Short-sightedness of 1960s line closures

[RobShipway]

As some have stated, there was many lines that got closed prior to the mid 1960's such as the Bluebell line, which I believe got closed in the early 1950's, I believe in 1954?

The Bluebell Railway was later reopened by a group of enthusiasts in 1959.

The above having been said, the Horsted Keynes – Haywards Heath line section did close in 1963.

The problem for many lines closed, is that you needed a strong group of enthusiasts to either keep the lines open or keep the routes from being developed, which would not have been easy with the population in the UK through the 1960's to today have potentially doubled in size. Hence, why there is less and less woodland around in the UK today, then there was say in the 1960's.

Unfortunately, many enthusiasts find it difficult to take emotions out of the equation on this issue. The reality, in my opinion, is that Beeching was right in identifying that the railway does well in shifting bulk freight and providing intercity passenger links and commuter flows into large cities. It will always be marginal when it comes to connecting small towns, and even less relevant the smaller the settlement.

Times change and the idea that many lines that were built to meet nineteenth century requirements for freight could match twenty-first century passenger needs is fantasy. Personal door to door transport is hard for any system to compete against. Economic activity has moved beyond central business districts. Working patterns have changed. Leisure time and disposable income have risen.

Rail has its niche and does well for connecting city centres and providing some suburban flows into cities. However, it will never match the flexibility of the car for connecting suburb with suburb or small towns. For most people, rail is an irrelevance that they may, at best, use a couple of times a year. Celebrate what rail does well, but be realistic on its limitations.

I have to agree with the above 100%.

I would also add though, that rail possibly cannot compete with local bus services either with people having close to door service to get them from home to work or place that they are travelling too.

The only rail system that would be able to compete, would be to build tram systems in many more places than we have in the UK today.

 

[daodao]

Except it really doesn't, because the narrowest part of the pipe is Castlefield through to Salford Crescent. Not a lack of space at Victoria.

AIUI there are 4 through tracks at Victoria - that's loads of capacity. The problem is the two track sections further west.

If Victoria had more platforms accessible from the west, it would help to solve the problems caused by the 2 track line through Castlefield, e.g. by diverting all Southport line trains to Victoria.

 

[Philip]

Unfortunately, many enthusiasts find it difficult to take emotions out of the equation on this issue. The reality, in my opinion, is that Beeching was right in identifying that the railway does well in shifting bulk freight and providing intercity passenger links and commuter flows into large cities. It will always be marginal when it comes to connecting small towns, and even less relevant the smaller the settlement.

Times change and the idea that many lines that were built to meet nineteenth century requirements for freight could match twenty-first century passenger needs is fantasy. Personal door to door transport is hard for any system to compete against. Economic activity has moved beyond central business districts. Working patterns have changed. Leisure time and disposable income have risen.

Rail has its niche and does well for connecting city centres and providing some suburban flows into cities. However, it will never match the flexibility of the car for connecting suburb with suburb or small towns. For most people, rail is an irrelevance that they may, at best, use a couple of times a year. Celebrate what rail does well, but be realistic on its limitations.

What people cannot deny is that rail is a much more efficient form of transport than using the car and always has been - one vehicle to transport up to hundreds of passengers compared with one vehicle to transport between 1 and 7 passengers. It also provides a much bigger employment scope; and it was a much bigger jobs market before the closures.

Supposing a UK scenario where no motorways were built and all of the money spent on motorways was instead directed at upgrading the pre-1960s railway up to the Germany or Japan standard for example; and the railway returned its mid-19th century status as the principle mode of transport.

 

[Bald Rick]

What people cannot deny is that rail is a much more efficient form of transport than using the car and always has been - one vehicle to transport up to hundreds of passengers compared with one vehicle to transport between 1 and 7 passengers.

it’s efficient at moving high volumes travelling the same journey, particularly over medium to long distances.

it is not efficient, at all, at shifting low volumes.

For example, it would be far more efficient (and better for the environment) to replace the Stranraer line with a small fleet of taxis for the volume it generates.

