Hypothetical: What if the other line had been chosen?

[Esker-pades]

What Oxford expresses? They were beyond the wildest crayonista's imagination in the 1960s.
Of course, had they made such rationalisations back then, the situation today would have made such services very difficult to introduce.

I think I understand where you are coming from now. Sorry.

Effectively, the Chiltern revival under Chiltern railways wouldn't have happened because the paths would not have existed for such a thing to happen. That's a very bad thing.

 

[DanTrain]

I think I understand where you are coming from now. Sorry.

Effectively, the Chiltern revival under Chiltern railways wouldn't have happened because the paths would not have existed for such a thing to happen. That's a very bad thing.

On the subject of bad things, it would have surely led to the closure of St Pancras too. Good thing they kept the MML!

 

[InTheEastMids]

Other options for the MML could have been

I would assume 'some' consideration was given to it, but it was probably dismissed pretty quickly. Yes, Nottingham and Sheffield traffic could have gone via the ECML. Derby and Leicester via Nuneaton, (or, though I never heard any talk of it back in the day, Sheffield and Derby could have gone via a re-instated chord at Tamworth.)

I think the 'problem' was Wellingborough-Kettering and to a lesser extent, Market Harboro. You could have put the latter at the end of a simple branch from Northampton, I suppose, but Well-Kets was just too big a population. You couldn't cut them off, and going via Northampton would have been unacceptably slow, and needed a reversal or new chords installing.

As I recall, the plans mooted back in the day (1965-69 type era) were to send MML traffic via Nuneaton and rationalise (think Salisbury-Exeter) Leicester - Bedford. I don't know how serious these 'plans' were, but at the end of the day, presumably the savings clearly weren't considered enough.

But going back to the GC vs Midland argument - clearly there was no real argument. The GC had no equivalent of Wellingborough-Kettering, nor even Harborough - which alone was way bigger than Brackley-Woodford Halse. And Luton+ Bedford were surely bigger traffic generators for additional northbound traffic than Wycombe/Aylesbury and area.

Completely agree with this. Although other options could have been to serve Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield from Euston via Rugby-Wigston or Northampton-Market Harborough.
Of course today's 4tph EMT service would not be possible into Euston, but if Rugby-Leics had been the main route then electrification of the MML from Leicester northwards might have happened in the 70s-80s? Electrification to Kettering might have happened sooner to bring it into the Thameslink operation. Maybe now we'd be expecting Cl230 to replace the Pacers on the Kettering to Leicester hourly branch line service?

 

[Edgeley]

If Woodhead had survived how feasible would it have been to divert services to Sheffield Midland and still close Sheffield Victoria?

Would have required a reversal in the Nunnery area on the Darnall line.

 

[70014IronDuke]

So we would today be stuck with the same level of service as in the sixties?

No, of course not But as I mentioned elsewhere, any rationalisation of the Midland (or any other line for that matter) had it happened* would make future enhancements to services more difficult. This is a hypothetical thread.

(* Of course, to some extent, it did happen: lots of four track was made to two, or three, with total closure north of Melton and singling Manton - Glendon.)

The joint line was several miles longer than the Aylesbury line and would have had to share tracks with Paddington expresses and locals. When will people understand that the GC "London" extension never reached London on its own, was only double track and relied on using the Metropolitan line or the longer diversion via High Wyccombe. In contrast, the Midland had four tracks from London to north of Kettering (and then alternative routes to the north).

One equally might retort: "When will people understand" that mention of a four-track main line to a BRB member c 1960 would immediately elicit the response "Does traffic justify FOUR tracks?" - and before anyone could answer - "Can't we cut that to two? Or one? Or none?" ?

So, the joint line was a bit longer than the Midland? Do you really think that if there were a decent case for closing the near 45 route miles- of which about 30 was four track - between Bedford and Wigston in the 60s that the BRB would worry about running an extra 6-7 miles extra on the GC-GWR joint for Leicester/Sheffield trains? Of course they wouldn't. Once WCML electrification had been done, the line north of Bedford would have been closed toute de suite. But luckily, there was no such case.

