Beeching

[yorksrob]

The point here is that they were not closed as part of this process both Cambridge - St Ives (with the exception of the station at Histon) and Great Central survived the Beeching cuts, as such can not be considered as Beeching cuts in retrospect.

BTW I think you mean Ipswich - Lowestoft

No, I don't agree at all. The fact that they appeared in the report suggests quite strongly that had he not been sacked (sorry - agreed to resign), Beeching would have closed them. It was part of his mindset, i.e that only the profitable parts of the railway had value. This is distinct from the Woodhead for example, which wasn't on the Beeching list

BTW you're right. The Lowestoft - Yarmouth section was another that should never have closed.

During the 1950s the modernisation plan had already happened to modernise and reduce costs, and it didn't work very well, and the debt burden imposed from this increased the loses.

Why didn't he try de-staffing stations, singling some routes and paytrains instead. This is what the better managers of BR did, and yes they did save a lot of routes that way. That is the sort of solution that is borne of pragmatism rather than dogmatism.

We can all point to numerous examples that would be useful today,but were they in 1963, Beeching, Marples or the government of the time could not have possibly foreseen demand today nearly 50 years in the future

True, but the same could be said of Barbra Castle who did (in spite of the closures on her watch), nevertheless begin to develop the concept of the social railway, or management in the 70s and early eighties who did oversee the development of the innovations mentioned above. They weren't exactly working in a railway boom

I'm not an advocate of guided busways by any stretch of the imagination, but if it falls flat on its face there is a clear run for a trackbed in the future, unlike if housing, or a boating lake had been built across it.

Apologies, I couldn't resist a rant at our modern day policy makers

 

[exile]

It's certainly true that costs could have been cut by destaffing, removing loops and sidings, singling, using radio control instead of old fashioned signalling and so on. However some lines were being used by a couple of dozen people a day, there is no way they could have been made to come anywhere near breaking even. Think of those photos of a steam locomotive pulling a single coach or pottering along with a goods train stopping off to pick up and drop off a couple of wagons.

 

[yorksrob]

It's certainly true that costs could have been cut by destaffing, removing loops and sidings, singling, using radio control instead of old fashioned signalling and so on. However some lines were being used by a couple of dozen people a day, there is no way they could have been made to come anywhere near breaking even. Think of those photos of a steam locomotive pulling a single coach or pottering along with a goods train stopping off to pick up and drop off a couple of wagons.

That's certainly true, and for these I think they should have continued pruning them as had been the case even before Beeching.

 

[Greenback]

I agree. Some lines were of little real use, and would not have survived even without Dr Beeching's report. I don;t think anyone is arguing that the network should or would have been left exactly as it was.

 

[12CSVT]

The real villan was Marples, owner of a motorway construction company and Transport Minister at the same time. If that wasn't corruption then I don't know what is.

 

[exile]

One of the more remarkable proposed closures was Liverpool-Southport, which was one of the busiest lines outside the London area. However, it was expensive to run and off-peak usage was very low. Also, Manchester-Bury, now Metrolink of course.

The report made it clear that commuter routes outside London were heavy loss-makers and suggested local authorities should cover the losses as part of an integrated transport system within large conurbations - which of course is what eventually happened.

 

[Tom B]

local authorities should cover the losses as part of an integrated transport system within large conurbations - which of course is what eventually happened.

Except the "integrated transport system" bit!!

 

[furryfeet]

One of the more remarkable proposed closures was Liverpool-Southport, which was one of the busiest lines outside the London area. However, it was expensive to run and off-peak usage was very low. Also, Manchester-Bury, now Metrolink of course.

The report made it clear that commuter routes outside London were heavy loss-makers and suggested local authorities should cover the losses as part of an integrated transport system within large conurbations - which of course is what eventually happened.

These were only put through the closure machinery so that Marples could reject them and hence give the impression that not ALL closure proposals would automatically go ahead.

 

[OuterDistant]

For many years, I stuck to the standard opinion of "blah blah blah, hardly any railways left around here, a disgrace, Beeching should never have blah blah blah". It's only when I got old enough to do a bit of my own research that it became apparent that many of the lines were well and truly on their last legs, and that Beeching was merely the final nail in the coffin for most of them.

 

[Greenback]

For many years, I stuck to the standard opinion of "blah blah blah, hardly any railways left around here, a disgrace, Beeching should never have blah blah blah". It's only when I got old enough to do a bit of my own research that it became apparent that many of the lines were well and truly on their last legs, and that Beeching was merely the final nail in the coffin for most of them.

Some lines were on their last legs, some could no longer be justified, and were a bit pointless when they were constructed.

Many lines were deliberately run down before the final closure, a bit like BR tried to do with the S&C. If you force people away from the services, then it's easier to justify closure.

