Alternatives to the Beeching cuts

[Gareth Marston]

I am very glad I started this thread.

It makes for very interesting reading, as far as I have read and seen the cuts saved very little money, which begs the question where was the money being lost?

You would have thought that several things could have been tried first, for instance actually asking the public why they were not using services.

How about asking people are the train times good for them, asking for ideas.

From my experience in business, you might be suprised what good ideas people have.

If you owned a business that made several things, but the "widget" department was losing money, you would not knock down that building and sell the expensive machinery that makes the "widget" straight away. You would redeploy staff where possible and mothball the machines at least for a year or two.

You could then decide how much you were saving, and hope that there would be an upturn in the demand for "widgets".

I think with the cuts, it comes down to fashion, motorways were seen as the future, and railways losing money and seen as old fashioned.

Many things could have been tried, but the political will to try alternatives simply was not there.

The railways were not losing money because passengers had deserted the railway there had been an increase since nationalisation nor was the main problem loss making branch lines. Basically the railway had been run into the ground because of Government policy which forced it to carry goods and passengers at rates which weren't commercially viable. Combine this with the profitable coal traffic and other bulk movement goods being a lot less than in yesteryear UK coal production in 1960 was two thirds of 1913 for instance and then factor in that road completion had taken away most of the less than wagonload trade but Legislation forced the railways to maintain facilities for doing it.....

 

[RT4038]

I am very glad I started this thread.

It makes for very interesting reading, as far as I have read and seen the cuts saved very little money, which begs the question where was the money being lost?

You would have thought that several things could have been tried first, for instance actually asking the public why they were not using services.

How about asking people are the train times good for them, asking for ideas.

From my experience in business, you might be suprised what good ideas people have.

If you owned a business that made several things, but the "widget" department was losing money, you would not knock down that building and sell the expensive machinery that makes the "widget" straight away. You would redeploy staff where possible and mothball the machines at least for a year or two.

You could then decide how much you were saving, and hope that there would be an upturn in the demand for "widgets".

I think with the cuts, it comes down to fashion, motorways were seen as the future, and railways losing money and seen as old fashioned.

Many things could have been tried, but the political will to try alternatives simply was not there.

Not only was the political will not there, but the Government wanted the financial haemmorhaging to stop as soon as possible, so there was no time to carry out such exercises. Everyone knew lots of lines carried few people. And to all those posters out there asking why this and that line was closed rather than rationalised - where was the money going to come from for that? The railways had their money in the 1955 modernisation plan. Much was put to good use and some was wasted. But there was no more available. Automatic level crossings, remote signalling, more DMUs all cost money, and would have diverted scarce funds from modernising the core inter-city business, which was facing an onslaught from motorway construction.
Why does this York-Beverley-Hull line keep coming up as some sort of conspiracy? To rationalise this line with its many crossings and antiquated signalling would have cost millions. Passengers travelling between York & Hull could be conveyed as quickly (if not faster) by trains running on other Inter-City lines, and Beverley-Hull passengers would still be catered for. This means that the investment money, plus much of the operational costs would have to be paid for by the intermediate stations traffic. The decision was then glaringly obvious - shut it.

 

[yorksrob]

Not only was the political will not there, but the Government wanted the financial haemmorhaging to stop as soon as possible, so there was no time to carry out such exercises. Everyone knew lots of lines carried few people. And to all those posters out there asking why this and that line was closed rather than rationalised - where was the money going to come from for that? The railways had their money in the 1955 modernisation plan. Much was put to good use and some was wasted. But there was no more available. Automatic level crossings, remote signalling, more DMUs all cost money, and would have diverted scarce funds from modernising the core inter-city business, which was facing an onslaught from motorway construction.
Why does this York-Beverley-Hull line keep coming up as some sort of conspiracy? To rationalise this line with its many crossings and antiquated signalling would have cost millions. Passengers travelling between York & Hull could be conveyed as quickly (if not faster) by trains running on other Inter-City lines, and Beverley-Hull passengers would still be catered for. This means that the investment money, plus much of the operational costs would have to be paid for by the intermediate stations traffic. The decision was then glaringly obvious - shut it.

