Happy Beeching Anniversary

[Manchester77]

Correct me if I am wrong but NSE came into existence in 1986 I read somewhere

Isn't that what I said...?

London and South East was relaunched by Chris Green in 1986 as Network SouthEast operating commuter services in and around London

 

[Gareth Marston]

Here's some DfT statistics that put a different light on things. Its Passenger KM's traveled in Billions. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/.../rai0101.xls

I've selected some years from the start of BR till the end.
1948 34.2
1962 31.8
1983 29.5
1988/89 34.3
1996/97 32.1

Funny how at the peak of the economic cycle in the late 80's it was higher than at nationalisation. And with 32.1 Billion just before privatisation what doldrums were the TOC's rescuing us from?

 

[Mikey C]

The increase use of intercity rail services has only really come about because the over-reaction to 9/11 and the 'security theatre' makes air travel so unattractive.

I recall in the 1990's you could turn up, walk onto a plane until 15 mins before departure and you were way. It really was like a bus service.

Plus, of course, we've had NuLabour's 'war on the motorist' and using the driver as a cash-cow with nonsense fines for this, that and the other.

The railways are overcrowded and expensive, but they are currently the 'least worst' way of getting across England.

In addition , massive Air Passenger Duty has decimated domestic air travel. As a result, a few regional airports have actually closed down.

The NSE area has a massive affect on passenger numbers, due to the number of people commuting into London, which goes up and down depending on employment in Central London. These routes were relatively unaffected by Beeching, and where connecting branch lines were closed, people instead drive to a different station for their train to London.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Woodhead was shut because, at the time of closure, there was over capacity on the trans penine routes and woodhead needed money spending on it.

If the Woodhead had been converted to 25kv AC then it would still be open today as I would have guessed the section from Woodhouse to Retford would have been electrified thus giving a connection from the ECML to the WCML

 

[ainsworth74]

Yeah but that was never going to happen was it? I mean why on earth would it? Coal traffic was in terminal decline passenger traffic had be withdrawn years previously and as far as BR was concerned the Hope Valley was sufficient to meet both current and future demand. Again it's only in the last few years that a second route between Manchester and Sheffield would have proved useful.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Yeah but that was never going to happen was it? I mean why on earth would it? Coal traffic was in terminal decline passenger traffic had be withdrawn years previously and as far as BR was concerned the Hope Valley was sufficient to meet both current and future demand. Again it's only in the last few years that a second route between Manchester and Sheffield would have proved useful.

That is why BR were stupid, it is a well known fact that even many years ago if you travelled to Manchester either by the A57 Snake Pass or the A628 Woodhead Route you would get stuck at Mottram Moor for ages and people wanted to go by train, it was BR's fault in the 1960's for cutting the services down from Sheffield Victoria no wonder their was no passgengers.

As for converting the 1500dc system to 25kv AC, their was talk about doing this around 1959/1960, they put it down to cost yet part of the line from Manchester to Hadfield/Glossop was done in 1984.

 

[ainsworth74]

That is why BR were stupid, it is a well known fact that even many years ago if you travelled to Manchester either by the A57 Snake Pass or the A628 Woodhead Route you would get stuck at Mottram Moor for ages and people wanted to go by train, it was BR's fault in the 1960's for cutting the services down from Sheffield Victoria no wonder their was no passgengers.

Alternatively they were pragmatic. On the one hand they had a lightly used route that would require significant chunks of money to maintain even though there was little traffic, on the other they had a second route which provided sufficient capacity for all Sheffield - Manchester traffic. The sensible decision using the information to hand was to close the Woodhead as surplus to requirements.

As for passenger traffic those services were withdrawn at a time when the railways were seemingly in terminal decline. You would have been laughed out of the building if you'd suggested in forty years the railway would be carrying more passengers than at any time since before the Second World War.

You need to try and get over the loss of Sheffield Victoria and the Woodhead. They were surplus to requirement then and they were still surplus to requirement until very recently when it's possible that they might have been useful.

As for converting the 1500dc system to 25kv AC, their was talk about doing this around 1959/1960, they put it down to cost yet part of the line from Manchester to Hadfield/Glossop was done in 1984.

There is a huge difference between rewiring fourteen miles of heavily used commuter services and rewiring dozens of miles of lightly used mainline! I mean how can you not see that?

But getting back to the original thrust of this argument you've yet to demonstrate why closing the Woodhead was worse than all of the other Beeching Report closures, which was your original contention.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

An interesting disclosure:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...3098339/?campaign=Wales_email_newsam:20130402

 

[Mvann]

The only way, at that time, for woodhead to stay open was if the damage to standedge tunnel was expensive to rectify after the accident there.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The only way, at that time, for woodhead to stay open was if the damage to standedge tunnel was expensive to rectify after the accident there.

