Most justified cuts? (Beeching or otherwise)

[Chester1]

Yes, you'd have got away with it for a bit.

If capacity became an issue with more routes retained, Mayfield would have been available to take some of the pressure off Piccadilly. Local services from the Styal and Stockport lines could have gone there.

It really depends on the frequency. If it had just been one express and one stopper then there would have been sufficient capacity until well into the 2000s, by which point Mayfield was derelict. Had the capacity been needed before its closure to freight then Mayfield would have been a decent option (and cheaper than Central). The Hazel Grove chord could probably have been avoided for a while with Midland services running via Reddish but it would have likely been built earlier due to a better business case. I like Central as a piece of architecture and am glad the building was saved but as railway infrastructure it was never going to survive nationalisation. It was a terminal station serving a limited number of routes and close to a through station connected to the same lines.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

It really depends on the frequency. If it had just been one express and one stopper then there would have been sufficient capacity until well into the 2000s, by which point Mayfield was derelict. Had the capacity been needed before its closure to freight then Mayfield would have been a decent option (and cheaper than Central). The Hazel Grove chord could probably have been avoided for a while with Midland services running via Reddish but it would have likely been built earlier due to a better business case. I like Central as a piece of architecture and am glad the building was saved but as railway infrastructure it was never going to survive nationalisation. It was a terminal station serving a limited number of routes and close to a through station connected to the same lines.

Mayfield was a long trudge from the main concourse at London Road (Piccadilly) and had short platforms so it wasn't ideal. The tragedy was the cancellation of 'Picc-Vic' (and the associated flyovers at Slade Lane and Edgeley No. 2) which would have solved most of the problems.

 

[aron2smith]

Go- coach operate an hourly daytime service On Mondays to Fridays, a slightly reduced service on Saturdays and some on summer Sundays. https://www.go-coach.co.uk/bus-routes/daytime-routes/1/. The last few years of the train service it ran on Mondays to Fridays peak hours and Saturdays to around 1300hrs with none on Sundays.

Actually there is a Sunday service, it's numbered 401 and extended to Tonbridge but still run by Go Coach https://bustimes.org/services/401-tonbridge-westerham

With the last bus towards Sevenoaks being at just 4:30pm, no one who has a choice will use it. That Saturday service is pathetic, seen better bus services in the Scottish Highlands or Snowdonia!

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Not sure the paucity of service in 2025 can be used to justify retention of trains in 1963. The 403 and 705 were acceptably frequent in the 1960s.

 

[Magdalia]

Although with developments in recent decades, some should've been restored, namely Braintree but via Stansted instead of Bishop's Stortford.

Bishop Stortford-Braintree closed to passengers in 1952, and the route was severed in 1966 when Dunmow Viaduct was declared unsafe, then subsequently demolished.

The failure to keep stations open in places of likely development like Haverhill (expanded in the 60s and since so mostly Londoners from the East End had somewhere to move to during 'slum clearance' as it was called) was reckless. The performance of the Sudbury branch today says it all, so I'd say only some villages like Glemsford and Cavendish for example, justified closure, a line with the following stops between Sudbury and Shelford - Long Melford, Clare, Haverhill and Linton would've done well today with the amount of housing today.

But the line wasn't doing well when it was closed, with only about 7 trains per day not heavily used. It might have survived with local authority support but that was not forthcoming. There is a big difference between Sudbury-Marks Tey and Haverhill-Shelford, which is ease of connection to and from London.

St Ives, Cambs was another silly cut. Same with Hunstanton.

I grew up with my nearest station on the St Ives line. At school I knew pupils and teachers who used the train. But the numbers were tiny. Its closure wasn't regarded as a great loss. Hunstanton was heavily reliant on summer day trips from places not far away which switched to road as more people owned cars. Both closed because they did not get grant aid under the 1968 Transport Act.

I feel the loss of Kings Lynn as a junction was a major mistake, if the railways that follow today's Excel bus route still existed, it would've taken pressure off of Ely for sure.

But the railway never used Kings Lynn as a through route between Norwich and Peterborough, and the main Kings Lynn-Peterborough railway route was the M&GN, which closed in 1959. There never was a passenger service that followed today's Excel bus route.

