Why was the 1967 Salisbury - Exeter line singling so poorly carried out?

[Grecian 1998]

Whilst there has long been a debate about whether this line should have been singled at all, I'm curious as to why the singling itself seemed to be done so badly. Two general principles of singling routes seem to be:

1. It's better to have loops in stations if possible, so trains can set down and pick up passengers whilst waiting. It also means trains aren't stopping in the middle of the countryside for a few minutes, which tends not to give the impression of a dynamic service.

2. It's prudent to have some flexibility, so that the timetable isn't entirely dependent on trains running to time and to allow insertion of extra trains if required.

The original 1967 layout was as follows. Mileages are approximate:

3 miles double track Exeter St Davids - Pinhoe.
12 miles single track Pinhoe - Honiton. Pinhoe had closed in 1966, so up trains could sit in an empty station awaiting a down train to pass.
Passing loop at Honiton
15 miles single track Honiton - Chard Junction
Passing loop at Chard Junction. Again this had closed previously.
21 miles single track Chard Junction - Sherborne
7 miles double track Sherborne - Templecombe. Templecombe had also closed in 1966, and the double track didn't (and still doesn't) extend into the station anyway.
6 miles single track Templecombe - Gillingham
Passing loop at Gillingham
19 miles single track Gillingham - Wilton South. Down trains might have to wait for up trains And again, Wilton South had closed in 1966.
3 miles double track Wilton South - Salisbury

That's four closed stations where trains could conceivably have to wait, whereas only three open stations - Honiton, Sherborne and Gillingham - had double track in situ.

The original plan proved unworkable, and Yeovil Junction - Sherborne was brought back into use later in 1967 as it hadn't yet been lifted. The other longest single line section between Gillingham and Wilton was eventually split by a loop at Tisbury - although this had to be placed outside the station as the down platform had been sold off, and this remains so today.

Other singling projects such as Kemble - Swindon, Oxted - Uckfield or the Cotswold Line seem to have been carried out more sensibly, albeit AIUI the double track ran out before Ascott-under-Wychwood prior to the 2011 redoubling. So why was Salisbury - Exeter poorly conceived?

The potential reasons I can think of are:

- There was a general belief at the time that the railways were in declined and all bar a handful would close, so there was little need for long-term planning.

- This was the first major singling project of its type and valuable lessons were learned for future projects.

- Operational convenience and cost. There are level crossings at Pinhoe and Chard Junction, so signal boxes presumably needed to be retained. It was cheaper taking platforms out of use and they could be sold off to private sector business.

- The Western Region management of the time wanted to ensure the Waterloo route was permanently downgraded. The conspiracy theorists favourite...

I've thrown in the last one as tradition, but I doubt it's fair - Gerry Fiennes indicates in 'I Tried to Run a Railway' that he did want the line to be run effectively, whereas he quite cheerfully indicates he wanted to see the Great Central closed a few chapters earlier. I suspect it's most likely a mixture of all three of the other reasons I've given. There might not have been a belief the line would close, but there certainly seems to have been a view that it was inconceivable traffic would increase to the extent the infrastructure would prove inadequate. I'd be interested to know if anyone has any other ideas / knowledge.

 

[Taunton]

The WR had done quite a lot of single line rationalisation in the years before this larger project, including the two lines west from Taunton, to Barnstaple and Minehead. The former only lasted a few years before complete closure, the Minehead line a bit longer. Some of the aspects are recognisable. Existing signalboxes retained because of level crossings does seem a key one, dominating over operational aspects. The Minehead branch rationalisation included taking over the former Up Relief on the main line from Norton Fitzwarren to Silk Mill, halfway to Taunton, so the signalbox at the latter main line level crossing could now handle the branch tokens as well. This initial single section was half the branch, to Williton, thereafter there were several boxes retained on the remainder to Minehead.

 

[AngusH]

(No personal knowledge alas)

I note one oddity, that is that this is shortly before the 1968 transport act that gave grants to remove "surplus" infrastructure. (e.g double track)

If it had been a bit later there could have been some grant money in removing the double track sections beyond the actual maintenance savings, but this is before that.

Putting on my conspiracist hat for a moment:

It seems odd that a scheme to single a line would have to be publicly revised and partly undone, just before a new law that gave grants to convert routes to single lines...

Unless they intended to show how much infrastructure was surplus and could be removed, then found that they had removed too much?

 

[Magdalia]

I'm curious as to why the singling itself seemed to be done so badly.

I don't think that you have made a case for that assertion. Your case is based on hindsight not how it looked at the time.

At the time that the line was singled the passenger service was basically a train every 2 hours in each direction. That does not need many passing places.

