be strongly considered for re-opening anyway.

For such a short route you get:

• a local route linking Buxton and Matlock

• A station for Bakewell

• A relief London - Manchester route

• Vastly improved connectivity between the North West and the East Midlands, relieving crowded cross country services

• Relief for freight on the Hope valley

I could come up with justifications to link South Yorkshire to the Potteries too - the point is that people want a Matlock - Buxton link because that's how things used to be in the good old days, not because that's how you'd design things if starting with a blank sheet of paper and trying to meet demand in 2013 (and beyond).

Similarly, if you believe that its imperative to link Nelson/ Colne to Leeds/ Bradford (ignoring the hourly service from Burnley) then the faster route would be Colne - Keighley. But reinstating what used to be there is more important to enthusiasts than building a new line to meet modern demands.

That's the problem with these threads, we start with the position of "I want to reinstate what was closed" and work backwards from there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well the current All stops Derby > Matlock and Manchester Piccadilly > Buxton services could be joined up and call at any reopened stations on route

You'd have a slow route if you reversed at Buxton though

For faster express services between Manchester and Notts/Derby you could reroute the Liverpool > Norwich service calling only at one intermediate station like Matlock. This frees up a path on the Hope Valley for an extra service

Presumably you'd still have a half hourly Sheffield - Manchester service though?

 

[Morgsie]

The original SWML. Poole to Brockenhurst via Ringwood and Wimbourne

 

[Old Hill Bank]

The Stourbridge Line User Group have been campaining for some years now for the re-opening of the route from Stourbridge through Dudley to Walsall. At last the industry have recognised it's value and it is now a possibility for a future NR Control period, we of course would like it sooner rather than later. Another thread talks about largest towns with no railway, Dudley is up there.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Presumably you'd still have a half hourly Sheffield - Manchester service though?

Yes but one that could call at more stations along the Hope Valley as the Liverpool > Norwich service is limited in its calls (not sure where exactly).

 

[yorksrob]

I could come up with justifications to link South Yorkshire to the Potteries too - the point is that people want a Matlock - Buxton link because that's how things used to be in the good old days, not because that's how you'd design things if starting with a blank sheet of paper and trying to meet demand in 2013 (and beyond).

Similarly, if you believe that its imperative to link Nelson/ Colne to Leeds/ Bradford (ignoring the hourly service from Burnley) then the faster route would be Colne - Keighley. But reinstating what used to be there is more important to enthusiasts than building a new line to meet modern demands.

That's the problem with these threads, we start with the position of "I want to reinstate what was closed" and work backwards from there.

Well some old routes do look as though they were pulled out of a hat, but you have to remember that a lot of them were built for a reason and were deliberately run down. What is the point of having a dead end branch to Colne when you could have a system that actually links the towns !

I possibly do have a bias towards the Regional Railway and associated projects, but I travel on the train as near as much every day, and the vast majority of those are localish journeys. I use InterCity services a few times a year, but for me the main thing is being able to get to as many places as possible and for that, you need a functioning network. I would like some of those missing links which shouldn't have been taken away, put back. If it was all about nostalgia, I'd be happy for them to come back at the weekends as preserved railways, but that's not what its about.

 

[Eagle]

The original SWML. Poole to Brockenhurst via Ringwood and Wimbourne

This would arguably be more useful than the S&D (apart from the fact that of you reopened the S&D you'd have to reopen a chunk of this too). The northern part of the SE Dorset conurbation is incredibly poorly served by road, let alone rail. You may recall ATOC recommended reopening Ringwood in their "Connecting Communities" report.


Also I'm losing count of the number of people who can't spell Wimborne. All places within the traditional county of Dorset spell '-borne' without a 'u'. Sherborne. Cranborne. Milborne. Oborne. The Winterbornes. :P

 

[yorksrob]

You'd have a slow route if you reversed at Buxton though



Presumably you'd still have a half hourly Sheffield - Manchester service though?

If you reinstated the triangular junction at the Buxton end, you could have expresses bypass Buxton.

