Passenger service lines that deserve to close

[HMS Ark Royal]

- it remains that national change can't happen at the whim of just one person. .

Yes, one can change things on a whim - they're called Dictatorships...!

And I do agree that your reply was very badly phrased.

My viewpoint is that it should stay open for passengers and that will never change...

#

If any should close, it should be the Heysham line.

 

[Whistler40145]

How many passengers use the Cardiff Bay shuttle and the Wrexham General to Wrexham Central service?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[backontrack]

And I do agree that your reply was very badly phrased.

Actually, I don't. Because your opinion on this doesn't really matter in the scheme of things - to be blunt, you're not important enough.

Do you condone dictatorships?

If any should close, it should be the Heysham line.

Much better used than Newhaven Marine - and actually serves a ferry service. There's potential for more services - the whole thing could be much better run. But that's a story for another thread...

 

[swt_passenger]

If you find that loads of people agree with you on this, you could always start a petition - or, more likely, start an heritage group and build the station into a tourist attraction. Then you might be able to run trains to Newhaven Town.

The guy who tried this for Weymouth Quay should be able to help...

 

[backontrack]

The guy who tried this for Weymouth Quay should be able to help...

Still more realistic than the idea of GTR running passenger services...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If GTR were in fact to start serving Newhaven Marine again because of the wishes of HMS Ark Royal, who would pay for the extra diagram needed- the extra 313 unit, the driver and (for now) guard? Secondly who would use the service? Probably not a forum user who lives in East Yorkshire, other than once to tick off the mileage...

I admire HMS Ark Royal's persistence with this issue but it is at best misguided. There are several stations which would see increased usage if the service was improved such as Gainsborough Central, and lines such as that one would be threatened if it was easier to close lines. NVM though is pointless. Let it rust, let it fall down, and if the way the port operates changes to the point that Marine station becomes viable, it can reopen.

 

[Whistler40145]

Well said.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[backontrack]

If GTR were in fact to start serving Newhaven Marine again because of the wishes of HMS Ark Royal, who would pay for the extra diagram needed- the extra 313 unit, the driver and (for now) guard? Secondly who would use the service? Probably not a forum user who lives in East Yorkshire, other than once to tick off the mileage...

Agreed.

To HMS: If you really want the mileage that badly, I'm sure that if you speak to Southern very nicely they might let you on a parly service.

 

[Taunton]

Whitby's "defence", like Gunnislake I suppose, is that the roads servicing the settlements served are poor.

Gunnislake is on a main A-road and is a straightforward drive along it to the local centre, which is Tavistock. Meanwhile the station is, in best westcountry fashion, nowhere near Gunnislake, but is a couple of miles away, along a narrow, unlit road. For much of the year it handles under 100 passengers a day, and having seen the trains come and go a couple of times, I think even that may be an overestimate.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Do you condone dictatorships?

Not at all - you merely made a statement of factual error and I corrected you

As for your other comment, I am trying for that as a birthday present for myself

 

[MarkyT]

Newhaven Marine: That this is even considered a separate station from Harbour is probably a historical accident, arising only because the extra platform was constructed alongside later track authorised under a different act of parliament to the original Seaford branch. The distance between the platform ends of one station to the other is only about 140m. You can walk further between platforms at many large stations. Closing the station formally to passengers is no more important than removing a redundant platform at such a larger station, which could be accomplished without the formal closure process. That said, regardless of the future of the platform as a passenger facility, retaining a track connection into the quayside area for reversing branch trains under certain scenarios, and for handling possible future freight would be a good idea.

 

[Lankyline]

Judging by some of the posts on here it would seem that some have missed the point of the thread entirely, it was not to suggest closing lines / stations as per Beeching, but to simply suggest that there might be lines/stations that are possibly, in their current form, not fit for the purpose they where originally built for.

As has been mentioned before railways have to adapt and evolve, but I am not advocating closure just because it doesn't serve its original need anymore, I am simply suggesting that in this day and age, there are more options available for some "underperforming" lines ie tram, tram/trains, local action groups to help promote lines (Settle Carlisle for example) etc etc and with local authority finances under more and more pressure, this can also have a major effect on subsidies for rural lines.

So to those who say why are we even talking about closure, my answer is simple, we can't bury our heads in the sand, we still suffer and bemoan the lost lines of the Beeching report, but if the railways stand still and don't evolve and adapt then we may actually be faced with the prospect in the future of "forced closures". If a line/station does close or has partial closure, then one lesson from the past has to be learned, the trackbed has to be protected.

