Beeching closures

[70014IronDuke]

Thing is, if you retain the GC as far south as rugby then there is no need to go further south. One chord puts you on the newly electric line to Euston.

A wooden platformed "Rugby East" for the loco change and you can axe the MML north of Bedford and it becomes a sort of Aylesbury line on a bigger scale.

To repeat: you conveniently ignore: (popn figures are only guestimates, I don't have access to accurate data)

Wellingborough (with Rushden/H Ferrers) popn in 1962 = 70,000
Kettering (and Corby) popn in 1962 = 100,000
Market Harborough popn 1962 = 20,000

Even Beeching wasn't going to axe these towns from their rail access to London. And had he or BR tried, I think the outcry from the above towns would have been huge. Closing completely north of Bedford would have been politically impossible.

I think BR (or maybe it was the LMS) did look at diverting MML London services onto the WCML via the Market Harborough - Northampton line, basically to allow the closure of St. Pancras (I can't remember where the Bedford-London suburban services were meant to to go). In the end, they found that the WCML/Euston didn't really have the capacity for the extra traffic so nothing came of it.

As I understand it, BR looked at two possiblities to divert MML expresses into Euston, viz either via Nuneaton & Wigston or via M Harboro and Northampton. This would have been 1966-70 time.

(There was also talk of sending Sheffield and Nottingham trains to Kings Cross.)

I don't know how far any of these ideas were taken in terms of serious studies. ISTR the Harboro-Northampton route was deemed simply too slow (or too expensive to upgrade to main line standards) - but that may have just been speculation in Modern Railways.

But (unless it was kept secret) the plan was not to close north of Bedford, merely to rationalise a la Salisbury- Exeter with something like a 1 TP2H or 1 TPH on a single line with passing loops.

Bedford/Luton suburban would have gone to Moorgate. And also, presumably, the rump MML service.

I think by 1971-72, WCML traffic was growing so fast after electrification that BR dropped any such plans because they realised capacity at Euston was going to be needed for 'indigenous' service improvements.

One route that never seems to have been considered (which I find strange) was to rebuild the chord at Tamworth to be able to run Euston - Tamworth - Derby - Sheffield. Perhaps it was, but news never got out. This would still have left Nottingham and Leicester to be served, of course.

 

[Taunton]

The GC was an example of outmoded operation. Coal from Notts and South Yorkshire was tripped, sometimes in two operations, to get to Annesley, where it often seemed to wait a day before being assembled into one of the "Windcutter" fast (though unbraked) freights that ran about 80 miles to Woodford Halse. Loco off, a day in the yard, and then moved on the few miles to Banbury, where there was ANOTHER wait and remarshal, before on it went to say Acton yard, final remarshal and trip to destination wayside yard.

Of course, all the articles (and there were several) about this extolled the speed of the Windcutters, 50mph instead of the previous 30mph, saved a couple of hours, and disregarded the rest of the inefficiency that led to the overall movement taking the best part of a week.

Later, in the 1970s, I was in Edinburgh where the bright New Merry-go-Round service ran from new Loanhead colliery to new Cockenzie power station, which were actually within sight of one another, but the trains as often as not got tripped through Millerhill yard for one reason or another, plus there was no Going Round at all because there were no loops at each end. Merry-go-Round was a joint Beeching-Fiennes concept, but was surely never meant to be implemented like this, which seemed to use about half a dozen rakes of hoppers where one, shared between the two new super collieries at Loanhead and Monktonhall, should have sufficed.

 

[ac6000cw]

The GC was an example of outmoded operation. Coal from Notts and South Yorkshire was tripped, sometimes in two operations, to get to Annesley, where it often seemed to wait a day before being assembled into one of the "Windcutter" fast (though unbraked) freights that ran about 80 miles to Woodford Halse. Loco off, a day in the yard, and then moved on the few miles to Banbury, where there was ANOTHER wait and remarshal, before on it went to say Acton yard, final remarshal and trip to destination wayside yard.

Of course, all the articles (and there were several) about this extolled the speed of the Windcutters, 50mph instead of the previous 30mph, saved a couple of hours, and disregarded the rest of the inefficiency that led to the overall movement taking the best part of a week.

Yes, it's the classic wagonload, yard-based hub and spoke system problem - wagons spending far too long not going anywhere, combined with the short distances between yards (80 miles only seems a long distance because of our island mentality) makes the whole thing uneconomic compared to moving it as one train direct from origin to destination. If you are moving it from a yard in Hamburg to a yard in Milan (without intermediate sorting) then it's a different game due to the much longer distances.

