How would the U.K. need to adapt if the railway system were abolished?

[Bletchleyite]

That said - and I may be doing him a disservice - but I think @Bletchleyite did give some recent examples in Germany of rural closures on a different thread.

Germany didn't have a Beeching, and as such there's still a steady drip-drop of closures, one or two every few years, very much like the drip-drop loss of rural bus services here. Indeed, very similar indeed, because in Germany rural rail services are tendered by regions in exactly the sort of manner bus services are here.

The sort of services involved, that said, mostly make the Conwy Valley or the West Highland look like a London commuter line in the Tuesday morning rush hour (yes, those lines are infrequent, but the trains that do run tend to carry decent loadings). They're typically routes for which a 16 seater minibus would look generous - the sort Beeching pretty much totally killed off here, though there are odd ones like the Marston Vale.

 

[A0wen]

Germany didn't have a Beeching, and as such there's still a steady drip-drop of closures, one or two every few years, very much like the drip-drop loss of rural bus services here. Indeed, very similar indeed, because in Germany rural rail services are tendered by regions in exactly the sort of manner bus services are here.

The sort of services involved, that said, mostly make the Conwy Valley or the West Highland look like a London commuter line in the Tuesday morning rush hour (yes, those lines are infrequent, but the trains that do run tend to carry decent loadings). They're typically routes for which a 16 seater minibus would look generous - the sort Beeching pretty much totally killed off here, though there are odd ones like the Marston Vale.

Whilst the bit in bold is true - a lot of lines in Germany didn't reopen after WW2 and the country was split.

In France there wasn't a Beeching as such, but France once had an extensive "narrow gauge" network (about 12,000 miles worth), predominantly 1 metre gauge, network and that virtually disappeared throughout the 1950s and 1960s. So whilst there wasn't a Beeching report as such, there were incremental closures which were of a similar scale.

 

[Dr Day]

The Republic of Ireland has closed rural lines relatively recently, yet heavily invested in urban rail (mainly light, but still rail) in a similar period.

 

[stuu]

Whilst the bit in bold is true - a lot of lines in Germany didn't reopen after WW2 and the country was split.

In France there wasn't a Beeching as such, but France once had an extensive "narrow gauge" network (about 12,000 miles worth), predominantly 1 metre gauge, network and that virtually disappeared throughout the 1950s and 1960s. So whilst there wasn't a Beeching report as such, there were incremental closures which were of a similar scale.

They effectively did, after the creation of SNCF in 1937 they closed thousands of km of tracks over the next couple of years, and would have been more if the Germans had stayed at home

 

[A0wen]

They effectively did, after the creation of SNCF in 1937 they closed thousands of km of tracks over the next couple of years, and would have been more if the Germans had stayed at home

Yes - and there are many lines in the UK which if had been built in France or following the French approach would have been built as "narrow gauge" i.e. 1 metre or equivalent. However in the UK we usually (i.e. note for pedants, yes I know there were passenger narrow gauge lines, but they were the exception) only built Narrow Gauge as a much smaller gauge with shipping of materials such as slate in mind. I think lines such as those on the Isle of Wight, Far North of Scotland, Cornish Branches been built by the French they would almost certainly have been built using narrow gauge.

 

[Mikey C]

It would seem bizarre to have a rail network of lines and stations, in which we could only add to it, but never close anything.

After all the London Underground closed lightly used branches such as Ongar and Aldwych in the 90s, and not because they were replaced by another service (such as the North Woolwich NR branch being replaced by the DLR branch to Woolwich)

 

[nw1]

It would seem bizarre to have a rail network of lines and stations, in which we could only add to it, but never close anything.

If you are of a progressive mindset on these matters, arguably it's not bizarre at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you are of a progressive mindset on these matters, arguably it's not bizarre at all.

If policy was truly progressive and integration-minded, it's hard to say that converting the Conwy Valley to a cycleway and using the money currently spent on it to run a fully integrated hourly high quality coach style* service instead of a three hourly train service wouldn't be a good idea.

I oppose closures simply because the UK is pathologically incapable of doing buses properly. You just have to look to e.g. Switzerland for how to do them correctly.

