-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What was the most important line to be closed?
- Thread starter Leylandlad
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
chorleyjeff
Member
- Joined
- 3 May 2013
- Messages
- 677
If you me the direct route from Kirkham to Blackpool I think there is a mistake.
Were not most trains to use this route holiday rime excursions? I know one or two regular trains inthe summer timetable used it but not many.
And given there are no excursion trains these days I could see little use for it.
But if you meant Bpool South to Central I would agree.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I thought the idea was to stop wasting money on little used lines or those with alternatives available? What is political about that?
It could indeed, but then again, to make such a statement, we have to consider what has been driving the frequency improvements.
Overall, there hasn't been a set amount of funding to be stretched depending on whatever route mileage there happens to be. If anything, the decision to maintain "unprofitable" route mileage has been political, with the service (particularly in the franchised period) following. Certainly in the franchise period, funding seems to have in turn followed the service provision, rather than the other way round.
To look at it from another angle, if we'd have had another round of closures, say the Whitby branch, Settle - Carlisle, Heart of Wales etc, do you think we would have had the same amount of funding provided as at present, with the "saved" money being spent on surviving routes ? Personally, I think that's unlikely. Instead, services would have been decided for the surviving routes with funding provided largely to match.
In short, I think if Government and railway management had taken a decision to pursue rationalisation rather than closure sooner, we probably would have more routes, albeit singled, and we probably would be looking at ways of improving capacity on these lines (as with the SW line to Exeter). However, we would be in a much better position as a Country.
Last edited:
Western Lord
Member
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 1,065
Hardly any closed lines could be reopened, building over trackbeds is too extensive. In some places you would never know a railway existed. Look at Ilkley, nothing remains to indicate that this was once a through station (other than the filled in former through platforms now used as a car park). The former Midland main line at Wath Road junction has been completely obliterated and that only closed in the 80's. Almost all old track beds in towns and villages, especially on lines closed in the 60's, have been built on to some extent.
Strathclyder
Established Member
The Glasgow Central Railway between Finnieston & Rutherglen springs to mind. Closed to passengers on 5th October 1964, it was reopened on 5th November 1979 as the Argyle Line. It is now one of Scotrail's busiest lines.
One thing that is clear: the political, social and economic environment has changed out of recognition since 1962! The railways were in financial crisis in 1962 and there was no appetite to provide funding to match the route mileage that was in operation then. Rationalisation costs money to implement, and that kind of investment money was not available at the time, partly because the remaining railway needed large quantities of money to modernise as well. It is an interesting thought (although completely useless) to contemplate what kind of funding level would be tolerated today (5 % larger network, 10%, 25% ???); or would we merely have lots of infrequent and slow (through deferred maintenance) services on both the lines which were shut and on the rest of the network which had insufficient money to modernise?
It is indeed unfortunate that rationalisation did not start earlier (although introduction of DMU stock was progress in this field), but in many cases the technology was not available or very expensive (Automatic level crossings / CTC systems etc), and ticket issue on (anything apart from very local) trains unthinkable. Government thought that passenger trains were on their way out, as in USA, and car ownership rising very fast. Eventually some enlightened railway managers started to think the unthinkable when some closures refused and they were going to be saddled with loss making services ad infinitum. Even then more closures took place when the country was in the grip of various financial crisis, after the main batch had taken place.
We are probably lucky that, having a privatised railway with complicated franchise contracts that tie up the finances, service reductions and line closures have not been on the agenda in the Govt. spending cutbacks of the last few years. [Now there is a controversial thought...]
The political, social and economic environment has indeed changed beyond recognition since 1962. Yet the government was offering grants to take up underused track long before the final route closures took place.
Would a singled, destaffed Okehampton - Bere Alston have done as well or better than some of our rural double track lines today. Had the Ipswich - Lowestoft route continued to Yarmouth, would this have acted as a drain on resources for the existing network, or would the retention of a section of line serving a much greater population per mile and a major destination in its own right, have led to an overall increase in revenue for the East Anglian network.
What is clear is that a 5%, 10% or 25% larger network cannot simply be assumed to be a 5%, 10% or 25% more expensive network.
Equally true of course !
