Beeching & beyond Lines that should have been kept open

Ships · 4 Aug 2013

Would the tweedbank line have been reinstated if there had been no previous formation? Even if it had I bet the cost would have been a lot higher, civils work isn't cheap. Depends on the condition of the asset, if your structures where sound then you could bung track down and run trains. But your right in things like platforms, ole and signalling are expensive.

Another thing is its much easier to get support for reinstating something that has been there than something completely new.

The guided busway that went massively over budget, was finished late, that the contractor is being involved in legal action, that it's would seem the population where against and that has achieved less than a light rail solution but for more money....

I would have to look at the infomation regarding the skipton colne link.

I would read the study done early in the early 2000s, the cbr wasnt bad and used very conservative growth figures that have actually happened since the study was published. In this case it's most definitely something that wouldn't be done because of all the complex civils work that would be required for a new route. Its not just about providing Buxton with the direct link there are other towns on the Manchester side. The report also identified benefits for freight. Also theres the heritage angle to look at (but that's a whole separate thing).

Saying yeah let's run stuff via curve at dore assumes you have capacity on the hope valley to run such a service and still is quite a dogleg route.

Just because your suggestion has merit doesn't make this or any other reinstatments any less valid.

RailUK Forums

The Planner · 4 Aug 2013

Has it ever been costed?

Mvann · 4 Aug 2013

I thought the main arguments for reopening Buxton to Matlock was for relieving the tourist traffic off the A6 and also for the stone traffic in the peak Forrest heading south.

Kingsbury Jn. · 4 Aug 2013

The Planner said:
Has it ever been costed?

http://transitionbuxton.co.uk/sites/default/files/all/Buxton Matlock Rail Inquiry.pdf

Ships · 4 Aug 2013

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/derby-mancester-rail_main_report_full_tcm44-21359.pdf

That's a link to the 2004 Scott Wilson report done into the reopening.

HSTEd · 4 Aug 2013

Could electrify and seriously upgrade the Hope Valley route with the money required to turn the Buxton/Matlock route into a viable one.

Ships · 4 Aug 2013

That depends the Scott Wilson report advocated a single line solution, the implementation of which I doubt would cover what you propose.

Eagle · 4 Aug 2013

A single-line solution, the implementation of which I doubt would provide much of a useful route for long-distance trains. :P

You could get a Derby to Manchester stopping service over it though, but probably not much else on top of that.

yorksrob · 5 Aug 2013

HSTEd said:
Could electrify and seriously upgrade the Hope Valley route with the money required to turn the Buxton/Matlock route into a viable one.

Spend the money to get a few more trains down an existing route, or spend it on a solution that provides extra paths and opens up new travel opportunities. I know which one seems like the better option to me.

To my mind it would be better to shell out for double track on this one to take full advantage of longer distance opportunities .

Invincibles · 5 Aug 2013

Project Rio did the south curve at Dore reasonably well and fit in just behind the Liverpool to Norwich (out of Manchester) and ran in just behind the stopper I think (it arrived in Manchester about 20 past, so must have passed Chinley just after the stopper as that is 20 minutes later than the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport arrives)

The Hope Valley stopper does make it hard to fit a fast train down there, but it must be possible.

I assume it would be possible to path a fast train ahead of the current Liverpool - Manchester so not delaying the stopper getting onto the line near New Mills. In turn that train could reach Dore South just ahead of the xx23 Cross Country from Sheffield, allowing it to call at Platform 3 at Chesterfield and give Derby an easy connection (either to the XC or the EMT that follows at xx27). The southbound could run then either to Nottingham, or stop at Alfreton, East Midlands Parkway and on to Leicester and possibly then Bedford.

Northbound it would need to run just behind the current Norwich - Liverpool (or just ahead of the Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport). One option could be to call at Chesterfield just after the flight of EMTs and XC then sneak ahead of the TPE. Again this would reduce journey times from Derby and provide a simple connection.

Another option would be to make the Norwich - Liverpool miss Sheffield, with a new service serving Nottingham - Sheffield - Manchester.

I think there are a lot of options without reopening Matlock - Buxton.

Leicester - Burton on Trent would be my choice, though there are a lot of links around Manchester that would be useful if they had not closed (Like Rochdale - Bolton, Accrington - Bury, etc)

yorksrob · 5 Aug 2013

I would like to see Leicester - Burton reopened. However, with regard Matlock, there are indeed various other options which would replicate some benefits of reopening (but none which would replicate all, or anywhere near ).

Some seem to put in a lot of effort coming up with arguments as to why we shouldn‘t reopen. Personally, all things being equal, I‘d choose a reopening proposal over an alternative, particularly if that is also going to cost a lot of money.

Eagle · 5 Aug 2013

yorksrob said:
I would like to see Leicester - Burton reopened.

