Would it be better to declare Beeching closures 'Damnatio memoriae'

[Irascible]

The biggest problem at the time was arguably Government policy, which wasn't prepared to countenance paying for socially necessary services. Had this been in place earlier, BR could have avoided chasing the fantasy world of trying to find a profitable core of the railway, and it's not as though, as a particularly hawkish member of the Stedeford committee, Beeching didn't have any influence on that policy.

Yes, there were problems with data, however ultimately the nationwide methodology didn't adequately identify where the costs and revenue opportunities of the railway were at the time. As an example, it should have been apparent that some locations would contribute more passenger traffic as a destination than as an origin station.

Going back to the report, I think that for the first two worked examples, he probably had a point in closure, but York - Beverley via Market Weighton stands out as a route which even taking account of the information available at the time, shouldn't have been closed.

When the mood all the way down BR management seems to be one of not actually wanting to run anything inconvenient then what can you expect from the top? it's the same as blaming govt ministers 100%, they will make decisions based on the information their advisers ( usually civil servants ) are handing over, and they have their own agendas and their data is obtained by other civil servants. Beeching wasn't even the only source of closures in the 60s ( and some under Castle were arguably more damaging ), let alone since.

I'd argue that right now we're in something of a small revolution in transport priorities, with the drive to low emissions ( finally! ) a big deal, and new technology under fairly rapid development. Now is not the time to be closing anything just like 1963 wasn't really the time until the full impact of modernisation was understood. I suspect now is not the time to really be reopening anything either for much the same reasons... now is absolutely the right time to be *studying* reopenings though.

 

[yorksrob]

When the mood all the way down BR management seems to be one of not actually wanting to run anything inconvenient then what can you expect from the top? it's the same as blaming govt ministers 100%, they will make decisions based on the information their advisers ( usually civil servants ) are handing over, and they have their own agendas and their data is obtained by other civil servants. Beeching wasn't even the only source of closures in the 60s ( and some under Castle were arguably more damaging ), let alone since.

I'd argue that right now we're in something of a small revolution in transport priorities, with the drive to low emissions ( finally! ) a big deal, and new technology under fairly rapid development. Now is not the time to be closing anything just like 1963 wasn't really the time until the full impact of modernisation was understood. I suspect now is not the time to really be reopening anything either for much the same reasons...

Yes, there was certainly an ethos amongst some in BR during the 60's (and later) of less is more. I would argue that such an ethos is set from the top down.

I agree that now is not the time for precipitous slashing. People will come back to the regional railway.

 

[Mikey C]

Yes, there was certainly an ethos amongst some in BR during the 60's (and later) of less is more. I would argue that such an ethos is set from the top down.

I agree that now is not the time for precipitous slashing. People will come back to the regional railway.

You keep using emotive language

There's a massive difference between closing a station which is barely used, or a branch line which has minimal use, and "precipitous slashing"

Many of these branch lines were never originally built for passenger purposes anyway. And nobody is suggesting that every loss making railway should be chopped, but there has to be a balance between spending money to keep open services that are barely used, and using the SAME money to improve services on lines that are well used, longer trains, electrification, additional tracks and flyovers etc.

And while it might generate positive nostalgic headlines, when government ministers talk about reversing Beeching closures, such spend has to be judged against alternative ways of the spending the same money such as improving the existing lines or even building NEW infrastructure to meet the 21st century needs, and where people live and work now

 

[yorksrob]

You keep using emotive language

There's a massive difference between closing a station which is barely used, or a branch line which has minimal use, and "precipitous slashing"

Many of these branch lines were never originally built for passenger purposes anyway. And nobody is suggesting that every loss making railway should be chopped, but there has to be a balance between spending money to keep open services that are barely used, and using the SAME money to improve services on lines that are well used, longer trains, electrification, additional tracks and flyovers etc.

And while it might generate positive nostalgic headlines, when government ministers talk about reversing Beeching closures, such spend has to be judged against alternative ways of the spending the same money such as improving the existing lines or even building NEW infrastructure to meet the 21st century needs, and where people live and work now

And exactly which are these barely used lines of which you speak ?