By taking some of the East Midlands passengers away from the half hourly Sheffield - Manchesters, you could ease overcrowding on them.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Unlike the railways the Motorway Network/ dual carriageways has been centrally planned with connectivity between major population centers in mind. The Beeching era cuts were not planned around wider connectivity criteria but a desperate search for savings by closure that proved elusive.

Hence we have the A419/A417 dual carriageway between Swindon (M4) and Gloucester (M5) (bar top of Birdlip Hill) which parallels the old Midland and South Western Junction Railway.
Or the M50/A40/A465 Motorway /Daul Carriageway linking the M5 nr Tewkesbury and the "industrial" Midlands to the "heavy industrial areas" of South Wales. Whoops original reason to build has disappeared but Welsh Government is spending nearly all its capital budget this decade completing the remaining sections.

Dusting off my copy of "roads to prosperity" the A36 was suppose to be dualled linking the M3 nr Southampton with the M4 nr Bath but of course this hasn't happened leaving the road links between the Bristol/Bath area and the South Hampshire and South East Dorset conurbations very poor.

Theres no plans for a direct road between the Potteries and Sheffield in it which suggests ploughing through the peak district is a big a barrier to tarmac layers as it was to the navvies.

 

[Eagle]

A lot of major road schemes from the RfP era bit the dust after the new government in 1998 cancelled pretty much every road project not already under construction to put them on review. Some of the schemes made it back into the planning pool, but not many.

One scheme which vanished without trace during this era was extending the A3049 from Tower Park roundabout (where currently the A3049 doglegs back onto the A348 at Alderney) across Canford Heath and past Hampreston and Ferndown to Ameysford roundabout on the A31 (which explains why the A31 drops to single carriageway west of here). It would have made travelling to and from Poole and the northern suburbs a lot easier, much like the A338 did for Bournemouth and Christchurch, but now we're stuck with using the old and slow A348 through Ferndown, or using the A349 to get to the A31 at Wimborne, adding congestion to that under-capacity route.

Another local victim of the roads review was the last bits of the A35 dualling—it was planned to be dual all the way from the Weymouth Road roundabout to the A35/A31 junction, but by cancelling any scheme not already in progress it's been left unfinished at both ends.

 

[Lankyline]

To be honest the original point of the thread was not what should be reinstated but what should have been kept based on what economic / business / social reasons we know now exist or have existed in the last 20+ years

 

[Gareth Marston]

A lot of major road schemes from the RfP era bit the dust after the new government in 1998 cancelled pretty much every road project not already under construction to put them on review. Some of the schemes made it back into the planning pool, but not many.

One scheme which vanished without trace during this era was extending the A3049 from Tower Park roundabout (where currently the A3049 doglegs back onto the A348 at Alderney) across Canford Heath and past Hampreston and Ferndown to Ameysford roundabout on the A31 (which explains why the A31 drops to single carriageway west of here). It would have made travelling to and from Poole and the northern suburbs a lot easier, much like the A338 did for Bournemouth and Christchurch, but now we're stuck with using the old and slow A348 through Ferndown, or using the A349 to get to the A31 at Wimborne, adding congestion to that under-capacity route.

Another local victim of the roads review was the last bits of the A35 dualling—it was planned to be dual all the way from the Weymouth Road roundabout to the A35/A31 junction, but by cancelling any scheme not already in progress it's been left unfinished at both ends.

Big reason RfP was binned was afffordability - it doesn't mater what the cost benefit ratio is you still have to have the budget to pay. Completing the A465 dualling is taking up most of the Welsh Governments transport capital budget up to the end of the decade - theirs two sections to complete all of 11-12 miles in total. The true cost of RfP in today's money makes HS2 look like chicken feed.

We threw away an unprecedented amount of capital investment in the third of the rail system that went without any strategic planing and then found we couldn't afford the replacement road network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be honest the original point of the thread was not what should be reinstated but what should have been kept based on what economic / business / social reasons we know now exist or have existed in the last 20+ years

If ATOC are to be believed then all the growth in the last 20 years is because of having TOC's therefore using ATOC's reasoning Beeching should have privatized the railways using the franchise model in 1963 and we would have kept the lot due to the booming usage that would have followed increasing revenue!

