BR closure notices

[Andy873]

I was wondering what was the period / procedure in actually notifying the public that a passenger service on a line was being withdrawn by BR in the late 1950's and 60's.

For example, if a line's passenger service on a specific branch line was being withdrawn officially and stations closed say 2nd December, when would the closure notice have gone up, one month, two months before?

I presume these notices were also placed in local newspapers?

Would there have been a consultation period with the public first, if so how long would this typically take, or did BR just put up the notices anyway?

Thanks,
Andy.

 

[PeterC]

IIRC notices went up at stations which gave an opportunity to object. I can't remember the timescale and there was no suggestion that anybody was being "consulted".

 

[30907]

A Google image search for "railway closure notice" produces examples of posters and newspaper adverts. The notice period for objections under the 1962 Act was 6 weeks. If objections were received (as there usually were) there was then a formal consideration process by the TUCC whose recommendation the Minister could overturn.

 

[Bevan Price]

A notice was published on stations showing a proposal to close stations or withdraw passenger services. Six weeks were allowed for objections to closure. There was often a statement iindicating that closure would not take place before a specified date.

The Transport Minister would consider objections, and if closure was approved, a notice of closure would then be published - usually a few weeks before closure.

See, for example:

http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/OngarBranchPoster.html


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=b...=0wPkWIi-BsqfgAbQrbD4Bg#imgrc=0YVujD0J-kx5TM:




(The time allowed for the Minister to consider objections was not specified, and could take many months, or even years.)


Also, before the 1962 Transport Act, closures could occur without public consultation.

 

[Lankyline]

From Marples reply to an MP

http://www.stourline.co.uk/page13.htm

"Under Section 56, when the Railways Board wish to proceed with any proposals to withdraw all passenger services from any line or station, they must give at least six weeks notice. The notice must be published in two successive weeks in two local newspapers. The Board will also put notices on the station affected and send copies to the local authorities. Once notice has been given, users may lodge objections with the Area Transport Users Consultative Committee", the Minister explains.

 

[Andy873]

Fascinating!

So for my favorite line (Gt Harwood loop branch line), which closed to passengers on 2nd December 1957 could just been a case of putting up notices around 6 weeks before closure of stations.

There could have been some form on consultation before the official closure notices went up - I guess that will be in an old newspaper somewhere.

Goods traffic continued on this line until November 1964, would there have been any notices published about stopping the goods service - or was this just seen as an internal BR matter?

I presume that when it came to demolishing the remain line, notices would appear in newspapers inviting contractors to tender?

Thanks,
Andy.

 

[30907]

As post #4 shows, there was no requirement for public consultation. However, the Wikipedia article on the Bluebell Line ((Lewes-East Grinstead, a particularly famous case) describes the process leading to its first closure thus:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebell_Railway

"In 1954, long before the Beeching Axe, the branch line committee of British Railways proposed closing the line from East Grinstead to Culver Junction near Lewes. This was challenged by local residents, but closure was agreed [by the Minister] in February 1955 for 15 June 1955..."

So the process was similar but the quick search I referred to didn't throw up any preliminary notices, only the final "closure on and from..." sort.

Notices of closure of public goods facilities also had to be published but AFAIK there was no statutory consultation.

No idea about demolition tenders, but I suspect there would have been the 60s version of "preferred contractors" rather than line by line tender.

 

[JohnR]

Objections could still be sent to TUCCs before the 1962 act. There were many inquiries held which had hundreds of objections - the Isle of Wight ones being a case in point.

 

[Andy873]

Thanks everyone,

I guess that the powers that be (Marples and Beeching) were just going to close lines anyway despite objections, and I think it was always a done deal.

Giving the public a mechanism for objecting to a closure was just a bit of PR, and I don't think many objections were upheld.

Just an opinion.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There is a fairly extensive discussion of the process and issues in T R Gourvish's official history of British Railways 1948-73. Appendix J has lots of useful figures.
E.g. Marples accepted 124 'Beeching' proposals (not including pre-Reshaping Report cases), part-accepted 17 and rejected 7. However a lot more got 'stuck' or held up to be 'inherited' by Fraser and Castle before another 148 were accepted, 31 part-accepted and 27 rejected.
So it's not quite as straightforward as 'just did it anyway'. The role of the CTCC and TUCCs is also covered in the book.