 

[Taunton]

Judging by some of the posts on here it would seem that some have missed the point of the thread entirely, it was not to suggest closing lines / stations as per Beeching, but to simply suggest that there might be lines/stations that are possibly, in their current form, not fit for the purpose they were originally built for.

As has been mentioned before railways have to adapt and evolve.

You are correct, one of the aspects of railway management at all levels is the inability to see that, although there may be a station with the name of an urban area or whatever, it does not serve that place well.

Bristol Temple Meads, for example, is in a poor location relative to the commercial and retail centre of Bristol, beyond walking distance and not well connected by road. It's a significant part of how Bristol has so little commuting rail traffic. The one suburban branch, to Severn Beach, takes such a circuitous route that the road distance from Temple Meads to many of the branch stations is half that of rail.

Unfortunately the sheer effort and endless discussions that seem to be required for even a minor alteration to the Victorian infrastructure (look at all the hoopla arising from a repositioning just along the line of Rochester station) means there seems to be little prospect of sorting out the various major shortfalls.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

How many passengers use the Cardiff Bay shuttle?

Well over a million according to the latest available figure.

 

[6Gman]

Agreed. It saddens me that people are still talking about closing the Esk Valley Line, the Conwy Valley Line, the HoWL, the Looe Valley Line, the West Highland Line, the Kyle Line and the Settle & Carlisle Line. There is not a single railway line in the UK that merits closure. We need to invest much more in our rail network as a country, and cherish our network.

Perhaps we could invest more if we weren't spending large amounts of money on railways which are little-used?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many passengers use the Cardiff Bay shuttle and the Wrexham General to Wrexham Central service?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I once worked on a scheme to review closure of Wrexham General to Central. Not worth doing.

 

[backontrack]

Perhaps we could invest more if we weren't spending large amounts of money on railways which are little-used?

Well...which ones would you close out of that list?

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps we could invest more if we weren't spending large amounts of money on railways which are little-used?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I once worked on a scheme to review closure of Wrexham General to Central. Not worth doing.

I use three of the railways mentioned by Backontrack and I can assure you that none of them are lightly used.

They represent rather more worthwhile spending to me than "investing" millions on speed improvements just so that a few businessmen can get back home to their drinks decanters five minutes earlier.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

On the topic of tram conversion, I think for an inter urban journey its not appropriate.

You mean a tram journey between two neighbouring towns like Blackpool & Fleetwood for instance ?

 

[och aye]

Once Edinburgh Council no longer have use for the incinerator in Powderhall, the Powderhall branch will no longer have any use for the "binliner" which is the only service tha uses that line. No real use in looking at reopening any of the former passenger stations either, as the route doesn't go anywhere useful.

 

[Whistler40145]

I can't see the Powderhall branch reopening as it would've been more beneficial if the line through Abbeyhill had still been intact.

 

[Lankyline]

Agreed. It saddens me that people are still talking about closing the Esk Valley Line, the Conwy Valley Line, the HoWL, the Looe Valley Line, the West Highland Line, the Kyle Line and the Settle & Carlisle Line. There is not a single railway line in the UK that merits closure. We need to invest much more in our rail network as a country, and cherish our network.

As for Newhaven Marine, while I don't think we have to close that right now, I don't want to see my taxes funding services to a station just because HMS Ark Royal likes it. Just leave it alone. Let it rust.

Aren't some, if not all, protected through the social need that Castle initiated, certainly Kyle, West Highland are and also for strategic reasons ie Settle Carlisle. Your comment of "let it rust" i totally agree with backed up with trackbed protection against development

 

[backontrack]

Aren't some, if not all, protected through the social need that Castle initiated, certainly Kyle, West Highland are and also for strategic reasons ie Settle Carlisle. Your comment of "let it rust" i totally agree with backed up with trackbed protection against development

Don't forget the HoWL with its 'seven marginals'. Apparently it ran through several marginal Labour constituencies, so they couldn't close it.

Personally, I think that the worst part of the Beeching Axe wasn't actually the closures; it was the destruction of the lines, the ripping them up. Why remove them? It allowed roads to be built on the old alignments, and developments to cover the trackbed. Look how long it's taken to get the Borders line reopened, or Oxford to Cambridge. And even then, only half of that.

It seems like Beeching had some sort of vendetta against the railway network - how he felt willing to rip the lines up, to sort of make sure 'this never happens again' - beggars belief. Obviously he was connected to the car/road industry, but I'm still not sure how that explains how his actions were less apathetic and more destructive. At one point he was infamously asked if he had any regrets about the Axe. He replied, 'not closing the lot'.

