What routes will close as a result of potential nationalisation?

[quantinghome]

Are you saying that if he had realised this alleged mistake he wouldn’t have closed all those lines?!
Most of them made Conwy look a winner!

Beeching didn't start line closures and he didn't end them either, so it does need to be looked at in that context. Clearly many lines were complete basket cases and should never have opened in the first place, let alone been shut. And Beeching didn't set the parameters either. He was told to make the network profitable again. His failure was to realise that it he had been set an impossible task given the decline in freight which had been historically the big earner for the railways (and still is in many counties e.g. USA).

So yes, some lines would have gone, particularly the ones that were there primarily for wagonload freight and those with exceptionally low passenger numbers. But many others could and should have been kept. No main lines should have closed, particularly those which plugged big gaps in the network. Many lines could have worked with operational efficiencies (the 'basic minimum' railway). Beeching also shut vast swathes of lines in urban areas which would have be ripe for light rail or integration into some form of commuter network - West Yorkshire is a particularly egregious example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if they would have done better eventually, after about 50 years of haemorrhaging money, that is a tiny number of the vast closures.

Though they wouldn't have haemorrhaged as much money if modern methods of working (e.g. Paytrains) had been considered.

 

[Meerkat]

So yes, some lines would have gone, particularly the ones that were there primarily for wagonload freight and those with exceptionally low passenger numbers. But many others could and should have been kept. No main lines should have closed, particularly those which plugged big gaps in the network. Many lines could have worked with operational efficiencies (the 'basic minimum' railway). Beeching also shut vast swathes of lines in urban areas which would have be ripe for light rail or integration into some form of commuter network - West Yorkshire is a particularly egregious example.

So they shouldn’t have shut the unnecessary GC main line?
i feel that you are looking at current demand rather than the demand at the time - where the world was being taken over by cars and buses and congestion wasn’t biting.

Though they wouldn't have haemorrhaged as much money if modern methods of working (e.g. Paytrains) had been considered.

Do you know why this wasn’t regarded as an option - not within funding envelope, not possible with unions??

 

[yorksrob]

Even if they would have done better eventually, after about 50 years of haemorrhaging money, that is a tiny number of the vast closures.

It's a sample, by no means all.

 

[Killingworth]

Though they wouldn't have haemorrhaged as much money if modern methods of working (e.g. Paytrains) had been considered.

Memories flood back to when all buses had conductors - and in the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire fares were so cheap that on 80% of bus journeys it probably cost more to collect the fares than was taken. Take off the conductor and buses lingered longer at each stop making journeys longer and delaying traffic. Not unlike some Pay Trains!

 

[backontrack]

True, there is a large publicity board for the Settle and Carlisle line at the end of the Northern bay platforms at Leeds with maps, descriptions of the locations etc. I can't remember whether it includes the Little North Western - that route does tend to get overshadowed a bit, despite being charming in its own right.

I was there on Tuesday! It's just the S&C.

Glad to hear that the Far North line is holding it's own again.

I'm certainly not a proponent of it's closure.

Cheers - as far as I know, the relevant bodies are in the process of examining different infrastructure solutions for the long single track section between Inverness and Dingwall (specifically around Lentran east of Beauly); one of these will be acted upon, but we don't know what yet. It could be a longer dynamic loop like Moy, or alternatively a shorter, conventional loop. It'd benefit the Kyle Line as well as permitting an hourly service as far as Tain, so potentially a very positive development for the line.
(Looking forward to changing my sig. )

 

[BayPaul]

There are far more bridges and infrastructure that needs to be maintained on the minor road network, yet this is accepted without question. Why should our railways be any different.

There is plenty of subsidy for the rail network, so it isn't as if the government isn't happy to accept that principle. I guess the question is that when there are parrallel quiet and unprofitable road and rail routes, it isn't unreasonable for rail to have to justify why the subsidy for maintaining that infrastructure is necessary, rather than simply paying for an additional bus subsidy on a parrallel road at a fraction of the cost, considering that the road will need to be maintained anyway. Somewhere like Gunnislake it is clear that the rail journey is much better than the equivalent road journey, due to the location of the river and bridges, but in many branch line cases it is less clear cut.

 

[yorksrob]

There is plenty of subsidy for the rail network, so it isn't as if the government isn't happy to accept that principle. I guess the question is that when there are parrallel quiet and unprofitable road and rail routes, it isn't unreasonable for rail to have to justify why the subsidy for maintaining that infrastructure is necessary, rather than simply paying for an additional bus subsidy on a parrallel road at a fraction of the cost, considering that the road will need to be maintained anyway. Somewhere like Gunnislake it is clear that the rail journey is much better than the equivalent road journey, due to the location of the river and bridges, but in many branch line cases it is less clear cut.