And the problem with hump-sorting yards is that to make them economic (compared to smaller, flat-switching, yards) you need a high throughput of wagons every day - to get that you end up altering the traffic flows to deliberately route wagons through them, resulting in longer journeys for some traffic. Even in countries like the US and Canada, where the distances are long, whilst wagonload ('loose-car') freight is still a significant, profitable business, the yard network has been shrinking for years as they try and keep the efficiency up. TBH, it's profitable mostly because you can e.g. pack a lot more into a boxcar (both in volume and weight) than a container or highway truck, and it's all 'on-rail' movement i.e. the railroads are selling the whole journey, rather than just being a wholesale supplier for part of the journey, as is often the case with carrying containers.

Beeching (and the people within BR at the time, like Gerry Fiennes, who understood how the transport world was changing fast around them) was 100% right to move towards block trains and containerisation for freight.

 

[HSTEd]

To repeat: you conveniently ignore: (popn figures are only guestimates, I don't have access to accurate data)

Wellingborough (with Rushden/H Ferrers) popn in 1962 = 70,000
Kettering (and Corby) popn in 1962 = 100,000
Market Harborough popn 1962 = 20,000

Even Beeching wasn't going to axe these towns from their rail access to London. And had he or BR tried, I think the outcry from the above towns would have been huge. Closing completely north of Bedford would have been politically impossible.

Perhaps a total closure would have been difficult.
But with the Nottingham (and north) trains to London routed via Rugby, extending the line to Wellingborough and on to Corby as a very lightweight single track affair might be the best option, however this all depends on what East-West traffic arrangements are made without the Midland Main Line being the premier freight route. (What replaces the Oakham-Kettering line?)

Might even be able to put something together using the Northampton-Wellingborough portion of the Northampton and Peterborough railway.

However even if the MML is (largely) selected over the GC, I still think a hybrid of the two networks would have yielded the best results, but would have necessitated rather more design and planning work than simply axing whole lines based on what company ran them to begin with - but we would in a far better place today.

But (unless it was kept secret) the plan was not to close north of Bedford, merely to rationalise a la Salisbury- Exeter with something like a 1 TP2H or 1 TPH on a single line with passing loops.

Well It is only 50km from Corby to Bedford.
Even class 127s could probably manage an hourly service with only one passing place, let alone something a bit more gutsy.

I think by 1971-72, WCML traffic was growing so fast after electrification that BR dropped any such plans because they realised capacity at Euston was going to be needed for 'indigenous' service improvements.

If the network had been better rationalised at the time of Beeching, there probably would have been more money available for capacity improvements at EUston and on the WCML, and we would have a more heavily electrified railway system today.

Beeching just stinks of rush-job scorched earth policy.

EDIT:

Also given the fact that all the land between the GWML and WCML at Old Oak appears to be railway land, its probable a connection could have been put in there so Paddington could have been used as Overspill if necessary.

All of this rationalisation probably wouldn't have been that feasible without the adoption of some sort of AC 4REP style operation what with all the loco changes associated with operating over the southern WCML.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Perhaps a total closure would have been difficult.
But with the Nottingham (and north) trains to London routed via Rugby, extending the line to Wellingborough and on to Corby as a very lightweight single track affair might be the best option, however this all depends on what East-West traffic arrangements are made without the Midland Main Line being the premier freight route. ...

Might even be able to put something together using the Northampton-Wellingborough portion of the Northampton and Peterborough railway.

We are talking here of a service to London from three towns with combined populations of some 200,000! You seem incredibly eager to close 90 mph main lines wherever possible!

Personally, I think closing the Northampton - Wellingborough LR line was one of the most destructive (in terms of what was lost for the savings made) that I know of. Such a valuable link and only 11 - 12 miles long or so.

However, as a way to route trains from M Harborough, Kettering and Wellingboro to London it was really a non-starter, except at times of diversions. (To repeat, are not talking about some Highland villages serving 1,500 people, some of whom would like to travel to Inverness on occasion and for whom an extra 20 minutes running time would be an annoyance, but better than no railway at all.)

It was, effectively, 12 miles going west and then starting to go south again with more or less the same distance - 65 miles - to London. In the time taken to get to Northampton, you could be at Bedford, with just 50 miles to go.

If the network had been better rationalised at the time of Beeching, there probably would have been more money available for capacity improvements at EUston and on the WCML, and we would have a more heavily electrified railway system today.