Two reasons why York - Beverley comes up:

1) a plan had already been drawn up and equipment bought for this, so there was no excuse for not using this route as the testing ground.

2) Beeching used the route as a worked example in the report, so the dodgy methodology is laid bare.

The point about rolling stock doesn't quite work as many of the DMU's had already been delivered under the modernisation plan.

 

[RT4038]

1. The equipment may have been bought already but could be re-allocated to a line that was not going to be closed. It could have been used to modernise York-Beverley, but then more capital would have been required for whichever line it was actually used on.
2. Not sure if the methodology was really dodgy; I agree that it is complicated by the fact that York-Hull through traffic could be diverted to other lines for which there was no plan for closure, which would benefit the finances of the remaining network.

After all the modernisation plan DMUs had been delivered there was still plenty of steam worked lines, and other secondary routes being expensively operated by diesel locomotives hauling carriages. If the closures had not taken place (and lines 'modernised' instead) more DMUs would have been required, for which the money was not available (or would have to be diverted from more worthwhile 'Inter-City' projects). Although the York-Beverley-Hull line had already been converted to DMU, these could be re-allocated to eliminate more expensive traction elsewhere.

 

[yorksrob]

1. The equipment may have been bought already but could be re-allocated to a line that was not going to be closed. It could have been used to modernise York-Beverley, but then more capital would have been required for whichever line it was actually used on.
2. Not sure if the methodology was really dodgy; I agree that it is complicated by the fact that York-Hull through traffic could be diverted to other lines for which there was no plan for closure, which would benefit the finances of the remaining network.

After all the modernisation plan DMUs had been delivered there was still plenty of steam worked lines, and other secondary routes being expensively operated by diesel locomotives hauling carriages. If the closures had not taken place (and lines 'modernised' instead) more DMUs would have been required, for which the money was not available (or would have to be diverted from more worthwhile 'Inter-City' projects). Although the York-Beverley-Hull line had already been converted to DMU, these could be re-allocated to eliminate more expensive traction elsewhere.

Expensive loco hauled stock continued on secondary routes for many years into the 1980's. Perhaps they would have been better off developing these into push-pull sets (building on SR experience) or converting existing relatively new Mk 1 stock into diesel multiple units than arbitrarily closing lines such as York - Beverley for which the closure case had to be manufactured.

The point is that Beeching was too obsessed with route reduction for it's own sake.

 

[Gareth Marston]

1. The equipment may have been bought already but could be re-allocated to a line that was not going to be closed. It could have been used to modernise York-Beverley, but then more capital would have been required for whichever line it was actually used on.
2. Not sure if the methodology was really dodgy; I agree that it is complicated by the fact that York-Hull through traffic could be diverted to other lines for which there was no plan for closure, which would benefit the finances of the remaining network.

After all the modernisation plan DMUs had been delivered there was still plenty of steam worked lines, and other secondary routes being expensively operated by diesel locomotives hauling carriages. If the closures had not taken place (and lines 'modernised' instead) more DMUs would have been required, for which the money was not available (or would have to be diverted from more worthwhile 'Inter-City' projects). Although the York-Beverley-Hull line had already been
converted to DMU, these could be re-allocated to eliminate more expensive traction elsewhere.

The modernisation plan as agreed in principle in 1954 was a 20 year one with Govt Greeing to fund it. Govt pushed it to be a 15 year one in the late 50's. Marples stopped funding modernisation in 1960. The railway modernisation money was diverted to road construction. The majority of modernisation projects were incomplete when halted. There was still another 800 DMU's under the original plan that were never ordered. The money hadn't run out Marples wanted to do something else with it....York to Beverley would have set a dangerous precedent showing that rail modernisation worked.

 

[RT4038]

Expensive loco hauled stock continued into the 80s primarily because some of the first generation DMUs required expensive bodywork rectification, and there was a large surplus of diesel locomotives due to falling freight traffic. However, spending money on Mk1 rolling stock already 20 years old was probably not seen as worthwhile. There was no experience of diesel worked push/pull in the Beeching era [the SR experience only being gained from 1967 onward].