Also, you seem to be completely forgetting freight.

3 miles double track Exeter St Davids - Pinhoe.
12 miles single track Pinhoe - Honiton. Pinhoe had closed in 1966, so up trains could sit in an empty station awaiting a down train to pass.

I think it goes without saying that double track was needed to Exmouth Junction. The short extension of double track to Pinhoe made sense as Pinhoe had a rail served brickworks and a level crossing.

Passing loop at Chard Junction. Again this had closed previously.

Chard Junction was very important for milk traffic.

Passing loop at Gillingham

Gillingham had inbound fertiliser traffic.

A comparable case is Perth-Inverness which was singled in parts in the 1960s and then double track reinstated shortly after because of the boom in oil related traffic.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Gerry Fiennes did have a high-handed attitude towards the line, however, wanting to reduce the number of intermediate stations to the absolute minimum. This ludicrously included closing Yeovil Jcn until he was disabused of the notion at a particularly stormy public meeting at Yeovil Town Hall. Some other stations were reprieved and others have since reopened (Feniton and Templecombe).

 

[devon_belle]

I think the usual excuses of reducing track maintenance and signalling costs were some of the reasons (forgetting that if you single a line it generally gets twice as much use). Certainly there was still a lot of rivalry between the ex-GWR and ex-SR staff, but whether that would have extended to high level management is unclear to me. Regardless, many of the intermediate stations and branch lines were destined to close no matter who operated the line.

I think most people would agree that it was an attempt by the WR to run down the line as it was a direct competitor to their line into Paddington. While there was some work initially and in the years after singling to mitigate the problems that singling caused, the line's very slow revival only really began with NSE. I think that the WR would have closed the line if given the opportunity - does someone know why they weren't?

One could argue that it would have been singled even if the Southern Region had retained ownership, as it probably would have been electrified like the line to Weymouth, but that is just speculation.

 

[Taunton]

Gerry Fiennes did have a high-handed attitude towards the line, however, wanting to reduce the number of intermediate stations to the absolute minimum. This ludicrously included closing Yeovil Jcn until he was disabused of the notion at a particularly stormy public meeting at Yeovil Town Hall. Some other stations were reprieved and others have since reopened (Feniton and Templecombe).

Of course, significantly part of that was to keep the end-to-end time on Exeter-Salisbury, which was still the principal flow, as reasonable as possible with a Warship and full size train. Given that the Junction-Town shuttle train (a railbus by this time) was to be discontinued, it was felt that the majority who increasingly went by car to the railhead anyway would find it better from Yeovil to drive east to Sherborne, rather than south, quite some miles through country lanes, to the Junction station, which is actually in a different county (Dorset, not Somerset), and if named properly, as Stoford, instead somehow misleadingly belonging to Yeovil, might have got a different dynamic.

Gerry Fiennes was well used to railheading personally, living in Aldeburgh, Suffolk, and driving his black Morris Minor to Saxmundham station daily for the one through, loco-hauled service to Liverpool Street.

If anyone wants a real pick at the line's station arrangements they can start with the Salisbury & Exeter Railway in the 1850s, who built between its two end points, avoiding what were the three principal towns of the early Victorian era along the way, Shaftesbury, Yeovil and Chard by a good few miles each. All doubtless for an economy in construction. The latter two got branch lines from the junction, whereas Shaftesbury got nothing for the comparable distance from Gillingham station, and remained to the end one of the largest traditional towns in southern England with no railway at all.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I think the usual excuses of reducing track maintenance and signalling costs were some of the reasons (forgetting that if you single a line it generally gets twice as much use). Certainly there was still a lot of rivalry between the ex-GWR and ex-SR staff, but whether that would have extended to high level management is unclear to me. Regardless, many of the intermediate stations and branch lines were destined to close no matter who operated the line.

I think most people would agree that it was an attempt by the WR to run down the line as it was a direct competitor to their line into Paddington. While there was some work initially and in the years after singling to mitigate the problems that singling caused, the line's very slow revival only really began with NSE. I think that the WR would have closed the line if given the opportunity - does someone know why they weren't?

One could argue that it would have been singled even if the Southern Region had retained ownership, as it probably would have been electrified like the line to Weymouth, but that is just speculation.

Well, I wouldn’t agree. The run down was part of the Trunk Routes rationalisation - the same fate befell the GWR main line to Birmingham. If SR had remained in control they would have been forced down the same policy route as the WR because the Trunk Routes policy emanated from the BRB (it was produced by James Ness, the former ScR GM) and the regional GM’s were forced to carry it out.