 

[zwk500]

What people cannot deny is that rail is a much more efficient form of transport than using the car and always has been - one vehicle to transport up to hundreds of passengers compared with one vehicle to transport between 1 and 7 passengers. It also provides a much bigger employment scope.

This entire paragraph is wrong from the perspective of an individual user, which is the perspective of 99% of the decisions being made about which mode of transport to use.
The car is available all the time, most of the cost is hidden or deferred, it is flexible in its destinations and you can leave it outside your destination ready to take you home as soon as your finished. The train on the other hand requires making your way to a station, waiting for the train's 60-second call, then stopping off at lots of other places you have no intention of visiting that day before being dropped off not especially near your destination, needing a further walk/bus to get to your actual office. You are constrained by the timetable and services offered, and employment is limited to a linear string of locations depending on what services your local station has.

 

[Eyersey468]

I can see your point but are there not lines in England and Wales still open through rural areas? Are the areas with poor road connections or nowhere near other stations?

I guess the point is whoy are some rural lines viable but not others.

I suspect quite a few rural lines that were saved were reprieved for political reasons

 

[Falcon1200]

I'm thinking about Nottingham, where Victoria station right in the heart of the city and on a north-south axis with a tunnelled route under the city got demolished, while the badly located Midland station stuck out on the edge of the city was retained, that was massively short-sighted.

The Great Central London extension is a perfect example of a line that should never have been built; By the time it was, every single place of significance it served already had a main line rail connection. Its purpose was to divert traffic away from competing companies and the moment the railways were nationalised, its fate was sealed. And while I agree that Victoria was better located than Midland, there is no way that Midland, or the Midland Main Line, could have been closed had the GC been retained instead.

 

[yorksrob]

The fundamental problem is that as a society, we have taken too long to move from railway - as a business that should pay its way - to a public service requiring support like any other.

Had this change in mindset occurred earlier, we may have had a more sensible evaluation of some routes.

It's worth noting that even with the advent of the "social railway" in the later 1960's, a proposed closure could only be opposed on the absurdly limited grounds of "hardship".

 

[nw1]

There was never a direct 'Bournemouth - Exeter' line though.......

Sorry, I didn't mean that - I meant that retaining one of the links north of Bournemouth (to Salisbury or to Templecombe) would have allowed more direct journeys west from Bournemouth.

And the Midland & South West Junction Railway (Southampton - Swindon) was a pre-Beeching closure - and travelling via Reading was almost certainly quicker even then.

My thoughts were that keeping these sorts of lines open would have allowed the trunk routes to be less congested, would have allowed cheaper fares (as using prime IC trains or travelling via busy hubs like Reading in the peak often attracts a premium) and would have provided service between intermediate towns (Southampton-Andover and Andover-Swindon, for instance).

However as I said in my original post I do recognise that priorities were different then.

 

[Eyersey468]

It's worth noting that even with the advent of the "social railway" in the later 1960's, a proposed closure could only be opposed on the absurdly limited grounds of "hardship".

Wasn't hardship defined in such a way that if a replacement bus service could be provided then it was deemed no hardship was caused?

 

[yorksrob]

Wasn't hardship defined in such a way that if a replacement bus service could be provided then it was deemed no hardship was caused?

I would have to read up on it again to be sure, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Eyersey468]

I would have to read up on it again to be sure, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I also have a feeling a lot of the replacement bus services only lasted about a couple of years before being withdrawn as hardly anyone used them

 

[yorksrob]

I also have a feeling a lot of the replacement bus services only lasted about a couple of years before being withdrawn as hardly anyone used them

Yes, this is true.

An interesting point to note is that the Marshlink (which now enjoys full and standing four carriage trains at times) only got a reprieve because the replacement bus service fell through for some reason

 

[tbtc]

The other thing often forgotten was lack of capital - to a great extent the length of the surviving network was dictated by how much rolling stock was available for local trains. Beeching actually asked for more DEMUs and had he got them quite a few of the marginal closures on the Southern might have been avoided.