Beeching was obsessed with route mileage, and so he should have been. Especially unmodernised route mileage with lots of level crossings. He knew that the lion's share of passenger revenue came from travel between the cities/large towns. York-Hull passengers could be carried on other lines not proposed for closure. He knew how little the Pocklingtons and Market Weightons of this world contributed to the railways finances. He knew that for the railways to survive they needed to concentrate all their investment resources on Inter-City lines to get the fastest, most frequent services possible. It was a choice of upgrading lots of lines a little bit (jack of all trades) or upgrading the Inter City lines alot . Bearing in mind the circumstances of 1963 I think he got a lot right.

As a railway enthusiast of course I would like to have seen more lines remain open. But we keep looking back and vilifying those over 50 years ago who were operating in a completely different age and set of circumstances. Bonkers. The reasons for the Beeching Plan go back long before this.

 

[yorksrob]

Expensive loco hauled stock continued into the 80s primarily because some of the first generation DMUs required expensive bodywork rectification, and there was a large surplus of diesel locomotives due to falling freight traffic. However, spending money on Mk1 rolling stock already 20 years old was probably not seen as worthwhile. There was no experience of diesel worked push/pull in the Beeching era [the SR experience only being gained from 1967 onward].

Beeching was obsessed with route mileage, and so he should have been. Especially unmodernised route mileage with lots of level crossings. He knew that the lion's share of railway revenue came from carrying passengers between the cities/large towns. York-Hull passengers could be carried on other lines not proposed for closure. He knew how little the Pocklingtons and Market Weightons of this world contributed to the railways finances. He knew that for the railways to survive they needed to concentrate all their investment resources on Inter-City lines to get the fastest, most frequent services possible. It was a choice of upgrading lots of lines a little bit (jack of all trades) or upgrading the Inter City lines alot . Bearing in mind the circumstances of 1964 I think he got a lot right.

As a railway enthusiast of course I would like to have seen more lines remain open. But we keep looking back and vilifying those over 50 years ago who were operating in a completely different age and set of circumstances. Bonkers. The reasons for the Beeching Plan go back long before this.

And what of the Tivertons, Tavistock's, Hailshams and Ripons of this world. Unless we learn from mistakes, we are likely to repeat them, however we first have to accept that mistakes were made in the first place as well as the situations that allowed them.

I believe that one reason that mistakes such as the closure of the Market Weighton route were allowed was that we lived in an age of deference. People were more willing to accept that the Establishment knew best.

The Railway Gazette affair in which civil servants tried to cover up plans for closures during the late 1960's (post Beeching, I know) illustrate the way the powers that be tried to operate without scrutiny at the time.

If Beeching had been given a free hand to concentrate all investment on a few Inter Coty trunk routes as you suggest (and as his second report suggested) it would have been an even greater unmitigated disaster for the country than even the Beeching cuts were.

 

[IanXC]

1. The equipment may have been bought already but could be re-allocated to a line that was not going to be closed. It could have been used to modernise York-Beverley, but then more capital would have been required for whichever line it was actually used on.

Not only has the equipment been purchased, in many cases work had begun. The trial for the lifting boom level crossings we have today was completed on this line.

 

[Taunton]

And what of the Tivertons, Tavistock's, Hailshams and Ripons of this world.

Well I can help a bit with this one, because I can (just) remember Tiverton, having gone there in the final months of the Junction service.

Tivvy (as it is generally known) is a small town. As usual, the station was on the eastern extremity. It particularly suffered (benefitted?) because the local Devon General bus company had a garage and operating centre in the town, from where there were notably frequent buses (every 15/30 minutes) to Exeter. At both ends the buses started in the main street, and of course picked people up all along the way. If you know Exeter you will be aware that St Davids station is also nowhere near the city centre, in common GWR style.

The Exeter line had gone, although the station, with its huge, although of course empty, goods yard, remained intact. The shuttle to the Junction, affectionately known as "The Bumper", was a 14xx and autocoach to the end. ONE autocoach. The locomotive, and its crew changes through the day, had to come up the main line from Exeter. The Junction station was just treated like the other wayside ones between Taunton and Exeter, and only served by the stoppers (about 6 a day). Most of the dozen on it that Saturday afternoon seemed to be locals for the village of Willand (at the Junction) rather than connecting to the main line service.