In fact Gerry Fiennes, as WR GM, got the line upgraded from “closure” status to “retain - not for development” prior to the publication of the Trunk Routes report.

 

[30907]

It's worth pointing out that the timetable introduced in 1967 didn't require passenger services to cross at Chard Junction (except summer weekends IIRC)
The 1973 WTT (decelerated as the Warships had gone, but otherwise the same) is at
https://timetableworld.com/ttw-viewer.php?token=ef75cfca-892a-4732-af2d-2ffe0ea98476

 

[Snow1964]

I think the locations of the crossings, although unevenly spaced, were based on where signal boxes also controlled level crossings, or the few freight facilities that existed at the time.

The basic service was going to be two hourly, so trains would only cross once an hour. Was realised that there would be occasional diversions, summer Saturday trains, and residual freight trains, so was effectively done with crossing points each half hour.

As these extra trains were not the stoppers (of remaining open stations) presumably having crossing points in a platform wasn't seen as essential, as they could be looped without anyone using station

 

[eldomtom2]

In fact Gerry Fiennes, as WR GM, got the line upgraded from “closure” status to “retain - not for development” prior to the publication of the Trunk Routes report.

That is not the impression I got, which was that "not for development" was essentially a euphemism for closure and there was no actual "upgrade" involved - Beeching was merely trying to avoid another PR hit and thus labelled all non-trunk routes as "not for development" prior to the release of the report to the public.

And of course the Trunk Routes report was definitely not followed...

 

[Gloster]

The agreement to serve the brick siding at Pinhoe was terminated on 6 September 1965, although the grain siding remained, as did (until 23 March 1968) a siding on the Down side. Whimple retained its sidings into the 1980s.

Gillingham lost all its (already disused) sidings on singling on the 2 April 1967 except for a short engineer’s siding. The fertiliser siding was only laid in in November 1968; how far negotiations between BR and UKF had progressed when the singling was finalised I do not know.

Source: Track Layout Diagrams of the Southern Railway and BR S.R., Section 5 (Pryer, Cooke, 1982).

As staff had to be retained at Sidmouth Junction/Feniton it has always surprised me that the double-track from Exeter did not extend that far. Particularly as it seems that what non-passenger traffic that remained was on the western half of the line.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Well, the euphemism was certainly true. If the 1968 Act hadn’t come along, the “not for development” lines would have certainly been for the chop if they couldn’t pay their way. The Fiennes plan (both on the WR and ER) was to have as little railway as needed on such lines, to keep them going for as long as possible.

When I joined the railway in the 1970’s, the talk was still about what would happen to the PSO lines when the policy changed again. It was generally expected that it would at some stage but fortunately that never happened.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Certainly there was still a lot of rivalry between the ex-GWR and ex-SR staff, but whether that would have extended to high level management is unclear to me. Regardless, many of the intermediate stations and branch lines were destined to close no matter who operated the line.

Do you really think rivalry existed between the staff and not the management? In my experience it tends to be the other way round, staff generally couldn't care less, and it's the management where competition exists

 

[Taunton]

For those who criticise the 1967 service, a comparison to their luxuriant and envied service previously provided in steam days is maybe revealing. Take 1961. There were just six daytime trains from Waterloo to Exeter, at times notably similar to what was provided afterwards, at 0900, 1100, 1300, 1500, 1800 and 1900. Notably none of the stations between Salisbury and Exeter were served by all of them. Yeovil Junction, as so vigorously defended by the good burghers of Yeovil as described above, had just four a day, the 0900, 1300, 1800 and 1900. Templecombe also had four, though the value of the S&D connection keeping it all on the Southern/LMS had disappeared with nationalisation 15 years before. Gillingham and Seaton Junction had just one each. Honiton didn't have any express stops - I was so surprised I went back to check. Nor did Chard Junction, the shuttle into town only serving the odd, infrequent, generally empty by that time locals soon to be gone for good.

Yes there were some silly points in the 1967 timetable, principal being that the 1100 needed a change at Salisbury, but at least it now provided part of the two-hourly service to all the intermediate points. And the Warships failed, ran late, and thus got mentioned regularly in the columns of Modern Railways, through of course the vast majority of trains did not fail, or run late, and ran on time, and were not mentioned. Sherborne, likely more convenient for much of Yeovil than the Junction, previously just three expresses a day, now had an even-interval two-hourly service all day.

 

[eldomtom2]

Well, the euphemism was certainly true. If the 1968 Act hadn’t come along, the “not for development” lines would have certainly been for the chop if they couldn’t pay their way. The Fiennes plan (both on the WR and ER) was to have as little railway as needed on such lines, to keep them going for as long as possible.