My view is that the network, as it is, is a little bit smaller than it ought to be. There are a few too many towns missing off of it and missing links. There is now balance to be had by slashing bits of it - to close lines would just be further damaging an already moth-eaten network.

 

[Ianno87]

And exactly which are these barely used lines of which you speak ?

My view is that the network, as it is, is a little bit smaller than it ought to be. There are a few too many towns missing off of it and missing links. There is now balance to be had by slashing bits of it - to close lines would just be further damaging an already moth-eaten network.

Now, if I was going to propose a few lines to question what are they really for... (being deliberately provocative for a moment)

Reedham-Great Yarmouth
Duplicates the route via Acle, and Berney Arms (the only station) basically serves nobody.

Heart of Wales
Fluke of historical politics that it even survived, though I would recognise its social value to some extent. But why do resources go into this when the likes of Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge have no current rail connection?

Conwy Valley (that old chestnut)
Seems to be closed more often than it's open, and paralleled by a good bus service

Gunnislake-Plymouth
Very scenic, but manages to serve nowhere of particular note.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But why do resources go into this when the likes of Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge have no current rail connection?

This is a flawed argument, because the money you'd save by closing the Heart of Wales Line would take many years to build up to the cost of reopening East West Rail and building the bit from Bedford to Cambridge. Closing branch lines, even ones that require near-annual rebuilding (cough Conwy Valley), really doesn't save that much money. That was the flaw in Beeching - if you operate your branch lines on a fairly cheap basis, i.e. using DMUs, unstaffed stations and automatic level crossings, they really don't cost that much more than running a bus service anyway.

Indeed, the real flaw in Beeching was not considering just how much could be saved when compared to a "full service" railway that doesn't even exist on busier lines these days other than possibly Merseyrail. Even MKC ticket office is not open for the full period of service, nor I think is Euston's!

 

[yorksrob]

Now, if I was going to propose a few lines to question what are they really for...

Reedham-Great Yarmouth
Duplicates the route via Acle, and Berney Arms (the only station) basically serves nobody.

Heart of Wales
Fluke of historical politics that it even survived, though I would recognise its social value to some extent. But why do resources go into this when the likes of Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge have no current rail connection?

Conwy Valley (that old chestnut)
Seems to be closed more often than it's open, and paralleled by a good bus service

Reedham - Great Yarmouth effectively gives that town double track, rather than being at the end of a single track branch, so operationally handy.

With regard to the Heart of Wales, I would say that the lack of a connection between Oxford and Cambridge is an abberation. I don't see why it justifies removing an existing railway service.

 

[Ianno87]

This is a flawed argument, because the money you'd save by closing the Heart of Wales Line would take many years to build up to the cost of reopening East West Rail and building the bit from Bedford to Cambridge. Closing branch lines, even ones that require near-annual rebuilding (cough Conwy Valley), really doesn't save that much money. That was the flaw in Beeching - if you operate your branch lines on a fairly cheap basis, i.e. using DMUs, unstaffed stations and automatic level crossings, they really don't cost that much more than running a bus service anyway.

OK - not a great comparison with Oxford-Cambridge, but I would wonder what the transport subsidy per head of population works out as for some of those communities against the national average.

 

[Bletchleyite]

OK - not a great comparison with Oxford-Cambridge, but I would wonder what the transport subsidy per head of population works out as for some of those communities against the national average.

With the Conwy Valley you aren't just considering locals, though, you're also providing for a fairly large amount of tourist traffic - and if the transport system of North Wales was even vaguely coordinated properly* it could be even more.

In a way it's a bit like a quieter version of the Windermere branch. One man, dog and bicycle in winter, actually fairly busy in summer.

* Note for North Wales' transport planners - putting a bus stop round the back in the car park with a number 2 on it to claim it's platform 2 is not the basis of integrated transport. Something more "like it" might be a minibus interchange right outside in the short stay car park, with connections to all parts of Snowdonia when the train arrives.

 

[Ianno87]

Reedham - Great Yarmouth effectively gives that town double track, rather than being at the end of a single track branch, so operationally handy.

Can "handy" be quantified? The route via Acle has a crossing loop, so it's not inconceivable "summer season" extras could be accommodate that way. Does the occasional blockage of the route via Acle justify an entire diversionary route when that is a luxury even some main lines don't really have?