 

[Andy873]

That backs up a documentary I watched yesterday about the cuts.

Trying not to stray too much into politics here, but there was an election in October 64 which brought in a labour government and Harold Wilson as PM.

Part of his election campaign was to stop the Beeching cuts, but carried on with them anyway.

I think people could already see how congested the roads where even then and going to be even more in the near future, I don't think you would have needed a PhD to work that one out.

Which begs the next question about the alternatives available to BR rather than ripping up the lines..... maybe this subject should be a new post?

 

[Taunton]

This sequence appeared fairly regularly in the 1960s at Taunton as the various branches and main line local stations were closed.

There were two separate notices, large and closely-printed with a lot of legal staff, that went up. The first stated the Railways Board "Proposes" to close, and detailed the objection procedure. Should any relevant ones be received (they normally were) a smaller sticker was put over a top corner of the notice saying "An objection has been received" etc etc, and that things were pending that.

The TUCC enquiry itself was just reported in the local press.

Everything then went quiet for quite some time, often the best part of a year (although the notice and sticker continued to be displayed) until suddenly they were replaced with a "Closure Notice", describing the outcome of the TUCC enquiry and stating that the line would now actually close, often on a date one or two months ahead.

I presume that when it came to demolishing the remain line, notices would appear in newspapers inviting contractors to tender?

The area civil engineering chief would decide how to do it, and often used their own resources, in particular the Western Region. The platelayers for the line in question would generally appreciate some further final work. At this time there was considerable amount of rationalisation and stripping back of assets along the live railway as well, generally handled by the same crews. In the few years before the various Taunton branches had actually closed, there had been a considerable rationalisation of these lines, the Minehead and Barnstaple branches in particular had many of the passing loops, freight sidings, additional platforms and buildings removed, and signal boxes eliminated, the main route just continuing as a single plain line. Someone described it at the time as the "WR scorched earth policy". When Morebath Junction, along the Barnstaple line, had the Exe Valley line closed, the substantial pointwork, station buildings, everything, was completely flattened and the ground covered with spent ballast (well, that saved the cost of disposing it) such that when passing through on a Barnstaple train in its last couple of years you would never guess there had ever been any railway facility there.

 

[Andy873]

It's both fascinating and sad in equal measures.

Here is a picture of the Gt Harwood down line being lifted in 1965 (around October and onwards):

http://www.steamingnorth.com/displayimage.php?album=12&pid=359#top_display_media

Here is a picture of Gt Harwood railway station being demolished (at the same time as the above photo):

http://www.steamingnorth.com/displayimage.php?album=12&pid=360#top_display_media

Lastly, here is a photo from 1961. The building behind the train was the carriage shed at Gt Harwood, already it has no roof 4 years before the above photos:

http://www.steamingnorth.com/displayimage.php?album=12&pid=364#top_display_media

I've read many posts on how BR would try to close a line, this is what most people state:

1. Reduce the passenger numbers by removing services to other destinations so passengers would now have to change at an intermediate station.

2. Make the connecting services inconvenient i.e. no time to catch it, or give a person a longer wait.

3. Periodically cancel services.

Result - less people use the line giving BR the excuse to close it to passengers.

With regards to goods services:

1. Where and when possible goods would be diverted along a different route.

2. Many goods sheds and sidings were run down and pulled.

Result - not enough goods traffic - perfect excuse to completely close a line.

There is also the question of false traffic numbers, BR might say only X number of trains used the line, but spotters / interested people in the line would count Y number of trains.

How much of this is true I don't know, but I guess from a logical point of view, if you really wanted to close a line this is what you would try.

Indeed, they tried this with the Settle - Carlise line, but by this time people had seen the signs.

I guess if you were lifting a line, you would do it when the weather was favorable i.e. not winter?

What I'm being told is that it was common to do it either Spring or Autumn?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Pre Beeching it could be fairly quick - withdrawal of the passenger service from Pantyffynon to Brynamman West was mooted in April 1958 , there was a brief meeting with the predecessors of the RPC in May - not contested - and staff consultation by the local Station Masters followed within a week - last trains ran on the 11th of August. (though a few Summer excursions and Rugby specials ran in the following months)

 

[yorksrob]

Pre Beeching it could be fairly quick - withdrawal of the passenger service from Pantyffynon to Brynamman West was mooted in April 1958 , there was a brief meeting with the predecessors of the RPC in May - not contested - and staff consultation by the local Station Masters followed within a week - last trains ran on the 11th of August. (though a few Summer excursions and Rugby specials ran in the following months)

Wasn't there a court case in 1958 when BR attempted a quickie closure of the Bluebell line which was successfully challenged in court.