But money was spent on the Euston line. That was how it got the extra capacity. It was the flagship route in the UK.
But the service frequency put on in April 1966 is shocking by today's standards. IIRC, it was 1TPH to Brum/Wolves, with both Manchesters and Liverpools only 1 TP2H, except in the peaks. Glasgows 1 TP2H, interspersed with Blackpool+Barrow or Carlisles 1 TP2H.
Then with the odd Holyhead.
So when the BRB looked at that, they thought - hey, we can fit a lot more trains in that this! But that did not take into account the traffic growth generated by the beautiful new blue electrics.

 

[A0]

Personally, I think closing the Northampton - Wellingborough LR line was one of the most destructive (in terms of what was lost for the savings made) that I know of. Such a valuable link and only 11 - 12 miles long or so.

However, as a way to route trains from M Harborough, Kettering and Wellingboro to London it was really a non-starter, except at times of diversions. (To repeat, are not talking about some Highland villages serving 1,500 people, some of whom would like to travel to Inverness on occasion and for whom an extra 20 minutes running time would be an annoyance, but better than no railway at all.)

It was, effectively, 12 miles going west and then starting to go south again with more or less the same distance - 65 miles - to London. In the time taken to get to Northampton, you could be at Bedford, with just 50 miles to go.

The problem with the Northampton - Wellingborough line was it was lightly engineered and - at the Northampton end at least - was north facing meaning you'd have been looking at reversals to use that as a way into / out of London - whereas the Harborough line didn't have that problem.

The Northampton - Wellingborough line really was Northampton - Peterboro - loadings between Northampton and Welllingborough were always quite light and the situation of both stations wasn't ideal to promote travel between the two and the intermediate places such as Earls Barton really weren't served by the railway. The local buses did and still do it far better.

 

[HSTEd]

We are talking here of a service to London from three towns with combined populations of some 200,000! You seem incredibly eager to close 90 mph main lines wherever possible!

Main lines should exist for a purpose.
They don't get to exist simply because they already do!

However, as a way to route trains from M Harborough, Kettering and Wellingboro to London it was really a non-starter, except at times of diversions. (To repeat, are not talking about some Highland villages serving 1,500 people, some of whom would like to travel to Inverness on occasion and for whom an extra 20 minutes running time would be an annoyance, but better than no railway at all.)

It was, effectively, 12 miles going west and then starting to go south again with more or less the same distance - 65 miles - to London. In the time taken to get to Northampton, you could be at Bedford, with just 50 miles to go.

50 miles behind a Peak or 65 miles behind a high power electric?
Even a Class 81 is capable of much better performance.

Assuming the locomotive change at Northampton can be performed rapidly, it is likely the running times will come out comparable.
If we can get some sort of 12TC rake and a properly rigged set of locomotives, don't see why not.

The rationalisation savings on the MML at Bedford and south will be significant.

But money was spent on the Euston line. That was how it got the extra capacity. It was the flagship route in the UK.
But the service frequency put on in April 1966 is shocking by today's standards. IIRC, it was 1TPH to Brum/Wolves, with both Manchesters and Liverpools only 1 TP2H, except in the peaks. Glasgows 1 TP2H, interspersed with Blackpool+Barrow or Carlisles 1 TP2H.
Then with the odd Holyhead.
So when the BRB looked at that, they thought - hey, we can fit a lot more trains in that this! But that did not take into account the traffic growth generated by the beautiful new blue electrics.

With more money it is likely more could have been achieved though.
The WCML today uses fundamentally the same signalling technologies (implemented with SSIs instead of relays but still), which shows how much additional traffic could be carried with more money for better resignalling/infrastructural improvements etc.
Just look at the Watford DC's original signalling system.

 

[yorksrob]

I can't really see what long term benefit there would have been from diverting the MML to Euston.

 

[Bevan Price]

The problem with the Northampton - Wellingborough line was it was lightly engineered and - at the Northampton end at least - was north facing meaning you'd have been looking at reversals to use that as a way into / out of London - whereas the Harborough line didn't have that problem.

The Northampton - Wellingborough line really was Northampton - Peterboro - loadings between Northampton and Welllingborough were always quite light and the situation of both stations wasn't ideal to promote travel between the two and the intermediate places such as Earls Barton really weren't served by the railway. The local buses did and still do it far better.

Reversal at Northampton was not necessary. There was a direct (double track) connection from Northampton Bridge Street to Blisworth, with a south-facing connection onto the WCML. The only snag was that you could not serve Northampton Castle (now plain Northampton), but Bridge Street station was fairly convenient for the town centre.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Main lines should exist for a purpose.
They don't get to exist simply because they already do!

Sure. But 200,000 people provided a purpose then, and their (geographical) descendants do today. The Midland survived because it was needed.

