Beeching & beyond Lines that should have been kept open

[yorksrob]

I carn't help but think that the GCR south of Leicester would be quite useful today at proving some useful links for passengers and freight between places that are poorly served today e.g. Banbury > Rugby > Leicester would be a useful cross country passenger and freight route between the south coast ports and the midlands. North of Leicester the MML served more places and was more useful. Had there been a link between the GCR and MML south of Leicester then I believe that the southern section should have remained open for freight and passenger services which could have continued onto the MML for northwards journeys.

I sort of agree, particularly in terms of a cross country link from the East Midlands. Of course, if they'd kept the GC main line a bit further northwards in some form, we would have a direct cross country link taking in Nottingham as well.

 

[Lankyline]

"Quite possibly. Singling between Crossens and (say) Penwortham would have helped too, as would the introduction of DMUs. I still think it might have been tricky though. The access the WLR had to Preston was via Whitehouse Junction and the ex ELR, after all. If Preston East Lancs had still shut in 1972 with a surviving WLR, trains from Southport would've been forced around a circuitous loop under and over the WCML before joining it again at Farington Curve Junction"

Still think it was a gross error of judgement to close Preston Southport, ok it was all double tracked, you effectively had a dual service to Southport with Crossens electrics and there was numerous manned crossings.

Shuting Hundred End station possibly Much Hoole as well plus maybe as you say singling from Crossens to Penwortham with passing loops & auto barriers, would have i reckon definitely helped its survival. There were still enough trains not only to Preston but to East lancs as well to justify keeping East lancs line open, they should have looked at Market gardener's freight from Hesketh Bank maybe

 

[Philip Elliott]

The GC should definitely have been kept between Whetstone and Banbury with a new link put in onto the south Leicestershire line - and indeed it was linked for a while but possibly only during construction. Found here - http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?...archp=ids.srf&dn=646&ax=455921&ay=298285&lm=0

There have been some slightly cranky proposals from anti-HS2 folks that advocate reopening the GCR main line instead. This is total dead duck territory. Not only would the resulting railway be inferior to HS2 but it would encounter far greater NIMBY opposition owing to its urban route sections. I doubt it would be much cheaper either.

Actually the opposite is true. The people of Brackley are very against HS2 - a line with 36tph non stop. However re-opening the GC with a station in the town again would gain a lot of support.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There are many instances of triumphalism in BR history.
The Eastern Region downgraded Sheffield Victoria, not the LMR.
The WR shut down most of the Midland network on its patch, and then most of the LSWR bits.
I think Cheltenham Spa Lansdown was the only significant place where they closed the GWR facilities rather than "the opposition".

I'm not up on Scottish events but the Caledonian routes seemed to come off worst in the rationalisation.

A rather larger example would be the retention of Barnstaple-Exeter (which I think was LSWR, no doubt if I'm mistaken someone will correct me) rather than Barnstaple-Taunton GWR route which would have allowed direct services to Paddington. Of course, both routes served a largely rural area, bar one or two settlements along each.

 

[RPM]

Actually the opposite is true. The people of Brackley are very against HS2 - a line with 36tph non stop. However re-opening the GC with a station in the town again would gain a lot of support.

Brackley maybe, but not so sure about the likes of Leicester, Nottingham etc. Lots and lots of housing built on or adjacent to the GCR trackbed in many places. Compensation bill would be much higher than HS2. And then there's NET and the GCR heritage railway(s).

 

[Eagle]

I think Cheltenham Spa Lansdown was the only significant place where they closed the GWR facilities rather than "the opposition".

Well that's only because they kept the Midland route to Birmingham via Ashchurch and Bromsgrove, rather than the GWR route via Honeybourne and Stratford.

What was the border between the Western and London Midland regions in those days? I know nowadays it's Barnt Green/Hartlebury (and an imaginary border on the dismantled railway between Stratford and Long Marston).

 

[edwin_m]

Conspracies aside, in most cases the first company to build into an area will have the most comprehensive network, so when rationalisation is needed it is probably the lines built later that will go first because they may provide for some of the links between places but probably not all.