I don't accept any of this.

The Bentham route is effectively a main route, carrying much more passenger traffic than a myriad of surrounding minor routes. Look at a road atlass, and you'll see how many more there are than the railway. I think it is unjustifiable why we have to continually justify the existance of our by comparison, incredibly meagre railway network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Bentham route is effectively a main route, carrying much more passenger traffic than a myriad of surrounding minor routes. Look at a road atlass, and you'll see how many more there are than the railway. I think it is unjustifiable why we have to continually justify the existance of our by comparison, incredibly meagre railway network.

Because a road basically costs £0 if hardly anyone is driving down it?

 

[yorksrob]

Because a road basically costs £0 if hardly anyone is driving down it?

Until the bridge collapses, or the tree falls on it, or there's a landslip.

 

[BayPaul]

Because a road basically costs £0 if hardly anyone is driving down it?

And I suspect that closing a road is also even more difficult than closing a railway, given its right of way nature. Plus, people chose to use the railway, but I can't imagine there is a single person in the UK mainland who can manage not to use any public roads, even if they only walk or cycle on them. Even if there was, they would still presumably be using shops whose supplies come by road, dustbin lorries, royal mail etc.

I would very much like to see our network be maintained and grow, but I can't see the point in wasting money on basket case lines that can't support at least a 2 carriage sprinter an hour each way. I would much prefer to see a better integration of the transport network to provide a proper guaranteed bus link, that can't be cut by the local council on a whim, with through ticketing to and from the rail network, a better frequency than the replaced train and better environmental credentials (better MPG than a sprinter for a diesel bus, and more likely to be able to become a battery operation), to allow spending the money svaed on other transport priorities.

 

[backontrack]

I don't accept any of this.

The Bentham route is effectively a main route, carrying much more passenger traffic than a myriad of surrounding minor routes. Look at a road atlass, and you'll see how many more there are than the railway. I think it is unjustifiable why we have to continually justify the existance of our by comparison, incredibly meagre railway network.

Relevant clip?

 

[Killingworth]

Until the bridge collapses, or the tree falls on it, or there's a landslip.

This section of the A6187 was finally abandoned in 1979 after generations of repairs had been unable to tame the shivering mountain, Mam Tor. Don't try the B6521 from Grindleford to Eyam either, it too has slipped away. Roads do get permanently closed! A number of other Peak District roads are currently closed awaiting major rebuilding. Some may not reopen.

 

[yorksrob]

Relevant clip?

Yes, I think so

This section of the A6187 was finally abandoned in 1979 after generations of repairs had been unable to tame the shivering mountain, Mam Tor. Don't try the B6521 from Grindleford to Eyam either, it too has slipped away. Roads do get permanently closed! A number of other Peak District roads are currently closed awaiting major rebuilding. Some may not reopen.

View attachment 83886

That is a good example, but it's quite rare. And plenty of passenger lines were closed without even a major geological event !

 

[quantinghome]

I would very much like to see our network be maintained and grow, but I can't see the point in wasting money on basket case lines that can't support at least a 2 carriage sprinter an hour each way. I would much prefer to see a better integration of the transport network to provide a proper guaranteed bus link, that can't be cut by the local council on a whim, with through ticketing to and from the rail network, a better frequency than the replaced train and better environmental credentials (better MPG than a sprinter for a diesel bus, and more likely to be able to become a battery operation), to allow spending the money svaed on other transport priorities.

The money you will save is chicken feed compared to the subsidy required to run the rest of the network. The main reason our public transport is poor is because the UK is massively outspent on public transport by other developed countries. Shutting a few branch lines is not going to make any difference in the overall scheme of things.

 

[stuu]

The Bentham route is effectively a main route, carrying much more passenger traffic than a myriad of surrounding minor routes. Look at a road atlass, and you'll see how many more there are than the railway. I think it is unjustifiable why we have to continually justify the existance of our by comparison, incredibly meagre railway network.

That line currently offers ~1120 seats each way per day. I don't see how that can possibly count as a main route. Virtually every A and B road and a great many minor roads carry many more people than that. I support the railways and used them almost daily until covid, but let's be realistic

 

[Mikey C]

Everyone uses roads, whether directly or indirectly, that's the difference. Even if you don't have a car and don't use taxis or other motorised transport, you will still rely on Royal Mail and other delivery services, police, ambulances and fire engines, utility maintenance (water, gas, electricity, telephones), the army, deliveries to shops, from farms and warehouses etc

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2020 ==

As recent events have only too tragically proved Network Rail has an immense amount of infrastructure to maintain even before any sleepers or rails can be laid and maintained. Musing about that I thought immediately of two long tunnels within 5 miles of where I'm sat, but forgot a third smaller one! Major work is currently under way to reline one of the longest tunnel's air shafts (it's 700 feet deep) and improve drainage within the tunnel. That's taking over 6 months and costing over £1m.