Once again, this is a hypothetical thread. I would not personaly advocate keeping the GC versus the Midland. It was a no contest. Rather, I see the situation rather more like:
OK, we'll close the GC - that's a cert.
Now, can we do to downsize or close the Midland north of Bedford?
In the end, due to the existance of Wellingborugh, Kettering and Harborough - and the cost of diverting other trains to Nuneaton - the answer to the second question was: Not too much.

 

[Killingworth]

If Woodhead had survived how feasible would it have been to divert services to Sheffield Midland and still close Sheffield Victoria?
/QUOTE]

Would have required a reversal in the Nunnery area on the Darnall line.

Or a major civil engineering project to construct a tight turn of about 270 degrees through a heavily built up area to come into Midland, with the River Sheaf and canal making a tunnel difficult too. Which is the snag whenever the subject of reopening the line up the Don Valley towards Stocksbridge for passenger service comes up - quite apart from other obstructions now impacting on the old track bed, let alone the tunnels themselves.

 

[RLBH]

You can, I believe, get in to Midland from the north by running Woodburn Jn - Broughton Lane Jn - Tinsley South Jn - Meadowhall. Whether that's in any way sensible is another question altogether.

 

[brompton rail]

You can, I believe, get in to Midland from the north by running Woodburn Jn - Broughton Lane Jn - Tinsley South Jn - Meadowhall. Whether that's in any way sensible is another question altogether.

The Broughton Lane line (ex GC) continues to Rotherham Central and not Meadowhall. The Tinsley to Barnsley line went a long time before Meadowhell was dreamed up to replace a closed steelworks (Hadfields). Victoria never served Sheffield well, with connections only towards Retford, Doncaster and Leeds via Swinton. Midland allows connections via Barnsley, and most importantly southwards to Chesterfield, Derby, Nottingham etc. Oh, and of course Sheffield’s bus station is located adjacent to Midland Station

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Any thoughts on other examples? Answers on a postcard, please.

I wonder about the Marches->South Wales "corridor". The Heart of Wales Line is and has always been marginal. Hereford - Hay-on-Wye - Brecon would have more tourist traffic, and Brecon itself is bigger than anywhere on the HoWL. The downside is that you'd probably want to keep Brecon as a spur and then reverse to Tal-y-llyn Junction, Torpantau and Merthyr, rather than meandering further to Sennybridge, Onllwyn and Neath. On balance I guess the HoWL may have a little more local traffic, but there can't be much in it.

 

[The Ham]

Any thoughts on other examples? Answers on a postcard, please.

I've been wondering what difference it would have made if the line between Winchester and Basingstoke had closed and the line between Winchester and Alton had stayed open (it would have never happened for various reasons, not least the oil terminal at Micheldever and the slower routes from the South Coast to London).

It could have lead to some interesting changes to how things are now.

I would have expected that Basingstoke to Southampton via Salisbury would be electrified.

There would be some (maybe XC services) which avoid Salisbury station by using the south to east chord, with maybe a Salisbury Parkway station on that section of line.

Basingstoke would be less of a capacity constraint as the majority of Southampton to London services would go via Alton and therefore join at the grade separated junction at Brookwood.

Freight wouldn't head through Southampton Central which could provide more capacity there as well as through Winchester.q

Passenger numbers from those stations which now form the Watercress Line would be fairly high (similar to the likes of Winchfield and Hook) with a 2tph Winchester stopper service. With the option to change to faster services at Alton.

 

[Helvellyn]

So we would today be stuck with the same level of service as in the sixties? The joint line was several miles longer than the Aylesbury line and would have had to share tracks with Paddington expresses and locals. When will people understand that the GC "London" extension never reached London on its own, was only double track and relied on using the Metropolitan line or the longer diversion via High Wyccombe. In contrast, the Midland had four tracks from London to north of Kettering (and then alternative routes to the north).