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 8,342
In principle - any closed line could be reopened. All it would take is £ megabillions, and a willingness to be very unpopular with lots of people. You would have to compulsorily purchase and bulldoze a lot of buildings - houses, factories, shopping centres. And also rebuild lots of bridges / viaducts & embankments, and empty cuttings & tunnels that had been used for landfill, etc.
And I almost forgot - in some areas, there would be extra costs to obliterate misguided busways.
So - don't expect early reopenings of most closed railways.
Last edited:
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
March to Wisbech
March to Spalding
Cambridge to Oxford
Cambridge to Huntingdon
Peterborough to Rugby/Northampton
Bedford to Hitchin
Hatfield to St Albans via Welwyn Garden City
Welwyn Garden City to Broxbourne via Hertford North
Bedford to Northampton
Bishop's Stortford to Braintree
Thetford to Bury St Edmunds
Basingstoke to Alton
Alresford to Winchester as extension of the Mid Hants
March to Spalding
Cambridge to Oxford
Cambridge to Huntingdon
Peterborough to Rugby/Northampton
Bedford to Hitchin
Hatfield to St Albans via Welwyn Garden City
Welwyn Garden City to Broxbourne via Hertford North
Bedford to Northampton
Bishop's Stortford to Braintree
Thetford to Bury St Edmunds
Basingstoke to Alton
Alresford to Winchester as extension of the Mid Hants
Last edited by a moderator:
Bright Boy
Member
Skipton - Colne
Warrington - Timperley
Millers Dale - Rowsley - Matlock
Warrington - Timperley
Millers Dale - Rowsley - Matlock
zn1
Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 435
personally the day trains stopped on the croxley green branch line was a sad day.
other lines that closed - Northampton - Mkt Harborough - a mistake now one thinks
other lines that closed - Northampton - Mkt Harborough - a mistake now one thinks
Buttsy
Established Member
The one closure that should have never happened and wasn't part of Beeching was that of Blackpool Central. It was the local council that wanted the land to 'redevelop' the land into what turned out to be a huge car park. 4-6 platforms on the excurision side would have closed Blackpool North - Poulton and given up the main Central station by the front for Council use. The Blackpool South line runs through the greater population centres and not closing Central but North could have possibly saved the Fleetwood line (closed 1970) as that would have been the only service left for Poulton, therefore enhancing the economic viability of that line. Hourly Fleetwood - Colne trains anyone?
Springs Branch
Established Member
One unglamorous contender for "should have been kept" line is Eccles - Tyldesley - Leigh - Kenyon (west of Manchester).
Leigh is one of those dull industrial towns with a significant population, but no particular claim to fame or notoriety, so easily forgotten about.
The Leigh loop was the remnant of more extensive LNWR lines in the area, part of the route being used by main line trains from Manchester Exchange to the WCML & Scotland. Before the end in 1969, it was mainly served by hourly stopping DMUs from Liverpool to Manchester via Earlestown, which diverted via Worsley, Tyldesley and Leigh.
Had the railway survived to the mid-1970s, it might have reached the era when Selnec / GMPTE became more sympathetic to rail as oppossed to pure bus travel.
Retaining the Leigh railway could have helped regeneration of a rather depressed former coal mining area, providing good links to Manchester, Liverpool & Warrington.
It would at least have prevented the Guided Busway malarkey, and meant some interesting wires / no wires decisions when the Chat Moss line electrification was being authorised.
And in the spirit of the OP, the loop is also a diversionary route if the line across Chat Moss is closed (bit of a stretch, I admit!).
Leigh is one of those dull industrial towns with a significant population, but no particular claim to fame or notoriety, so easily forgotten about.
The Leigh loop was the remnant of more extensive LNWR lines in the area, part of the route being used by main line trains from Manchester Exchange to the WCML & Scotland. Before the end in 1969, it was mainly served by hourly stopping DMUs from Liverpool to Manchester via Earlestown, which diverted via Worsley, Tyldesley and Leigh.
Had the railway survived to the mid-1970s, it might have reached the era when Selnec / GMPTE became more sympathetic to rail as oppossed to pure bus travel.
Retaining the Leigh railway could have helped regeneration of a rather depressed former coal mining area, providing good links to Manchester, Liverpool & Warrington.
It would at least have prevented the Guided Busway malarkey, and meant some interesting wires / no wires decisions when the Chat Moss line electrification was being authorised.
