Beeching & beyond Lines that should have been kept open

[Sidious]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Woodhead . I know it wasn't Beeching, so this comes under the 'and beyond' bit.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Can you imagine trying to run those calculations back in the 60s?

Today, you'd grab the passenger data and costs then run a quick pivot table in excel.

sorted.

Back then...

An army of clerks and Comptometers.

look at the report theres examples of 10 lines in it that show all the workings and assumptions. Remember they had 3 years from when the transport minister announced reshaping until the report came out. There was hardly steam coming off the abacus.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Woodhead . I know it wasn't Beeching, so this comes under the 'and beyond' bit.

Beeching ended the passenger service via Woodhead, which left it ripe for closure under Maggie though... The Leeds 'new' line as mentioned earlier would be useful and possibly very busy now, as would the Holmfirth branch. That's another one that won't sadly ever see trains again- perhaps if alignments had been protected many of the short-sighted closures would already have been reversed, and no-one would even remember the name of Dr. Richard Beeching...

 

[High Dyke]

The Grantham - Lincoln line, closed in 1965, but was originally destined to remain open - at the expense of the Nottingham - Lincoln (MR) route. These days however building encroachment, as in many other places, ensures that it would be difficult to reopen the line.

I see that no-one has mentioned the M & GN? Yet another cross-country route that was lost; though i doubt the practicality of the route would make it a cost effective re-opening.

 

[martinsh]

I see that no-one has mentioned the M & GN? Yet another cross-country route that was lost; though i doubt the practicality of the route would make it a cost effective re-opening.

the M & GN closed in 1957 - light years before Beeching

 

[CockneySparrow]

It isn't closed, it is out of use, there is a difference and it is still in the sectional appendix.

How does the difference affect a general passenger who want to get from A to B with B being on the "out of use section"

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Penarth - Cadoxton. Here was an example of a route deliberately set up for closure by slapping a pair of buffer stops in the middle of Penarth Town station to destroy it as a through route. From then on services were operated between Cadoxton and Penarth at inconvenient times and serving no one in particular. Even at that time, it was obvious that Sully was growing from a small village to prime commuter land. It was an alternative route between Barry and Cardiff and should have been developed, with the re-opening of Lower Penarth station and Sully would have been an even more attractive dormitory. Second generation DMUs would have made mincemeat of the existing schedule and could probably have achieved similar timings to the route via Dinas Powys. It was only a mile and a half longer.

 

[CockneySparrow]

I agree that minimum-cost operating methods weren't really considered, as things like Paytrains and bus shelter stations only really came in later on those lines that were still running. These could have made a difference on some lines but I think others were real no-hopers, including several named on this thread! .

Technology has moved on in leaps and bounds over the years, had we had the same technology back in the 60s as we do today it might have saved a few more lines

To be fair BR did single alot of the track but the main killer was labour with too many level crossings which needed staffing, today most are AHB

One reason why there are now two stations in Sherringham because of the busy road between both sites, this meant the line to Holt had to close, should we of had AHB back then GA would still be running trains there, having said that though the building at the original station in Sherringham might be in a bad shape
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Lynn to Hunstanton/Burnham Market
Lynn to Swaffham
March to Wisbech
March to Spalding
Peterborough to Northampton
Cambridge to Haverhill

 

[A0]

Beeching ended the passenger service via Woodhead, which left it ripe for closure under Maggie though... The Leeds 'new' line as mentioned earlier would be useful and possibly very busy now, as would the Holmfirth branch. That's another one that won't sadly ever see trains again- perhaps if alignments had been protected many of the short-sighted closures would already have been reversed, and no-one would even remember the name of Dr. Richard Beeching...

Not sure I agree with your assessment.

It was inevitable one of the Sheffield - Manchester routes would lose its passenger service - the question is which.

Initially the Hope Valley line was to be closed, but since it served more settlements en-route, BR were obliged to retain it, hence Woodhead lost its passenger service.