With regard to the Heart of Wales, I would say that the lack of a connection between Oxford and Cambridge is an abberation. I don't see why it justifies removing an existing railway service.

Not saying closing one implies providing the other. But "bang for buck" across the rail network for spending vs passenger benefit is not really a level playing field.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Mar 2021 ==

With the Conwy Valley you aren't just considering locals, though, you're also providing for a fairly large amount of tourist traffic - and if the transport system of North Wales was even vaguely coordinated properly it could be even more.

In a way it's a bit like a quieter version of the Windermere branch. One man, dog and bicycle in winter, actually fairly busy in summer.

Grant you, tourism is something the Conwy Valley has going for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Grant you, tourism is something the Conwy Valley has going for it.

Indeed. Betws is a massive tourist honeypot, and in that regard the line is (and long has been) seriously undermarketed - but even given this the trains are (as) busy (as a branch line gets) between about Easter and September, at least on weekends. People think of the southern bit when they think of the whole thing. The southern bit is a basket case, I completely agree (stunningly scenic though it is), but the northern bit has massive potential, in so much as any branch line does.

I think they really need to watch what ScotRail is doing with those 153s.

 

[Irascible]

Gunnislake-Plymouth
Very scenic, but manages to serve nowhere of particular note.

That is definitely a social needs case - it only exists now because the roads in the area are atrocious & can't be improved without a) vast spend & b) wrecking the place. Remember it once went to Callington, which has vaguely better roads & doesn't now have a station.

 

[yorksrob]

Can "handy" be quantified? The route via Acle has a crossing loop, so it's not inconceivable "summer season" extras could be accommodate that way. Does the occasional blockage of the route via Acle justify an entire diversionary route when that is a luxury even some main lines don't really have?



Not saying closing one implies providing the other. But "bang for buck" across the rail network for spending vs passenger benefit is not really a level playing field.

For a relatively short section of track and a town of Great Yarmouth's size, I'd say it's worth having.

In terms of bang for buck, it's not really about that if you want a National railway network. Some towns will inevitably cost more to serve than others by the nature of geography.

 

[Ianno87]

For a relatively short section of track and a town of Great Yarmouth's size, I'd say it's worth having.

Even though you could quite conceivably timetable the entire service via Acle, and GY wouldn't be materially worse off?

In terms of bang for buck, it's not really about that if you want a National railway network. Some towns will inevitably cost more to serve than others by the nature of geography.

Depends where serving by rail is important, or serving by **public transport** is important (i.e. agnostic of mode).

For example, I'd argue that St Ives (Cambridgeshire) is better off with 8+ buses per hour than it would be with 1-2 heavy rail trains per hour. I doubt you'd see same the number of people who (pre-Covid) patronise the busway as you would on a less frequent heavy rail service. And it also serves intermediate communities directly, which heavy rail couldn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends where serving by rail is important, or serving by **public transport** is important (i.e. agnostic of mode).

That comes down to the appalling lack of integration and quality of bus operation in the UK.

If we did it like the Swiss, I'd rather a half hourly bus than an hourly train.

Because we do it like the UK, I'd rather an hourly train than a half-hourly bus.

For example, I'd argue that St Ives (Cambridgeshire) is better off with 8+ buses per hour than it would be with 1-2 heavy rail trains per hour. I doubt you'd see same the number of people who (pre-Covid) patronise the busway as you would on a less frequent heavy rail service.

The St Ives Busway is a bit of an oddity in that it achieved some things that an hourly heavy rail branch line with a 2-car Class 170 (or whatever) wouldn't. However I do hope to see it converted to tram at some point as part of a wider Cambridge tram system, with a proper quality connecting bus service at the St Ives park and ride. But this is the UK...

(One advantage of bus on that route was that when ridership massively exceeded expectations, the service could be increased within weeks rather than months)

Having said that, it's a nice curiosity, and despite the vehicles being buses it has a nice country branch line feel to it.

 

[yorksrob]

Even though you could quite conceivably timetable the entire service via Acle, and GY wouldn't be materially worse off?




Depends where serving by rail is important, or serving by **public transport** is important (i.e. agnostic of mode).