* Would need to be low floor, but should be a vehicle with high quality coach seating, double glazing, air conditioning, lots of luggage space and cycle carriage.

 

[A0wen]

If you are of a progressive mindset on these matters, arguably it's not bizarre at all.

You have an odd definition of "progressive" - Progressive doesn't mean keeping things forever and never closing or changing things.

A progressive would argue for change and if something is lightly used to replace it with something that is more modern or better used.

 

[yorksrob]

It would seem bizarre to have a rail network of lines and stations, in which we could only add to it, but never close anything.

After all the London Underground closed lightly used branches such as Ongar and Aldwych in the 90s, and not because they were replaced by another service (such as the North Woolwich NR branch being replaced by the DLR branch to Woolwich)

If you are of a progressive mindset on these matters, arguably it's not bizarre at all.

Plus there's the fact that we have already been subjected to a disastrous closure programme which went far too far, so the emphasis now really needs to be on repairing the damage, not compounding it.

You have an odd definition of "progressive" - Progressive doesn't mean keeping things forever and never closing or changing things.

A progressive would argue for change and if something is lightly used to replace it with something that is more modern or better used.

"Progressive" doesn't mean reducing our moth-eaten public transport system even further at a time when many people still need it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plus there's the fact that we have already been subjected to a disastrous closure programme which went far too far, so the emphasis now really needs to be on repairing the damage, not compounding it.

Most Beeching closures were correct - barely any of them even have a bus service now as demand was so low.

Some weren't, and yes, those erroneous ones should be reopened. And if we do close further lines, assuming there is decent demand, then we need, as a country, to learn how to operate proper fully-integrated bus services.

 

[yorksrob]

Most Beeching closures were correct - barely any of them even have a bus service now as demand was so low.

Some weren't, and yes, those erroneous ones should be reopened. And if we do close further lines, assuming there is decent demand, then we need, as a country, to learn how to operate proper fully-integrated bus services.

Well, I mentioned the closure programme as a whole, including Shoreham - Horsham, Lewes - Tunbridge Wells, Bodmin - Padstow, York - Beverley etc, all of which would be very useful.

The phrase "those erroneous ones should be reopened" is meaningless as the prospects are non-existant without a surviving freight branch.

Best to concentrate on not repeating yester-year's mistakes I think.

 

[zwk500]

Well, I mentioned the closure programme as a whole, including Shoreham - Horsham, Lewes - Tunbridge Wells, Bodmin - Padstow, York - Beverley etc, all of which would be very useful.

Shoreham-Horsham would have taken capacity away from busier services or required a much less convenient shuttle. Lewes-Tunbridge wells is the least useful part of that line, the Number 29 bus covers it quite happily. And Eridge-Tunbridge Wells didn't close until 1985! York-Beverley might have been useful if it had hung around.

 

[yorksrob]

Shoreham-Horsham would have taken capacity away from busier services or required a much less convenient shuttle. Lewes-Tunbridge wells is the least useful part of that line, the Number 29 bus covers it quite happily. And Eridge-Tunbridge Wells didn't close until 1985! York-Beverley might have been useful if it had hung around.

Not at all, all of those routes would have been well used as rail today. They suffer from depressed usage today because the railway is absent.

"Lewes-Tunbridge Wells is the least useful part of that line," it's more or less the whole line apart from Tonbridge - Tunbridge Wells Central and the East Coastway, so the sentence seems to make little sense.

 

[A0wen]

Well, I mentioned the closure programme as a whole, including Shoreham - Horsham, Lewes - Tunbridge Wells, Bodmin - Padstow, York - Beverley etc, all of which would be very useful.

The phrase "those erroneous ones should be reopened" is meaningless as the prospects are non-existant without a surviving freight branch.

Best to concentrate on not repeating yester-year's mistakes I think.

And tellingly, not *one* of those has managed to make a compelling case for reinstatement.

As ever when they come up around here we get the usual tripe about "diversionary" possibilities or "reconnecting" places like Market Weighton (pop'n 6.5k) onto the national rail network, whilst conveniently glossing over the fact that the effect of that would mean it would probably double or even treble in size as a direct result of housebuilding that would go with it. Whilst I'm sure some of the good people of places like Market Weighton think a railway line and station would be wonderful, I suspect their enthusiasm might wane a bit when they are also told their nice little town of 6,500 people will become a small town of 15-20k as a result.