However the closure of Woodhead in 1981 was purely a BR initiative, not unlike the Stratford - Honeybourne route and several others. Whilst it is true the electrification infrastructure was life expired, BR could have retained the line as a diesel only route. It chose not to. You can't blame Beeching for decisions which BR management took almost 20 years later - Beeching made recommendations which on the whole were sensible and practical at the time and it should be remembered that most of the closures actually took place after Labour took power in 1964 - yet they'd campaigned to reverse many of Beeching's proposals......

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not sure I agree with your assessment.

It was inevitable one of the Sheffield - Manchester routes would lose its passenger service - the question is which.

Initially the Hope Valley line was to be closed, but since it served more settlements en-route, BR were obliged to retain it, hence Woodhead lost its passenger service.

However the closure of Woodhead in 1981 was purely a BR initiative, not unlike the Stratford - Honeybourne route and several others. Whilst it is true the electrification infrastructure was life expired, BR could have retained the line as a diesel only route. It chose not to. You can't blame Beeching for decisions which BR management took almost 20 years later - Beeching made recommendations which on the whole were sensible and practical at the time and it should be remembered that most of the closures actually took place after Labour took power in 1964 - yet they'd campaigned to reverse many of Beeching's proposals......

Fair point. It's all pie in the sky thinking now, but perhaps the solution would've been to use Woodhead for expresses and Hope Valley for locals? Seeing as even under Beeching both ended up being retained initially. Beeching turned out to have been short sighted of course, but the real villain of the period was Marples.

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure I agree with your assessment.

It was inevitable one of the Sheffield - Manchester routes would lose its passenger service - the question is which.

Initially the Hope Valley line was to be closed, but since it served more settlements en-route, BR were obliged to retain it, hence Woodhead lost its passenger service.

However the closure of Woodhead in 1981 was purely a BR initiative, not unlike the Stratford - Honeybourne route and several others. Whilst it is true the electrification infrastructure was life expired, BR could have retained the line as a diesel only route. It chose not to. You can't blame Beeching for decisions which BR management took almost 20 years later - Beeching made recommendations which on the whole were sensible and practical at the time and it should be remembered that most of the closures actually took place after Labour took power in 1964 - yet they'd campaigned to reverse many of Beeching's proposals......

Beeching was a one trick pony in terms of passenger services. Improvements such as automated level crossings existed beforehand but in many cases weren‘t pursued (York - Beverley being a case in point). At no stage was there an assessment as to whether the closure programme was achieving the savings promised, with the policy being continued by BR and Government as an article of blind faith.

Whilst other participants become more culpable for future closures, Beeching has to bear a considerable responsibility for setting an ethos against the regional railway which lasted until the days of Sir Peter Parker.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Where bus replacement took place (rightly or wrongly) it was badly done. Maybe it would have worked if properly integrated with the remaining train service......

That is the largest flaw in the way the "Beeching Closures" were handled, IMO. There is no doubt that many rail routes were hopelessly uneconomic. Yet the places served would have been served just about as well using buses operated by the Railway at a fraction of the cost. Sadly, the best that was provided was a short-term subsidy for buses operated wholly separately by bus companies (many of which were, of course, nationalised businesses at the time); services which themselves demised five years later when subsidies ran out and their separate nature meant nobody used them.

Back then...An army of clerks and Comptometers.

....and an agenda; a conclusion that had already been largely made and simply had to be justified.

 

[Tomnick]

One reason why there are now two stations in Sherringham because of the busy road between both sites, this meant the line to Holt had to close, should we of had AHB back then GA would still be running trains there, having said that though the building at the original station in Sherringham might be in a bad shape

AHBs wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference - the level crossing in the middle of Sheringham would never have been suitable for conversion, and in any case there were plenty. I don't think there'd ever have been justification for retaining the line to Holt - it'd have required a third unit to maintain a roughly hourly service, and the long single line from Cromer to Holt would be a serious constraint on the timetable (unless a crossing loop - two signal boxes or some resignalling - was retained at Sheringham too). Once the decision's been made to cut back the service to Sheringham, there'd have been no sense in keeping (and modifying, to allow the closure of the controlling signal box?) the level crossing just to access the terminus immediately beyond it.