When I joined the railway in the 1970’s, the talk was still about what would happen to the PSO lines when the policy changed again. It was generally expected that it would at some stage but fortunately that never happened.

Do you think such proposals as closing the ECML north of Newcastle were still being considered after Beeching's departure?

 

[Clarence Yard]

If it hadn’t been for the 1968 Act, then some of those lines would have gone. But any thought of running down the ECML north of Newcastle was certainly dead by the late 1960’s. James Ness’s work certainly had more than a touch of Serpell about it!

It was the then PSO list that was thought to be the “vulnerable” (to policy change) lines in the 1970’s.

 

[30907]

As staff had to be retained at Sidmouth Junction/Feniton it has always surprised me that the double-track from Exeter did not extend that far. Particularly as it seems that what non-passenger traffic that remained was on the western half of the line.

Interesting thought, though it wasn't needed for the freight/milk traffic or the evening stopper to Axminster.
Extending the Honiton loop that far would have been another possibility, though either way a 40mph limit a la Templecombe would have slowed trains one way.

 

[Gloster]

Do you really think rivalry existed between the staff and not the management? In my experience it tends to be the other way round, staff generally couldn't care less, and it's the management where competition exists

I worked in the Exeter area in the early 1980s and, although there was occasional joking, there wasn’t really any rivalry between the former SR and always WR men. You knew who was in each group, but who cared? I would also think by the mid-1960s management was sufficiently diluted by post-nationalisation changes that those who were really hard ‘one company’ men had either retired or not advanced much due to their inflexibility. Of course, there would have been some.

 

[Ken H]

I remember reading about the 6 wheeled milk tankers. I believe they could work in passenger train consists. Were they a factor on the Waterloo - Exeter line, or were they a GW thing? When did they go?

 

[randyrippley]

I think that the WR would have closed the line if given the opportunity - does someone know why they weren't?

Maybe having John Peyton as Minister of Transport 1970-4 offered protection against further cuts? He was the Yeovil MP

 

[Grecian 1998]

I don't think that you have made a case for that assertion. Your case is based on hindsight not how it looked at the time.

At the time that the line was singled the passenger service was basically a train every 2 hours in each direction. That does not need many passing places.

Also, you seem to be completely forgetting freight.

The Yeovil Junction - Sherborne section had to be reinstated later the same year as the timetable was proving unworkable, whilst the Tisbury loop was installed in 1986 not to improve service frequency, but simply to improve resilience. I don't think the original plan could be called a success.

I take your point about freight though - as freight was pretty much non-existent on the route when I first started using it circa 1990, I'd forgotten there was still a modest amount around in the 1960s. That and operational convenience seem the primary determining factors.



As I said above, Fiennes' book gave the impression he saw a purpose for the line as a secondary route connecting intermediate towns - its main purpose since the 1960s - whereas he was fairly open about seeing no future for the Great Central's London extension. It can be argued he was overzealous about wanting to shut intermediate stations, as I think the WR's original plan was to retain just Honiton, Axminster, Crewkerne, Sherborne (for Yeovil) and Gillingham between Exeter and Salisbury. However the context of the time is important. The Warships and later the Class 50s and 47s struggled with the stop-start nature of the route. The Class 33s managed better, but due to their lower power were also significantly slower. Had there been fewer intermediate stops the more powerful locos might have coped better improving reliability. Improved reliability and shorter journey times might have improved custom at the intermediate stations which would have outstripped that from retaining Whimple, Yeovil Junction and Tisbury. However this is all entirely hypothetical.

As @Taunton has said, Honiton, Sherborne and Gillingham all received vastly improved services after the WR takeover. IIRC the previous management had always concentrated stops on fast services at the junction stations such as Sidmouth Junction and Templecombe instead.

In terms of why the line was retained, I have a cab ride of the line from 1987 in which the driver mentions to the cameraman that Sherborne School had a number of influential alumni / parents who would have vociferously opposed any closure. No idea if it's true given it's pure hearsay, but it seems plausible - wouldn't be the first or last time that's happened.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I remember reading about the 6 wheeled milk tankers. I believe they could work in passenger train consists. Were they a factor on the Waterloo - Exeter line, or were they a GW thing? When did they go?

Out of use by the 1980's and stored "strategically" by the MMB. When I worked for freight , and having explored the zero chance of any sort of milk traffic coming back - I informed the Milk Marketing Board we were not storing these relics of the 1930's for free anymore. So they were scrapped (bar a few preserved for historical reasons) , and the tanks sold to farmers etc.