"Progressive" doesn't mean reducing our moth-eaten public transport system even further at a time when many people still need it.

If you think it is "moth eaten", I suggest you broaden your horizons a bit. Rather than trying to regularly use every obscure service in the UK, try visiting rural France, or Italy or Greece and then report back.

Not at all, all of those routes would have been well used as rail today. They suffer from depressed usage today because the railway is absent.

"Lewes-Tunbridge Wells is the least useful part of that line," it's more or less the whole line apart from Tonbridge - Tunbridge Wells Central and the East Coastway, so the sentence seems to make little sense.

Ah here we go again - St Jude of Yorksrob at it again.

"Well used" = "I want to go and ride on it and to hell with the cost to everyone else".

 

[zwk500]

Not at all, all of those routes would have been well used as rail today. They suffer from depressed usage today because the railway is absent.

The two Sussex routes, really don't. I spent 20 years growing up in that part of the world and there's a reason the roads between Shoreham and Horsham and between Lewes and Tunbridge Wells are single carriageway while the roads from Worthing, Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings to London are dual carriageway. Lewes-Uckfield should have remained open for connectivity to Brighton, but Brighton-Tunbridge wells is a minority flow. It may have just clung on with an hourly shuttle if the Hever-Tunbridge Wells section had stayed open to provide relief to the Hastings route, in which case keeping the Birchden Jn chord would have been marginal cost and a Brighton-Tunbridge Wells local may just have been politically helpful enough to survive.

 

[yorksrob]

And tellingly, not *one* of those has managed to make a compelling case for reinstatement.

As ever when they come up around here we get the usual tripe about "diversionary" possibilities or "reconnecting" places like Market Weighton (pop'n 6.5k) onto the national rail network, whilst conveniently glossing over the fact that the effect of that would mean it would probably double or even treble in size as a direct result of housebuilding that would go with it. Whilst I'm sure some of the good people of places like Market Weighton think a railway line and station would be wonderful, I suspect their enthusiasm might wane a bit when they are also told their nice little town of 6,500 people will become a small town of 15-20k as a result.



If you think it is "moth eaten", I suggest you broaden your horizons a bit. Rather than trying to regularly use every obscure service in the UK, try visiting rural France, or Italy or Greece and then report back.

As you well know, whether a former railway would be of use today has absolutely no bearing on whether the business case for construction could be made today. Most of our network would struggle to make the case for construction if it hadn't already been built, but that doesn't mean that it isn't vital to the local economy.

I'm a British subject who lives and works in Britain and uses the train in Britain. I want a railway network that's suited to Britain, not rural France.

 

[lachlan]

You have an odd definition of "progressive" - Progressive doesn't mean keeping things forever and never closing or changing things.

A progressive would argue for change and if something is lightly used to replace it with something that is more modern or better used.

Key word being “

And tellingly, not *one* of those has managed to make a compelling case for reinstatement.

As ever when they come up around here we get the usual tripe about "diversionary" possibilities or "reconnecting" places like Market Weighton (pop'n 6.5k) onto the national rail network, whilst conveniently glossing over the fact that the effect of that would mean it would probably double or even treble in size as a direct result of housebuilding that would go with it. Whilst I'm sure some of the good people of places like Market Weighton think a railway line and station would be wonderful, I suspect their enthusiasm might wane a bit when they are also told their nice little town of 6,500 people will become a small town of 15-20k as a result.



If you think it is "moth eaten", I suggest you broaden your horizons a bit. Rather than trying to regularly use every obscure service in the UK, try visiting rural France, or Italy or Greece and then report back.



Ah here we go again - St Jude of Yorksrob at it again.

"Well used" = "I want to go and ride on it and to hell with the cost to everyone else".

it’s much harder to reinstate things now because track beds have been built over, and it requires a capital cost to reopen. That doesn’t mean the line wouldn’t be beneficial were it still open today.