The point is that in the 1960s the rationalisation wasn't about keeping anything for the service levels we have today. The MML is constrained in parts by some of the rationalisations that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. My point was that based on 1960s service levels could there have been a case to close a big part of the MML and use other lines, i.e. the GC for some services.

The MML was probably helped by getting HSTs in the 1980s - it could have remained loco-hauled like Norwich (although maybe there would have been greater chance of electrification if it hadn't got HSTs).

 

[Western Lord]

The point is that in the 1960s the rationalisation wasn't about keeping anything for the service levels we have today. The MML is constrained in parts by some of the rationalisations that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. My point was that based on 1960s service levels could there have been a case to close a big part of the MML and use other lines, i.e. the GC for some services.

The MML was probably helped by getting HSTs in the 1980s - it could have remained loco-hauled like Norwich (although maybe there would have been greater chance of electrification if it hadn't got HSTs).

So, close parts of the shortest route from London to Leicester, which serves important towns en-route in favour of a longer slower line that relies on the London Underground too reach London and serves a fraction of the population of the Midland. There's a reason the GC closed!

 

[krus_aragon]

I wonder about the Marches->South Wales "corridor". The Heart of Wales Line is and has always been marginal. Hereford - Hay-on-Wye - Brecon would have more tourist traffic, and Brecon itself is bigger than anywhere on the HoWL. The downside is that you'd probably want to keep Brecon as a spur and then reverse to Tal-y-llyn Junction, Torpantau and Merthyr, rather than meandering further to Sennybridge, Onllwyn and Neath. On balance I guess the HoWL may have a little more local traffic, but there can't be much in it.

The HoWL is marginal, but it survives because it ran through several marginal constituencies (so the story goes).

Accepting Hereford-Hay-Brecon for the sake of argument, would Hereford-Brecon-Merthyr-Valleys have offered much in preference to Hereford-Newport-Cardiff-Valleys? (Assuming the coalfield and associated industry is your target.) If you intended to access other valleys you'd have to continue south to at least Pontypridd, or keep the Heads of Valleys routes. To my eye, you might as well get rid of the route and go via Newport in that instance.

Taking the route from Brecon on to Neath would offer a shorter route to Swansea and West Wales (while connecting the relatively populous town of Brecon) but the Neath and Brecon route is terribly mountainous, and local traffic was sparse.

Historically, I believe that the "other line" that contended with the Central Wales (Heart of Wales) line was the Mid Wales line, which would give you a route from Newtown through Rhayader and Builth Wells to Three Cocks junction, then on to either Brecon/Neath or Merthyr.

 

[Fleetwood Boy]

I was always a bit surprised at the choice made when closing one of the lines through the Garnock Valley west of Johnstone. The choice of the southernmost of the two routes meant closing a station in Johnstone which was better located for the town centre than the one which was retained, plus stations at Kilbarchan, Lochwinnoch (the current station of that name is a long way from the actual town, and originally called Lochside) and Kilbirnie (one of the biggest towns in the valley). The line retained passes Beith (which has a significant population - but the station was closed at part of the rationalisation!) and Glengarnock (which is really only of value because its near Kilbirnie).

The line via Glengarnock had some value as the then mainline to Kilmarnock in the 1960s, but of course this closed anyway, so that can't be the reason it was retained. Quick look at the relevant timetable on Timetable World suggests that so far as stopping trains were concerned there was a pretty well 50/50 split between the two routes, with similar journey times via either route.

I've always thought it would be interesting to try and dig out the rationale for this - could anyone give pointers as to where there might be official documents about the decision-making process?

 

[AndrewE]

What if Ruabon - Llangollen - Dolgellau -Barmouth had survived and Salop - Machynlleth - Dovey Junction had been closed?

 

[70014IronDuke]

The point is that in the 1960s the rationalisation wasn't about keeping anything for the service levels we have today.

Understood.

The MML is constrained in parts by some of the rationalisations that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

That is a truism for almost any line extant in 1980.