It is open. It's just not got any stations or passenger trains on it.

Would be a fairly easy win scheme though. The only tricky bit is reinstating the chord between Leicester station and the line (currently it can only be accessed from the South Wigston direction). Other than that, stick in a couple of stations for a million quid each, shuffle the rolling stock around, and voilà! Service restored. :P

yorksrob · 5 Aug 2013

Eagle said:
It is open. It's just not got any stations or passenger trains on it.

Would be a fairly easy win scheme though. The only tricky bit is reinstating the chord between Leicester station and the line (currently it can only be accessed from the South Wigston direction). Other than that, stick in a couple of stations for a million quid each, shuffle the rolling stock around, and voilà! Service restored. :P

Exactly. Excellent VFM in its own right.

The Planner · 5 Aug 2013

Kingsbury Jn. said:
http://transitionbuxton.co.uk/sites/default/files/all/Buxton Matlock Rail Inquiry.pdf

Skimmed through that and the biggest thing that jumped out at me that in 2004 it was looked at and no options had a business case, in terms of funding it was negative. They also thought it would only attract 2% of road users. The Derby County Council section being the most pertinent here.

Cambus731 · 5 Aug 2013

Braintree - Bishops Stortford, in fact British Rail did future proof Stansted Airport station by building it as a through station, as opposed to a terminus, in the hope that it could be eventually extended to Braintree.
Its a shame in a way because Stansted Airport station is such a grim unwelcoming station. One can't help but think that ha d it built as a terminus it could have been a lot pleasenter

Tobbes · 5 Aug 2013

Cambus731 said:
Braintree - Bishops Stortford, in fact British Rail did future proof Stansted Airport station by building it as a through station, as opposed to a terminus, in the hope that it could be eventually extended to Braintree.
Its a shame in a way because Stansted Airport station is such a grim unwelcoming station. One can't help but think that ha d it built as a terminus it could have been a lot pleasenter

Agreed, but isn't the single line tunnel to the airport a major capacity choke point if you were to restore the whole line (which I strongly support, incidentally).

Tobbes

mr_jrt · 5 Aug 2013

Tobbes said:
Agreed, but isn't the single line tunnel to the airport a major capacity choke point if you were to restore the whole line (which I strongly support, incidentally).

Tobbes

I believe it was built as single line but with passive provision for dual tracking (i.e. the tunnels etc.)

tbtc · 5 Aug 2013

tbtc said:
I'm sure that the "love" for HS2 would be a lot greater if it were on the trackbed of some failed railway from generations ago.

The Planner said:
You mean like the Great Cent....no I'll stop.....

If you could forge some documents claiming to show an 1860s plan for the fictitious London, Toton & Meadowhall Railway Company to design a new railway line linking these places then I think some enthusiasts would welcome HS2 a lot more!

Ships said:
The guided busway that went massively over budget, was finished late, that the contractor is being involved in legal action, that it's would seem the population where against and that has achieved less than a light rail solution but for more money....

...none of those problems were related to the business case for the guided busway (which runs sucessfully, after its building problems) - it was an argument between the council and contractor about cutting corners (similar to the Edinburgh Trams scheme, but the other way round).

If we blacklisted any form of travel that saw infrastructure go over budget and finish late then we'd never build another railway line!

yorksrob · 5 Aug 2013

The Planner said:
Skimmed through that and the biggest thing that jumped out at me that in 2004 it was looked at and no options had a business case, in terms of funding it was negative. They also thought it would only attract 2% of road users. The Derby County Council section being the most pertinent here.

Interestingly, the business case was made less robust in the eyes of the County Council because just under half of the forecast passengers (don't worry tbtc - we'll leave aside the short comings of passenger projections for the time being !) were people "already on the railway" transferring from other routes.

Since the Council were clearly examining this on the basis of funding the whole thing, it is perhaps not unreasonable for them to discount wider network benefits, for example relieving crowded services on the Hope Valley route. Surely, though, if we were taking a realistic view of the potential of the line, we would make a business case that included both the benefits to the local area as well as network benefits such as relieving existing services. Particularly since those "already on the railway" includes the increase over time in passengers on the other routes.

Perhaps some sort of match funding between the local Council and DofT are required to reflect the different priorities.

HSTEd · 5 Aug 2013

Hope Valley is not really crowded.
You could far more carriages on pretty much all trains if you wanted to.

yorksrob · 5 Aug 2013

HSTEd said:
Hope Valley is not really crowded.
You could far more carriages on pretty much all trains if you wanted to.

As I understand it, due to the number and mix or trains (express and heavy freight), they have a difficult time providing an adequate number of local services on the route.