I can only assume that you actually mean to refer to the Summit Tunnel fire: (A fascinating read at- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_Tunnel_fire) not Standedge. Standedge ceased to be a valid alternative to Woodhead for Sheffield-Manchester freight since the Horbury Curve was closed.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Alternatively they were pragmatic. On the one hand they had a lightly used route that would require significant chunks of money to maintain even though there was little traffic, on the other they had a second route which provided sufficient capacity for all Sheffield - Manchester traffic. The sensible decision using the information to hand was to close the Woodhead as surplus to requirements.

As for passenger traffic those services were withdrawn at a time when the railways were seemingly in terminal decline. You would have been laughed out of the building if you'd suggested in forty years the railway would be carrying more passengers than at any time since before the Second World War.

You need to try and get over the loss of Sheffield Victoria and the Woodhead. They were surplus to requirement then and they were still surplus to requirement until very recently when it's possible that they might have been useful.

Looking to the future do you believe that there could be a case for re-opening and electrifying Woodhead as part of an extension to this electric freight spine that is due to terminate at Sheffield by the end of this decade, given that as I understand it electrifying the Hope valley would be difficult due to all the tunnels and bridges along the route?

 

[Morgsie]

That is another route which closed but could be a diversionary route today, the Woodhead line.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Looking to the future do you believe that there could be a case for re-opening and electrifying Woodhead as part of an extension to this electric freight spine that is due to terminate at Sheffield by the end of this decade, given that as I understand it electrifying the Hope valley would be difficult due to all the tunnels and bridges along the route?

Probably not as the growing bits of freight are port to inland deep sea conainer r flows which means Southampton / Thamesport / Felixstowe etc to the Midlands and the North. Liverpool is not a world player any more - and hauls from the East Coast ports like Hull are too short. There is nothing in the freight marketing studies which give rise to any optimism or more than a few trains a day.

Woodhead was there for Yorkshire - Lancashire coal and freight which is not part of the UK economy anymore. We could have done with the modernised route in WW2 - no sooner was it done , then the traffics ebbed away. Not helped either by methods of working and to some extent resrictive practises (one is led to believe) - the Hope Valley can manage 3 semi/fast passengers an hour , a stopping passenger and an hourly freight. North TPE will do 6 electric passengers an hour + a freight. (and covers more of the population)

 

[tbtc]

If the Woodhead had been converted to 25kv AC then it would still be open today as I would have guessed the section from Woodhouse to Retford would have been electrified thus giving a connection from the ECML to the WCML

That is why BR were stupid, it is a well known fact that even many years ago if you travelled to Manchester either by the A57 Snake Pass or the A628 Woodhead Route you would get stuck at Mottram Moor for ages and people wanted to go by train, it was BR's fault in the 1960's for cutting the services down from Sheffield Victoria no wonder their was no passgengers.

As for converting the 1500dc system to 25kv AC, their was talk about doing this around 1959/1960, they put it down to cost yet part of the line from Manchester to Hadfield/Glossop was done in 1984.

You'd have converted Woodhead to AC to run services from Sheffield to London via Retford? But the Retford line was only electrified around twenty years ago.

The capacity problem between Sheffield and Manchester has long been more about train length than the number of paths - if you wanted longer trains then you'd have sorted out the two coach DMUs that provided most journeys (before EMT could devote sufficient 158s to extend some of their services to four coaches).

Much easier to provide longer trains than to maintain a second route between the cities (even if there are no extra paths through the Hope Valley). Less romantic though I suppose.

 

[yorksrob]

Probably not as the growing bits of freight are port to inland deep sea conainer r flows which means Southampton / Thamesport / Felixstowe etc to the Midlands and the North. Liverpool is not a world player any more - and hauls from the East Coast ports like Hull are too short. There is nothing in the freight marketing studies which give rise to any optimism or more than a few trains a day.

A nascent case for reopening March to Spalding perhaps

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A nascent case for reopening March to Spalding perhaps

Looked at on the ground - no chance (route lost for ever) - but a chord from Kings Dyke on the east side of P/boro onto the Spalding line is eminently do-able (need Planning permission) - Network Rail has the details in case it is ever needed. Would keep freight out of P/boro and save the grade seperation at Werrington.

 

[yorksrob]

Looked at on the ground - no chance (route lost for ever) - but a chord from Kings Dyke on the east side of P/boro onto the Spalding line is eminently do-able (need Planning permission) - Network Rail has the details in case it is ever needed. Would keep freight out of P/boro and save the grade seperation at Werrington.

I though that might be the case. As tbtc would put it, not as romantic though

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Probably not as the growing bits of freight are port to inland deep sea conainer r flows which means Southampton / Thamesport / Felixstowe etc to the Midlands and the North. Liverpool is not a world player any more - and hauls from the East Coast ports like Hull are too short. There is nothing in the freight marketing studies which give rise to any optimism or more than a few trains a day.)