50 miles behind a Peak or 65 miles behind a high power electric?
Even a Class 81 is capable of much better performance.

I think we are talking about slightly different scenarios here. IMO there was no way that they could justify using Wellingboro-Northampton/Blisworth as THE diversion for the entire Midland services.

My answer (to your original suggestion of the Nene route) was as a possible way to divert remaining M Harboro-Kett-Wellingboro traffic to London that way, having already diverted Sheffield/Derby etc traffic to Euston or Kings X.

There would have been no time savings whatsoever that way, just the ability to close (or single) Wellingborough - Bedford. And those infrastructure savings would not have justified the trouble and cost of going via the Nene Valley, IMO.

Assuming the locomotive change at Northampton can be performed rapidly, it is likely the running times will come out comparable.
If we can get some sort of 12TC rake and a properly rigged set of locomotives, don't see why not.

Exactly - COMPARABLE. Not quicker. Meanwhile, you have a big investment needed to upgrade the Nene Valley. Simply not worth it.

The rationalisation savings on the MML at Bedford and south will be significant.

If you mean singling Wellingborough - Bedford, I wouldn't agree. Not worth it. And BR obviously didn't think so either. (They could have still done this, I think, in 1966. Certainly parts of the Nene Valley were still open for mineral traffic at that time.)

With more money it is likely more could have been achieved though.
The WCML today uses fundamentally the same signalling technologies (implemented with SSIs instead of relays but still), which shows how much additional traffic could be carried with more money for better resignalling/infrastructural improvements etc. ...

Well, I don't know with early 1960s technology how true your assertions are. At the time, Bletchley and Rugby power boxes thought they were the bees knees.
What I do think is that had BR management been able to assess the WCML electrification potential thoroughly right at the beginning of planning, ie 1955-58 time, they would have planned to divert the principal Midland traffic (ie Sheffield/Derby/Leicester/Nottingham) into Euston and possibly KingX from the off. And single/rationalise Wigston - Bedford as a result.

The fact that they closed the MR route from Leicester to Rugby in 1960 (I think it was) implies to me that they didn't think so comprehensively ahead. But I accept that this is me looking back with rose-tinted glasses - what they were doing was immense at the time with the WCML.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Reversal at Northampton was not necessary. There was a direct (double track) connection from Northampton Bridge Street to Blisworth, with a south-facing connection onto the WCML. The only snag was that you could not serve Northampton Castle (now plain Northampton), but Bridge Street station was fairly convenient for the town centre.

Indeed. I think the original WCML plans included wiring the Blisworth - Northampton route.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I can't really see what long term benefit there would have been from diverting the MML to Euston.

If you were a BRB manager with the treasury breathing down your neck demanding savings every day, there were obviously HUGE benefits possible by diverting the principal Midland traffic from Sheffield/Derby/Nottingham/Leicester into Euston (and perhaps Kings Cross), then singling Wigston-Bedford and diverting all remaining MML trains into Moorgate.

Then you sell off St Pancras as an exhibition centre or some such. Oh, lovely £££££ saved from operations, glorious ££££ coming in from asset sales and (probably) faster Inter-City trains to the MML cities to boot, yielding ££ in extra traffic receipts.

Had anyone done it, they'd have probably got a knighthood.

The problem, of course, would then have been how to unravel all that from about 1985 when planners wanted more paths out of London for 'classic' destinations from Euston and Kings X.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The problem with the Northampton - Wellingborough line was it was lightly engineered and - at the Northampton end at least - was north facing meaning you'd have been looking at reversals to use that as a way into / out of London - whereas the Harborough line didn't have that problem.

The Northampton - Wellingborough line really was Northampton - Peterboro - loadings between Northampton and Welllingborough were always quite light and the situation of both stations wasn't ideal to promote travel between the two and the intermediate places such as Earls Barton really weren't served by the railway. The local buses did and still do it far better.

Northampton - Wellingborough can't have been THAT lightly engineered as I saw a Jubilee on the line one summer evening at Irchester. Accepted that was likely the largest loco allowed over it.

I fully accept that local traffic between the two towns was not very significant - my bemoaning the loss was as a strategic link. Had it been kept, today the East-West route would be far easier to plan for a Oxford/Aylesbuy - Milton Keynes - Northampton (rev) - Wellingboro - Manton (new chord) - Peterboro service.
Of course, I would have loved to see Wellinboro - Peterborough survive as well, but that would have involved far greater costs.

Bar the Euston services, Northampton (for its size) has been given - or ended up with - a minserably poor deal by rail.