Good points

I know that some people like to think that there were “sensible” middle grounds where we could have compromise between the Status Quo and the level of cuts Beeching etc imposed but the practicalities are much messier

Would we have had to build hundreds of diesel locomotives, since a lot of the scrapped lines were steam operated?

Similarly, a lot of lines were in a bad way with their nineteenth century engineering, so might need to have had a lot of money spent on them to properly keep open

The “bill” of new trains and huge infrastructure costs would have made it much easier to make the decision to close a line instead

Predicting future transport needs is fraught with difficulty, over 20 years never mind 60. Take for example the Glasgow & South Western route between Kilmarnock and Gretna Jc via Dumfries; Earlier this century there was a heavy traffic of coal trains between Scottish opencast sites and Hunterston Port, and English power stations; Resulting in Thornhill SB, which had been permanently switched out for years, being brought back into use with an Up Loop being provided there, the Long Lyes at Kilmarnock being constructed for coal trains to run round, and last but certainly not least, redoubling between Annan and Gretna Jc. Now ? That coal traffic has almost, if not totally, disappeared, and most of the time the sole use of the route is 2-car DMUs on stopping passenger trains. Therefore IMHO it is unfair to accuse the planners and politicians of the past of short sightedness when no-one can accurately predict the future.

Good points, I thought that Ayrshire coal trains would be running for decades longer, but that’s the reality of the market.

We spend ten million here and ten million there on infrastructure required, then the demand evaporate, but planners get called “short sighted”!

There are some reopening proposals that are absolutely bonkers. The tell tale sign for me is the attitude towards new lines. A short new alignment to connect Skelmersdale (population 38,000) to Liverpool and Manchester doesn't have the same level of enthusiast support as reopening rural routes.

Skelmersdale is a brilliant example - there seems more enthusiasts wanting railways to places like Hawes than seem bothered about a town that would be a busy EMU commute into Liverpool/ Manchester

The problem is we're left with no Pennine crossing between the Tyne and the Aire. The A66 is being dualled which indicates the level of demand along the route

But the A66 is busy with lots of different demands, there’s not one flow

If it were predominantly full of cars/ coaches/ trucks between Keswick and Redcar then, sure, I’d suggest that heavy rail tried to compete, but it’s a combination of lots of small long distance journeys that one train wouldn’t help most of

The fundamental problem is that as a society, we have taken too long to move from railway - as a business that should pay its way - to a public service requiring support like any other.

Had this change in mindset occurred earlier, we may have had a more sensible evaluation of some routes

Pretty much all railways were built by nineteenth century capitalists to make profit

“Profit” is a dirty word to a lot of enthusiasts nowadays, but that’s the reality of it. These industrialists weren’t trying to construct a “social” railway, they were trying to make cash getting goods (and people) across land better than our roads/canals managed

Only decades later, as their lines were looking inefficient compared to modern more cars/ trucks etc, did this “public service” justification come in to it, to demand subsidy

“A public sector service requiring support” is a nice sounding slogan but there are still limits to how much money governments want to keep spaffing on branch lines that are better suited to minibuses, or even taxis!

 

[yorksrob]

Good points

I know that some people like to think that there were “sensible” middle grounds where we could have compromise between the Status Quo and the level of cuts Beeching etc imposed but the practicalities are much messier

Would we have had to build hundreds of diesel locomotives, since a lot of the scrapped lines were steam operated?

Similarly, a lot of lines were in a bad way with their nineteenth century engineering, so might need to have had a lot of money spent on them to properly keep open

The “bill” of new trains and huge infrastructure costs would have made it much easier to make the decision to close a line instead



Good points, I thought that Ayrshire coal trains would be running for decades longer, but that’s the reality of the market.

We spend ten million here and ten million there on infrastructure required, then the demand evaporate, but planners get called “short sighted”!