Within half a mile of my local station there are 8 bridges - 2 road overbridges, 5 bridges over a river and a long culvert. Passengers will notice the road bridges but not know the others are there. That culvert is currently receiving attention requiring coffer dams at each end and pumping water through a large pipe to ensure work can proceed manually as there's no room to get machinery through. A work site has been created on protected green space and will have to be restored.

Then there are three junctions within a mile of each other to be maintained in all weathers, with signals as well - and they fail far too often.

That's before any trains can run. Making a commercial case based on the likes of the £2 I've just paid for a ticket to my next station is impossible. That's the smallest drop in the ocean of finance that's necessary. If railways are to justify such large amounts of public funding more paying passengers are needed to pay more in fares - a lot of them, going longer distances and more often.

A bit of a problem for us today, so the bits that are expensive to maintain will have to be reconsidered for closure. Use them or lose them.

While staying at Clapham (North Yorkshire where there used to be another Clapham Junction) last November I looked at using the Bentham line. Clapham village is a mile from the station, one that struggled to achieve 7,000 passengers a year. No trains suited a jouney to anywhere we wanted to go, but we looked in at Bentham (26,000 passengers) which is how I know there's a very active Community Rail group at work. The Pacer we saw picked up 2 passengers adding to the 5 already aboard - it wasn't hard to count them. 10/10 for the station facilties and obvious enthusiasm of the group. A gang of 6 Network Rail men were doing something, but not clear what. Is the line justifiably economic? That's very hard to say.

View attachment 83881

Infrastructure replacement can be a major driver for closures. For example the Underground kept the Aldwych shuttle running (at a minor loss) but closed it when the lifts needed replacing, as the branch couldn't justify the replacement cost

 

[Killingworth]

Everyone uses roads, whether directly or indirectly, that's the difference. Even if you don't have a car and don't use taxis or other motorised transport, you will still rely on Royal Mail and other delivery services, police, ambulances and fire engines, utility maintenance (water, gas, electricity, telephones), the army, deliveries to shops, from farms and warehouses etc

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2020 ==


Infrastructure replacement can be a major driver for closures. For example the Underground kept the Aldwych shuttle running (at a minor loss) but closed it when the lifts needed replacing, as the branch couldn't justify the replacement cost

One of the reasons for closing the Woodhead line was the cost of replacing DC electrical equipment to match mainline AC standards. The Tyneside electrics weren't far from the same fate due to the old sub-stations being in need of replacement, as well as the trains. The DMUs were never as good for passengers. The Metro investment came along just in time.

There are an immense number of roads that see very little traffic, some in the more remote parts of Britain being B, and a very few A, roads.

 

[yorksrob]

Everyone uses roads, whether directly or indirectly, that's the difference. Even if you don't have a car and don't use taxis or other motorised transport, you will still rely on Royal Mail and other delivery services, police, ambulances and fire engines, utility maintenance (water, gas, electricity, telephones), the army, deliveries to shops, from farms and warehouses etc

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2020 ==

The same can be said of the railway though.

Even if you never set foot on a train, the chances are you will use goods delivered by rail, infrastructure built with heavy goods delivered by rail, electricity generated by fuel delivered by rail, road space freed up by other people using rail etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2020 ==

That line currently offers ~1120 seats each way per day. I don't see how that can possibly count as a main route. Virtually every A and B road and a great many minor roads carry many more people than that. I support the railways and used them almost daily until covid, but let's be realistic

That's vastly more than the myriad of minor country roads that get a few four by fours and a tractor. The Bentham line is extremely handy for a lot of people, myself included.

 

[geordieblue]

I was there on Tuesday! It's just the S&C.

I was also there on Tuesday (catching a train from the strangely hidden temporary Platform 1). The board was largely S&C branded but the map did show the Bentham Line stations as well as the S&C ones (and might have referred to 'The Bentham Line' as well - I can't remember). However it was obvious from the branding that the Bentham is very much the poor relation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was also there on Tuesday (catching a train from the strangely hidden temporary Platform 1). The board was largely S&C branded but the map did show the Bentham Line stations as well as the S&C ones (and might have referred to 'The Bentham Line' as well - I can't remember). However it was obvious from the branding that the Bentham is very much the poor relation.

Which is not entirely unfair - the scenery is nowhere near the quality of the S&C.