 

[Andy873]

Not sure about court cases, but I read somewhere I think about trains in north Wales.

The person says there was a 3 year rule of leaving at least one line (if it was double) for this period in case it was reinstated or needed.

This would tie in nicely with the Gt Harwood loop line, as goods stopped 2nd November 1964, and The nearest guesstimate I can come up with is that the final up line was lifted autumn 67 or spring 68.

Does anyone know about this 3 year rule?

 

[30907]

Wasn't there a court case in 1958 when BR attempted a quickie closure of the Bluebell line which was successfully challenged in court.

Yes, but it was challenged because of the wording of the original Act, not because the normal process wasn't followed. See link in my post #6.

 

[simonw]

It's both fascinating and sad in equal measures.

Here is a picture of the Gt Harwood down line being lifted in 1965 (around October and onwards):

http://www.steamingnorth.com/displayimage.php?album=12&pid=359#top_display_media

Here is a picture of Gt Harwood railway station being demolished (at the same time as the above photo):

http://www.steamingnorth.com/displayimage.php?album=12&pid=360#top_display_media

Lastly, here is a photo from 1961. The building behind the train was the carriage shed at Gt Harwood, already it has no roof 4 years before the above photos:

http://www.steamingnorth.com/displayimage.php?album=12&pid=364#top_display_media

I've read many posts on how BR would try to close a line, this is what most people state:

1. Reduce the passenger numbers by removing services to other destinations so passengers would now have to change at an intermediate station.

2. Make the connecting services inconvenient i.e. no time to catch it, or give a person a longer wait.

3. Periodically cancel services.

Result - less people use the line giving BR the excuse to close it to passengers.

With regards to goods services:

1. Where and when possible goods would be diverted along a different route.

2. Many goods sheds and sidings were run down and pulled.

Result - not enough goods traffic - perfect excuse to completely close a line.

There is also the question of false traffic numbers, BR might say only X number of trains used the line, but spotters / interested people in the line would count Y number of trains.

How much of this is true I don't know, but I guess from a logical point of view, if you really wanted to close a line this is what you would try.

Indeed, they tried this with the Settle - Carlise line, but by this time people had seen the signs.

I guess if you were lifting a line, you would do it when the weather was favorable i.e. not winter?

What I'm being told is that it was common to do it either Spring or Autumn?

This has been discussed at length many times before. Most developed countries have seen closures of railways on a quite large scale. Britain was different only in that it had the Beeching report not in that closures took place. Look what happened in Eastern Europe following the fall of the iron curtain.

Lines were lifted at all times of the year.

 

[simonw]

That backs up a documentary I watched yesterday about the cuts.

Trying not to stray too much into politics here, but there was an election in October 64 which brought in a labour government and Harold Wilson as PM.

Part of his election campaign was to stop the Beeching cuts, but carried on with them anyway.

I think people could already see how congested the roads where even then and going to be even more in the near future, I don't think you would have needed a PhD to work that one out.

Which begs the next question about the alternatives available to BR rather than ripping up the lines..... maybe this subject should be a new post?

The truth is a bit more nuanced than how you describe it. You might like to look into the changes that Barbara Castle introduced.

 

[Taunton]

Britain was different only in that it had the Beeching report not in that closures took place.

France made a huge clearout of branch lines all on one day in 1938. As rural French bus services were never to the extent that developed in Britain in the 1920s-70s, much of the country was dependent on cars very early on.

 

[exile]

Thanks everyone,

I guess that the powers that be (Marples and Beeching) were just going to close lines anyway despite objections, and I think it was always a done deal.

Giving the public a mechanism for objecting to a closure was just a bit of PR, and I don't think many objections were upheld.

Just an opinion.

And a wrong one - there were several cases of closures not being approved (Manchester-Buxton, Inverness-Thurso, Inverness-Kyle, etc).

 

[exile]

France made a huge clearout of branch lines all on one day in 1938. As rural French bus services were never to the extent that developed in Britain in the 1920s-70s, much of the country was dependent on cars very early on.