The MML was and is constrained by the the investment decisions of the 1840s, 1850s and 1860s. And by the topography of the country once the 'easy' ways into London were taken by London & Birmingham and GN.
Almost every station of any importance on the route has or had a speed restriction below line speed. (Plus you had Wigston and Trent, and the psr-riddled Erewash Valley). When steam ruled the rails, some of these were not so significant (like the 80s at Kettering and Luton), but once 100 mph should have been the norm, c mid-60s, average speeds began to lag those on other Inter-City routes. In this aspect, south of Nottingham, the GC might have had an advantage, even using the longer joint line.

My point was that based on 1960s service levels could there have been a case to close a big part of the MML and use other lines, i.e. the GC for some services.

As I wrote upthread, (very significant) rationalisation of the Midland was considered, but not in terms of MML vs GC, or not for more than 15 minutes. The GC's fate was sealed from about 1959.
You should remember that the Midland, from the mid-60s, had at least two TPH, one express, one semi-fast - the latter needed for Kettlingborough (and Bedford/Luton). Once again, the GC had what by comparison? My Lords, I present to you: Lutterworh, Woodford and Brackley.
Now - which route do you think is going to be easier to close?

The MML was probably helped by getting HSTs in the 1980s - it could have remained loco-hauled like Norwich (although maybe there would have been greater chance of electrification if it hadn't got HSTs).

Not quite sure what your point is here. The Midland - which benefitted hugely in terms of timings from the high power/weight rations of the HSTs - arguably got them later than it should have. Had the gas turbine APT gone ahead, the time savings on the Midland would have been proportionally some of the best in the country.

 

[Calthrop]

What if Ruabon - Llangollen - Dolgellau -Barmouth had survived and Salop - Machynlleth - Dovey Junction had been closed?

Are you looking at Aberystwyth keeping its rail link via a -- more than a little convoluted -- route Aber. -- Dovey Jun. -- Tywyn -- Morfa Mawddach; or at Aberystwyth's ceasing to be on the standard-gauge system?

 

[krus_aragon]

What if Ruabon - Llangollen - Dolgellau -Barmouth had survived and Salop - Machynlleth - Dovey Junction had been closed?

Blaenau Ffestiniog and Bala would be a bit different, for a start. A rail link was needed for the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in the 1960s. With the creation of Tryweryn reservoir, a plan was made to divert the railway to Bala around it, but when it became clear that Ruabon-Barmouth was to close, the plan changed to a cross-town link with the LNWR line in Blaenau.

If Ruabon-Barmouth had been kept, the Conwy Valley line wouldn't be serving that critical infrastructure role, and may itself have been closed. (Think of the perennial issues with flooding that it suffers.)

 

[AndrewE]

Are you looking at Aberystwyth keeping its rail link via a -- more than a little convoluted -- route Aber. -- Dovey Jun. -- Tywyn -- Morfa Mawddach; or at Aberystwyth's ceasing to be on the standard-gauge system?

I imagine Aber might have survived, but being that much further by rail from the central UK rail network might have diminished its university traffic. Agree that the Conwy valley might have been abandoned, and that Blaenau might or might not have remained connected from the south. Dolgellau might have grown more prosperous.

 

[Calthrop]

I imagine Aber might have survived, but being that much further by rail from the central UK rail network might have diminished its university traffic. Agree that the Conwy valley might have been abandoned, and that Blaenau might or might not have remained connected from the south. Dolgellau might have grown more prosperous.

Endless hypothesising fun, to be had with the Welsh coast and its hinterland in general. Given closure of Shrewsbury -- Dovey Jun.: maybe a bit of compensation re access to Aberystwyth from the south, achievable by keeping open the Aberystwyth -- Carmarthen line (a route seemingly hankered after by many participants in these Forums)?

