Short-sightedness of 1960s line closures

[RT4038]

What about Louth station?


East Lincolshire railway wanted to reopen the line but BR made sure they sold it off before they had the chance. Or at least according to the ELR site anyway.

Well, they would say that. Where they going to pay the market price for it, and when? I am sure if the East Lincolnshire Railway had stumped up the asked for cash immediately it would have been theirs. No-one has re-opened a line other than for primarily heritage purposes.

 

[BayPaul]

I find the idea that valuable and expensive to maintain land that had already been decided was no longer of use as a railway, should have been protected from development for 70 years, just in case it might be useful in the future pretty laughable.

As another poster has mentioned, I'd argue a much greater loss to modern Britain were the dozens of urban tramlines. Had they survived to the point where they could have become modern mass transit systems, our cities would probably be very different places.

 

[NoRoute]

I find the idea that valuable and expensive to maintain land that had already been decided was no longer of use as a railway, should have been protected from development for 70 years, just in case it might be useful in the future pretty laughable.

In most cases people are talking about the land associated with the route, the track-bed and this could have been protected by converting it into a footpath or cycle route, which has been done in some cases.

As another poster has mentioned, I'd argue a much greater loss to modern Britain were the dozens of urban tramlines. Had they survived to the point where they could have become modern mass transit systems, our cities would probably be very different places.

What loss has occurred here? Most urban tram routes ran along roads and the roads still exist, they haven't been closed, it isn't feasible to leave the worn, disused tram rails in the road for 70+ years, but if you had the money to rebuild the tramlines many could be run along the same routes today. It isn't like the disused railway example, where 97% of the route is still available but someone has built something in the middle 3% of it.

 

[yorksrob]

But buying stock outright means you get stuck with the overhaul costs, which are very lumpy items for a TOC to fund. So it’s not a direct comparison.

Also where does this 3% figure come in? TOCs are not earning that - they are on management fees now.

I doubt the maintenance costs amount to three times the outright cost of construction, particularly when you can run the depreciated asset into the ground.

The 3% figure is the one often touted on here and in the media as the average profit of the various railway companies, as though its some trifling figure.

 

[43074]

My point was that it’s not politically acceptable now, however the tide is turning on that. With the current level of industrial action closing much of the railway for 13% of the summer so far, the politicians patience will only go so far. If action escalates and continues much longer, it’s not too much of a stretch to hear politicians say “well it’s closed half the time anyway, 95% of the community isn’t inconvenienced, therefore we may as well save £20m a year and close the line to (wherever).“

That is a very cynical take on it. The politicians interventions are only exacerbating and prolonging the IR tensions. If TOCs were allowed to negotiate with a free hand the dispute would be over next week judging by Steve White's (MD of Southeastern) recent tweet.

 

[yorksrob]

That’s easy, it will be by the same definition that transport decisions are taken by the DfT now, ie using the standard transport business case assessment methodology.



My point was that it’s not politically acceptable now, however the tide is turning on that. With the current level of industrial action closing much of the railway for 13% of the summer so far, the politicians patience will only go so far. If action escalates and continues much longer, it’s not too much of a stretch to hear politicians say “well it’s closed half the time anyway, 95% of the community isn’t inconvenienced, therefore we may as well save £20m a year and close the line to (wherever).“

The profit / leasing company issue is of no concern to the current politicians. It might be of concern to others of course

Well, the community adapts, but it doesn't follow that its not inconvenienced (although I wouldn't put it past the government to put such a cloth-eared interpretation on it).

Chopping routes is the most visible and divisive 'saving' that could be made on the railway and would be a good way to create a lot of enemies in a concentrated geographical area (like a constituency).

 

[joebassman]

Why were some of the little used stations kept open and yet more busy ones closed?

For example Berney Arms or Needham Market reopened. Needham isn't a particularly big area and even before the covid I hardly ever saw anyone using it.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Needham isn't a particularly big area and even before the covid I hardly ever saw anyone using it.

