Thinking about the Beeching era ...

[Harlesden]

Was any thought ever given to alternative ways to reduce costs
(a) Reducing frequencies
(b) Shortening the traffic day
(c) Closing the least used stations along a line
as opposed to simply closing an entire line which might have been useful to have in subsequent decades?
Or was there simply an obsession with closing things?

 

[LE Greys]

You need to move forwards a few years before this form of rationalisation really took hold. That mostly happened under Raymond, Johnson and Marsh (although I suppose that Beeching's attempts to eliminate duplicate routes counts as rationalisation of sorts). It gave us single-track sections between Salisbury and Exeter, Oxford and Worcester and so on, single-lead junctions appearing everywhere, station downsizing (or complete selloffs in some cases) and a general reduction in track mileage. However it kept the lines open and was reversible. Indeed, many lines have been re-doubled in the last twenty years. It's possible that some of those techniques might have helped some of the larger lines closed by Beeching, the East Lincs for instance.

 

[yorksrob]

Was any thought ever given to alternative ways to reduce costs
(a) Reducing frequencies
(b) Shortening the traffic day
(c) Closing the least used stations along a line
as opposed to simply closing an entire line which might have been useful to have in subsequent decades?
Or was there simply an obsession with closing things?

An interesting three examples. I don't believe any of them would have made that much difference.

BR tended to introduce more regular services before closure which were often more frequent than previously. Shortening the traffic day wouldn't have had much influence on costs (although the clip of the Tony Hancock publicity film shown in the Ian Hislop documentary mentions shortened service hours, so I assume it would have been introduced at the time), and closing small stations is something that had been happening for years (see the history of the York to Scarborough line).

What would have made the difference was (as Le Greys says) track rationalisation, de-staffing, automation, pay-trains etc, most of which were developed post Beeching. I think it is possible to argue that Beeching's plan relied too heavily on route closures.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The well respected G Fiennes saved the East Suffolk line (and others in the Eastern Region) by de-staffing stations , the Paytrain concept and reducing track and signalling costs. Other areas just carried on with a fully staffed railway with expensive to operated loco hauled services till closure.

The Welwyn - Dunstable line , if treated as above might well have survived had an axe been taken to costs , and it would be mighty useful today (but probably still needing subsidy)

 

[yorksrob]

It's a fairly telling indictment of railway management priorities during the 1960's that Mr Fiennes was sacked for rocking the boat rather than promoted.

 

[Harlesden]

I've never liked the concept of single tracking. It seems short sighted and can cause great disruption of a unit breaks down on a single track stretch of line. I can't really see any advantage in reducing an ordinary twin track line to a single track

 

[yorksrob]

I've never liked the concept of single tracking. It seems short sighted and can cause great disruption of a unit breaks down on a single track stretch of line. I can't really see any advantage in reducing an ordinary twin track line to a single track

It's cheaper to maintain and better than the ultimate calamity of route closure.

 

[David Barrett]

It's cheaper to maintain and better than the ultimate calamity of route closure.

As experienced later though the remaining track often wore out faster so the savings were not altogether as high as might have been expected.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The April edition of Modern Railways has an interesting slant on Marples, Beeching, The Road Lobby, The Ministry of Transport and the Railway Conspiracy which many have suspected for years, the Alan Williams Page makes for a good read.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I can see the logic in that and it wouldn't be a surprise to learn that such measures might have had unexpected consequences. However, it seems to me that a management obsessed with singling lines would still have been infinately preferable to one obsessed with closing them.

I look forward to reading the article.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Well, I can see the logic in that and it wouldn't be a surprise to learn that such measures might have had unexpected consequences. However, it seems to me that a management obsessed with singling lines would still have been infinately preferable to one obsessed with closing them.

I look forward to reading the article.

The DfT of the time gave BR a grant towards removal of "surplus" capacity , which sort of explains some of the decisions made .......good job they never singled , for example most of Newport - Shrewsbury which was a contender at the time....you might not agree , but that is how it was.

 

[swcovas]

Was any thought ever given to alternative ways to reduce costs
(a) Reducing frequencies
(b) Shortening the traffic day
(c) Closing the least used stations along a line
as opposed to simply closing an entire line which might have been useful to have in subsequent decades?
Or was there simply an obsession with closing things?

I have beeing doing some research into the Beeching period and despair at the way no economies were made to prevent closures.

The concept of the basic railway which exists all over the UK today was unheard of in the 50’s and 60’s but there were a few “radical” thoughts even in the early 60’s. I discovered that prior to Beeching a report was leaked that BR were considering converting many stations into “bus stops”but nothing happened.

I also found an article in The British Transport Review in 1962 where a Mr Rupert Sherrington, movements officer for the Southern Region, claimed that station staff at many small stations were only productively employed for 15% of their working hours. Mr Sherrington proposed the withdrawal of all station staff (other than at the busier stations) except signalmen, issuing tickets on trains, these staff also undertaking guard’s duties, postal application for season tickets and PASSENGERS CLOSING THE DOORS THEMSELVES! Heaven Forbid! Bus operators (he said) had decided years before that expensive terminal facilities could be dispensed with.

All Sherrington’s proposals, and more, eventually saw the light of day but too late for many lines. (I am also sure that many lines could never have been saved anyway.) In some cases such measures actually went too far, notably on the Valley Lines in South Wales where, certainly in the 70s after "rationalisation" there was often too great an onus on train staff to collect fares......maybe still true today.

 

[yorksrob]

The DfT of the time gave BR a grant towards removal of "surplus" capacity , which sort of explains some of the decisions made .......good job they never singled , for example most of Newport - Shrewsbury which was a contender at the time....you might not agree , but that is how it was.

Newport - Shrewsbury seems to have survived anyway, so I'm perfectly pleased that it was never singled. The Marshlink on the other hand remained under threat of closure at least through the seventies, so compared to that, singling has been a minor issue.