Beeching's success story

[yorksrob]

I largely agree, although the places that generate and receive bulk freight tend to do so for a period of decades so there is a reasonable predictability about what the flows might be.



Wasn't the choice between these two routes influenced by freight as well as passenger issues? All the freight on Woodhead was end-to-end and could therefore be diverted to Hope Valley, but the Hope Valley freight originated at places along the route so would have been lost if it closed. Combined with the Hope Valley serving some intermediate population and Woodhead passing through empty countryside, I believe the correct decision was made in that case.

Indeed, although my point is that to begin with, it was the Hope Valley which was selected for closure based on the amount of traffic using Woodhead at the time, which illustrates the folly of trying to base the long term shape of the network around individual freight flows. You end up with a limited network which isn't able to respond to new or changing flows.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Surely that did not happen until the Sole User charging system for the use of infrastructure came in. Wasn't that about the middle of the 80s, and wasn't it connected with the introduction of the Business Sectors?

Pretty much so - as the sectors kicked in and got more cost / revenue intrusive - but there were well established Freight Managers in the Regions who before the 1980's were generally well aware of the need to invest or divest as the case may be. The passenger focused Southern Region had some very good individuals who kept a close eye on freight matters in their patch - and even after "sectorisation" - they played a key role in this area.

All of this detailed knowledge - especially on cost control was lost post 1994

 

[Senex]

All of this detailed knowledge - especially on cost control was lost post 1994

And that's the tragedy of the way the Major government decided to do its privatisation.

 

[exile]

Indeed, although my point is that to begin with, it was the Hope Valley which was selected for closure based on the amount of traffic using Woodhead at the time, which illustrates the folly of trying to base the long term shape of the network around individual freight flows. You end up with a limited network which isn't able to respond to new or changing flows.

It should be pointed out that Beeching proposed to close the Hope Valley line for both passengers and freight and to keep Woodhead open for both (albeit with intermediate stations and the Glossop branch closing) but in the event passenger trains were routed via the Hope Valley leaving Woodhead as freight only - at that stage there was plenty of freight traffic, and the decision to close Woodhead 15 years later was based on a reduction in freight to 20 trainloads per day in each direction and the cost of converting to AC.