That's my point though any electric freight from Southampton is going to get suck at Sheffield where the electric spine runs out. Assuming that the gaps between Sheffield and Leeds/Doncaster are wired in early CP6 that will allow any electric freight to access the ECML but to get to the NW it will still have to go up the WCML from Coventry/Nuneaton and we all know about the limited capacity there.

Woodhead was there for Yorkshire - Lancashire coal and freight which is not part of the UK economy anymore. We could have done with the modernised route in WW2 - no sooner was it done , then the traffics ebbed away. Not helped either by methods of working and to some extent resrictive practises (one is led to believe) - the Hope Valley can manage 3 semi/fast passengers an hour , a stopping passenger and an hourly freight. North TPE will do 6 electric passengers an hour + a freight. (and covers more of the population)

I wonder what would be the difference in cost of reopening and electrifying Woodhead given the electrification clearances are already there vs. electrifying the hope valley with associated gauge clearance work?

 

[ainsworth74]

I wonder what would be the difference in cost of reopening and electrifying Woodhead given the electrification clearances are already there vs. electrifying the hope valley with associated gauge clearance work?

One consideration would be removing the electricity cables that I believe were fitted into the main Woodhead Tunnel from around 2008. You'd also need to persuade the National Grid to sell them back to Network Rail as they're the current owners.

To be honest I would be very surprised is re-opening the Woodhead would be any cheaper than electrifying the Hope Valley and indeed I would not be surprised if it wasn't a good deal more expensive!

 

[Mvann]

There are also fibre optic cables in the tunnels. I met some guys who worked on them when I worked in north Wales. Don't know weather they are in the old or new tunnels though.

 

[Darren R]

If the Woodhead had been converted to 25kv AC then it would still be open today as I would have guessed the section from Woodhouse to Retford would have been electrified thus giving a connection from the ECML to the WCML

But if the Beeching Report had been implemented, Woodhead would not have closed anyway. His plan was to close Hope Valley but retain the old GCR line and Midland route to Derby instead. The demise - untimely or otherwise - was not on the cards in '63. It came as the inevitable consequence of the decline in traffic, of which coal was always the most important. It was as a result of the vast amount of freight carried that the route was electrified. There was never sufficient passenger traffic carried on the line to merit modernisation, and that is still the case now.

It could be argued that the closure of the Midland route between Manchester and Derby is more of a loss to the rail network today than Woodhead. And arguably it has a stronger economic case for re-opening.

 

[tbtc]

It could be argued that the closure of the Midland route between Manchester and Derby is more of a loss to the rail network today than Woodhead. And arguably it has a stronger economic case for re-opening.

Despite living in Sheffield, I think that you are right.

The Woodhead route wouldn't offer a significantly faster journey on any major flow, whereas the Matlock line would presumably give a much faster service from Leicester/ Nottingham/ Derby to Stockport/ Manchester/ Liverpool than you can currently manage.

Plus there's the issue of re-opening Woodhead for passenger services meaning services split between two Sheffield stations - whilst Sheffield Midland is pretty busy, putting some services at Sheffield Victoria would make things much more complicated.

 

[yorksrob]

I do wonder whether there's a case for reopening the section between Sheffield and Penistone. Looking at the map the route seems to pass near a reasonable amount of population including the Northern suburbs of Sheffield and Stocksbridge and even better, most of the line exists as a freight route.

 

[tbtc]

I do wonder whether there's a case for reopening the section between Sheffield and Penistone. Looking at the map the route seems to pass near a reasonable amount of population including the Northern suburbs of Sheffield and Stocksbridge and even better, most of the line exists as a freight route.

The line is still operational for freight as far as Deepcar (as you say), and beyond that it's the Transpennine Trail (I've been along it - there are no significant physical obstacles to reopening the line - one tunnel sees the northbound bore open as the trail - the southbound one is blocked up - there'd probably be a few angry cyclists to deal with of course, but no houses built in the middle of the line or anything)

 

[MidlandMainlie]

One consideration would be removing the electricity cables that I believe were fitted into the main Woodhead Tunnel from around 2008. You'd also need to persuade the National Grid to sell them back to Network Rail as they're the current owners.

Certainly one of more stupid things to have been done in recent years. Saving a few £million today without any thought to the potential costs in the future.

Despite living in Sheffield, I think that you are right.

The Woodhead route wouldn't offer a significantly faster journey on any major flow, whereas the Matlock line would presumably give a much faster service from Leicester/ Nottingham/ Derby to Stockport/ Manchester/ Liverpool than you can currently manage.