Having been stuck in traffic on an uncomfortable bus between York and Beverley before, that line absolutely should not have closed.

 

[yorksrob]

The two Sussex routes, really don't. I spent 20 years growing up in that part of the world and there's a reason the roads between Shoreham and Horsham and between Lewes and Tunbridge Wells are single carriageway while the roads from Worthing, Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings to London are dual carriageway. Lewes-Uckfield should have remained open for connectivity to Brighton, but Brighton-Tunbridge wells is a minority flow. It may have just clung on with an hourly shuttle if the Hever-Tunbridge Wells section had stayed open to provide relief to the Hastings route, in which case keeping the Birchden Jn chord would have been marginal cost and a Brighton-Tunbridge Wells local may just have been politically helpful enough to survive.

So basically, you're arguing that the one route should have remained anyway, whilst ignoring the other.

You're also ignoring the fact that the Marshlink had a similarly marginal existance in the early 1970's/80's and has somehow managed to become a vital, well used link today.

 

[A0wen]

Having been stuck in traffic on an uncomfortable bus between York and Beverley before, that line absolutely should not have closed.

Except there are still direct trains between Beverley and York via Hull. You chose to use the bus, the alternative was there.

 

[zwk500]

"Lewes-Tunbridge Wells is the least useful part of that line," it's more or less the whole line apart from Tonbridge - Tunbridge Wells Central and the East Coastway, so the sentence seems to make little sense.

Sorry I'd missed this edit - I meant that axis specifically. the important connections on that line are Crowborough and Uckfield to Brighton and everywhere to London. Hever and Edenbridge don't look to Brighton at all, and Tunbridge Well's association with Sussex is passing at best.

So basically, you're arguing that the one route should have remained anyway, whilst ignoring the other.

I'm arguing that if the bottom section had remained, a token service would probably have clung on until political climes had moved enough that closure was unthinkable.

You're also ignoring the fact that the Marshlink had a similarly marginal existance in the early 1970's/80's and has somehow managed to become a vital, well used link today.

1tph of a 4-Car DMU. Sorry for not fainting in astonishment at this uncontrollable stampede of passengers. Whereas the Uckfield line has had to have platform extensions for 230m trains.

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry I'd missed this edit - I meant that axis specifically. the important connections on that line are Crowborough and Uckfield to Brighton and everywhere to London. Hever and Edenbridge don't look to Brighton at all, and Tunbridge Well's association with Sussex is passing at best.

That's all driven by circumstance.

It's questionable whether Hastings or Ashford "look to eachother" at all in any meaningful sense, yet inexplicably the route thrives

Sorry I'd missed this edit - I meant that axis specifically. the important connections on that line are Crowborough and Uckfield to Brighton and everywhere to London. Hever and Edenbridge don't look to Brighton at all, and Tunbridge Well's association with Sussex is passing at best.


I'm arguing that if the bottom section had remained, a token service would probably have clung on until political climes had moved enough that closure was unthinkable.

1tph of a 4-Car DMU. Sorry for not fainting in astonishment at this uncontrollable stampede of passengers. Whereas the Uckfield line has had to have platform extensions for 230m trains.

Well, you undermine your own argument.

1 four carriage train per hour might not seem spectacular, but it's a far from insignificant transport flow.

If your 230m trains to Uckfield actually continued to connect to the South coast rather than stopping at a branch terminus, they would have undoubtedly been used by a lot more people and been of much more value to the community.

 

[zwk500]

That's all driven by circumstance.

And yet, they are real circumstances. As I mentioned, I lived in the area for 20 years and can count on one hand the number of times I've been to Hever or Edenbridge.

It's questionable whether Hastings or Ashford "look to eachother" at all in any meaningful sense, yet inexplicably the route thrives

They don't so much - but Rye certainly looks to both, and Ashford is an important hub for Kent rail while East Coastway trains go to Gatwick Airport and Brighton. ISTR the biggest boost in passenger numbers on Marshlink services was when the trains went all the way through. I'd love to have a look at the LENNON data for where people actually purchase tickets to from Marshlink stations (NOT projected/modelled data).