 

[oliMw]

Norwich - Kings Lynn

It's would relieve congestion of the A47 and I can imagine would probely be well used

 

[yorksrob]

That is the largest flaw in the way the "Beeching Closures" were handled, IMO. There is no doubt that may rail routes were hopelessly uneconomic. Yet the places served would have been served just about as well using buses operated by the Railway at a fraction of the cost. Sadly, the best that was provided was a short-term subsidy for buses operated wholly separately by bus companies (many of which were, of course, nationalised businesses at the time); services which themselves demised five years later when subsidies ran out and their separate nature meant nobody used them.

Was the failure of bustitution entirely down to the "seperate" nature of the bus services provided, or would it have floundered anyway.

Certainly the often noted antipathy towards rail replacement buses during engineering works suggests that this wouldn't have attracted much more custom.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Fair point. It's all pie in the sky thinking now, but perhaps the solution would've been to use Woodhead for expresses and Hope Valley for locals? Seeing as even under Beeching both ended up being retained initially. Beeching turned out to have been short sighted of course, but the real villain of the period was Marples.

This! Belching was simply brought in to carry out the agenda of Marples and the road lobby. That's why closures were pursued even for lines with a marginal case for closure where costs could have been reduced and closure avoided.

 

[edwin_m]

AHBs wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference - the level crossing in the middle of Sheringham would never have been suitable for conversion, and in any case there were plenty.

Maybe not at Sheringham or other town centres but there were plenty of level crossings in less busy areas that were suitable for automation but still operated by a crossing keeper. Also stations retaining uneccessary trackwork, buildings, signalling and staff - no doubt quaint and of some value to passengers, but it was a question of get rid of some of it or lose the lot.

 

[A0]

This! Belching was simply brought in to carry out the agenda of Marples and the road lobby. That's why closures were pursued even for lines with a marginal case for closure where costs could have been reduced and closure avoided.

Balls - the problem was BR had consumed huge amounts of money for its Modernisation Plan yet revenues were plummeting. Put simply the country couldn't afford to keep the rail network at the level it was and BR had wasted the opportunity it had been given.

If it hadn't been Marples and Beeching, then it would have been somebody else making the same decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts

"The 1955 Modernisation Plan promised expenditure of over £1,240 million; steam locomotives would be replaced with diesel and electric locomotives, traffic levels would increase and the system was predicted to be back in profit by 1962.[5] Instead losses mounted, from £68 million in 1960 to £87 million in 1961, and £104 million in 1962.[6][7] The BTC could no longer pay the interest on its loans. The government lost patience and looked for radical solutions."

"Beeching first studied traffic flows on all lines to identify 'the good, the bad, and the indifferent'.[note 5] His analysis showed that the least-used 1,762 stations had annual passenger receipts of less than £2,500 each (£48.7 thousand as of 2013[7]), that over half of the 4,300 stations open to passengers in 1960 had receipts of less than £10,000,[note 6] that the least-used 50% of stations contributed only 2% of passenger revenue[note 7] and that one third of route miles carried just 1% of passengers.[note 8]"

 

[swcovas]

Penarth - Cadoxton. Here was an example of a route deliberately set up for closure by slapping a pair of buffer stops in the middle of Penarth Town station to destroy it as a through route. From then on services were operated between Cadoxton and Penarth at inconvenient times and serving no one in particular. Even at that time, it was obvious that Sully was growing from a small village to prime commuter land. It was an alternative route between Barry and Cardiff and should have been developed, with the re-opening of Lower Penarth station and Sully would have been an even more attractive dormitory. Second generation DMUs would have made mincemeat of the existing schedule and could probably have achieved similar timings to the route via Dinas Powys. It was only a mile and a half longer.

