I think it was foreseeable in the 1960s that the development of cheap and reliable cars would soon start giving rise to mass car ownership and traffic congestion which would soon cripple the buses (equally cheap and reliable at the time) in urban areas. The "Traffic in Towns" report said as much in 1963. So I believe a focus on integration of the rail and bus networks, with rail providing trunk links into congested towns and cities and buses feeding in to serve areas where traffic congestion was unlikely, would have achieved a better result. This would of course have cost money and wasn't done. Instead there were some half-hearted attempts at integration, but little in the way of integrated timetabling and even less in integrated ticketing.
I don't think that Beeching had anything to do with it but there was a clause in the 1962 Transport Act that required that certain rail formations be retained for strategic reasons. One such was The Riverside Branch in Cardiff. This seems to have been ignored because the line was obstructed by a factory building after a few years, which is particularly irritating since the old Clarence Road Station was replaced by a smart new building in the late Fifties. The subsequent redevelopment of the area has seen the Senedd Building and Millennium Centre placed within a stone's throw of the of the old terminus. Had the right of way been maintained it would have become a very busy branch. It was, by no stretch of the imagination, a 'dead duck' even at the time closure with through services to Penarth, Barry and the Vale of Glamorgan.
Are you sure that there was such a provision in the 1962 Act? The closest I can find is in Clause 11, Development of Land
Oh, absolutely. I understood that Gwenllian2001 in post 8 was suggesting that there was a specific commitment made in the 1962 Act to retain the formation of the Riverside branch in Cardiff. My point was that there was no explicit statement to retain the formation of ANY closed route, but as you point out the Minister could make such a condition, just as he could require the supply of additional bus services. But this was very much on a case-to-case basis and not a general case in the 1962 Act.
It was, of course, a long time ago but I have a memory of a list being published that detailed a few routes that would be protected for 'strategic purposes'. In the case of the Riverside Branch, which is the one I remember because it was served by trains from my local station. There could be more than one reason for wanting to protect the route. 1. Access to Cardiff Docks by an alternative route from the west or the Valleys via Penarth Curve. 2. Conversion of the Roath Branch into the Eastern Avenue road which cut off that approach to the docks. Whatever the intention was, it was certainly included in a published list of rights of way to be retained. I might still have that list somewhere. If I find it, I'll pass it on.
One can't help but wonder how the railway network might have looked had there been a central plan from the outset. It would probably still have been deeply flawed in some way, but they'd be different flaws.
Back in the mid 1800s, many towns resisted having stations conveniently near the centre (still do). The Cambridge University authorities for example though it would be too convenient for the undergrads to nip off to the sin city of London during term.
I doubt that anyone here thinks anything of the sort.
Being fixed right now I believe. The east end of the Circle platforms are close to Euston, but the exit from the Circle platforms are at the west end. A more convenient subway is being dug directly between the stations. Of course, the westward extension of Euston for HS2 brings it nearer to Euston Square anyway.
That depends very much on whether the town envisages people coming to it, or people leaving it. It would clearly be ludicrous to close all the Central London termini and replace them with Parkway stations on the M25, for example.