And in the spirit of the OP, the loop is also a diversionary route if the line across Chat Moss is closed (bit of a stretch, I admit!).
Springs Branch
Established Member
It would be impossible to reinstate the Leigh rail line on its original alignment.
General situation of trackbed (going east to west):-
1) Eccles-Monton: Cut by M602 motorway and built over with new industrial buildings & residential development (e.g. Stanier Ave, Eccles).
2) Monton-Ellenbrook: Footpath/cycleway (part of UK National Cycle Network 55)
3) Ellenbrook-Tyldesley-Leigh outskirts: Leigh Guided Busway being built on alignment.
4) Leigh Town Centre: Former rail line and station were on brick viaducts through the town. Viaducts were demolished in 1980s.
5) South of Leigh towards Liverpool & Manchester line: Trackbed built over by A579 Leigh Bypass (Atherleigh Way) as far as East Lancs Rd.
Another case of once it's gone, it's gone for good.
Reading the discussion of how a choice at the time was for rationalisation, rather than closure, reminded me that these kind of works began on the York-Beverley route. I can't think where the source was at the moment, but I'm sure I recall that the first Automated level crossing trials took place on the line, and DMUs came early.
I wonder if that shows that local management considered the line a good prospect, as compared to the view taken by "head office"?
I wonder if that shows that local management considered the line a good prospect, as compared to the view taken by "head office"?
Indeed. Something that is conveniently forgotten by all of the Beeching/Serpell apologists.
The first trials were in the approach road to Marylebone station goods yard, used only by BR vehicles and convenient for the Top Bananas from BR headquarters over the way at 222 Marylebone Road to nip over to see in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wxwhVgInak
Here is a Marylebone suburban dmu, cut down to 2 cars for the day, coming through about 5 seconds after the half barrier is lowered. Hopefully these trials showed a bit of a longer interval was required.
Having done some digging, the first lifting boom barriers were installed at Wartby on the York-Beverley route (rather than automated ones). Colour light signalling was also installed at Stamford Bridge and Pocklington. In fact Westinghouse had a contract signed for further modernisation work, and had taken delivery of equipment on site, when closure was announced.
Source: reasonably well sourced Wikipedia article http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_to_Beverley_Line
According to Martin Bairstow (Railways in East Yorkshire)
"... in 1953 the first continental style level crossing with lifting barriers was installed at Warthill."
He goes on to say that contracts were placed in 1960 for equipment that would have modernised all the level crossings on the line, but the scheme was abandoned in Feb 1962.
Yes, this was a 'modernised' level crossing, but merely substituting wooden gates for 'continental style' lifting barriers. Quite what savings were envisaged by such a substitution I cannot imagine, but hardly worth the investment I should think. I believe that the first 'automatic' barrier (i.e. train operated and crossing keeper/signalman cost eliminated) was experimentally installed near Rocester on the Uttoxeter-Leek line in the early 60s
Raul_Duke
Member
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 396
Isn't most of the track bed still in place along the Manchester to Matlock route? At least from Millers Dale to Bakewell anyway.
I seem to recall reading somewhere about railtrack wanting to reopen the line in the early 90's?
Also recall reading that headstone viaduct is inspected annually by Derbyshire Council, and their surveyor was of the opinion that due to the build quality, it wouldn't require a great deal of remedial work to reopen.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
There was a Buxton-Matlock reopening proposal in around 2000, but it fell down for the usual reasons - lack of funding and insufficient commitment from the bodies who needed to support it. Most of the major structures remain in place with the main exception being an A6 crossing at Rowsley, which would be difficult to put back as (if I recall correctly) the alignment and level of the road was changed. The route is now of course a heritage railway in part and most of the rest is a walk/cycle trail.
Dr_Paul
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 1,546
The closure of the Christ's Hospital to Shoreham line was a mistake, as it could, had it been electrified, been a useful diversionary line to Brighton. The severing of the line between Uckfield and Lewes was daft as it left a stump and created a gap, thus preventing a diversionary route being established to Brighton by means of electrification.