If going long distance the best thing to do would be to get the bus to Exeter and pick up the main line train there. Conveniently the bus from Tiverton passed St Davids station on its way into the city.

Over on the other side of Tivvy Junction station was the Hemyock branch. Now that would have been an economic basket case, I bet it had trains that regularly had no passengers. Its saving grace was a very large dairy up the line which dispatched bulk milk to London, attached to the back of the 14xx and its single coach. I bet that dispatched far more tonnage than the large Tiverton goods yard did. The single coach was quite famous, it was the last vehicle from the Barry Railway, kept because it was shorter than any standard vehicle and could manage the sharp curves. It had been converted from electric lighting BACK to gas, because the service was so slow that the batteries could not be charged! It was said the doors were only lubricated on one side, because all the platforms on the branch were on that side.

Fascinating for gricers, useless for the local community.

 

[coppercapped]

I am very glad I started this thread.

It makes for very interesting reading, as far as I have read and seen the cuts saved very little money, which begs the question where was the money being lost?

<SNIP>.

An important part of the answer to this question is that the remaining railway staff were being much better paid.

An analytical article in the May 1970 issue of the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy showed that working expenses per employee increased by 53% between 1962 and 1968 - essentially wages and salaries - while the increase in productivity was some 29% based on the change in traffic units (passenger-miles plus net ton-miles) per employee, loaded train miles per employee and route miles per employee.

There is much detailed consideration of the effects of the reduction in routes and services and the authors reach four main conclusions for the lack of improvement in BR's finances over the period:

1. Labour earnings increased faster than any measure of labour productivity
2. Railway receipts per passenger-mile and net ton-mile increased overall by only 4% while working expenses rose by 2%
3. There was no reduction in track comparable to the reduction in trains run
4. Expensive diesel and electric locomotives were spending less time in traffic in 1968 than they were in 1962, although on a loaded train miles basis their performance had improved. It was calculated that, based on the 1962 traction performance, in 1968 BR had 400 locomotives too many.

I let you draw your own conclusions.

 

[yorksrob]

Well I can help a bit with this one, because I can (just) remember Tiverton, having gone there in the final months of the Junction service.

Tivvy (as it is generally known) is a small town. As usual, the station was on the eastern extremity. It particularly suffered (benefitted?) because the local Devon General bus company had a garage and operating centre in the town, from where there were notably frequent buses (every 15/30 minutes) to Exeter. At both ends the buses started in the main street, and of course picked people up all along the way. If you know Exeter you will be aware that St Davids station is also nowhere near the city centre, in common GWR style.

The Exeter line had gone, although the station, with its huge, although of course empty, goods yard, remained intact. The shuttle to the Junction, affectionately known as "The Bumper", was a 14xx and autocoach to the end. ONE autocoach. The locomotive, and its crew changes through the day, had to come up the main line from Exeter. The Junction station was just treated like the other wayside ones between Taunton and Exeter, and only served by the stoppers (about 6 a day). Most of the dozen on it that Saturday afternoon seemed to be locals for the village of Willand (at the Junction) rather than connecting to the main line service.

If going long distance the best thing to do would be to get the bus to Exeter and pick up the main line train there. Conveniently the bus from Tiverton passed St Davids station on its way into the city.

Over on the other side of Tivvy Junction station was the Hemyock branch. Now that would have been an economic basket case, I bet it had trains that regularly had no passengers. Its saving grace was a very large dairy up the line which dispatched bulk milk to London, attached to the back of the 14xx and its single coach. I bet that dispatched far more tonnage than the large Tiverton goods yard did. The single coach was quite famous, it was the last vehicle from the Barry Railway, kept because it was shorter than any standard vehicle and could manage the sharp curves. It had been converted from electric lighting BACK to gas, because the service was so slow that the batteries could not be charged! It was said the doors were only lubricated on one side, because all the platforms on the branch were on that side.

Fascinating for gricers, useless for the local community.

Actually, I suspect that had the Tivvy bumper been turned over to a rail car connecting in with InterCity services at the junction for a minimal cost, it would have proved to be a very useful connection for the local community. One of the lessons of the Beeching era was that people were less likely to railhead to a station miles away than he'd expected. Though you are partially correct - the way the route was run and the poor connectivity to the mainline rendered it a lost opportunity.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Not only has the equipment been purchased, in many cases work had begun. The trial for the lifting boom level crossings we have today was completed on this line.