A0wen · 6 Aug 2013

Cambus731 said:
Braintree - Bishops Stortford, in fact British Rail did future proof Stansted Airport station by building it as a through station, as opposed to a terminus, in the hope that it could be eventually extended to Braintree.
Its a shame in a way because Stansted Airport station is such a grim unwelcoming station. One can't help but think that ha d it built as a terminus it could have been a lot pleasenter

Can't see this one happening though - it doesn't add anywhere of significance to the rail network (Gt Dunmow's population is about 8,500), nor does it make a huge difference to the access to Stansted.

A far better reopening in that part of the world would be Sudbury - Cambridge. Haverhill's population is now circa 30,000 and the road network around it is particularly poor.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Invincibles said:
Project Rio did the south curve at Dore reasonably well and fit in just behind the Liverpool to Norwich (out of Manchester) and ran in just behind the stopper

Project Rio also proved there was, relatively speaking, a lack of demand for improved services from the East Midlands to Manchester.

Had the trains been well used, MML made it clear it would have sought to retained them, the fact was though, loadings were not that good so it was better to reinstate the 'lost' Nottingham service rather than retain the Manchester service with a connecting service to Nottingham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

tbtc said:
If you could forge some documents claiming to show an 1860s plan for the fictitious London, Toton & Meadowhall Railway Company to design a new railway line linking these places then I think some enthusiasts would welcome HS2 a lot more!

Don't go making suggestions like that round here - using irony is very dangerous and not always recognised as such

tbtc said:
If we blacklisted any form of travel that saw infrastructure go over budget and finish late then we'd never build another railway line!

Careful - you'll get yourself a reputation for using facts, which would never do.

yorksrob · 6 Aug 2013

A0wen said:
Project Rio also proved there was, relatively speaking, a lack of demand for improved services from the East Midlands to Manchester.

Had the trains been well used, MML made it clear it would have sought to retained them, the fact was though, loadings were not that good so it was better to reinstate the 'lost' Nottingham service rather than retain the Manchester service with a connecting service to Nottingham.

Was Project Rio really marketed as providing greater links from the North West to the East Midlands though. This isn't a criticism of Midland Mainline - the service was provided as a temporary solution to fill a gap in London - Manchester services, so it's perhaps not surprising that this aspect might not have been pushed, but how do you expect those potential travellers to know about the new service ?

After GC introduced its West Riding service, it has taken a few years of clever marketing and promotion to get awareness and usage up to the level it is now (I know - I've had the leaflet through my door and used the offers) but now the trains are certainly busy (if not full all the time).

Did the service have a similar level of advance fares as a normal London - Manchester service, as if it didn't this would have had a substantial effect on loadings.

bunnahabhain · 6 Aug 2013

yorksrob said:
Was Project Rio really marketed as providing greater links from the North West to the East Midlands though. This isn't a criticism of Midland Mainline - the service was provided as a temporary solution to fill a gap in London - Manchester services, so it's perhaps not surprising that this aspect might not have been pushed, but how do you expect those potential travellers to know about the new service ?

In short, no, it called at the usual stops to Leicester, then non-stop to Stockport unless engineering work was taking place, in which case it would also call at Loughborough and occasionally Derby. Had it called at Loughborough, Derby and Chesterfield (and dare I say it Belper) it would perhaps have achieved a little bit more custom from the East Midlands. It was never really marketed from the midlands all that much at all!

yorksrob · 6 Aug 2013

Jamie said:
In short, no, it called at the usual stops to Leicester, then non-stop to Stockport unless engineering work was taking place, in which case it would also call at Loughborough and occasionally Derby. Had it called at Loughborough, Derby and Chesterfield (and dare I say it Belper) it would perhaps have achieved a little bit more custom from the East Midlands. It was never really marketed from the midlands all that much at all!

Thanks for the confirmation. I don't think lighter loadings on Project Rio can be used to suggest a lack of potential for travel between the East Midlands and the North West.

I go back to my post regarding Derbyshire County Council's view on the matter. On no other sort of project, be it re-signalling, extra rolling stock, freight loops HS2, would the provision of additional extra capacity on other already busy lines be discounted from the benefits of the business case.

What about the recent Rail in the North report calling for half hourly services on local lines and how this fits in with the Hope Valley Stoppers. Why isn't the diversion of other services via Matlock, so that better local services can be provided on the Hope Valley built into the business case, along with local benefits along the Peak line itself.

It just illustrates to me an inbuilt bias against reopening schemes that is inherant in the current system for evaluating these projects.

tbtc · 6 Aug 2013

yorksrob said:
What about the recent Rail in the North report calling for half hourly services on local lines and how this fits in with the Hope Valley Stoppers

Which stations on the "stoppers" could justify a half hourly service?