I recall some flights of fancy / alternative history in the "Ffestiniog Railway Magazine" long ago, on the lines of "if the Ffestiniog Railway had been included in the Grouping" -- which of course in real life, it wasn't. Had it been included -- borderline case seen, as to whether it would have gone to the LMS or the GW. Hypothesis here continued, that if it had been the LMS, FR's future likely not so bright -- LMS being a hard-headed outfit, not noticeably fond of "weirdo" appurtenances. If FR had gone to the GW -- greater possibility seen, of a good outcome: integrated into GW system, loco fleet "Swindonised" to the extent possible: GW might have abandoned its Bala -- Blaenau line say in the 1930s: concentrating Blaenau traffic on the Ffestiniog, via interchange at Minffordd (pace problems re freight over a very narrow-gauge line with very limited clearances). LMS would have in all probability kept its Llandudno Jun. -- Blaenau line running. Post-nationalisation, who knows? -- and how would potentially-perilous stuff to and from Trawsfynydd nuclear power station travelling via the Ffestiniog, have worked? -- assuming that in our alternative time-line, there are any of: British railway nationalisation / World War II / atomic power coming to be

 

[krus_aragon]

If the Bala and Ffestiniog railway had been abandoned, I doubt that Trawsfynydd would have been seriously considered as a possible location for a nuclear power station.

(God, I hate the term "nuclear power station": it's so wordy and takes ages to type. In Welsh there's a far snappier term: "atomfa", literally atom-place!)

The Conwy Valley line was used at some point in the 1950s/60s to deliver a large turbine that could not be taken along the roads. It was loaded on a train at the Junction, taken south, and transferred to a heavy Pickfords lorry at Blaenau. I watched a period video of the operation online, but I can't find it at the moment.

 

[Calthrop]

I didn't think of a couple of "twists-and-turns in the saga" as in your post -- i.e. effect of pre-WW2 abandonment of the Blaenau end of the Bala -- Blaenau line, re the putative future "atom place". Don't remember whether the "Ffestiniog Railway Magazine" article went as far as speculation on that point -- it was decades ago ! Own notions now: wonder whether, with Ffestiniog "grouped" into the GWR: GW might in time have abandoned most of Bala -- Blaenau line, but perhaps as part of the package, reinstated the former one-eleven-and-a-half track on erstwhile Ffestiniog & Blaenau section, and gone on working same, but as narrow gauge -- perhaps retaining s/g rails (have the section mixed-gauge); and creating a s/g connection with the LMS Conwy Valley line; all just in case of future need. The power station could then, have been -- with relaying and reopening of just a couple of miles of s/g track Ffestiniog -- Trawsfynydd...

 

[krus_aragon]

The Ffestiniog and Blaenau was built narrow gauge but designed for mixed gauge operation (or easy conversion to standard gauge, depending on how you look at it), and as you know the GWR had converted it to standard gauge when they absorbed the F&B.

The F&B had connected the Craig-ddu quarry to the Ffestiniog Railway, and the GWR introduced two breaks of gauge to that journey. Rather than tranship the slates twice (with expensive breakages) the GWR built a few transporter wagons that would each carry six narrow gauge slate trams on top.

Assuming a Ffestiniog-GWR grouping in 1921, the GWR would finally have control over the vast majority of slate traffic in Blaenau, much to the LNWR/LMS' annoyance. Much of the slate traffic was for export, and the Ffestiniog ran straight to the sea. Combined with the fact that all the quarries' tracks were built to the narrow gauge, it seems inevitable that the GWR would continue to operate the narrow gauge system, but as you ask, what of the standard gauge?

While switching the F&R back to narrow gauge would make Craig-ddu logistics easier, abandoning the Ffestiniog-Bala would be an odd move: surrendering all standard-gauge traffic to the LMS? As slate traffic fell during the 1920s the GWR may have decided to abandon the Ffestiniog and concentrate all the traffic on their standard gauge system, running export traffic to another port. (Maybe Barmouth or Birkenhead?)

 

[Calthrop]

The Ffestiniog and Blaenau was built narrow gauge but designed for mixed gauge operation (or easy conversion to standard gauge, depending on how you look at it), and as you know the GWR had converted it to standard gauge when they absorbed the F&B.

The F&B had connected the Craig-ddu quarry to the Ffestiniog Railway, and the GWR introduced two breaks of gauge to that journey. Rather than tranship the slates twice (with expensive breakages) the GWR built a few transporter wagons that would each carry six narrow gauge slate trams on top.