Plus there's the issue of re-opening Woodhead for passenger services meaning services split between two Sheffield stations - whilst Sheffield Midland is pretty busy, putting some services at Sheffield Victoria would make things much more complicated.

Fair point I won't argue against reopening Matlock - Buxton, you cold re-route the Liverpool- Norwich* as an express only stopping at Matlock and introduce a slower stopping service calling at all stations on route between Manchester and Derby. Could a link not be put in to the MML whre it crosses the Sheffield Lincoln line?

*this would free up one path on the Hope valley and prevent the reversal at Sheffield (could an extra sopping serviced be introduced to compensate for this loss?)

I do wonder whether there's a case for reopening the section between Sheffield and Penistone. Looking at the map the route seems to pass near a reasonable amount of population including the Northern suburbs of Sheffield and Stocksbridge and even better, most of the line exists as a freight route.

Good point, better than nothing I suppose. I certainly believe the rest of the Woodhead route should be safeguarded to prevent any future developments that could prevent the reopening of the line.

 

[tbtc]

Fair point I won't argue against reopening Matlock - Buxton, you cold re-route the Liverpool- Norwich* as an express only stopping at Matlock and introduce a slower stopping service calling at all stations on route between Manchester and Derby. Could a link not be put in to the MML whre it crosses the Sheffield Lincoln line?

*this would free up one path on the Hope valley and prevent the reversal at Sheffield (could an extra sopping serviced be introduced to compensate for this loss?)

As a suggestion, if the Liverpool - Norwich service ran via a newly opened Matlock route then you could replace the Sheffield section by extending the Hull - Doncaster - Sheffield service to Manchester Piccadilly (giving a half hourly service from Doncaster to Manchester) and by extending the "short fast" Leeds - Sheffield service to Nottingham (providing a half hourly service when combined with the "long fast" Leeds - Sheffield service).

Out of interest, did the previous alignments allow a direct Matlock - Buxton service? (as Buxton wasn't on the route from Matlock to Hazel Grove... the freight lines around there leave me muddled!)

 

[MidlandMainlie]

As a suggestion, if the Liverpool - Norwich service ran via a newly opened Matlock route then you could replace the Sheffield section by extending the Hull - Doncaster - Sheffield service to Manchester Piccadilly (giving a half hourly service from Doncaster to Manchester) and by extending the "short fast" Leeds - Sheffield service to Nottingham (providing a half hourly service when combined with the "long fast" Leeds - Sheffield service).

Out of interest, did the previous alignments allow a direct Matlock - Buxton service? (as Buxton wasn't on the route from Matlock to Hazel Grove... the freight lines around there leave me muddled!)

I think calling at Buxton has always need a reversal, though it may be possible to use the freight lines I don't know if they can run directly in to Buxton and out again. The Transition Buxton document might be able to help page 20

http://transitionbuxton.co.uk/sites/default/files/all/Buxton Matlock Rail Inquiry.pdf

Correction: Page 23 shows that no alignment through Buxton is possible

 

[yorksrob]

I'm sure there used to be a route allowing direct trains from Millers Dale to Buxton Midland (which was next door to the LNWR station).

 

[Gareth Marston]

An interesting disclosure:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...3098339/?campaign=Wales_email_newsam:20130402

The coast line was famous as the TUCC inquiry into its closure actually accepted any closure would cause hardship. The line crosses a number of estuary's that by road involve lengthy inland detours most noticeably the Mawddach Estuary - Barmouth Bridge. The detour here for a full size single decker bus is all the way to Dolgellau some 13 miles. At the inquiry the Ministry said the service could use the toll bridge at Penmaenpool a shorter detour but still a detour, the killer moment was when the Coast Line Action Groups QC asked the Crossville representative what the weight limit on that bridge was and how heavy where there buses..Someone in London had looked at a map without any local knowledge.

The basic geography is the same today.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

.

There is a huge difference between rewiring fourteen miles of heavily used commuter services and rewiring dozens of miles of lightly used mainline! I mean how can you not see that?

But getting back to the original thrust of this argument you've yet to demonstrate why closing the Woodhead was worse than all of the other Beeching Report closures, which was your original contention.

The Woodhead was not lightly used around 1959/1960 when they wanted to convert it from DC to AC

Beeching did not close the Woodhead it was BR , Beeching wanted to keep the Woodhead open and keep its " Intercity" passgenger services, I have not said that the Woodhead Line was the worse, it is up their but lines like the Somerset & Dorset are up their as the worst

Plus there's the issue of re-opening Woodhead for passenger services meaning services split between two Sheffield stations - whilst Sheffield Midland is pretty busy, putting some services at Sheffield Victoria would make things much more complicated.

Wakefield has two stations which are now connected by a bus than runs via both of them and the city centre

Manchester has the tram that connects passgeners between Picc & Vic