The Bentham Line is useful if you live in Lancaster and want to go to Leeds or the Dales, or vice versa. Because you can go via Leeds or Carlisle to get to the same destinations from other places, it's not greatly useful outside of that, and Bentham, Wennington and Clapham are small places.

You could probably argue that for getting from much of Lancashire to the S&C a Preston-Clitheroe-(Gisburn-Chatburn)-Hellifield service would be more useful than the Bentham Line, TBH.

It could be better promoted (as could every single other scenic line in the UK) but it still lacks potential.

 

[yorksrob]

Which is not entirely unfair - the scenery is nowhere near the quality of the S&C.

The Bentham Line is useful if you live in Lancaster and want to go to Leeds or the Dales, or vice versa. Because you can go via Leeds or Carlisle to get to the same destinations from other places, it's not greatly useful outside of that, and Bentham, Wennington and Clapham are small places.

You could probably argue that for getting from much of Lancashire to the S&C a Preston-Clitheroe-(Gisburn-Chatburn)-Hellifield service would be more useful than the Bentham Line, TBH.

It could be better promoted (as could every single other scenic line in the UK) but it still lacks potential.

It's useful for getting from Yorkshire to the Lake District though.

 

[geordieblue]

Which is not entirely unfair - the scenery is nowhere near the quality of the S&C.

The Bentham Line is useful if you live in Lancaster and want to go to Leeds or the Dales, or vice versa. Because you can go via Leeds or Carlisle to get to the same destinations from other places, it's not greatly useful outside of that, and Bentham, Wennington and Clapham are small places.

You could probably argue that for getting from much of Lancashire to the S&C a Preston-Clitheroe-(Gisburn-Chatburn)-Hellifield service would be more useful than the Bentham Line, TBH.

It could be better promoted (as could every single other scenic line in the UK) but it still lacks potential.

Whilst I agree that the scenery is inferior than the S&C, I hope you don't mind me saying that the statement 'it still lacks potential' is somewhat meaningless! Of course there are far more marketable lines, whether scenically, financially or as a vital part of a joined-up transport network. That doesn't mean that the Bentham lacks potential, either as a scenic line or as a link between Leeds and north western England (a link that doesn't take as long as the S&C to traverse).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's useful for getting from Yorkshire to the Lake District though.

I'll give you that, though you could also go via Manchester for that journey (two scenic bits in one - North TPE is nothing short of stunning in many places).

 

[yorksrob]

I'll give you that, though you could also go via Manchester for that journey (two scenic bits in one - North TPE is nothing short of stunning in many places).

The North Pennine line is indeed very scenic, although it does tend to get crowded in normal times, then theres getting round the Manchester terminals.

The Little NW is generally a more relaxing journey.

 

[Meerkat]

IMO Bentham Line is a ridiculous marketing name as barely anyone is going to have a clue where it goes from that name. Call it Lancaster-Leeds Line and most people will know.
But then I think the same about all these names - Tarka, Maritime, Avocet etc- they might sound nice but they have no geographical location, and should only be used as a subtitle.

 

[Killingworth]

IMO Bentham Line is a ridiculous marketing name as barely anyone is going to have a clue where it goes from that name. Call it Lancaster-Leeds Line and most people will know.
But then I think the same about all these names - Tarka, Maritime, Avocet etc- they might sound nice but they have no geographical location, and should only be used as a subtitle.

Clapham for Ingleborough and Ingleton would be fine for backpackers. Just call it Clapham Junction and see how many go for the novelty, or by mistake!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clapham for Ingleborough and Ingleton would be fine for backpackers

Not a nice walk to either, though, mostly on-road. Horton is further away but probably more pleasant!

I think this is a case of having closed the wrong line. The northerly one through Kirkby Lonsdale and Ingleton would have done decent tourist business.

 

[yorksrob]

Not a nice walk to either, though, mostly on-road. Horton is further away but probably more pleasant!

I think this is a case of having closed the wrong line. The northerly one through Kirkby Lonsdale and Ingleton would have done decent tourist business.

I suppose it balances out. Lancaster and Morecambe still do a trade.

 

[30907]

Not a nice walk to either, though, mostly on-road. Horton is further away but probably more pleasant!

I think this is a case of having closed the wrong line. The northerly one through Kirkby Lonsdale and Ingleton would have done decent tourist business.

Except that it didn't get you to anywhere in the Lakes bar Keswick! And in 1954 or whenever Morecambe was where the business was.
Lancaster-Skipton is a useful through route, but of secondary status.

I would very much like to see our network be maintained and grow, but I can't see the point in wasting money on basket case lines that can't support at least a 2 carriage sprinter an hour each way.

So that's just about every rural route north and west of a line from Carmarthen to Scarborough?