To look more broadly at the 1960s closures, they were often shortsighted but who could have guessed at that point the growth of outer London suburbia, not the London suburbs but the development of outlying towns into their becoming dormitory towns for London, or the growth of inter-town travel that has occurred? In this respect, the above-mentioned lines, had they been kept, would have been useful for traffic into Brighton as well as into London. The branch to Westerham could have been electrified (although whether the inhabitants would have wished their town to have become a London dormitory is a moot point). Another obvious cross-country route that should have been kept is Oxford through Bedford to Cambridge. The Bedford to Hitchen, Hertford to Welwyn and Welwyn to Luton lines could have had a new lease of life as these towns expanded.
To move up to East Anglia, the Lowestoft to Yarmouth line was closed post-Beeching; I remember it running in the late 1960s. A problem with it was that it didn't connect at Yarmouth with the line from Norwich; it went to South Town, which had declined sadly after the direct line from Beccles was closed. The three terminal stations at Yarmouth were quite separate with only a very indirect connection between two of them, South Town and Beach, and the latter had closed by the 1960s. The line to Hunstanton was also closed post-Beeching. One problem for East Anglia, although alleviated through the use of DMUs, is that many towns -- King's Lynn, Lowestoft, Yarmouth, Wells, Cromer come to mind -- were not through stations and required reversals.
Whilst we're on the subject of Yarmouth, can anyone explain how it is that that there are still two routes between there and Norwich, one via Acle, the other via Berney Arms; it seems a bit extravagant considering that much of East Anglia was stripped of its railways. How is this justified?
Finally, the Great Central main line: it had a disadvantage in that it didn't go through many places of importance south of Leicester. I imagine that it was a better route than the Midland's slow and winding route, but the latter does go through some important towns between Leicester and London, and, unlike the GC, a fair bit of it is four-track, which, during Beeching's time when much more freight was carried than later on, was important. I guess that these were the criteria which were taken into account when considering which route to keep open.
To look more broadly at the 1960s closures, they were often shortsighted but who could have guessed at that point the growth of outer London suburbia, not the London suburbs but the development of outlying towns into their becoming dormitory towns for London, or the growth of inter-town travel that has occurred? In this respect, the above-mentioned lines, had they been kept, would have been useful for traffic into Brighton as well as into London. The branch to Westerham could have been electrified (although whether the inhabitants would have wished their town to have become a London dormitory is a moot point). Another obvious cross-country route that should have been kept is Oxford through Bedford to Cambridge. The Bedford to Hitchen, Hertford to Welwyn and Welwyn to Luton lines could have had a new lease of life as these towns expanded.
To move up to East Anglia, the Lowestoft to Yarmouth line was closed post-Beeching; I remember it running in the late 1960s. A problem with it was that it didn't connect at Yarmouth with the line from Norwich; it went to South Town, which had declined sadly after the direct line from Beccles was closed. The three terminal stations at Yarmouth were quite separate with only a very indirect connection between two of them, South Town and Beach, and the latter had closed by the 1960s. The line to Hunstanton was also closed post-Beeching. One problem for East Anglia, although alleviated through the use of DMUs, is that many towns -- King's Lynn, Lowestoft, Yarmouth, Wells, Cromer come to mind -- were not through stations and required reversals.
Whilst we're on the subject of Yarmouth, can anyone explain how it is that that there are still two routes between there and Norwich, one via Acle, the other via Berney Arms; it seems a bit extravagant considering that much of East Anglia was stripped of its railways. How is this justified?
Finally, the Great Central main line: it had a disadvantage in that it didn't go through many places of importance south of Leicester. I imagine that it was a better route than the Midland's slow and winding route, but the latter does go through some important towns between Leicester and London, and, unlike the GC, a fair bit of it is four-track, which, during Beeching's time when much more freight was carried than later on, was important. I guess that these were the criteria which were taken into account when considering which route to keep open.
Buttsy
Established Member
My understanding was that there was still significant holiday traffic that went to Yarmouth after Beeching and, with only a loop at Acle, there was insufficient capacity to run holiday specials on that route (as I believe it was never a double-track route), and so, as an alternative, the Berney Arms link was kept so there was effectively a double-tracked route to Yarmouth.
There is also a story that on building the railway across the marshes from Reedham to Yarmouth, the landowner required a station to be built and for it to be served in perpetuity (Berney Arms), though I think this is now a railway myth as the requirement was removed many years ago.
I'm sure someone more local than I can confirm or deny the points above.
- Status