Skelmersdale is a brilliant example - there seems more enthusiasts wanting railways to places like Hawes than seem bothered about a town that would be a busy EMU commute into Liverpool/ Manchester



But the A66 is busy with lots of different demands, there’s not one flow

If it were predominantly full of cars/ coaches/ trucks between Keswick and Redcar then, sure, I’d suggest that heavy rail tried to compete, but it’s a combination of lots of small long distance journeys that one train wouldn’t help most of



Pretty much all railways were built by nineteenth century capitalists to make profit

“Profit” is a dirty word to a lot of enthusiasts nowadays, but that’s the reality of it. These industrialists weren’t trying to construct a “social” railway, they were trying to make cash getting goods (and people) across land better than our roads/canals managed

Only decades later, as their lines were looking inefficient compared to modern more cars/ trucks etc, did this “public service” justification come in to it, to demand subsidy

“A public sector service requiring support” is a nice sounding slogan but there are still limits to how much money governments want to keep spaffing on branch lines that are better suited to minibuses, or even taxis!

Your point about having to build lots of diesel locos is incorrect in that many DMU's had already been built for local services and ended up cascaded to busier routes for which they were less suited as a result.

I don't really see the purposes for which a railway was built as necessarily relevant to its use 100+ years later, any more than the fact that certain trunk roads were built to shuffle Roman legions around the country, being particularly relevant to their use today.

 

[Killingworth]

I would have to read up on it again to be sure, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Transport Minister Barbara Castle has been lauded for saving the Hope Valley line because her parents had taken her camping to Edale so she knew there was no bus service there. Probably not true but maybe it did make a small difference. Lack of a bus service was often cited as a reason to retain services but that alone may not have been enough to save a line or station.

Railway closures carried on inexorably under Labour; the tide was turning so sharply in favour of flexible road transport- and that quickly caught up with bus services too.

Post Covid the slump in bus traffic has been even greater than for rail, but that's another story.

 

[yorksrob]

Transport Minister Barbara Castle has been lauded for saving the Hope Valley line because her parents had taken her camping to Edale so she knew there was no bus service there. Probably not true but maybe it did make a small difference. Lack of a bus service was often cited as a reason to retain services but that alone may not have been enough to save a line or station.

Railway closures carried on inexorably under Labour; the tide was turning so sharply in favour of flexible road transport- and that quickly caught up with bus services too.

Post Covid the slump in bus traffic has been even greater than for rail, but that's another story.

The lack of a suitable bus (albeit a school one) undoubtedly led to the retention of the Whitby line. If only someone had come to a similar conclusion about Bodmin Road - Padstow !

 

[A0]

Transport Minister Barbara Castle has been lauded for saving the Hope Valley line because her parents had taken her camping to Edale so she knew there was no bus service there. Probably not true but maybe it did make a small difference. Lack of a bus service was often cited as a reason to retain services but that alone may not have been enough to save a line or station.

Railway closures carried on inexorably under Labour; the tide was turning so sharply in favour of flexible road transport- and that quickly caught up with bus services too.

Post Covid the slump in bus traffic has been even greater than for rail, but that's another story.

But be careful - because the trade off was BR closed both the Matlock - Buxton and subsequently Woodhead lines as a result.

Beeching proposed closing the Hope Valley but retaining Manchester - Derby services via Matlock and Manchester - Sheffield services via Woodhead.

 

[RT4038]

Would we have had to build hundreds of diesel locomotives, since a lot of the scrapped lines were steam operated?

Diesel locomotives, or more likely, DMU cars. Beeching cancelled an order for 800 DMU vehicles early in his Chairmanship, presumably when he realised that the fleet already purchased was going to be seriously surplus in view of the reshaping plan

Your point about having to build lots of diesel locos is incorrect in that many DMU's had already been built for local services and ended up cascaded to busier routes for which they were less suited as a result.

They were less suited, but cheaper to run and maintain, and the more problematic diesel locomotive classes were scrapped instead. Collapsing freight traffic obviously facilitated this too. However, if the railways had not been rationalised, it is quite possible the 800 cancelled cars would have been required to replace steam locomotives.

The lack of a suitable bus (albeit a school one) undoubtedly led to the retention of the Whitby line. If only someone had come to a similar conclusion about Bodmin Road - Padstow !

Presumably because (a) the suitable road network exists, and (b) the comparable school movements don't.

