BR Works Order Number Question

[Andy873]

In August 1964 there was a meeting to list all the assets which would soon be available for disposal. They list effectively everything from Gt. Harwood Junction to just outside Padiham. The Chief Civil Engineer (Manchester) then sends three copies to the General Manager of the Planning Office, Euston and asks for a works order number to cover all of this work. This meeting specifies Padiham station is to remain untouched, as is the double track from Rose Grove to Padiham, all of this section is to remain in-tacked and in use.

So why is it that when in 1967 they meet and decide Padiham station is to be demolished, and in 1968 decide to close Padiham goods yard, remove the track in the yard, remove one railway bridge, remove the station's signal box, signalling and single the line, do they use the same works order number from 1964, all of this work wasn't covered by this works number? Why wouldn't they have created a new works number for this extra work?

 

[Dr Hoo]

The date is before my time in the industry but having attended a Redundant Assets site meeting on the London Midland Region in later years I’ll hazard a guess.
The whole idea of recovering redundant equipment is intended to be cash positive. Some items might be re-used, some sold for scrap and some land might be released for sale. If it is later decided to further rationalise facilities (e.g. closing a public goods depot and only retaining enough track to serve a private siding(s) and/or it was discovered that there was no interest in leasing redundant buildings then further assets can be disposed of as well (and raise more cash). It seems needlessly bureaucratic to insist of a further works order for continuation of a cash-positive programme.
Worth remembering that BR’s cash position in 1968 was still desperate and the small amount of comfort from the prospect of time-limited subsidy to some passenger services was of no help whatsoever to freight routes.
In fact the 1968 Transport Act provided grants for the removal of ‘Surplus Track Capacity’. Get those oxyacetylene torches going, guys!

 

[Taunton]

In fact the 1968 Transport Act provided grants for the removal of ‘Surplus Track Capacity’. Get those oxyacetylene torches going, guys!

This was set to with gusto around Taunton, I think the grants had a limited timespan. absolutely everything was demolished down to ground level, tracks and buildings, apart from single or double running lines, and copious amounts on (fresh) ballast were spread all over to bring things up to level ground. It became known as the "Scorched Earth Approach". The Western Region did do single-tracking more than most which has turned out nowadays to be inappropriate, in no small part because BR spread permanent way costs by the track mile, whereas by the ton-mile would be more appropriate.

 

[Andy873]

It seems needlessly bureaucratic to insist of a further works order for continuation of a cash-positive programme.

Yes, and I think that's the top, middle and bottom of it. Looks like they just tagged the extra works onto the original works order number.

EDIT / UPDATE - Well Mr slow coach here (me) finally worked out the following:
There were 5 meetings to dispose of the loop line, all covered by works order number 616-620 (the word Number and not Number(s). Now if we count 616 to 620 that's 5 works order numbers, so that's how all the work was covered. I've since found on the original letter assigning these numbers it says (hand written) 616-620 Inc (inclusive)!