For example, I'd argue that St Ives (Cambridgeshire) is better off with 8+ buses per hour than it would be with 1-2 heavy rail trains per hour. I doubt you'd see same the number of people who (pre-Covid) patronise the busway as you would on a less frequent heavy rail service. And it also serves intermediate communities directly, which heavy rail couldn't.

You'd be very restricted at Yarmouth if you wanted to run a seaside special. Better to have an alternative.

Interms of St Ives Cambridgshire, didn't it already have a bus service ? My town is already full of busways. They're called roads.

 

[tbtc]

Well, you'd look at each situation on a case-by-case basis, but with a presumption against (a) breaching an alignment that has strategic potential, and (b) building something on that alignment that doesn't need to go there. For example why build houses on top of an old railway embankment when there's a field adjacent that would be equally suitable. Often the former railway land was sold off cheaply and in piecemeal sections... almost as if deliberately planned to prevent the railway ever returning. In terms of Holmfirth, it's entirely understandable that in 1961 the railway wasn't viable: car ownership was rising and the roads weren't congested, and people generally lived closer to their employment. People from Holmfirth might go to Huddersfield once or twice a month rather than every day.
Fast forward 60 years and the two A-roads from Holmfirth to Huddersfield are nose-to-tail for two hours each morning and evening (lockdown notwithstanding). Had the alignment been kept clear there would be a reasonable case for reopening (though the missing viaduct would be a problem, as even if it still stood it would be in a poor state by now) simply on environmental grounds.

Your canal suggestion is a facetious straw man of my point though. I'm not arguing that things should be kept for sake of keeping them, nor that old=good by definition. Canals were a step towards the development of railways and of transit networks in general, but were always destined to be a dead-end due to the limitations of that mode: even a modern, newly-built canal would have much the same speed and capacity constraints that the old ones did.

I'm mentioning canals as it's an example of transport infrastructure that we closed a significant amount of because we thought it was redundant. Same with railway lines around the 1960s, when most people didn't have several decades of foresight.

But, if you want to believe that there was some conspiracy to sell off land in small sections to stop being rebuilt then, fair enough, but there's no point in trying to debate

(in reality, it was probably more that not a lot of people wanted to buy long thin stretches of land, but did want smaller sections you could build a house or two on)

The biggest problem at the time was arguably Government policy, which wasn't prepared to countenance paying for socially necessary services. Had this been in place earlier, BR could have avoided chasing the fantasy world of trying to find a profitable core of the railway, and it's not as though, as a particularly hawkish member of the Stedeford committee, Beeching didn't have any influence on that policy.

Yes, there were problems with data, however ultimately the nationwide methodology didn't adequately identify where the costs and revenue opportunities of the railway were at the time. As an example, it should have been apparent that some locations would contribute more passenger traffic as a destination than as an origin station.

Yes, but I still agree with the methodology of attributing demand to original stations than those "destinations" (e.g. seaside towns).

If the line from Leeds to Whitby closed then Leeds passengers still have the option of taking their buckets and spades to Scarborough/ Blackpool etc - so there were still journey opportunities

Whereas, if you want to share the ticket income between "origin" and "destination" stations then logically that would mean even less money allocated to "regional" stations and even more money allocated to big cities, especially London - which would have meant even less money allocated to some "provincial" stations.

Going back to the report, I think that for the first two worked examples, he probably had a point in closure, but York - Beverley via Market Weighton stands out as a route which even taking account of the information available at the time, shouldn't have been closed.

If that's your top example of a "mistake" then how frequent would a route like that be in 2021? The existing York - Hull line (through Selby) has only just gained a proper hourly service in the last couple of years - and spreading the passengers between two routes would have made two "quiet" routes. Maybe a 150 every hour but nothing major - doesn't feel like a significant loss.

Now is not the time to be closing anything just like 1963 wasn't really the time until the full impact of modernisation was understood

...which suggests that you think that there would be a good time for closing lines?