Needham Market had annual passenger stats of 100,000 in each of the years immediately before COVID-19 hit. That would have been around some 275 per day.

 

[Magdalia]

For example Berney Arms or Needham Market reopened. Needham isn't a particularly big area and even before the covid I hardly ever saw anyone using it.

Berney Arms has never been closed, though it has had periods without any trains.

Needham Market is a bit of an anomaly. It was closed in 1967 when the stopping service between Norwich and Ipswich was withdrawn. It then took 4 years to get BR to stop the Cambridge line trains there.

A similar example is Magdalen Road, now Watlington. This was closed in 1968, when the Kings Lynn-March service was withdrawn, but reopened in 1975.

 

[joebassman]

Berney Arms has never been closed, though it has had periods without any trains.

Needham Market is a bit of an anomaly. It was closed in 1967 when the stopping service between Norwich and Ipswich was withdrawn. It then took 4 years to get BR to stop the Cambridge line trains there.

A similar example is Magdalen Road, now Watlington. This was closed in 1968, when the Kings Lynn-March service was withdrawn, but reopened in 1975.

I meant why was Berney Arms never closed?

Though I see that I made it sound like I was saying it was reopened, I meant Needham Market.

 

[Bald Rick]

That is a very cynical take on it.

That might be your take on it. It’s not mine.

The politicians interventions are only exacerbating and prolonging the IR tensions.

I don’t disagree. Now why might they be doing that?

If TOCs were allowed to negotiate with a free hand the dispute would be over next week judging by Steve White's (MD of Southeastern) recent tweet.

That depends what you mean by ’free hand’. If you mean ‘open chequebook’, then it’s not going to happen.

Chopping routes is the most visible and divisive 'saving' that could be made on the railway and would be a good way to create a lot of enemies in a concentrated geographical area (like a constituency).

In some places, yes. In others, I’m not so sure it would create lots of enemies.

 

[Magdalia]

I meant why was Berney Arms never closed?

Have you ever been there? If you had then you would see why. Read about it here:

Berney Arms: The hamlet that has all but disappeared

What does the future hold for an isolated hamlet surrounded by marshland in Norfolk?

www.bbc.co.uk

It is an excellent example of an economic lifeline.

 

[43074]

That might be your take on it. It’s not mine.

I don’t disagree. Now why might they be doing that?

That depends what you mean by ’free hand’. If you mean ‘open chequebook’, then it’s not going to happen.

If you're implying that the reason for exacerbating and prolonging the strikes is to create a climate in which closures are politically acceptable then that is cynical in my book!

Also how in your opinion can the government parrot it's line about 'reversing Beeching' etc then start implementing station and line closures? Even the most stupid political operator can see the contradiction there surely.

 

[MarkyT]

If you're implying that the reason for exacerbating and prolonging the strikes is to create a climate in which closures are politically acceptable then that is cynical in my book!

Also how in your opinion can the government parrot it's line about 'reversing Beeching' etc then start implementing station and line closures? Even the most stupid political operator can see the contradiction there surely.

But crucially please, that's not Bald Rick's cynicism. He's just calling it as he sees it. There's a very real existential threat to parts of the industry from the drawn-out bitter fight this 'government' seems intent on mounting against the unions, initially rail but probably others later as well. That's also being fought against a mounting atmosphere of shrill climate denialism from people bought and paid for by big oil, car and plane, who seem now to be in the ascendency. We're in for 'interesting' and frankly potentially soul-destroying (as well as possibly planet-destroying) times I fear, but watch this fast-pivoting bunch of crooks blame it all on the unions, net zero and the EU.

 

[Bald Rick]

If you're implying that the reason for exacerbating and prolonging the strikes is to create a climate in which closures are politically acceptable then that is cynical in my book!

I’m not implying that, sorry if that’s how it came across.

Also how in your opinion can the government parrot it's line about 'reversing Beeching' etc then start implementing station and line closures? Even the most stupid political operator can see the contradiction there surely.