In all these examples you are projecting backwards what you can see in 2025, not thinking how it looked in the 1960s.

 

[Route115?]

I often wonder how many heavy rail routes would be better off as light rail or guided bus - Watford - St Albans and St Erth - St Ives come to mind. Croydon Tramlink is a good example where frequency and ridership both went up. The problem is that the concept of guided bus wasn't around in Beeching's day and would any replacement conventional bus service still be around? Its easy to wise with the benefit of hindsight.

It is often said that closing branch lines lead to the loss of connecting traffic, and I for one extol the virtues of Swiss style integrated timetabling, but I wonder how much connecting traffic was actually lost given the often poor connections. I actually think that a bigger problem was the closing of smaller stations on some routes that stayed open, but the issue is then reducing the number of tracks on a route. This may have been a greater casualty of Beeching.

 

[edwin_m]

I actually think that a bigger problem was the closing of smaller stations on some routes that stayed open, but the issue is then reducing the number of tracks on a route. This may have been a greater casualty of Beeching.

It's a difficult one - stations with similar passenger numbers could stay or close depending on whether they were on a main line. But if those stations and the local trains that served them had continued, then the route would be able to carry far fewer long-distance passenger and freight trains today, which generate more social and environmental benefit overall than the fairly few and usually short journeys lost to the railway.

As ever, proper support and integration of buses into a multi-modal national network would have gone a long way to address this.

 

[fandroid]

The argument for the Isle of Wight lines (Ryde -Newport and Cowes-Newport) lines being retained would be extremely hard to justify given what we know about public transport on the island. Both are parallelled by frequent and commercial bus routes, while the public railway on the island survives only with huge subsidies. It also cannot match the frequency of those other bus routes, so the likelihood of the two lines being able to do the same without even bigger subsidies is extremely remote. Add in the facts that both bus routes better serve the populations between the respective towns, and the case for the railway falls flat on its face.

As a bonus, the Ryde -Newport route provides a popular tourist attraction in the form of a steam railway! I've already mentioned the Cowes route's popularity as a walking and cycling route.

In summary, both lines better serve the island closed than they possibly could if still open.

 

[Thebaz]

Not sure the paucity of service in 2025 can be used to justify retention of trains in 1963. The 403 and 705 were acceptably frequent in the 1960s.

Did the 403 extend from Warlingham to Westerham in the 1960s?

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Yes.

 

[CMS1]

But the line wasn't doing well when it was closed, with only about 7 trains per day not heavily used. It might have survived with local authority support but that was not forthcoming. There is a big difference between Sudbury-Marks Tey and Haverhill-Shelford, which is ease of connection to and from London.

You wonder if the Stour Valley line closed but the more direct Colne valley route was upgraded and there was a decent Colchester - Halstead - Haverhill - Cambridge service it could have survived. Probably not but would be a valuable service today.

 

[778]

The argument for the Isle of Wight lines (Ryde -Newport and Cowes-Newport) lines being retained would be extremely hard to justify given what we know about public transport on the island. Both are parallelled by frequent and commercial bus routes, while the public railway on the island survives only with huge subsidies. It also cannot match the frequency of those other bus routes, so the likelihood of the two lines being able to do the same without even bigger subsidies is extremely remote. Add in the facts that both bus routes better serve the populations between the respective towns, and the case for the railway falls flat on its face.

As a bonus, the Ryde -Newport route provides a popular tourist attraction in the form of a steam railway! I've already mentioned the Cowes route's popularity as a walking and cycling route.

In summary, both lines better serve the island closed than they possibly could if still open.

Do you think Ryde - Shanklin should have closed as well?

 

[Magdalia]

You wonder if the Stour Valley line closed but the more direct Colne valley route was upgraded and there was a decent Colchester - Halstead - Haverhill - Cambridge service it could have survived. Probably not but would be a valuable service today.

The Colne Valley route had very restricted route availability, and did not serve Sudbury.

 

[daodao]

But the railway never used Kings Lynn as a through route between Norwich and Peterborough, and the main Kings Lynn-Peterborough railway route was the M&GN, which closed in 1959. There never was a passenger service that followed today's Excel bus route.