It's true that the line would have some merit today especially with the growth of Sully. I even think that if the current line to Penarth had been retained as far as the old Alberta Place Halt it would have been useful in serving a substantial residential area of South Penarth.

However, I have always wondered why the line was eventually closed in 1968 even though it was never listed in the Beechng Report. I remember the buffer stops at Penarth but am I correct in thinking that the line was then double track through to Cadoxton even though it was basically just the single bubble car shuttling back and fore? At the time of Beeching Report did Penarth Cement factory provide any traffic? Was this a reason for retention but one which ceased to exist a few years later? I would be interested if anyone has any of the answers. Short as it was it did serve a lovely stretch of the Vale coastline.

 

[tbtc]

Balls - the problem was BR had consumed huge amounts of money for its Modernisation Plan yet revenues were plummeting. Put simply the country couldn't afford to keep the rail network at the level it was and BR had wasted the opportunity it had been given.

If it hadn't been Marples and Beeching, then it would have been somebody else making the same decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts

"The 1955 Modernisation Plan promised expenditure of over £1,240 million; steam locomotives would be replaced with diesel and electric locomotives, traffic levels would increase and the system was predicted to be back in profit by 1962.[5] Instead losses mounted, from £68 million in 1960 to £87 million in 1961, and £104 million in 1962.[6][7] The BTC could no longer pay the interest on its loans. The government lost patience and looked for radical solutions."

"Beeching first studied traffic flows on all lines to identify 'the good, the bad, and the indifferent'.[note 5] His analysis showed that the least-used 1,762 stations had annual passenger receipts of less than £2,500 each (£48.7 thousand as of 2013[7]), that over half of the 4,300 stations open to passengers in 1960 had receipts of less than £10,000,[note 6] that the least-used 50% of stations contributed only 2% of passenger revenue[note 7] and that one third of route miles carried just 1% of passengers.[note 8]"

You'll spoil all of the conspiracy theory stuff with these facts...

I seem to recall (perhaps from Ian Hislop's TV programme?), a good summary of the situation:

1/3 of lines closed should never have been built
1/3 of lines closed probably were right for closure
1/3 of lines closed probably should have been kept.

Sounds about right.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I'd suggest Barnstaple - Ilfracombe, which although recommended for closure by Beeching, actually survived till 1970. Given the sparseness of rail links in North Devon, an Exeter-Barnstaple-Ilfracombe stopping service supplemented by holiday trains from London and Birmingham would be well-patronised these days.

 

[yorksrob]

Balls - the problem was BR had consumed huge amounts of money for its Modernisation Plan yet revenues were plummeting. Put simply the country couldn't afford to keep the rail network at the level it was and BR had wasted the opportunity it had been given.

If it hadn't been Marples and Beeching, then it would have been somebody else making the same decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts

"The 1955 Modernisation Plan promised expenditure of over £1,240 million; steam locomotives would be replaced with diesel and electric locomotives, traffic levels would increase and the system was predicted to be back in profit by 1962.[5] Instead losses mounted, from £68 million in 1960 to £87 million in 1961, and £104 million in 1962.[6][7] The BTC could no longer pay the interest on its loans. The government lost patience and looked for radical solutions."

"Beeching first studied traffic flows on all lines to identify 'the good, the bad, and the indifferent'.[note 5] His analysis showed that the least-used 1,762 stations had annual passenger receipts of less than £2,500 each (£48.7 thousand as of 2013[7]), that over half of the 4,300 stations open to passengers in 1960 had receipts of less than £10,000,[note 6] that the least-used 50% of stations contributed only 2% of passenger revenue[note 7] and that one third of route miles carried just 1% of passengers.[note 8]"

There is enough within the report itself to condemn Dr Beeching.