Also don't underestimate the number of intra-coastal school/college trips that happen along that way. There are a lot of trips between Brighton/Lewes/Newhaven/Eastbourne/Hastings from 15-18 year olds.

 

[A0wen]

You're also ignoring the fact that the Marshlink had a similarly marginal existance in the early 1970's/80's and has somehow managed to become a vital, well used link today.

In the same way you're ignoring the reason that's the case is directly related to the Channel Tunnel and HS1 giving a quicker journey time to London.

As ever, you make no acknowledgement of the huge amount of housebuilding which has and still is taking place around that part of Kent and Sussex.

Well, you undermine your own argument.

1 four carriage train per hour might not seem spectacular, but it's a far from insignificant transport flow.

Depends how full they are, surely ?

If they're running at an average of 50% capacity, then it's nothing spectacular. Those 4 car units have 241 seats - which is relatively low density when compared with a Class 450 which has about 20% more.

 

[yorksrob]

And yet, they are real circumstances. As I mentioned, I lived in the area for 20 years and can count on one hand the number of times I've been to Hever or Edenbridge.

They don't so much - but Rye certainly looks to both, and Ashford is an important hub for Kent rail while East Coastway trains go to Gatwick Airport and Brighton. ISTR the biggest boost in passenger numbers on Marshlink services was when the trains went all the way through. I'd love to have a look at the LENNON data for where people actually purchase tickets to from Marshlink stations (NOT projected/modelled data).

Also don't underestimate the number of intra-coastal school/college trips that happen along that way. There are a lot of trips between Brighton/Lewes/Newhaven/Eastbourne/Hastings from 15-18 year olds.

They're your circumstances and not everyone elses.

Ashford is an important hub for Kent. Do you not imagine that Tonbridge is an important hub for Kent, as is Lewes for Sussex ?

There was a big boost for Marshlink services when they went all the way through (just as there would have been an uplift in Uckfield line services if they continued through to Brighton).

In the same way you're ignoring the reason that's the case is directly related to the Channel Tunnel and HS1 giving a quicker journey time to London.

As ever, you make no acknowledgement of the huge amount of housebuilding which has and still is taking place around that part of Kent and Sussex.



Depends how full they are, surely ?

If they're running at an average of 50% capacity, then it's nothing spectacular. Those 4 car units have 241 seats - which is relatively low density when compared with a Class 450 which has about 20% more.

Yes, I'm sure channel tunnel services would be a big draw (if any actually still stopped at Ashford).

The importance of Ashford as a hub isn't dependant on HS1. Yes, that adds to it, but Marshlink was thriving before HS1 services were introduced, and Brighton is just as important a hub (actually moreso) as Ashford.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Housebuilding is an interesting one. The Marston Vale is currently rather a basket case. But if you build eco-towns around each of the stations (which I believe is going to happen to some extent) with the station at the heart of each I suspect usage would increase substantially, particularly if a direct service to MKC was possible, either through a Denbigh Hall Chord (which I strongly support) or just a reversal.

That's never going to happen for the Conwy Valley as there's just not the demand to live there, but it certainly could happen for pretty much any basket case sort of line south of about Birmingham. While it isn't an actual railway, the Cambs Busway, which might as well be a branch-line railway apart from Cambridge station being very badly located, is a nice example of this.

 

[zwk500]

They're your circumstances and not everyone elses.

They're an anecdotal example of the kind of connectivity there is.

Ashford is an important hub for Kent. Do you not imagine that Tonbridge is an important hub for Kent, as is Lewes for Sussex ?

Tonbridge is as important a hub for it's area as Lewes is for it's, but Lewes really doesn't have much demand for connectivity to Tonbridge. There is a fair amount of demand for connectivity between Lewes/Brighton and Tunbridge, as evidenced by the regular bus route. However the bus also neatly illustrates that if you ran a 4-car train every hour between Brighton and Tunbridge Wells, it'd be largely empty outside of the Work and School Rush hours.

There was a big boost for Marshlink services when they went all the way through (just as there would have been an uplift in Uckfield line services if they continued through to Brighton).