I expect officials in Government are wrestling with that very concept, or more accurately: which services are going to have to be withdrawn to free up cash pay for the new services to Okehampton, Ashington, Portishead, Fawley, etc.

 

[joebassman]

The Serpell Report shows that thinking to slash back the network to a much smaller profitable core was still around in the early 1980s

Wasn't mass closures just one of 4 options offered in the report, rather than a recommendation of what should happen?

 

[zwk500]

Also how in your opinion can the government parrot it's line about 'reversing Beeching' etc then start implementing station and line closures? Even the most stupid political operator can see the contradiction there surely.

Given how little the government have cared about accuracy, consistency or truthfulness in their previous statements I expect they will follow the exact same strategy they have been doing for years. They'll lie.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Wasn't mass closures just one of 4 options offered in the report, rather than a recommendation of what should happen?

All the options included network reduction of varying severity. Thatcher eventually concluded that the whole idea was too controversial and kicked it into the long grass. It was only Major's determination to create a legacy that finally led to the quasi-privatisation that we continue to suffer with today though at least he too recognised that route closures were unacceptable. I'm not sure I trust the current incarnation of Conservative government to avoid such controversy.

 

[steamybrian]

I meant why was Berney Arms never closed?

Though I see that I made it sound like I was saying it was reopened, I meant Needham Market.

According to Wikipedia-

Berney Arms railway station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When Mr. Berney sold the land for the railway to be constructed it was a condition that a station be built and a train service be provided.

 

[Eyersey468]

Given how little the government have cared about accuracy, consistency or truthfulness in their previous statements I expect they will follow the exact same strategy they have been doing for years. They'll lie.

Wouldn't surprise me

 

[61653 HTAFC]

All the options included network reduction of varying severity. Thatcher eventually concluded that the whole idea was too controversial and kicked it into the long grass. It was only Major's determination to create a legacy that finally led to the quasi-privatisation that we continue to suffer with today though at least he too recognised that route closures were unacceptable. I'm not sure I trust the current incarnation of Conservative government to avoid such controversy.

Never mind the current Conservative government... if they do announce cuts it won't even be controversial if the postings on this site are anything to go by. There's plenty of "enthusiasts" (very big air-quotes there) sharpening their axes too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2022 ==

According to Wikipedia-

Berney Arms railway station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When Mr. Berney sold the land for the railway to be constructed it was a condition that a station be built and a train service be provided.

How much would be saved by closing Berney Arms? Probably very little, as the line would still be needed for the additional capacity in the summer.

 

[zwk500]

How much would be saved by closing Berney Arms? Probably very little, as the line would still be needed for the additional capacity in the summer.

Could that capacity not be provided more effectively by doubling the route via Acle? There doesn't appear to be any major engineering challenges, it'd make the route more resilient when there's delay and you'd abolish Reedham Junction, which may give opportunities to ease the curvature/cant there. It's a net loss of 4 point ends, I think (No change at Yarmouth, get rid of the 2 at Acle Loop and 3 at Reedham Jn but have to put 1 extra in at Brundall), and having 1 route of double track to maintain is easier than 2 routes of single track.
I'm not saying Berney Arms should close (the cost of getting rid of it probably on it's own makes retention the more sensible option), just that the arguments for keeping it in the 1960/70s don't necessarily apply now.

 

[Bald Rick]

Could that capacity not be provided more effectively by doubling the route via Acle? There doesn't appear to be any major engineering challenges, it'd make the route more resilient when there's delay and you'd abolish Reedham Junction, which may give opportunities to ease the curvature/cant there. It's a net loss of 4 point ends, I think (No change at Yarmouth, get rid of the 2 at Acle Loop and 3 at Reedham Jn but have to put 1 extra in at Brundall), and having 1 route of double track to maintain is easier than 2 routes of single track.
I'm not saying Berney Arms should close (the cost of getting rid of it probably on it's own makes retention the more sensible option), just that the arguments for keeping it in the 1960/70s don't necessarily apply now.