Dore and Chinley both could, I reckon. Hathersage and Hope may see a lot more demand if the frequency was better than the 272 bus. Not sure about the others though:

Dore - 106,224
Grindleford - 55,352
Hathersage - 56,445
Bamford - 25,054
Hope - 53,440
Edale - 72,756
Chinley - 103,130

Gwenllian2001 · 6 Aug 2013

The trouble with assessing line closures with hindsight is that it is hindsight. Those of us, who worked within the industry, at the time, saw things from a different point of view rather than the simplistic black and white approach taken by Beeching and his followers.

Many lines had services that had not changed for generations, failing to take into account changes in travel patterns and needs. Branch lines often ran in grand isolation offering poor connections. For example, the Aberdare line, one of the better served, had an hourly service which, for the most part, terminated at Abercynon. This meant a ten minute wait for a connection on to Pontypridd or further afield. An extra twenty minutes on a return journey was simply unacceptable on such a short journey. The same sort of thing went on at Porth, where the Maerdy line terminated.

Such situations were commonplace and nothing was done to improve the matter. It was often wasteful of equipment and manpower to keep a DMU shuttling from nowhere in particular to somewhere, and back, rather than extending the service to where the majority of passengers wished to go. It is also worth noting that little was done to exploit the flexibility of DMUS in the valleys, which ran to exactly the same timings as their steam predecessors. Turn round times remained the same despite the need for uncoupling and running round had disappeared.

It is also worth remembering that many lines saw their last train with the stations still boasting a full complement of staff including everyone from Lad Porter to Station Master.

Much could, and should, have been done to see what could have been made viable in preference to closure. Having a Minister of Transport whose personal business was road building should never have been allowed. His agenda, and those who followed, was heavily influenced by the powerful road transport lobby. It was not a level playing field and a great deal of priceless infrastructure was destroyed which could have had a future.

transmanche · 6 Aug 2013

Gwenllian2001 said:
It is also worth noting that little was done to exploit the flexibility of DMUS in the valleys, which ran to exactly the same timings as their steam predecessors. Turn round times remained the same despite the need for uncoupling and running round had disappeared.

A genuine question (and not meant as an anti-union bash), but did the unions resist changes at the time. Were extra payments expected for the 'extra productivity'? Or were BR management perhaps being timid and not wanting to 'rock the boat'?

A0wen · 6 Aug 2013

transmanche said:
A genuine question (and not meant as an anti-union bash), but did the unions resist changes at the time. Were extra payments expected for the 'extra productivity'? Or were BR management perhaps being timid and not wanting to 'rock the boat'?

Yes they did resist such changes - examples include the fact many locos were 'double manned' reflecting the requirement for two on the flootplate from steam days.

What needs to be remembered is the Industrial Relations landscape of the 60s and 70s was quite different to that which we have today. Where now Unions have to hold a formal ballot and give notice of strike action that wasn't the case then. Equally 'unofficial' and 'secondary' strike action was far more common, so for example the miners or bus drivers could go on strike 'out of sympathy' with the rail workers. As a result management were often too timid in addressing issues and there was always the guarantee that the government of the day would intervene to 'arbitrate'. The irony is that had the unions been a little less difficult about changes on the railways, fewer closures might have happened as the losses could have been lessened.

Gwenllian2001 · 6 Aug 2013

A0wen said:
Yes they did resist such changes - examples include the fact many locos were 'double manned' reflecting the requirement for two on the flootplate from steam days.

What needs to be remembered is the Industrial Relations landscape of the 60s and 70s was quite different to that which we have today. Where now Unions have to hold a formal ballot and give notice of strike action that wasn't the case then. Equally 'unofficial' and 'secondary' strike action was far more common, so for example the miners or bus drivers could go on strike 'out of sympathy' with the rail workers. As a result management were often too timid in addressing issues and there was always the guarantee that the government of the day would intervene to 'arbitrate'. The irony is that had the unions been a little less difficult about changes on the railways, fewer closures might have happened as the losses could have been lessened.

Having a second man was seen by many as an aid to safety rather than a 'cushy number' and the response of the Unions toward Beeching was hardly militant. Many older staff were happy with the redundancy arrangements and saw it as way of early retirement.

The relationship between the Unions and BR was, usually, pretty good in South Wales, especially considering that from the mid Fifties it was difficult to stop younger staff from leaving the service to go to better paid work in the light industries that were springing up in the area. The factories provided regular hours and more opportunities for a better social life.

Of course, a lot of jobs disappeared with the end of steam, but that was accepted and seen as inevitable. On the other hand there was a great deal of complacency on the part of management who simply wanted a quiet life.

It wasn't until secorisation that the right man for the job came along and, almost single handedly, revitalised the Valley Lines which had been neglected for years. It is a pity that there weren't more like him in the Sixties.

Beeching & beyond Lines that should have been kept open

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member