My copy of an April 1910 Bradshaw reprint shows 2 through semi-fast trains per day (excluding Sundays) on the route from Norwich to Peterborough via Dereham, King's Lynn, Wisbech and March.

 

[Magdalia]

My copy of an April 1910 Bradshaw reprint shows 2 through semi-fast trains per day (excluding Sundays) on the route from Norwich to Peterborough via Dereham, King's Lynn, Wisbech and March.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Never say never.

But it doesn't have much continuity with the Excel bus.

 

[Gloster]

Do you think Ryde - Shanklin should have closed as well?

Ryde-Shanklin remained open because the island’s roads could not have coped with all the summer holiday traffic. If the line had closed the island’s tourism business would have been badly hit and that was one of its main industries.

 

[CMS1]

The Colne Valley route had very restricted route availability, and did not serve Sudbury.

Quite, you would need a Sudbury branch too.

 

[aron2smith]

In all these examples you are projecting backwards what you can see in 2025, not thinking how it looked in the 1960s.

Does this point matter? The closure of many of these lines should not be holding us back TODAY, that is my point. I even said so in my original post, we should be building a railway that fits todays needs. The current network has too many regional gaps in it. And they must've known what towns were likely to grow if they were building places as big as Milton Keynes and a number of new towns and expanded towns back then. The impression I get is they saw little future prospects for any railways at least until the 80s sectorisation, especially the focus on when Intercity and Network South East came about.

What I'm saying is the government could probably say a minimum town size, say 20000 people for example and with a convenient at least hourly, ideally half hourly all day Monday-Sunday service, as is the case in all new or reopened lines, it would justify the investment. I think a couple dozen Okehampton or Ashington success stories all across the country are possible if the investment made it possible. Just needs a more straightforward process to restore rail access to more towns that lost them. Many of the towns that would benefit most from restored rail connections would get new alignments more than likely.

 

[Magdalia]

Does this point matter?

Of course it matters. This discussion is about justification for closures at the time they were made. People in the 1960s can't have been expected to foresee requirements in 2025, in the same way that now you would struggle to come up with any coherent vision of what public transport will be required in the 2080s.

The impression I get is they saw little future prospects for any railways at least until the 80s sectorisation, especially the focus on when Intercity and Network South East came about.

That's broadly right, but you can't go back and do anything about it now.

What I'm saying is the government could probably say a minimum town size, say 20000 people for example and with a convenient at least hourly, ideally half hourly all day Monday-Sunday service, as is the case in all new or reopened lines, it would justify the investment. I think a couple dozen Okehampton or Ashington success stories all across the country are possible if the investment made it possible. Just needs a more straightforward process to restore rail access to more towns that lost them. Many of the towns that would benefit most from restored rail connections would get new alignments more than likely.

This gets covered extensively in other discussions. However much you think the investment can be "justified", each scheme has to be financed, usually with borrowed money, because the costs are upfront and the benefits come later. Right now the UK Government's financial position is constrained by the high level of existing debt and the high interest rates charged by the people who will lend to the UK. However many schemes you think are "justified", until the financial position changes only a few of them will get done.

 

[Matt P]

What I'm saying is the government could probably say a minimum town size, say 20000 people for example and with a convenient at least hourly, ideally half hourly all day Monday-Sunday service, as is the case in all new or reopened lines, it would justify the investment. I think a couple dozen Okehampton or Ashington success stories all across the country are possible if the investment made it possible. Just needs a more straightforward process to restore rail access to more towns that lost them. Many of the towns that would benefit most from restored rail connections would get new alignments more than likely.

I am not sure a population size, by itself, is a good 'trigger' for towns that should have rail links re-established. There would have to be a reasonable prospect that a rail link would either achieve a significant modal shift from cars and/or there would also have to be a reasonable prospect of the rail link facilitating or supporting economic growth in that town. Another option would be to do some joined up thinking and align planning policy with transport policy so that any areas selected for major housing growth should have investment in sustainable transport links. This may not need to be rail though, it could be bus or light rail or a combination of all 3.

Ultimately though, investing in new stations or reopened lines would need to be justified on the basis of financial viability i.e. it has to be likely a reasonable number of people will use them. It is why schemes like Carmarthen - Aberystwyth has little prospect of seeing the light of day.