I am fascinated by the constant references to the York-Market Weighton-Beverley-Hull service. (It is not an area that I am particularly familiar with so am keen to learn more.)

It is often repeated that the route was to be a pilot scheme for Centralised Traffic Control (as understood and envisioned in the late 1950s) but far less clear how much (or little) real work was done. I am aware that it enjoyed passing reference in some BTC/BR Annual Reports.

In a two-part article on the vanishing railways of the Yorkshire Wolds in The Railway Magazine for November and December 1965 the (generally sympathetic) author, David Sillence, makes extensive references to the general remoteness of the area and limited traffic potential; describing pre-Beeching closures and economies at intermediate stations.

The CTC scheme is described only as "a rumour... but, like many schemes of this nature, nothing materialised". There is mention of the 24 level crossings between the main line junctions at either end as "the main cause for the deficits" but no mention of any rationalisations or conversion to (automatic?) barriers.

Can any of the lines supporters provide references to definitive contemporary records that any meaningful work was actually undertaken or, indeed money spent, on rationalisation and modernisation of the infrastructure? I am genuinely interested to find out more.

I am mindful that on the Southern Region the broadly contemporary re-signalling of the Sittingbourne-Sheerness line as part of the Kent Coast Electrification was one of the very first examples of 'long-distance' control of a single-track branch line in Britain involving remote interlockings and even this was on a rather smaller scale than the York-Beverley line would have been.

 

[Andy873]

For sure there were lines that closed and should not have.

I'm still of the opinion that the biggest mistake was to sell of the land the track beds were on. I know from an asset point of view, land was valuable to BR, and so a no brainier to sell it.

But to reinstate a closed line now will involve years of talking about it, buying back the land, and all the hassle that entails.

If BR had simply kept the land on the other hand, they would have had to look after it, that is maintaining bridges, tunnels, remove rubbish from fly tipping etc, and that would have cost money.

So from that point of view, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

On one to programme I watched, an area manager came up with a plan to save one line, only to be told by BR head office it was not his job to improve services, it was his job to close it down.

With regards to statistics, Churchill said it best, "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics".

Beeching's publicity manager hand picked the typists for the report, and they were not BR's own staff. Each day he stayed until the last person had left, then removed and destroyed the type writer ribbons.

I think the most shocking thing to me was Beeching paid Tony Hancock 12,000 to appear in adverts pulling the railways to pieces.

Can you imagine how many owners of companies would employ someone to openly give it a bad name? - none.

 

[yorksrob]

For sure there were lines that closed and should not have.

I'm still of the opinion that the biggest mistake was to sell of the land the track beds were on. I know from an asset point of view, land was valuable to BR, and so a no brainier to sell it.

But to reinstate a closed line now will involve years of talking about it, buying back the land, and all the hassle that entails.

If BR had simply kept the land on the other hand, they would have had to look after it, that is maintaining bridges, tunnels, remove rubbish from fly tipping etc, and that would have cost money.

So from that point of view, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

On one to programme I watched, an area manager came up with a plan to save one line, only to be told by BR head office it was not his job to improve services, it was his job to close it .

Yes, I think I read that somewhere as well. I believe the line in question was the Swanage branch.

 

[Taunton]

Actually, I suspect that had the Tivvy bumper been turned over to a rail car connecting in with InterCity services at the junction for a minimal cost, it would have proved to be a very useful connection for the local community.

Firstly, the operating department would have rejected an additional stop at the time for Up expresses on the long climb up to Whiteball. With a Warship and a full length train it would probably have cost more than 10 minutes.

But although 14xx did last to the end, both on the Bumper to the Junction, and on the Exe Valley line, there were some services covered off and on, on both routes, by diesels. Ludicrously. Either a D63xx pulling a single coach (which it had to run round, the auto coach gear being incompatible with the locomotive multiple unit connections) or a 3-car (yes) cross-country unit of the W51580 series, taking over from a single auto coach. The D63xx even needed a fireman, to handle the heating boiler, as the single coach was steam heat.