Assuming a Ffestiniog-GWR grouping in 1921, the GWR would finally have control over the vast majority of slate traffic in Blaenau, much to the LNWR/LMS' annoyance. Much of the slate traffic was for export, and the Ffestiniog ran straight to the sea. Combined with the fact that all the quarries' tracks were built to the narrow gauge, it seems inevitable that the GWR would continue to operate the narrow gauge system, but as you ask, what of the standard gauge?

While switching the F & B back to narrow gauge would make Craig-ddu logistics easier, abandoning the Ffestiniog - Bala would be an odd move: surrendering all standard-gauge traffic to the LMS? As slate traffic fell during the 1920s the GWR may have decided to abandon the Ffestiniog and concentrate all the traffic on their standard gauge system, running export traffic to another port. (Maybe Barmouth or Birkenhead?)

(My bolding) Yes -- now you mention it; and one reckons, re slate traffic especially: odd for the GWR to deprive itself of the means of getting freight out of / into the Blaenau / Ffestiniog area in standard-gauge stock (it seems certain that "conventional"-type transporter wagons, as on the Leek & Manifold, would have been impracticable in the light of the Ffestiniog's highly-restricted clearances). I don't recall the "FR Mag" article raising this point -- wish I still had it to refer to, but my copies of the Magazine, from many decades now in the past of FR Society membership, are alas no more. It could be that the article's author(s) were just "spitballing", as the Americans say -- not seeking to think all aspects of the matter, through !

I'd forgotten about the transporters of the kind used by Craig-ddu. The North Wales slate-industry scene was certainly rich in oddities of a "multi-gauge" kind; what with Craig-ddu, and the Padarn Railway's 4ft. gauge transporter wagons to convey one-eleven-and-a-half ditto -- four to a transporter, including IIRC one space for the one-eleven-and-a-half brake van; and the Nantlle line using horse traction on the 3ft 6in. gauge, right to the end in the 1960s...

 

[nw1]

Woodhead was great when we had huge quantities of heavy freight to lug over the Pennines.

But you could see which way the wind was blowing by the early '80s - Tinsley Yard was a fraction of what it once was, the decline of the Dearne Valley coal fields meant no need for the Wath branch either.

Take that away and what have you got?

• Passenger services that require a separate station at the Sheffield end, so no integration with other services?
• The "expresses" between two large cities inevitably stuck behind stoppers that take half an hour to cover a dozen miles west of Dinting.
• Very little intermediate population (the line skirted past Deepcar but didn't serve Stocksbridge and didn't serve anywhere of population density on its route out of Sheffield - have a look at the corridor through Neepsend/ past the bottom of the Ski Village/ the allotments at Shirecliffe/ even at Wadsley Bridge there's not many people living near the line - it'd be little use for folk in Hillsborough - Penistone currently has direct trains to Huddersfield/ Barnsley/ Sheffield so I'm not counting that as somewhere that would have been kept on the map by retaining the Woodhead line)

With the Hope Valley route you've got:

• The one station at the Sheffield end (keeping things much simpler).
• The ability to overtake stoppers between Stockport and Manchester.
• Multiple routes west of Chinley.
• Connection to other routes at the Dore triangle / towards Altrincham.
• A viable freight business that continues to this day (an annoyingly busy one, given the impact that the cement trains have upon Hope Valley stoppers, but if it's an "either/or" thread then I've got to accept that the Hope Valley cement outlasted the Sheffield Steel/ Dearne Valley Coal)
• A convenient intermediate stop at Stockport, which is a large place and a convenient interchange for other lines

Some enthusiasts will answer the "either/or" question with "both of the lines should have been retained" but to answer the OP's question of "Was it, in hindsight, the right decision to retain the former and close the latter?", I'd say that in hindsight it was clearly the right decision to retain the Hope Valley route and close the Woodhead (if we are starting from the point that only one could survive).