They ran all over - certainly as far as Carlisle - but they were speed reduced over the years , so they were in effect useless (35 mph towards the end)

Fresh milk for urban markets tended then - to be sourced fairly locally - out in regions , milk was processed into powder , butter etc. Days of West Wales to say Ilford , Morden etc had long done. IN any case what milk moved went by high capacity rod Transport and the motorway network.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Beeching era of course.

 

[nanstallon]

The late 60s were an interesting time. I remember buying a diagram style map in March 1967 ('British Railways Network for Development'), a much smaller document than the 1965 one (generally called 'Beeching Mark 2'), which showed in black which lines were planned to be kept in the basic network including freight only lines, and in grey lines not being included in the basic network. In Cornwall, the Falmouth and Newquay branches were shown in grey, although not condemned in the 1963 Beeching report, while the Looe and St Ives branches, reprieved by a ministerial refusal of consent in September 1966, were to be in the basic network. On the Exeter - Salisbury line, shown in black on the 1967 map, were the stations at Whimple and Tisbury (listed for closure in the 1963 report) ever formally put up for closure and reprieved by the Minister?

 

[Gloster]

I remember reading about the 6 wheeled milk tankers. I believe they could work in passenger train consists. Were they a factor on the Waterloo - Exeter line, or were they a GW thing? When did they go?

All the Big Four had milk tanks, although I suspect that the (G)WR had the most. They were passenger rated and could be worked in passenger trains, however this tended be for shorter trips and they were formed into longer milk or perishable trains for trunk hauls to London (and other locations). The main SR West of England depots included Torrington, Chard Junction, Semley, Lapford, Crediton, Seaton Junction and Yeovil, particularly the first three and not all at the same time. Except for Chard and (possibly) Seaton, I think they disappeared in September 1964 from the Salisbury-Exeter line. They continued to operate from WR terminals until late 1979, although ultimately down to one train starting from St Erth.

 

[nanstallon]

All the Big Four had milk tanks, although I suspect that the (G)WR had the most. They were passenger rated and could be worked in passenger trains, however this tended be for shorter trips and they were formed into longer milk or perishable trains for trunk hauls to London (and other locations). The main SR West of England depots included Torrington, Chard Junction, Semley, Lapford, Crediton, Seaton Junction and Yeovil, particularly the first three and not all at the same time. Except for Chard and (possibly) Seaton, I think they disappeared in September 1964 from the Salisbury-Exeter line. They continued to operate from WR terminals until late 1979, although ultimately down to one train starting from St Erth.

I took a photo of a steam worked milk train shunting at Seaton Junction in late March 1965, and as late as summer 1977 seeing a milk train (empties) leaving Exeter St Davids for Chard Junction.

 

[D6130]

In terms of why the line was retained, I have a cab ride of the line from 1987 in which the driver mentions to the cameraman that Sherborne School had a number of influential alumni / parents who would have vociferously opposed any closure. No idea if it's true given it's pure hearsay, but it seems plausible - wouldn't be the first or last time that's happened.

When I worked in the Special Traffic Section at the South Western Divisional Manager's office at Wimbledon in the late 1970s, one of my jobs was to arrange special relief trains from Waterloo for the beginning and end of terms at Sherborne School. These were generally eight coach scratch sets of air-braked Mark 1 boat train stock worked by class 33 locos and called at Woking, Basingstoke, Andover, Salisbury then non-stop to Sherborne for a stop of 8-10 minutes for unloading the schoolboys and their trunks, before continuing empty to Yeovil Junction in order to run round and return empty to Clapham Yard. Of course the end of term specials worked the other way round. Although these trains were planned in conjunction with the school, they were billed as 'Schools Relief' rather than 'Schools Chartex' and were therefore open to ordinary ticket holders should they have been in the right place at the right time. They were quite popular with a small select band of haulage bashers - especially for the non-stop runs from Salisbury to Sherborne and vice-versa - but they had to be prepared to put up with the shennanigans of a large number of rather entitled public schoolboys who could be a bit of a handful at times. I'm not sure when these services finished - or whether they survived into the class 50 era.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

To be fair, the pre 1964 timetetable was geared to express services operating to and from the 'Withered Arm' rather than serving the principal stations between Salisbury and Exeter. The 1964-66 timetables, when double track was still in place, was vastly superior for these stations and so not a 'benefit' of the singling. There was also a DMU local service for the smaller stations (closing in 1966). As I recall suburban units were used, resulting in complaints about the lack of toilets and extended station stops for desperate passengers.

 

[eldomtom2]

It was the then PSO list that was thought to be the “vulnerable” (to policy change) lines in the 1970’s.

Which, for clarity, was a much smaller list of lines than those Beeching listed as "not for development".