Other lines, like the Gwendraeth Valley near here, survived for many years due to freiight traffic. There was never going to be any viable passenger traffic on this line: it was built to carry coal, and ran in the opposite direction to where most passengers wanted to go.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I hesitate to criticise Beeching due to the difficulty in seeing the relevant factors from the PoV of that era (and I say that as someone who was around to witness it all, albeit as a young person). Yes, there was a wonderful vision of a clean, techologically automated future in which the 'old' labourious and labour-intensive tasks of coal mining and railway operation were seen as antiquated. Nuclear power was about to become so freely available that electricity would be too cheap to be worth metering. Personal flying machines seemed to be just around the corner. Medicine was just about to unravel the key which would provide the cure to all possible diseases. Everywhere, the continued raising of the standards of life from 19th c. grime and disease would rise to endless health, happiness, wealth, with lots of concrete everywhere and all nations being equally enthusiastic about being, er, 'modern').

All wrong, very wrong, as we now know.

The biggest error of the Beeching cuts was to allow the formations to be built on, this eliminating any reasonable chance of reopening when developments occurred that may have justified a railway service in the future

With hindsight, yes - absolutely. We could have imagined that the future would be quite unlike the way it actually developed but to think that the prime physical asset could be abandoned so readily is inexcusable.

 

[Jonny]

The worst case I came across is when Durham County Council let the lines to Consett go after the steelworks closed; they could have chipped in to enable a passenger service. Now, the remains of the trackbeds are slowly getting built over.

 

[sulli_os]

Am I right in thinking that Beeching actually recommended that the Woodhead route between Sheffield and Manchester remained open, and that the Hope Valley line should have closed?

If so, why didn't that recommendation get followed?

 

[ainsworth74]

Am I right in thinking that Beeching actually recommended that the Woodhead route between Sheffield and Manchester remained open, and that the Hope Valley line should have closed?

If so, why didn't that recommendation get followed?

I'm not sure if that's true but if it is the recommendation wouldn't have been followed as it would have been out of date by the time the decision was made this is because the Woodhead was closed about 20 years after the Beeching report and the situation had changed.

 

[FLHH East Anglia]

I'm not sure if that's true but if it is the recommendation wouldn't have been followed as it would have been out of date by the time the decision was made this is because the Woodhead was closed about 20 years after the Beeching report and the situation had changed.

Just think,IF the Woodhead route had stayed open them wonderful 76's may still be knocking about.

 

[Batman]

Ive always believed that Beeching was a realist who did what he needed to do.

However, there are some closeures that I still can't get my head around.

Beeching did not take into consideration at all the fact that at the time there was substancial housing growth in many of the areas where lines were closed.

Using an example that local to me, the Chase Line could well have served as a viable commuter line throught the 70's and 80's if only it had been given the chance.

Ok, lets be realistic about this, the line would still have been run down in the late 60's but I don't beleive it should have been closed althgether because there were countless new housing developments planned in the area at the time the closure decision was taken.

I'm guessing that had the service continued it probably would have been cut back to an hourly Birmingham - Hednesford all stations service in the late 60's with a half hourly Birmingham - Walsall service to make use of the wires.

I'm guessing that all the stations on the line would have been demolished with Hednesford being re-built as a single platform halt for trains to terminate at and Cannock being rebuilt on the same sight as a simple halt. Landywood and Bloxwich stations would have been built to the same standards on the sights they are today.

But I'm also guessing that this probably would have been reduced to a 6 trains a day peak time only service in the mid 70's, with an hourly off-peak service being restored in the early to mid 80's?

I'm basing that asumption on the service levels at Redditch and Bromsgrove at the same time.

 

[Greenback]

Ive always believed that Beeching was a realist

Hew as only a realist to the extent that he was brought in to do a job and so did it. It would have been unrealistic to expect him not to recommend large sections of the network for closure.

Whether the decision to make the railways pay or to focus on developing roads was realistic is another matter. It probably was, at the time, for reasons already discussed.

Beeching did not take into consideration at all the fact that at the time there was substancial housing growth in many of the areas where lines were closed.

That sort of thing was not part of Beeching's remit. he was following instructions to make the railway system profitable. Future trends were a matter for government to consider as part of national policy.

Ok, lets be realistic about this, the line would still have been run down in the late 60's but I don't beleive it should have been closed althgether because there were countless new housing developments planned in the area at the time the closure decision was taken.

It was not foreseen at the time that railways would do anything but decline. Where there were housing developments, it was believed that everyone would have access to a car, and would not want or need to travel by train. Those that did not have a car, would have to take a bus, or more likely would not want to live in the new housing.

 

[Batman]

Hew as only a realist to the extent that he was brought in to do a job and so did it. It would have been unrealistic to expect him not to recommend large sections of the network for closure.

Whether the decision to make the railways pay or to focus on developing roads was realistic is another matter. It probably was, at the time, for reasons already discussed.



That sort of thing was not part of Beeching's remit. he was following instructions to make the railway system profitable. Future trends were a matter for government to consider as part of national policy.



It was not foreseen at the time that railways would do anything but decline. Where there were housing developments, it was believed that everyone would have access to a car, and would not want or need to travel by train. Those that did not have a car, would have to take a bus, or more likely would not want to live in the new housing.