You keep using emotive language

There's a massive difference between closing a station which is barely used, or a branch line which has minimal use, and "precipitous slashing"

Agreed - the way that people hide behind the kind of "ah, but if you closed Breich then the Government would be emboldened and try to close the ECML the following week" argument shows how weak their case is, they can't justify these lightly used stations so try to tie it to (imaginary) ideas about this meaning much bigger routes would face the chop

This is a flawed argument, because the money you'd save by closing the Heart of Wales Line would take many years to build up to the cost of reopening East West Rail and building the bit from Bedford to Cambridge. Closing branch lines, even ones that require near-annual rebuilding (cough Conwy Valley), really doesn't save that much money. That was the flaw in Beeching - if you operate your branch lines on a fairly cheap basis, i.e. using DMUs, unstaffed stations and automatic level crossings, they really don't cost that much more than running a bus service anyway.

Indeed, the real flaw in Beeching was not considering just how much could be saved when compared to a "full service" railway that doesn't even exist on busier lines these days other than possibly Merseyrail. Even MKC ticket office is not open for the full period of service, nor I think is Euston's!

Well buses need one member of staff, even a short DMU needs two - plus the cost of signal boxes (and, in the 1960s, we didn't have the "regional" boxes that we have nowadays) - even if there's no maintenance/ track replacement/ ticket offices etc to count up

Closing the Heart Of Wales may mean making a few quid by selling off the land, so it's not just about the saving from no longer having to subsidise the line - you'd get some cash up front too

(and you're assuming that the Unions in the 1960s would have been flexible and allowed the kind of changes that you're talking about? But Beeching is the flawed one...)

Can "handy" be quantified?

It's noticeable that a lot of the justifications for lightly used lines is along the lines of "handy" and "useful" and other unquantifiable things - the fact people have to keep it nice and vague shows how weak the arguments are

 

[Bletchleyite]

(and you're assuming that the Unions in the 1960s would have been flexible and allowed the kind of changes that you're talking about? But Beeching is the flawed one...)

That is a fair point, and I suspect at some point in the not too distant future there will be a not dissimilar argument about "guard only operation" or whatever you call it - much cheaper to replace the double-staffed railway with an automated bus service...

 

[Irascible]

..which suggests that you think that there would be a good time for closing lines?

The emotive side of me will say no on principle, of course, but if there's a better alternative, then yes. What we generally seem to argue about here is what constitutes a better alternative. Right now we don't know if we'll develop a better alternative or not, because we're in the early days of portable electric propulsion, we don't know how traffic patterns are going to change vis a vis wfh & also if car ownership is going to decline given electric cars are not cheap & not likely to be, and we're still trying to transition to low carbon generally. Perhaps we need an easier process to mothball a route without that being an easy transition to axeing it.

 

[Ianno87]

You'd be very restricted at Yarmouth if you wanted to run a seaside special. Better to have an alternative.

How often does that happen? Handful of times per year? Is that good value for money for HM Taxpayer? Or would they prefer that same money going into providing a useful day-to-day local service on the rural routes around Norfolk?

Interms of St Ives Cambridgshire, didn't it already have a bus service ? My town is already full of busways. They're called roads.

Yes, but not as frequent, and regularly stuffed by traffic congestion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps we need an easier process to mothball a route without that being an easy transition to axeing it.

The Marston Vale is presently mothballed and was during the first lockdown, too. So COVID might have shaken that up a bit. Germany has also done this a fair bit ("nichts bestellt" - nothing ordered - is the phrase you saw - the line was open but with no train service), and some of the lines were reactivated.

Personally, I think we need a national effort to get the "integrated transport" thing right before we start talking about this sort of thing. Getting the local disreputable independent to put on the cheapest bus service possible is not a replacement, but a properly integrated, quality operation might be and still cheaper too.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but I still agree with the methodology of attributing demand to original stations than those "destinations" (e.g. seaside towns).

If the line from Leeds to Whitby closed then Leeds passengers still have the option of taking their buckets and spades to Scarborough/ Blackpool etc - so there were still journey opportunities

Whereas, if you want to share the ticket income between "origin" and "destination" stations then logically that would mean even less money allocated to "regional" stations and even more money allocated to big cities, especially London - which would have meant even less money allocated to some "provincial" stations.