Okehampton and Ashington are examples of schemes that have worked because at the opposite end of those routes, there's a large settlement that reasonable numbers of people can be persuaded to get out of their cars to travel to by train. Having extant railway lines in both cases also made them relatively easy (I.e. cheap) wins compared to towns where the railway was lifted after closure.

 

[Thebaz]

Yes.

Interesting. Do you know when it was cut back to Warlingham?

 

[Cricketer8for9]

It survived the end of London Country and became the Kentish Bus 23. I’m guessing mid 90s, but that a guess.

 

[aron2smith]

Of course it matters. This discussion is about justification for closures at the time they were made. People in the 1960s can't have been expected to foresee requirements in 2025, in the same way that now you would struggle to come up with any coherent vision of what public transport will be required in the 2080s.

I know what you mean but turning a small market town into a proper settlement whilst closing the railway around the same time was a bit careless, as seemed to be the case in Haverhill. Seems like the same logic where many of the stations were put in awkward locations in the first place.

This gets covered extensively in other discussions. However much you think the investment can be "justified", each scheme has to be financed, usually with borrowed money, because the costs are upfront and the benefits come later. Right now the UK Government's financial position is constrained by the high level of existing debt and the high interest rates charged by the people who will lend to the UK. However many schemes you think are "justified", until the financial position changes only a few of them will get done.

Whether they can 'afford' it or not, cuts won't get the country out of the hole. When the economy is 'bad' is precisely the time to invest in it (more so if interest rates are favourable like in the 2010s), especially in infrastructure which will only make the economy better off. We are stagnant because austerity killed any demand. I think all we can do with anything Beeching or Pre-Beeching is learn from it. The reluctance to explore expansion of today's network where it could make the biggest impact is what I don't get.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2025 ==

I am not sure a population size, by itself, is a good 'trigger' for towns that should have rail links re-established. There would have to be a reasonable prospect that a rail link would either achieve a significant modal shift from cars and/or there would also have to be a reasonable prospect of the rail link facilitating or supporting economic growth in that town. Another option would be to do some joined up thinking and align planning policy with transport policy so that any areas selected for major housing growth should have investment in sustainable transport links. This may not need to be rail though, it could be bus or light rail or a combination of all 3.

Agree with your point actually. I meant to say about light rail in some cases being a suitable alternative. Definitely want to see planning and transport align. I would definitely support a DLR style connection between a new town and the railway.

 

[Magdalia]

Whether they can 'afford' it or not, cuts won't get the country out of the hole. When the economy is 'bad' is precisely the time to invest in it (more so if interest rates are favourable like in the 2010s), especially in infrastructure which will only make the economy better off.

This is what was in the 2025 Spending Review:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686270a608bf2f53761219fc/E03349913_HMT_Spending_Review_June_2025_TEXT_PRINT_CS.pdf

Transport 4.16 Furthermore, through this SR, the government will fund key, growth-driving major projects that will improve connectivity between cities and towns, including: a. The Transpennine Route Upgrade, for which the government will provide £3.5 billion. This will reduce the journey time for commuters travelling between Manchester and Leeds by a quarter; and, b. Allocating £2.5 billion to progress the delivery of East West Rail, supporting housing developments and unlocking the potential of the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor.

I expect to see more in the next Spending Review, including transport infrastructure for New Towns.

But borrowing more than what the country can afford in interest payments won't get the country out of the hole either. The first thing to do when in a hole is to stop digging.

 

[Eyersey468]

I think some of the lines of the Isle of Wight were justified. Though I think the Ryde-Newport and Cowes-Newport should arguably have been retained.

Most of the lines on the Isle of Wight had closed long before Beeching the Freshwater and Ventnor West branches were basket cases from the day they opened and should probably never have been built, though in the case of the Freshwater line had it been built as originally intended with the links to Yarmouth harbour and Totland it might have stood more of a chance

 

[nw1]

I'm quite surprised Tunbridge Wells to Eridge stayed open as long as it did, given Uckfield-Lewes was closed. Once the latter happened, it seemed to only serve a (presumably small) market of people from Crowborough and Uckfield wanting to access Kent.