And at no point have I said Lewes-Uckfield should have closed. It was not, in fact, meant to close - a bad flood gave BR a maintenance headache and ESCC gave them a way out of it. BR petitioned parliament to reinstate the Hamsey Link but Westminster was as loathe as ever to open it's purse to the Iron Horse and thus the line went the way of the dodo.

I got into rail looking at ways to put the Lewes-Uckfield line back. I lived in Ringmer for 20 years, what I would have given for a rail station on a London-Brighton station I could have walked to.

I think in your frothing and your prejudices you have largely lost sight of what I am saying: that had these lines survived they would have been doing small trade but nothing spectacular on these non-London/Brighton flows. But to describe them as 'significant' in rail terms is pushing it. They would likely get a 2/3 car DMU at most.

 

[lachlan]

Except there are still direct trains between Beverley and York via Hull. You chose to use the bus, the alternative was there.

Correct, I now use the train after that bus ride, however the train is slower than the bus and than the reopened line would be. We have gone backwards.

Housebuilding is an interesting one. The Marston Vale is currently rather a basket case. But if you build eco-towns around each of the stations (which I believe is going to happen to some extent) with the station at the heart of each I suspect usage would increase substantially, particularly if a direct service to MKC was possible, either through a Denbigh Hall Chord (which I strongly support) or just a reversal.

That's never going to happen for the Conwy Valley as there's just not the demand to live there, but it certainly could happen for pretty much any basket case sort of line south of about Birmingham. While it isn't an actual railway, the Cambs Busway, which might as well be a branch-line railway apart from Cambridge station being very badly located, is a nice example of this.

I fully support building housing around existing lines and stations. Unfortunately though we seem to be creating “new towns” some distance away from the line, Chapelton near Newtonhill and the one near Inverness Airport come to mind.

 

[yorksrob]

They're an anecdotal example of the kind of connectivity there is.

Tonbridge is as important a hub for it's area as Lewes is for it's, but Lewes really doesn't have much demand for connectivity to Tonbridge. There is a fair amount of demand for connectivity between Lewes/Brighton and Tunbridge, as evidenced by the regular bus route. However the bus also neatly illustrates that if you ran a 4-car train every hour between Brighton and Tunbridge Wells, it'd be largely empty outside of the Work and School Rush hours.

And at no point have I said Lewes-Uckfield should have closed. It was not, in fact, meant to close - a bad flood gave BR a maintenance headache and ESCC gave them a way out of it. BR petitioned parliament to reinstate the Hamsey Link but Westminster was as loathe as ever to open it's purse to the Iron Horse and thus the line went the way of the dodo.

I got into rail looking at ways to put the Lewes-Uckfield line back. I lived in Ringmer for 20 years, what I would have given for a rail station on a London-Brighton station I could have walked to.

Well, I don't see what your argument is. I cited the example of Tunbridge Wells - to Brighton as an example of a bad closure and you're saying that it shouldn't have closed. We seem to be in agreement.

As for the point about a four carriage train on Tunbridge Wells - Brighton being empty - people would have said the same for Ashford - Hastings, but it isn't.

If anything, the existing service to Uckfield would be a lot less empty at the Uckfield end if it connected to the coast.

 

[zwk500]

Well, I don't see what your argument is. I cited the example of Tunbridge Wells - to Brighton as an example of a bad closure and you're saying that it shouldn't have closed. We seem to be in agreement.

My argument is that the Birchden Chord would have been the least missed of all the possible closures in the area. The closure of Lewes-Uckfield, which is the one I say should not have happened, would potentially have spared it, but I also don't think that if it was still running today then Tunbridge Wells-Brighton would be very busy or successful.
The flows on that line would have been Brighton-Wealden towns, and from flows to London.

As for the point about a four carriage train on Tunbridge Wells - Brighton being empty - people would have said the same for Ashford - Hastings, but it isn't.

It was for a long time, mind you when 2-Cars sufficed. Also Ashford is a much different offering in service connectivity terms than Brighton, especially if you're travelling from Kent where you have the already excellent links to London.

If anything, the existing service to Uckfield would be a lot less empty at the Uckfield end if it connected to the coast.

less Empty certainly, but a lot less? I'd be far from convinced about that. The buses from Uckfield to Brighton aren't heaving by any means.