If that's your top example of a "mistake" then how frequent would a route like that be in 2021? The existing York - Hull line (through Selby) has only just gained a proper hourly service in the last couple of years - and spreading the passengers between two routes would have made two "quiet" routes. Maybe a 150 every hour but nothing major - doesn't feel like a significant loss.

That's an interesting point regarding origin and destination stations. On balance, while regional suburban stations are important, I don't see why they should be artificially prioritised over coastal resorts.

York -Beverley is Dr Beeching's example. I have a few top examples, but to take that one, having the route via Selby is important, but it doesn't help Market Weighton, Stamford Bridge or Pocklington.

 

[Irascible]

The Marston Vale is presently mothballed and was during the first lockdown, too. So COVID might have shaken that up a bit. Germany has also done this a fair bit ("nichts bestellt" - nothing ordered - is the phrase you saw - the line was open but with no train service), and some of the lines were reactivated.

Personally, I think we need a national effort to get the "integrated transport" thing right before we start talking about this sort of thing. Getting the local disreputable independent to put on the cheapest bus service possible is not a replacement, but a properly integrated, quality operation might be and still cheaper too.

We should probably make some other definition as "mothballed" here seems to be the same thing as "practically abandoned". It's been done in the past too - my old friend Ilfracombe shut in 1970 but some brave sods took an inspection saloon up there 5 years later - without any particular pw work inbetween as I understand it - with an eye on reopening it. If you abandon it too long withoiut work reopening turns into a new railway anyway, so there really has to be something inbetween.

I fear that for fully integrated transport we're going to have to devolve a lot more powers ( and budgets! ) to regional authorities than we presently do.

 

[HSTEd]

Problem is devolving powers to regional authorities just gets us lots of silo'd projects designed to keep all transport links inside their feifdoms.

For example, North Wales would probably benefit from a Merseyrail tunnel to Prestatyn, but the Welsh government would never countenance such a thing.

 

[tbtc]

That is a fair point, and I suspect at some point in the not too distant future there will be a not dissimilar argument about "guard only operation" or whatever you call it - much cheaper to replace the double-staffed railway with an automated bus service...

If we're criticising Beeching, we have to accept the realities of the world in which he was operating (I'd be exaggerating if I said that the cheap mobile phone in my pocket had more computing power than NASA needed to put a man on the moon in the 1960s, but it was a very different world - he had to gather data in the best ways possible) - same with the industrial relations of the time - you can make people redundant by closing lines (and introducing buses) but getting railway staff to agree to "flexible" working practices wouldn't have been practical.

One of those examples where it's easier to just close something down than tinker with it, but that's not his fault, that's the world in which he was living at the time.

That's an interesting point regarding origin and destination stations. On balance, while regional suburban stations are important, I don't see why they should be artificially prioritised over coastal resorts.

If you close my local station, I can't use the train, all that income is lost.

If you close a station I occasionally travel to (e.g. a seaside town) then I can still travel from my local station to a number of other leisure destinations.

For example, if they closed Normanton then you'd lose your train service, and BR would lose all that income. If they closed Leeds then you wouldn't be able to travel to the most obvious destination from Normanton but you may still have services to alternative destinations like Wakefield/ Huddersfield/ Sheffield.

I appreciate that it's hard to come up with "rules" for assessing things like income streams, there'll always be someone who loses out. For example, if you attribute half of the Normanton - Leeds revenue to Leeds (even though 99% of passengers travelling between those two specific stations will be people going from the small town to the big city - no offence, but that's obviously the relationship between the two places) then that removes half of the revenue from Normanton, that would mean that the income attributed to all of the "suburban" stations would drop by 50%, which may have lead to many more closures (okay, Whitby would get 50% share of a couple of Normanton - Whitby leisure trips a year but by the same logic, Normanton would lose 50% of the ticket office income at Normanton, which may make those kind of local stations uneconomic - but would make bit city stations like Leeds look to be generating significantly more revenue for people who use it as a "destination")

York -Beverley is Dr Beeching's example. I have a few top examples, but to take that one, having the route via Selby is important, but it doesn't help Market Weighton, Stamford Bridge or Pocklington.