This was the sort of attitude to costs that Beeching faced.

 

[Andy873]

Yes, I'm sure there was a lot of operational problems too.

I just wonder how long Beeching would have lasted at ICI if he had paid someone to rubbish it with the public.

Just find it very hard to accept that someone employed to run something would go out of the way to pull it to pieces.

Speaks volumes to me.

 

[yorksrob]

Firstly, the operating department would have rejected an additional stop at the time for Up expresses on the long climb up to Whiteball. With a Warship and a full length train it would probably have cost more than 10 minutes.

But although 14xx did last to the end, both on the Bumper to the Junction, and on the Exe Valley line, there were some services covered off and on, on both routes, by diesels. Ludicrously. Either a D63xx pulling a single coach (which it had to run round, the auto coach gear being incompatible with the locomotive multiple unit connections) or a 3-car (yes) cross-country unit of the W51580 series, taking over from a single auto coach. The D63xx even needed a fireman, to handle the heating boiler, as the single coach was steam heat.

This was the sort of attitude to costs that Beeching faced.

Yes, the Exe valley route was probably a right call. A bubblecar would have been ideal for the bumper.

 

[Andy873]

One other thing that strikes me reading these replies, is how hard it is to understand the routes and services say in the south east, when (as I am) from the north west.

Milk from Devon, fruit from the west country, coal and iron from the north etc.

It's easy to understand large movements of people from city to city, but less so when it comes down to regional differences.

Anyway we cut this, if it wasn't Beeching, it would have someone else as the government policy was pro road.

Now, It's slowly reversing, but I wonder what it will cost.

 

[RT4038]

Not only has the equipment been purchased, in many cases work had begun. The trial for the lifting boom level crossings we have today was completed on this line.

So one experimental lifting boom level crossing was installed, still 23 more to be paid for and installed.[ we are told by another poster that there were 24 crossings on the line]. The conversion of the signalling still to be paid for. I expect the track needed refurbishing as well. All on a line where the Inter-City passengers could be catered for by diverting them to use other lines for the same journey time. The small intermediate market towns had a good bus service that the few passengers could easily transfer to [a situation mirrored in many small market towns across the country]. The closure decision was glaringly obvious. No manufacture or sleight of hand. The sort of decision which would be taken by business today in the same circumstances.

As far as diversion of modernisation money was concerned, you have to consider the politics of the time - road building was seen as a means to break the blackmail of the railway trade unions. There had been a long dispute in 1955 (with the country being brought to a standstill) and several others threatened since. The railways finances had not much improved with the first tranche of spending and the public wanted car ownership and the roads to go with it.

Both management and staff were stuck in their ways (not at all helped by the monopoly position enjoyed during the war) and there was no vision, or what vision there was tended to try and solve yesterdays problems. I am not blaming them; humans do not like change especially when it threatens them. The discussion of the 'Tivvy Bumper' is a prime case in point: the local bus company was pursuing one-man-operation of its buses in Tiverton at this point - so why is it being suggested that a two-man 'bubble car' carrying no more than a bus [ and probably a lot less because Tiverrton-Exeter passengers would have made the through journey without changing by bus on a more frequent and convenient service]' which has to pay a greater proportion of its track cost, would be the financial salvation? And look at the uproar there has been in 2016 to get train drivers to close doors, let alone sell tickets as well! In 1964 this would not even have been attempted.

The fact that modernisation of the York-Beverley line had been started was no reason to save the line - money had been spent uselessly modernising the Banbury-Buckingham line and this was shut before Dr. B publishing his report. No doubt well meaning management action, but hopeless!

 

[yorksrob]

RT4038 can argue black is white for as long as he likes about the Market Weighton line, however unfortunately for him it is all debunked in the Beeching report itself because the plain fact is the figures show that there was absolutely no need to close the line whatsoever.

It was not a mistake to try and economise the line. That is what railway management is supposed to do - manage railways as efficiently as possible, not fabricate hocus pocus economics to close lines at every opportunity possible.

We have every reason to thank those individuals who fought the closures tooth and nail for the railway we have today. They had no more benefit of hindsight or crystal ball power than Beeching and Marples had, however they weren't blinded to reason by the wonder of the motor car and they turned out to be right, whereas Beeching and Marples were wrong.