Access to the Peak District for walkers is also one big thing the Hope Valley has in its favour. Edale is not easy to get to by road, take away the train and I doubt you'd get a particularly frequent bus service there. It is of course the start of the Pennine Way, but also a great access point to many other walks.
It's a shame the Bakewell route went. A trans-pennine route to Derby via Buxton from Manchester would also have been a great route for Peak District access and nice for scenery. Given there are several significant towns along its route, I suspect it would have good commuter traffic too. Really surprised they killed that one in retrospect. An hourly fast from Manchester to Leicester calling at (say) only Stockport, Buxton, Matlock, Derby and Leicester combined with another, immediately behind, calling most stations from Stockport to Derby (omitting some of the smaller ones north of Buxton) and a third, calling at all stations from Stockport to Buxton, would have probably worked quite well.

 

[Killingworth]

Access to the Peak District for walkers is also one big thing the Hope Valley has in its favour. Edale is not easy to get to by road, take away the train and I doubt you'd get a particularly frequent bus service there. It is of course the start of the Pennine Way, but also a great access point to many other walks.

I'm amused to see references to nice scenery. It's true both the Peak and Hope Valley lines run through nice scenery. As a user of the Hope Valley line I can vouch for the fact that very few modern passengers look out of the windows at the scenery, except to confirm where they are. Electronic gadgets are the rule at peak times and group conversations outside the peaks.

There is no bus into Edale and unlikely to ever be one. Rail replacement buses are at best a minibus to and from Hope. If the road is blocked trains may be the only way in. That was an argument to keep the line open for passenger traffic. In earlier days steam locomotives would crash through icicles in the wet tunnels. Today DMUs aren't very good at that so the line can be closed for several days in winter weather.

Edale certainly does well from incoming traffic.

 

[nw1]

I'm amused to see references to nice scenery. It's true both the Peak and Hope Valley lines run through nice scenery. As a user of the Hope Valley line I can vouch for the fact that very few modern passengers look out of the windows at the scenery, except to confirm where they are. Electronic gadgets are the rule at peak times and group conversations outside the peaks.

There is no bus into Edale and unlikely to ever be one. Rail replacement buses are at best a minibus to and from Hope. If the road is blocked trains may be the only way in. That was an argument to keep the line open for passenger traffic. In earlier days steam locomotives would crash through icicles in the wet tunnels. Today DMUs aren't very good at that so the line can be closed for several days in winter weather.

Edale certainly does well from incoming traffic.

I think scenery may well be a factor in encouraging leisure journeys though, particularly for visitors to the area: a nice train journey might encourage people to visit a particular destination by train, versus driving or visiting a destination where the journey there isn't such a big selling point.

But I'm not saying the scenery is the only reason; the Peak route I'd have thought would have had enough day-to-day commuter and shopping-type traffic to make it worth keeping open - both short distance and longer distance, such as providing a link between Manchester and Derby/Leicester.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I imagine Aber might have survived, but being that much further by rail from the central UK rail network might have diminished its university traffic. Agree that the Conwy valley might have been abandoned, and that Blaenau might or might not have remained connected from the south. Dolgellau might have grown more prosperous.

Do not forget there was a bonkers plan for a new town , on the flood plain of the Seven Valley at the time , a sort of Telford 2 .....(unlike Milton Keynes , that might have assisted the retention of the Cambrian Main line)

 

[Calthrop]

Further to ChiefPlanner's post: a total "might-marginally-have-been": I seem to recall late-1960s speculation about a similar scheme in the upper Wye valley -- just on the English or Welsh side of the border, or actually athwart the border (don't remember whether it was being actually contemplated by official planners, or just laymen's musings in newspaper correspondence columns). Horrifying though such a development would likely be, to lovers of the countryside; in the event of its coming about / being seriously floated, early enough, one can suppose that it might have improved the chances of survival of the Hereford -- Three Cocks Junction line.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Raymond Williams' 'The Fight for Manod' is an enjoyable novel from the period based around the prospect of a Severn new town - worth reading given that you can pick up second-hand copies off Amazon/Abebooks for pennies.