I'd suggest a comparison between the Swaffham - Dereham case study and that for the York - Beverley route for a contrast between a route which probably should have closed and one which should have been rationalised. The delay in building stations for newtowns such as Milton Keynes was another symptom of a lack of vision. As I say, a one trick pony.

The other issue that affected the railways then and afterwards was that a criteria of "hardship" alone was clearly inadequate to assess the strategic value of a passenger route to the local economy and society as a whole. This is specifically the fault of Governments rather than the Doctor.

 

[Sidious]

I'd suggest Barnstaple - Ilfracombe, which although recommended for closure by Beeching, actually survived till 1970. Given the sparseness of rail links in North Devon, an Exeter-Barnstaple-Ilfracombe stopping service supplemented by holiday trains from London and Birmingham would be well-patronised these days.

The same could be said of many coastal locations. Barnstaple - Ilfracome is just a few miles, yet in the summer it is absolutely choked with traffic.

The Bodmin to Padstow line and Lostwithiel - Fowey line would likely now have as strong a business case as the Falmouth, Looe or St. Ives branches enjoy.

Meldon Quarry to Bere Alston was another short-sighted closure which effectively made two dead-ends.

 

[RichJF]

I'd suggest Tunbridge Wells - Eridge - Uckfield - Lewes.

I know everyone says it's because of BML2 (& I don't want to open up that can of worms again), but I was actually thinking it would possibly open up travel from Kent into East Sussex and provide an alternative from having to travel all the way up into London: Passengers from places like Maidstone or Canterbury would benefit from travelling to Tonbridge then changing.

Alas, never to be & the narrow Grove Tunnel didn't help!

 

[A0]

You'll spoil all of the conspiracy theory stuff with these facts...

Yeah - sorry about that, keep forgetting
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is enough within the report itself to condemn Dr Beeching.

I'd suggest a comparison between the Swaffham - Dereham case study and that for the York - Beverley route for a contrast between a route which probably should have closed and one which should have been rationalised. The delay in building stations for newtowns such as Milton Keynes was another symptom of a lack of vision. As I say, a one trick pony.

Given the limitations the good Doctor was working to - namely limited time to draw up a strategy, relatively unsophisticated survey methods etc, I think most of the supposed 'errors' aren't unreasonable and with more sophisticated survey and analysis methods now, you could come to a different conclusion.

You can't really blame the lack of stations at places like MK or Telford on the Beeching though - MK started being built in 1967, two years after Beeching went back to ICI, yet MKC station wasn't built until 1982 despite the fact it was on a major route - that is poor management from BR, nothing else. Exactly the same is true of Telford.

York - Beverley is one, of a number of routes, which always get raised. The issue I have with that one is it's not serving anywhere significant en-route. Beverley retained it's rail links to Hull from where access to York and beyond was easy. OK, the journey time is longer than a direct route would have been, but the connection remains.

The other issue that affected the railways then and afterwards was that a criteria of "hardship" alone was clearly inadequate to assess the strategic value of a passenger route to the local economy and society as a whole. This is specifically the fault of Governments rather than the Doctor.

But you have to 'value' these things on something. There is, and always has, only ever been finite resources available for anything governments do. To have retained more of the routes would have meant effectively giving massive subsidies to certain areas - at the expense of someone or something else.

That the Beeching reforms were implemented over 40 years ago, I don't think anyone now can still be claiming 'hardship' on the basis of what he proposed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd suggest Tunbridge Wells - Eridge - Uckfield - Lewes.

I'd suggest reading the history books - Tunbridge - Eridge was closed by BR as late as 1985 - oddly enough the year Beeching died.

Once again, not a closure you can blame on Beeching.

Passengers from places like Maidstone or Canterbury would benefit from travelling to Tonbridge then changing.