As for the Tiverton bumper, railways run to a timetable and can connect into the wider network as a feeder. Tiverton could have benefited from just such a service, rather than bus services, which have proved to be ephemeral. Beeching suggested bus services as an alternative for connections, but he and Marples couldn't even manage that properly. Instead of developing an integrated connecting shuttle service they palmed it off to the bus companies with no guarantee that services would integrate or even continue.

 

[coppercapped]

<SNIP>

I think the most shocking thing to me was Beeching paid Tony Hancock 12,000 to appear in adverts pulling the railways to pieces.

Can you imagine how many owners of companies would employ someone to openly give it a bad name? - none.

I was in tertiary education when the first Beeching Report was published. In all the years since then this is the first time that I have heard anyone making this suggestion.

Can you please give examples of these adverts and where they appeared? EDIT: I have no recollection of them at all.

 

[Taunton]

Tiverton could have benefited from just such a service, rather than bus services, which have proved to be ephemeral.

Not that ephemeral. More than 50 years on, the bus from Exeter to Tiverton is still every 30 minutes, every 15 minutes at peak periods.

https://tiscon-maps-stagecoachbus.s3.amazonaws.com/Timetables/South West/55_web010915.pdf

 

[yorksrob]

Not that ephemeral. More than 50 years on, the bus from Exeter to Tiverton is still every 30 minutes, every 15 minutes at peak periods.

https://tiscon-maps-stagecoachbus.s3.amazonaws.com/Timetables/South West/55_web010915.pdf

Having to get a bus all the way to Exeter to catch a train Northwards sounds a bit of a rigmarole to me.

 

[Taunton]

Having to get a bus all the way to Exeter to catch a train Northwards sounds a bit of a rigmarole to me.

Well that's one thing improved, the building of Tiverton Parkway station on the site of the old Sampford Peverel station, which has a good all-day service. Most seem to go to Tivvy by car or taxi. I'm not sure what bus service links the two.

 

[yorksrob]

Well that's one thing improved, the building of Tiverton Parkway station on the site of the old Sampford Peverel station, which has a good all-day service. Most seem to go to Tivvy by car or taxi. I'm not sure what bus service links the two.

Yes indeed. That is a Bob Reid I era innovation that has undoubtedly improved the situation from what went before. However, it does seem better geared towards motorists than to those like myself who don't drive.

 

[davetheguard]

I was in tertiary education when the first Beeching Report was published. In all the years since then this is the first time that I have heard anyone making this suggestion.

Can you please give examples of these adverts and where they appeared? EDIT: I have no recollection of them at all.

They were specifically mentioned in Ian Hislop's hour long programme about Beeching. You might get chance to see if it's repeated again. It's been shown a few times on TV already.....

 

[JohnR]

Well that's one thing improved, the building of Tiverton Parkway station on the site of the old Sampford Peverel station, which has a good all-day service. Most seem to go to Tivvy by car or taxi. I'm not sure what bus service links the two.

Yet there seems to be no problem with inter-city services stopping here to pick up passengers - so why not with the Junction just a couple of miles further south?

 

[Taunton]

Yet there seems to be no problem with inter-city services stopping here to pick up passengers - so why not with the Junction just a couple of miles further south?

Because trains are a sight more powerful (and shorter) than they were then, and can get going again up the gradient much better, without grossly impacting the line capacity.

But also, people travelling to/from Tivvy itself are just hanging on the coat tails of the main demand there, which is those railheading along the new A361 road from North Devon which comes to join the M5 motorway at this point. People come from Barnstaple, Ilfracombe, even Bude in Cornwall, to join trains to London. The new station would never have been built without this new road.

 

[Calthrop]

Well that's one thing improved, the building of Tiverton Parkway station on the site of the old Sampford Peverel station, which has a good all-day service...

Going a bit off the main topic: I have to confess that I had imagined until now, that Tiverton Parkway was on the same site as former Tiverton Junction -- simply renamed. As they're fond of saying on another board which I frequent, which discusses "everything under the sun" and is very keen on getting all facts right: "ignorance fought" !