But the A66 is busy with lots of different demands, there’s not one flow

If it were predominantly full of cars/ coaches/ trucks between Keswick and Redcar then, sure, I’d suggest that heavy rail tried to compete, but it’s a combination of lots of small long distance journeys that one train wouldn’t help most of

The heavy traffic on the A66 is going from the A1 (eastern side of the country) to the Central belt of Scotland. The railway has alternative routes for this, and Railways can direct the route of traffic, which roads cannot practicably. The Stainmore line would be largely irrelevant for anything apart from minor flows, which is why it closed pre Reshaping report.

 

[yorksrob]

They were less suited, but cheaper to run and maintain, and the more problematic diesel locomotive classes were scrapped instead. Collapsing freight traffic obviously facilitated this too. However, if the railways had not been rationalised, it is quite possible the 800 cancelled cars would have been required to replace steam locomotives.


Presumably because (a) the suitable road network exists, and (b) the comparable school movements don't.

A very windy and hilly road network, but yes, the bus seemed to make it there eventually.

 

[A0]

Branch lines to places like Bridport closed in the early 70s.

Would these have more chance of being useful today or did they just remain open as the roads were not up to a good enough standard whilst open?

In other words, does how late a line closed have any bearing on how useful it might be today? I'm excluding those closed and replaced by trams or guided busways.

The problem with the Bridport branch is it didn't go where people wanted to go - it went cross country to Maiden Newton. Yet the main facilities people would have wanted are at Dorchester and Weymouth.

Had the Southampton and Dorchester railway extended to Exeter (as was their plan) then I suspect such a line would have shadowed the A35 and served Bridport - and that may well have survived. But Bridport - Maiden Newton branch wasn't any real use.

 

[RT4038]

Transport Minister Barbara Castle has been lauded for saving the Hope Valley line because her parents had taken her camping to Edale so she knew there was no bus service there. Probably not true but maybe it did make a small difference. Lack of a bus service was often cited as a reason to retain services but that alone may not have been enough to save a line or station.

In the majority of cases, 'lack of bus service' was resolved by putting one on! In a very small number of cases lines were saved because this was not practicable (Whitby for instance) or until roads could be constructed to facilitate (Alston), or that the local bus company did not have the resources to provide one (Bedford-Bletchley, Watford-St Albans). There were cases with intermediate stations (on lines which were going to retain services) where the cost of replacement bus services were greater than retaining the station.

 

[A0]

I can see your point but are there not lines in England and Wales still open through rural areas? Are the areas with poor road connections or nowhere near other stations?

I guess the point is whoy are some rural lines viable but not others.

I agree - there are. The point I was making is the closure of the Borders Line was probably the most extreme in terms of isolating communities. The only comparable one would have been if the Heart of Wales line had closed (which was slated for closure by Beeching but over-ruled by the Labour govt of 64-70, something to do with lots of Labour seats it is claimed).

 

[A0]

The problem is we're left with no Pennine crossing between the Tyne and the Aire. The A66 is being dualled which indicates the level of demand along the route.

Of course at the time there was insufficient demand as the West Cumbrian pits had closed, but we are talking 'with hindsight'.

The dualling of the A66 is as much about safety as anything else though. You have, among other things, tractors using it which struggle to hit 30 mph and pretty much everything else is capable of overtaking them. Add in a number of fairly dangerous 'at level' junctions, which again will be remedied as part of the dualling. Most of the serious accidents on that road occur on the single carriageway sections or at the junctions.

 

[Mikey C]

Yes the cuts went too far, but the "keep everything open" argument doesn't work either, as you end up spending a fortune keeping lightly used routes open, money which can't be used to upgrade and electrify the routes that ARE busy.

And people talk about the Motorway programme as if this was some horrible "Anglo-saxon" anti-rail crusade, when EVERY developed country has a big network of motorway equivalents. Indeed when I compare the UK with mainland Europe, the public transport failing here isn't the closure of quiet branch lines originally opened to transport fish or milk to the cities, or the removal of duplicated rail lines, but rather the closure of the tram network in towns and cities, and the collapse of the bus network.

