Bridport went from a three car dmu, to a bubble car just before closure. Traffic was virtually non existent come closure.
The East Suffolk Line was retained because of political considerations. That is what being in a democracy is all about - political considerations (and consequent funding from the public purse) outweighing strict immediate economic ones. It was not the only line to be treated in this way. Doesn't make the closure case on economic grounds as put forward by British Railways poor or dubious.
I think this is pie in the sky thinking. There is little to suggest that this political support would have ebbed away - without investment the railway would have declined and declined. Services cut, speeds slowed owing for deferred maintenance, staffing cut - train crew worked level crossings etc, constant industrial disputes. Public demand for something to be done to arrest the decline would likely have been met by 'only if half the network is closed down' . So the cut would have happened anyway, but road would have gained a march on the railways, who would never have recovered from the condition they would have got into. There are various examples around the world to see what could have happened.
It is completely unclear how feasible two sets of new lines in a city centre would have been. The backdrop to the Re-shaping Report was that BR had completely run out of cash. Such scarce capital that remained had to be conserved for projects that offered the highest return - such as completing the WCML electrification, merry-go-round coal trains, liner trains for merchandise, continuously welded rail for high speeds on main lines and so on.
Having looked at the map quoted later and having travelled to Nottingham by train on a number of occassions, I can't see the great central station having huge advantages over the Midland station.
To answer that you would need to know where the major passenger flows from Nottingham were in the 1960s. If Derby and Newark were more important than Mansfield then retaining the Midland station makes more sense
But hardly surprising given the need to change at both Weymouth and Maiden Newton. Could it not have developed with a better service? I will admit though that this was the most marginal of my suggestions, and was considering that the survival until 1975 must have meant something.
It's not that scattered, there's quite a contiguous built-up area. The station site is fairly centrally located in this area. Plus, there's quite a difference between driving perhaps 5 minutes and driving 20 mins into Guildford? And as I said, portion working off Direct services would mean it could have been operated with relatively little cost.
Not sure about that, the area to me seems popular from around May to September and extremely popular from June to August. Ever tried travelling by car to Purbeck on even a cloudy weekend in June? And it is multi-faceted as a day-out destination: not just beach trips which require hot weather, but walking, cycling, heritage (Corfe Castle), (plus rock climbing but that is admittedly some way from any of the stations).
Why would you have to change at both Weymouth and Maiden Newton?
Because, at least in the latter years, it ran as a shuttle from Maiden Newton. From Maiden Newton if you wanted to then go to Bournemouth, or anywhere east, you'd then need to change again at Weymouth, there being no common station between the two lines in Dorchester. But I'm prepared to concede on Bridport as the most marginal of the suggestions, as I said - I don't want to have a long discussion on it.
Would it be that difficult? We're talking about an hourly service, not a metro-style service which might cause lots of conflicts. I suspect it would have been quite easy to diagram, particularly if you ensure that only one unit needs to be down the branch at once, facilitating a single line. And portion working would only cause perhaps a 2 min delay on the Portsmouth stopper it was detached off; in slam-door days splitting and joining could be done without the very long allowance needed these days. For instance, some trains dividing at Woking were in at xx11, portions out xx13 and xx15.
But one seen on various lines in Cornwall, presumably. What's different about Swanage compared to Looe for instance? (I am not arguing for closure of Cornish branches, just genuinely curious why they are different and could justify services on Tuesdays in January when Swanage could not).
You are right - we were shown what happens when economies have to dig deep but only in a relatively small number of cases and not actually that deep. The Boston-Skegness line springs to mind, but it didn't get down to train crew worked crossings on passenger lines, or long sections of 20mph running because of deferred track maintenance.
So, receipts were almost balancing operating costs, at a time when receipts were dropping and staff costs (wages and particularly conditions) were rising faster than inflation. No account was being taken of infrastructure renewals or the cost of replacing the rolling stock. The rolling stock in use on the line might have lasted to 2005, but was reallocated to a line worth retaining to save the replacement cost of time expired or expensive to operate equipment there.
With the background of falling traffic and revenue, and increasing costs beyond the level of inflation, quite possibly by the time the planned housing development took place the additional business (which was not guaranteed) would only have got the line up to the 1961 position anyway. There was belief that the railways were obsolete and were only going one way, at that time. It is not difficult to see why.
Quite. But retention of a branch line in Cornwall for political reasons does not thereby justify mass retention elsewhere. Hailsham does not have the same characteristics as Looe !
I am not going to severely dissent from the view that Victoria was centrally placed within Nottingham although I have never thought that Midland is that bad. There are plenty of slightly peripheral big city stations, such as Manchester Piccadilly, Leicester London Road, Sheffield Midland and York that are still 'popular'.
Purely for info (as you don't want a long discussion):
It was closer to the heart of the city centre (Market Square) which until recently is where lots of the bus routes ended/started, and was on /closely adjacent to Parliament Street, which if I understand it correctly was essentially at the time Nottingham's main 'high street' retail street.
This demolition was a tragic waste. IIRC the GCR viaduct was deemed unsuitable because the council and the then Broadmarsh shopping centre owners had an aspiration to extend the shopping centre to the east a short distance, and then have a tram stop in or adjacent to the eastern end of the centre. Some usful council housing at the edge of the Cliff Road housing estate was also demolished to help make space for this extension that never happened plan. This stop needed to be at the correct level for the shopping centre (upper level I assume) - so the council were persuaded to - or offered to, fund the extra costs of demolishing the GCR viaduct and replacing it with a much more ugly modern viaduct at a slightly differing height/gradient.
Bridport only survived until 1975 because no bus company was prepared to run a service along the narrow lanes, on a route which had no natural passenger traffic flows.
Closer maybe but was that the major factor in driving people's decision as to whether to take the train into the city or not. I don't think so.
They did that to Nottingham though...
The Glasgow Central Low Level line was another city centre closure.
Earthworks were put in for such a curve but no track was ever laid. However the earthworks appear to align on the Clifton Maybank goods transfer shed, not on the station platform so even if the curve had been completed I don't believe direct access from the west would have been possible