All withdrawn services were replaced by buses at the time, but as happened in Britain the bus services were barely more viable than the trains and many have vanished over the intervening years. Rural transport is indeed poor in France - most services, buses or trains, run to take people to school or the local market. Cross the border into Germany and you are in a world of hourly or better bus or train services serving all but the smallest towns and villages. Yet, the Paris area is very well served by public transport, and of course there are TGVs linking the major cities. A curious mixture.

 

[exile]

Not sure about court cases, but I read somewhere I think about trains in north Wales.

The person says there was a 3 year rule of leaving at least one line (if it was double) for this period in case it was reinstated or needed.

This would tie in nicely with the Gt Harwood loop line, as goods stopped 2nd November 1964, and The nearest guesstimate I can come up with is that the final up line was lifted autumn 67 or spring 68.

Does anyone know about this 3 year rule?

In some cases lines were lifted very quickly. The Waverley route, despite being 100 miles long, had gone completely by mid 1971, 2 years after closing. Lossiemouth branch, 6 miles long, lifted within 2 years of closure to freight. Kelso branch, closed 1968, lifted 1970. On the other hand the Dumfries-Stranraer line took 4 years to lift, as did the Deeside line to Ballater. I guess it depended on contractors being available to do the demolition work. In a later example, Warrington-Timperley, closed 1985, had gone by the time I first took a look in 1987.

 

[Bevan Price]

It's both fascinating and sad in equal measures.


I've read many posts on how BR would try to close a line, this is what most people state:

1. Reduce the passenger numbers by removing services to other destinations so passengers would now have to change at an intermediate station.

2. Make the connecting services inconvenient i.e. no time to catch it, or give a person a longer wait.

3. Periodically cancel services.

Result - less people use the line giving BR the excuse to close it to passengers.

Whilst some of those things might have happened, I think that there were some lines that were always financial basket cases lines that should probably have never been built, and for which closure was inevitable.

A second cause can be explained by complacency, maybe even a degree of incompetence in some cases. Some timetables were allowed to remain almost unchanged for many years - failing to adapt to changing circumstances - and sometimes showing a total failure to comprehend what most passengers needed - train times suitable for commuting to Work (or school), and then trains suitable for leisure trips (shopping, seaside , etc.) Some timetables seemed devised more for operating convenience than for providing useful services.

 

[exile]

Whilst some of those things might have happened, I think that there were some lines that were always financial basket cases lines that should probably have never been built, and for which closure was inevitable.

A second cause can be explained by complacency, maybe even a degree of incompetence in some cases. Some timetables were allowed to remain almost unchanged for many years - failing to adapt to changing circumstances - and sometimes showing a total failure to comprehend what most passengers needed - train times suitable for commuting to Work (or school), and then trains suitable for leisure trips (shopping, seaside , etc.) Some timetables seemed devised more for operating convenience than for providing useful services.

I think it was more of a case that some lines were seen as past saving, so spending money on improving services, or investing to reduce operating costs (signalling, pay-trains) was seen as money wasted. But there were instances where BR tried to reduce costs or improve services, eg by introducing DMUs and railbuses, destaffing stations and even opening a few new "halts" (example - Craigellachie to Aviemore).

 

[yorksrob]

And a wrong one - there were several cases of closures not being approved (Manchester-Buxton, Inverness-Thurso, Inverness-Kyle, etc).

Not really. If you look at the number of closures rejected in post ten, as opposed to accepted or partially accepted, the number is miniscule. The oft mentioned Ministerial check was a toothless tiger for the most part.

The real problem was that closure could only legally be opposed on the grounds of "hardship". A nebulous and hopelessly inadequate basis on which to judge the economic and social contribution of a railway passenger service to its area.

 

[yorksrob]

Whilst some of those things might have happened, I think that there were some lines that were always financial basket cases lines that should probably have never been built, and for which closure was inevitable.

A second cause can be explained by complacency, maybe even a degree of incompetence in some cases. Some timetables were allowed to remain almost unchanged for many years - failing to adapt to changing circumstances - and sometimes showing a total failure to comprehend what most passengers needed - train times suitable for commuting to Work (or school), and then trains suitable for leisure trips (shopping, seaside , etc.) Some timetables seemed devised more for operating convenience than for providing useful services.

Then there's the York - Market Weighton case in which through journeys had to be deliberately discounted to manufacture a case for closure.