 

[The Planner]

And lets be honest, we didn't even build all of what was planned anyway, or it was delayed and watered down. London Ringways, M12, M23, M31, Strensham - Solihull, Glasgow motorways, M64, etc etc

 

[daodao]

collapse of the bus network.

This is particularly poignant now. Quite a number of bus routes are now disappearing that provided substitute services for rail closures in the 1950s and 1960s, e.g. Melton Mowbray-Nottingham, Newent-Ledbury.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes the cuts went too far, but the "keep everything open" argument doesn't work either, as you end up spending a fortune keeping lightly used routes open, money which can't be used to upgrade and electrify the routes that ARE busy.

And people talk about the Motorway programme as if this was some horrible "Anglo-saxon" anti-rail crusade, when EVERY developed country has a big network of motorway equivalents. Indeed when I compare the UK with mainland Europe, the public transport failing here isn't the closure of quiet branch lines originally opened to transport fish or milk to the cities, or the removal of duplicated rail lines, but rather the closure of the tram network in towns and cities, and the collapse of the bus network.

It goes to illustrate that in reality, bus services have always been "here today, gone tomorrow" and we should have been a lot more selective about which railway routes were closed.

The closure of "duplicate" routes was a big public transport failing, because in most cases they served intermediate settlements.

 

[tbtc]

I also have a feeling a lot of the replacement bus services only lasted about a couple of years before being withdrawn as hardly anyone used them

The fact that demand between two places wasn’t sufficient to sustain a bus (with may will have been one person operation, certainly didn’t have many other costs associated) generally seems proof that heavy rail was never going to be sustainable

the Marshlink (which now enjoys full and standing four carriage trains at times)

… feels like you’ve been a hostage to fortune with these claims before somehow…

Your point about having to build lots of diesel locos is incorrect in that many DMU's had already been built for local services and ended up cascaded to busier routes for which they were less suited as a result

If we kept dozens of extra lines open then we’d have needed hundreds of DMU carriages to operate them

Rob Porter to pay Paul as much as you want but there’d have been an opportunity cost to keeping all of these lines open (on top of increasing annual subsidies etc)

I don't really see the purposes for which a railway was built as necessarily relevant to its use 100+ years later, any more than the fact that certain trunk roads were built to shuffle Roman legions around the country, being particularly relevant to their use today.

It’s the way you talk about how it took unenlightened Britain far too long to realise that the true purpose of the railways should always have been a massively subsidised “social” network (rather than it being intended as a practical solution to large flows of passengers/ goods, which people only tried to ascribe the “social” side to once it started failing)

The lack of a suitable bus (albeit a school one) undoubtedly led to the retention of the Whitby line. If only someone had come to a similar conclusion about Bodmin Road - Padstow !

The fact that your biggest regrets / priorities are as minor as Bodmin to Padstow says a lot

the public transport failing here isn't the closure of quiet branch lines originally opened to transport fish or milk to the cities, or the removal of duplicated rail lines, but rather the closure of the tram network in towns and cities, and the collapse of the bus network.

Complete agreement

We’ll probably have lost more significant bus routes during covid than the rail routes closed by Beeching

I don’t think that a lot of Railway people realise how badly hit bus networks have permanently been (Sorry to hear that you currently need to change trains to get from Bournemouth to Newcastle, but there are a lot of suburbs/ villages that have lost their last public transport in the last couple of years with little hope of it coming back

 

[WAO]

Two points stand out to me on the Beeching closures.

1. There seems to be a correlation between closed lines and heavy gradients, i.e the problems of traction on the grades (S&D, the SR to Plymouth, the Waverley route, even the GCR, etc)

2. Lines were built both to meet existing transport demand and also to anticipate it, admittedly with duplication. WW1 and 2 and de-industrialisation put paid to regional growth, leaving many lines without enough traffic - Beeching's targets.

While the 1960's railway was nearer to that of 1860 by modern standards, its quality did still stimulate passenger traffic which replacement buses promptly lost. The doubling of passenger volume in recent years in spite of better roads and cars shows what could be done.

WAO