 

[PHILIPE]

Don't forget the HoWL with its 'seven marginals'. Apparently it ran through several marginal Labour constituencies, so they couldn't close it.

Personally, I think that the worst part of the Beeching Axe wasn't actually the closures; it was the destruction of the lines, the ripping them up. Why remove them? It allowed roads to be built on the old alignments, and developments to cover the trackbed. Look how long it's taken to get the Borders line reopened, or Oxford to Cambridge. And even then, only half of that.

It seems like Beeching had some sort of vendetta against the railway network - how he felt willing to rip the lines up, to sort of make sure 'this never happens again' - beggars belief. Obviously he was connected to the car/road industry, but I'm still not sure how that explains how his actions were less apathetic and more destructive. At one point he was infamously asked if he had any regrets about the Axe. He replied, 'not closing the lot'.

I don't think it was Beeching so much as Ernest Marples, the Minister of Transport, sheltering behind him and who had a vested interest in roadbuilding being a Board member of a Tarmac Company.

 

[backontrack]

I don't think it was Beeching so much as Ernest Marples, the Minister of Transport, sheltering behind him and who had a vested interest in roadbuilding being a Board member of a Tarmac Company.

Oh yeah, Marples. Not only was he dead against investment in the railway network, and straight-out lied and cheated people of their railway lines - but he was also a tax dodger. As soon as he was made a peer he fled to Monaco to avoid allegations of tax avoidance.

 

[Taunton]

It seems like Beeching had some sort of vendetta against the railway network

You need to read Gerry Fiennes' book. Fiennes was the GM of first the Western and then the Eastern Regions, a lifelong practical railwayman. He writes that Beeching was the best thing that happened to railway management after a string of no-hopers. Yes, maybe 5-10% of what the Beeching plan closed could be considered a marginal decision, but the other 90% were basket cases financially. However, Beeching got the minister's ear for a whole lot of positive and major advances on the network for things the railway could do well, many of which are still with us - big investment in InterCity, faster and more frequent; Freightliner; coal merry-go-round; the British Rail new image, etc. All that, and a lot more, came from Beeching's era. And all he really did was to appoint the right railway professionals to make the right decisions.

 

[6Gman]

You need to read Gerry Fiennes' book. Fiennes was the GM of first the Western and then the Eastern Regions, a lifelong practical railwayman. He writes that Beeching was the best thing that happened to railway management after a string of no-hopers. Yes, maybe 5-10% of what the Beeching plan closed could be considered a marginal decision, but the other 90% were basket cases financially. However, Beeching got the minister's ear for a whole lot of positive and major advances on the network for things the railway could do well, many of which are still with us - big investment in InterCity, faster and more frequent; Freightliner; coal merry-go-round; the British Rail new image, etc. All that, and a lot more, came from Beeching's era. And all he really did was to appoint the right railway professionals to make the right decisions.

Agree, agree, agree.

 

[Lankyline]

Without getting into the whole Beeching issue again, imo the biggest mistake made was the short sightedness of the decisions to close, with no view to possible future needs even over the next 5/10 years following the report, it was all done with one motive in mind, reduce costs.
It was not helped by the incoming Labour govt, who promised to reverse the closure programme but as soon as they got into office, actually speeded up the closures, even to the extent of adding lines that were not even in the report.
I do believe that effect of closures has left such a vivid impression even today, that it is still difficult to countenance even a single closure, but as I have stated before, our railways have to adapt to changing needs and however difficult it maybe to consider, it is entirely possible some lines/stations may have to go or be realigned / rebuilt to better serve the needs of people & freight

 

[Polarbear]

It should also be borne in mind that Dr Beeching did exactly what he was asked to do by the government of the day.

I used to be critical of the Beeching closures as a whole, but having researched the politics behind the decision making (and the "Marples" connection cited by others above is a major factor), I can see why the decisions were made to close most of the lines highlighted in the original report.

Whilst lots of lines were indeed "basket cases", and wholly uneconomic, there were (for me) two main flaws in the methodology used to close lines that at times, seem arbitrary;

• The closure and/or rationalisation of perceived "duplicate" routes.
• The drive to attain a "profitable" core railway

We are still paying the price today for some of the decisions made in the 1960's around these two criteria.

 

[backontrack]

Indeed. York-Beverley is the most infamous one - they basically made up lies about it.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, maybe 5-10% of what the Beeching plan closed could be considered a marginal decision, but the other 90% were basket cases financially.

70%/30% more likely.