Fair point.

I don't think it was till about 1980 that the railways started to grow again.

 

[Greenback]

I think it was probably later than 1980, although there was a greater realisation of the benefits of rail travel at that time, largely due to the effects of the oil crisis in 1973.

I don't think it was until the second half of the 1980's that rail reopenings really began to be seriously considered, and closures ceased.

1983 Closure of Clayton West branch, plus Sheffield - Huddersifeld direct.
1983 Withdrawal of service to kilmacolm (although they have since been resotred to Paisley Canal)
1985 Eridge - Tunbridge Wells closed.

 

[Bittern]

There's also this one, which to this day I still believe was unfair.

1983 - Closure of Kilmacolm line. The line had been under pressure of closure since Beeching (wether Beeching recommended it in his report I don't know. I suspect he did.) The line was singled from Corkerhill and cut back to Hawkhead for freight.

1990: The above line was reopened as the Paisley Canal line. A new station was built at Paisley Canal on the opposite side of the road bridge as a single platform terminus. SPT have confirmed that the trackbed to Kilmacolm is available for future railway use.

Quite shortsighted, no? The line was closed, only to be mostly reopened seven years later.

 

[Greenback]

Yes, it was very shortsighted, and as I mentioned it was one of the last of the closures that took place that weren't related to light rail.

As well as the 1980's closures there was also the rationalisation schemes that have either had to be put back at enormous cost, or are still causing delays to this day.

 

[Bittern]

Must've overlooked your mention of it. Still, it's one line I would certainly make use of today. I occasionally have to travel on what's left of it.

 

[Greenback]

Well, it was between the other two and I didn't put a capital K on Kilmacolm!

 

[imagination]

Remember that in the 1960s only half of british households owned a car, although about 2% more households were getting a car every year - indeed it was almost exactly the same time as the beeching report came out that the increase in car ownership started to slow.

 

[Greenback]

The expectation amongst pretty much everyone was that the rate of growth in car ownership would rise. The rate of increase may well have actually slowed down, but the increase did continue.

Most of my family did not have a car in the 1960's. Then again, they didn't actually need one, as there were shops and jobs within a ten minute walk.

 

[exile]

The real shift in transport usage from the 60s was from bus to car. The 1966 census was the first to record method of travel to work - and the bus was the winner by far in towns and cities outside London (where it was train and tube). Today the car is the market leader everywhere except London.

 

[Gareth Marston]

As an auditor the lack of any verifiable backing evidence to the assertion of lines having huge losses that the inquirys were told stands out like a sore thumb that something underhand was going on.
The fact that the solution didnt put BR back in profit (its publicly intended aim) also questions the conclusions and solutions.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Quite shortsighted, no? The line was closed, only to be mostly reopened seven years later.

The station I commute daily from - Narborough (and Littlethorpe) closed 1st March 1968 and re-opended 1 January 1970 - all of 22 months closure! How many passengers were lost in the interim though...?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Am I right in thinking that Beeching actually recommended that the Woodhead route between Sheffield and Manchester remained open, and that the Hope Valley line should have closed?

If so, why didn't that recommendation get followed?

You are right about Woodhead in the 1963 report, and indeed the Hope Valley was to be closed (as also were all the local services off both routes round Manchester, also Huddersfield-Penistone(there was no service via Barnsley then)).

In the 1965 report (Development of Major Railway Trunk Routes) the Woodhead and Hebden Bridge transpennine routes were selected for development rather than Diggle and Hope Valley. It also chose the CLC and St Helens routes between Manchester and Liverpool. It even talked about electrification of the CLC to Liverpool to utilise the electric locos better.

This choice seems mostly to be about coal flows, with Fidlers Ferry newly built and the Lancs coalfield in full swing. Most of the traffic assumptions were, as usual, pants.

What saved the Hope Valley was the local cement traffic, as the line would be needed for that anyway. There was no intermediate freight on the Woodhead route (with Stocksbridge steel traffic routed via Sheffield).

 

[yorksrob]

I think the main problem with the Beeching/Marples mindset was the concentration of the profitability of routes.

As an example, even people on this forum have alluded to the idea that the Far North lines "should have been closed" as opposed to other routes. From the perspective of route profitability these would never be profitable due to their length alone. Yet I doubt that even at the very nadir of national railway passenger travel, these trains were ever carting around "fresh air" due to the strategic nature of the routes. Yet they only survived due to the power of the Highland lobby at the time.

There seemed to be little attempt to differentiate between those routes which genuinely were carrying around fresh air and those which were providing a service to the community (before they were deliberately wound down).

I also think we're too quick to assume that actions/policies were somehow justified just because they happenned a long time ago when "things were different". There were people who disagreed with and stood out against the Establishment viewpoint at the time and I think that it is important to disect those errors and work out what went wrong or else we're likely to repeat the same mistakes.

Also, if the vilification of Dr Beeching/Marples means that future politicians and officials regard route closures with more caution than they might otherwise have done, then it is a good thing and should be continued.