Rural areas were suffering from depopulation at the time and this was a real factor at the time, however they have grown in the last 30 years. For example Montgomeryshire by 49% between 1971 and 2011 and Ceredigion by 42%. The population along the catchment for the Cambrian mainline grew by 17% between 2001 and 2011 - this has fueled growth on the line whose service is little changed from BR days.

 

[Ships]

I could come up with justifications to link South Yorkshire to the Potteries too - the point is that people want a Matlock - Buxton link because that's how things used to be in the good old days, not because that's how you'd design things if starting with a blank sheet of paper and trying to meet demand in 2013 (and beyond).

Similarly, if you believe that its imperative to link Nelson/ Colne to Leeds/ Bradford (ignoring the hourly service from Burnley) then the faster route would be Colne - Keighley. But reinstating what used to be there is more important to enthusiasts than building a new line to meet modern demands.

That's the problem with these threads, we start with the position of "I want to reinstate what was closed" and work backwards from there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You'd have a slow route if you reversed at Buxton though



Presumably you'd still have a half hourly Sheffield - Manchester service though?

The thing is in the cases where lines are being reinstated its much easier to do it a long a previous formation thats relativly undisturbed as opposed to doing something completely new. In some cases like Cambridge - st Ives there is a need but in this case the council has gone mad and put in a rediculous guided busway

In the Colne to Skipton case which from what I have read seems like a decent candidate for reopening it would make sence to use the old formation.

People want a buxton matlock link purely based on nostalgia?! What a load of condesending nonsence. For those involved in peak rail maybe this is the case. However I for one would like to be able to get to the east midlands without having to go around the houses. Out of intrest in this case how would you go about getting from Manchester to Derby directly?

For direct trains you would have no reasons to go via buxton. The stopper would be slow for people going end to end but darn site quicker for people that wanted to go to the east midlands by rail than currently is the case.

 

[tbtc]

The thing is in the cases where lines are being reinstated its much easier to do it a long a previous formation thats relativly undisturbed as opposed to doing something completely new

Look at the Newcraighall - Tweedbank reopening - even though its following the trackbed of the old line, they are building brand new infrastructure - modern standards don't allow NR to just relay tracks and carry on - hence the £350m costs for a thirty mile railway

In some cases like Cambridge - st Ives there is a need but in this case the council has gone mad and put in a rediculous guided busway

The busway that's exceeded passenger forecasts and seen an increased service as a result?

(or do we only boast about high passenger demand when its a railway reopening?)

In the Colne to Skipton case which from what I have read seems like a decent candidate for reopening it would make sence to use the old formation

Its a solution in need of a problem - there's already a regular service from Blackburn/ Burnley to Bradford/ Leeds - a service via Skipton would benefit only a small number of people.

People want a buxton matlock link purely based on nostalgia?! What a load of condesending nonsence

Convince me then.

It would link a town with ten thousand people to a town with twenty thousand people (stopping at Bakewell with a population of around five thousand).

If it hadn't been a railway line in the past, would people be suggesting it?

(yes, it could link much longer routes, but the same could be said of any link from one side of the Peak District to the other - like the Sheffield to Stoke example that I gave - which links two decent sized cities)

Out of intrest in this case how would you go about getting from Manchester to Derby directly?

There's always been a chord near Dore station that can accommodate direct services without needing a whole new line to be built

 

[Eagle]

There's always been a chord near Dore station that can accommodate direct services without needing a whole new line to be built

Or you could run services Manchester–Stoke–Derby. It's only a couple of miles longer; not sure what the journey times would be like though.

 

[yorksrob]

Convince me then.

It would link a town with ten thousand people to a town with twenty thousand people (stopping at Bakewell with a population of around five thousand).

If it hadn't been a railway line in the past, would people be suggesting it?

(yes, it could link much longer routes, but the same could be said of any link from one side of the Peak District to the other - like the Sheffield to Stoke example that I gave - which links two decent sized cities)

It's as much a question of value for money.

Spend billions on a brand new line that admittedly will bring a range of benefits to local , regional and InterCity passengers, or spend millions filling in a missing link which will nevertheless also bring a wide range of benefits to local, regional and InterCity passengers.