It's bad news for a handful of small places, sure, but your alternative would mean splitting the York - Hull passengers between two routes (and the demand from York to Hull has been so low that it remained one of the few lines not to have at least an hourly service (until Arriva took over the Northern franchise - forgive me, I can't remember when the timetable change in question was, but it used to have two hour gaps in Serco days/ some services terminating at Selby, so it's not a busy route - spread that revenue between the cost of keeping two York - Hull lines open and it becomes even less economic.

Problem is devolving powers to regional authorities just gets us lots of silo'd projects designed to keep all transport links inside their feifdoms.

For example, North Wales would probably benefit from a Merseyrail tunnel to Prestatyn, but the Welsh government would never countenance such a thing.

I'm increasingly against "devolving" railway powers - just have to look at the Welsh plan for a Chester avoiding line, since shaving a couple of minutes off the Holyhead - Cardiff journey times is more important than serving a significant place and railway hub (that happens to be over the border in England) - "devolved" powers encourages the kind of arrangements where electrification ends at PTE boundaries and frequencies drop off a cliff if you want to go beyond - need more joined up thinking, not isolationist policies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm increasingly against "devolving" railway powers - just have to look at the Welsh plan for a Chester avoiding line, since shaving a couple of minutes off the Holyhead - Cardiff journey times is more important than serving a significant place and railway hub (that happens to be over the border in England) - "devolved" powers encourages the kind of arrangements where electrification ends at PTE boundaries and frequencies drop off a cliff if you want to go beyond - need more joined up thinking, not isolationist policies.

Were they seriously proposing that? There lies the land of pet projects - people in North Wales want to go to Liverpool, Manchester and Chester, not to Cardiff. There's a good reason for which lines in Wales survived - they very much directly represent the actual travel demands in Wales, and mirror the road network too.

 

[Glenn1969]

I would say in my area one of the mistakes is the reduction of Bradford rail to a backwater and the loss of all connectivity Bradford- Wakefield (barring a limited service), Bradford- Dewsbury and Dewsbury- Wakefield. My area (Ovenden) had a rail link to Bradford that closed before Beeching and before the area was urbanised. It is listed for Mass Transit in the WY 2040 vision so we will see what transpires

 

[IanXC]

Going back to the report, I think that for the first two worked examples, he probably had a point in closure, but York - Beverley via Market Weighton stands out as a route which even taking account of the information available at the time, shouldn't have been closed.

This example always stands out to me too. The local management, knowing that such closures and cost reductions were in the offing, had chosen this line as a route to trial singling and signalling rationalisation (the first lifting boom level crossing was installed on this line in this era).

Arguments about the line being a duplicate aren't really relevant. There is little market even today from York to/from stations Wressle to Hessle, so it would have been perfectly plausible at the time for York to Hull (and its now closed intermediates) to be served by a service via Market Weighton, and for York to Selby and Selby to Hull to be served by services that run only on those portions (remember where the ECML went at that time).

 

[yorksrob]

This example always stands out to me too. The local management, knowing that such closures and cost reductions were in the offing, had chosen this line as a route to trial singling and signalling rationalisation (the first lifting boom level crossing was installed on this line in this era).

Arguments about the line being a duplicate aren't really relevant. There is little market even today from York to/from stations Wressle to Hessle, so it would have been perfectly plausible at the time for York to Hull (and its now closed intermediates) to be served by a service via Market Weighton, and for York to Selby and Selby to Hull to be served by services that run only on those portions (remember where the ECML went at that time).

Indeed. I think the Market Weighton route would have been a more lucrative intermediate market for a York - Hull service.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The Market Weighton line had a very large number of staffed level crossings and would have cost a disproportionate amount of (unavailable) investment cash to modernise. The first British automatic half barrier level crossing (on an entirely different route on a different region, at Spath) was still in its trial evaluation phase. And not all the crossings would have been suitable for automation anyway.

Market Weighton and Pocklington were pretty small (c. 4,000 population each), largely self-contained country towns generating relatively little travel either inwards or outwards despite a resource-hungry service pattern that needed no fewer than four separate units/crews in the peak notwithstanding long gaps at other times.

I see the old favourite "lucrative" gets another outing (alongside "useful", "handy", "worthwhile", etc.).

Anyone got any figures as to how lucrative?