For point of avoidance of doubt, I'd have kept both open and electrified the lot. This would have retained Brighton-Kent links which could later have been exploited (Charing Cross-Brighton via Tonbridge, TW, and Uckfield, detached off the Hastings service?)

 

[Gloster]

I'm quite surprised Tunbridge Wells to Eridge stayed open as long as it did, given Uckfield-Lewes was closed. Once the latter happened, it seemed to only serve a (presumably small) market of people from Crowborough and Uckfield wanting to access Kent.

For point of avoidance of doubt, I'd have kept both open and electrified the lot. This would have retained Brighton-Kent links which could later have been exploited (Charing Cross-Brighton via Tonbridge, TW, and Uckfield, detached off the Hastings service?)

I think that a major factor was keeping open a connection between two chunks of the SR DEMU network and, probably secondly, for access to the stabling point at Tunbridge Wells West. On one side you had the London-Hastings line, the Ashford-Hastings line and the Tonbridge-Reading group, while on the other you had the Oxted lines. There was a certain saving in being able to switch stock easily between the two after the Uckfield-Lewes line had gone. Once the need to remodel Grove Junction when Tonbridge-Hastings was electrified appeared, it was seen that this outweighed the extra cost of moving empty DEMUs about, particularly as the Ashford-Hastings line was the only bit that was isolated.

I also wonder if in 1969 there wasn’t the energy to fight a second battle against well organised opposition. The good people of Tunbridge Wells, Groombridge, Crowborough and Uckfield would be likely to make even more of a fuss about a second loss to their network. After that, the attitude in BR towards closures changed a bit.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I'm quite surprised Tunbridge Wells to Eridge stayed open as long as it did, given Uckfield-Lewes was closed. Once the latter happened, it seemed to only serve a (presumably small) market of people from Crowborough and Uckfield wanting to access Kent.

For point of avoidance of doubt, I'd have kept both open and electrified the lot. This would have retained Brighton-Kent links which could later have been exploited (Charing Cross-Brighton via Tonbridge, TW, and Uckfield, detached off the Hastings service?)

Several factors stacked up at once in the mid-1980s, where I was a manager with BR at the time.

The sectors were getting going, albeit just before the formal start of Network SouthEast, and were scrutinising all new investment proposals - notably the Hastings electrification. The cost of re signalling the junction at Tunbridge Wells could be avoided by closure.

Also there was a trend away from small train crew depots towards larger principal locations so Tunbridge Wells West was up for the chop.

The Hastings electrification was done by stretching the existing 4-CEP fleet to the max.

The track was mainly ageing jointed bullhead on wooden sleepers.

The existing DEMUs were costing a fortune to refurbish, including asbestos removal.

Tunbridge Wells West station was a huge building and I’ve heard that it was still gas lit.

Few people were using the line towards the end.

It was a complete basket case money pit.

As you say - quite surprising that it had lasted as long as it did!

 

[Welly]

Local to me is a short stretch of line from nowhere to nowhere via nowhere - Sykes Junction (north of Saxilby) over the River Trent to Clarborough Junction. It was built by the GCR purely to avoid needing running rights through (GN & GE Joint) station of Gainsborough Lea Road! It closed in November 1959 due to the bridge being no longer able to carry trains safely, and it is still there today!

 

[yorksrob]

I think that a major factor was keeping open a connection between two chunks of the SR DEMU network and, probably secondly, for access to the stabling point at Tunbridge Wells West. On one side you had the London-Hastings line, the Ashford-Hastings line and the Tonbridge-Reading group, while on the other you had the Oxted lines. There was a certain saving in being able to switch stock easily between the two after the Uckfield-Lewes line had gone. Once the need to remodel Grove Junction when Tonbridge-Hastings was electrified appeared, it was seen that this outweighed the extra cost of moving empty DEMUs about, particularly as the Ashford-Hastings line was the only bit that was isolated.

I also wonder if in 1969 there wasn’t the energy to fight a second battle against well organised opposition. The good people of Tunbridge Wells, Groombridge, Crowborough and Uckfield would be likely to make even more of a fuss about a second loss to their network. After that, the attitude in BR towards closures changed a bit.

If only they'd won the first battle. One of the most unjustifiable closures of the lot, and that's amongst a litany of bad decisions.