Except Canterbury and Maidstone have a good services to Ashford, which then provides access to the Sussex coast via the Marshlink line.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Alton-Winchester hasn't yet been mentioned (though I'm not sure if that was a result of Beeching? I believe the actual closure wasn't till the 1970's). Probably should have been electrified and merged with the London-Alton line to make an additional London-Southampton through route.

Could have been a useful diversionary route for the London-Southampton main line, and now would now be a significant commuter flow in its own right.

 

[Muzer]

Not sure about that one. Though some way of getting to Alton from the North or West would be nice - and out of that or the Basingstoke to Alton Light Railway, I know which one would more likely be successful

My minor gripe is the disconnectedness of Andover with places to the north and south - going Andover to Southampton or Andover to Newbury or Swindon by rail now is a pain. That's completely selfish, though, given that I've lived there for a significant time - not actually sure how useful/well-used those links would be

But all the really big ones have already been mentioned.

 

[JamesRowden]

Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham

Would be very useful for Reading-Brighton services and the Horsham-Shoreham section (Steyning Line) would be a very useful diversionary route for London-Brighton services if it had been electrified.

 

[Requeststop]

The same could be said of many coastal locations. Barnstaple - Ilfracome is just a few miles, yet in the summer it is absolutely choked with traffic.

The Bodmin to Padstow line and Lostwithiel - Fowey line would likely now have as strong a business case as the Falmouth, Looe or St. Ives branches enjoy.

Meldon Quarry to Bere Alston was another short-sighted closure which effectively made two dead-ends.

How I absolutely agree with you. One case of under-investment is the Par - Newquay Line. I am aghast at the paucity of services on this line. I'd make a case to open the line from St Austell via Burngullow to St Colomb Road to improve services to Newquay.

In the West Country, I'd be well in favour of the Somerset and Dorset being re-instated improving travel between Bristol/Bath to Bournemouth. Okehampton-Tavistock as the inland alternate to Dawlish is very much needed as much as I love the Exeter-Newton Abbot run.

 

[yorksrob]

Given the limitations the good Doctor was working to - namely limited time to draw up a strategy, relatively unsophisticated survey methods etc, I think most of the supposed 'errors' aren't unreasonable and with more sophisticated survey and analysis methods now, you could come to a different conclusion.

You can't really blame the lack of stations at places like MK or Telford on the Beeching though - MK started being built in 1967, two years after Beeching went back to ICI, yet MKC station wasn't built until 1982 despite the fact it was on a major route - that is poor management from BR, nothing else. Exactly the same is true of Telford.

York - Beverley is one, of a number of routes, which always get raised. The issue I have with that one is it's not serving anywhere significant en-route. Beverley retained it's rail links to Hull from where access to York and beyond was easy. OK, the journey time is longer than a direct route would have been, but the connection remains.

Ok, Basildon would have been a better newtown example,

However, with regard to the methodology, I don't think lack of time and unsophisticated survey methods can exonerate Beeching.

As the two cases studies I've mentioned show, he had enough facts and figures to show that the York - Beverley route was far from a basket case compared to some others. Geographically, the size of Market Weighton and Stamford Bridge should count less than these figures. The assumption that Beverley - York passengers would simply transfer to the other roundabout way is simply lazy. On what did he base this assumption?

Marples had his agenda, but would there have been anything to stop Beeching rationalising this route and using the new figures as a case study ? Of course not. He was chairman and paid hansomely for it, he would have had more than enough autonomy and time to try this approach, but he didn't because he had already decided the approach to take.

But you have to 'value' these things on something. There is, and always has, only ever been finite resources available for anything governments do. To have retained more of the routes would have meant effectively giving massive subsidies to certain areas - at the expense of someone or something else.

But my point about "hardship" is that the Government already did end up subsidising routes on this basis. Thank goodness they did, as they are mainly thriving and providing a massive benefit to their local areas, however, using hardship alone as the basis for this has meant that we've ended up with a hotch potch of coverage of the country when a more considered approach of the benefits of such routes would have resulted in an even more useful network remaining.