I think spending money doubling via axle to save the cost of the existing line via Berney Arms would be right up there with Aberystwyth - Carmarthen, Dumfries - Stranraer and Skipton - Colne as a criminal waste of taxpayers’ cash.

Whether the Acle line itself has sufficient capacity for Gt Yarmouth traffic is a matter of debate though. I think it does. There are other opinions!

 

[zwk500]

I think spending money doubling via axle to save the cost of the existing line via Berney Arms would be right up there with Aberystwyth - Carmarthen, Dumfries - Stranraer and Skipton - Colne as a criminal waste of taxpayers’ cash.

I did suspect as much

Whether the Acle line itself has sufficient capacity for Gt Yarmouth traffic is a matter of debate though. I think it does. There are other opinions!

Do Greater Anglia strengthen the summer service via Berney Arms to relieve Acle, or do they use other strategies to manage the (presumably highly variable) demand?

 

[yorksrob]

In some places, yes. In others, I’m not so sure it would create lots of enemies.

It would in places served by the routes usually suggested on here.

 

[TheBigD]

Whether the Acle line itself has sufficient capacity for Gt Yarmouth traffic is a matter of debate though. I think it does. There are other opinions!

Truro-Falmouth manages a 30 minute service with just a loop at Penryn, can't see any reason why via Acle can't.
You'd even have a few minutes longer turnaround time at Yarmouth than they do at Falmouth.
Does Acle loop allow trains to arrive simultaneously, or does one train have to be at a stand before the second enters the loop?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2022 ==

Do Greater Anglia strengthen the summer service via Berney Arms to relieve Acle, or do they use other strategies to manage the (presumably highly variable) demand?

The extras that GA run on summer Mondays, Fridays, and Saturdays use both routes. It's complicated by the fact that a couple of times during the day, the normal hourly via Acle service runs via Reedham instead.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure why you'd go to the expense of making infrastructure changes to the Acle route, when you already have capacity in place via Berney Arms.

 

[leytongabriel]

In most cases people are talking about the land associated with the route, the track-bed and this could have been protected by converting it into a footpath or cycle route, which has been done in some cases.



What loss has occurred here? Most urban tram routes ran along roads and the roads still exist, they haven't been closed, it isn't feasible to leave the worn, disused tram rails in the road for 70+ years, but if you had the money to rebuild the tramlines many could be run along the same routes today. It isn't like the disused railway example, where 97% of the route is still available but someone has built something in the middle 3% of it.

There certianly were some lines that weren't in the middle of the road. The Kingsway tram tunnel in London? The Middleton route in Leeds? Manor House tram station in London connecting directly to the Piccadilly line?

 

[eldomtom2]

Point taken, you were referring to the number of casualties back then. But the railway was a very dangerous place too. I have read the records of the British Railways Board meetings in the 1960s. Every meeting would start with approval of payments to families of the railwaymen who had died in accidents while on duty since the last meeting

This gets into the thorny matter of how to compare casualty figures between road and rail in a fair manner. Certainly in absolute numbers road deaths have always far outstripped rail deaths since at least the Second World War, but dividing out those deaths to make for a fair comparison is diffiicult. Then of course there is the even more difficult matter of whether or not a specific closure reduced rail deaths and/or increased road deaths - certainly I would not expect most of the Beeching closures to be accident hotspots compared to the heavily trafficked lines that stayed open, but equally that means the additional cars on the roads would not have been that many...

 

[joebassman]

This gets into the thorny matter of how to compare casualty figures between road and rail in a fair manner. Certainly in absolute numbers road deaths have always far outstripped rail deaths since at least the Second World War, but dividing out those deaths to make for a fair comparison is diffiicult. Then of course there is the even more difficult matter of whether or not a specific closure reduced rail deaths and/or increased road deaths - certainly I would not expect most of the Beeching closures to be accident hotspots compared to the heavily trafficked lines that stayed open, but equally that means the additional cars on the roads would not have been that many...

It could have meant a lot less trucks on the road as well if the government had subsidised rail freight instead of the haulage industry.

And couldn't buses have worked in conjunction with rail instead of competition?