So for example the GC (and connecting GN lines) served Nottingham well but Derby only indirectly, and famously the only town served only by the GC London Extension was Lutterworth. The Midland network was less good for Nottingham but on balance better for the region as a whole, including links to Birmingham and Lincoln and easily re-connected to the GN Grantham-Nottingham line which is the only non-Midland line surviving in daily passenger use in the Nottingham area.

Around Bristol it was unsurprisingly the GWR lines that survived with the Midland/S&D being closed where they duplicated the GWR routes. Trying to keep the Midland instead would have involved making some new major links including one between the two lines at Bath. Incidentally I checked on Wikipedia and national rail and it is now possible to do Bath to Bournemouth every hour, wih a change at Southampton, in slightly less end-to-end time than the two fastest trains over the S&D in 1938 (which I imagine weren't much faster at closure).

 

[mr_jrt]

So for example the GC (and connecting GN lines) served Nottingham well but Derby only indirectly, and famously the only town served only by the GC London Extension was Lutterworth.

Just off the top of my head..what about Brackley?

 

[sprinterguy]

Just off the top of my head..what about Brackley?

Nope, it was also served by the London & North Western's Banbury to Verney Junction line via Brackley and Buckingham.

 

[Buttsy]

Just off the top of my head..what about Brackley?

LNWR served Brackley before the GC on their Verney Junction - Buckingham - Brackley - Banbury line.

 

[The Planner]

Arguably that would be a better line to open considering what/where it would connect. Lots of it built on though.

 

[tbtc]

Conspracies aside, in most cases the first company to build into an area will have the most comprehensive network, so when rationalisation is needed it is probably the lines built later that will go first because they may provide for some of the links between places but probably not all

A sensible way of looking at it (which will probably get ignored by a few people!)

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Looking at the South Wales Valleys, with local knowledge, some lines stand out as lost opportunities in the Beeching era and afterwards. It seems that traditional working of some branches was firmly rooted in the ninteenth century and little thought had been given to the changing demographics following the Second World War and the rundown of heavy industry in the valleys. The Valleys are ideally suited to rail travel because they all run, roughly north - south, to the sea where the employment prospects are greatest

Aber Valley: Senghenydd - Caerphilly. The route served a short densely populated valley. The branch was only about three miles in length and the trains should have run through to Cardiff rather than terminate at Caerphilly, not only to avoid the necessity of changing but to provide additional capacity on the heavily used Caerphilly - Cardiff section.

Caerphilly - Newport to serve a growing area of population to the south east of the town and serve main line connections at Newport.

Porthcawl because, together with Nottage, it is a dormitory area for Cardiff and Swansea and, of course, a popular seaside resort. It would have benefited from through services to both cities. The layout, at Pyle, permitted this but was seldom exploited except for summer excursion traffic.

One only has to look at the lines which have been re-instated to see what should have been done. All the lines that served Cardiff, without a change of train survived the cull. All of those that have re-opened serve Cardiff direct: Maesteg; Aberdare; Ebbw Vale and The Vale of Glamorgan. Each one has proved to be a success. There is no reason to suppose that others with the same facility would not be equally successful.

There are other more marginal cases but I'll leave those alone for now.

 

[sprinterguy]

Arguably that would be a better line to open considering what/where it would connect. Lots of it built on though.

With regards to local transport links in that area, I concur entirely: It would be of far greater value and utility to local communities than a reopened Great Central route. Just the problem as you say of the line having been built on in places.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham

Would be very useful for Reading-Brighton services and the Horsham-Shoreham section (Steyning Line) would be a very useful diversionary route for London-Brighton services if it had been electrified.

Sadly the Southwater railway station site has since been built on.

The remains of the station:
http://goo.gl/maps/qGxFb

Where the station use to stand:
http://goo.gl/maps/BntBd

 

[Markdvdman]

Looking at the South Wales Valleys, with local knowledge, some lines stand out as lost opportunities in the Beeching era and afterwards. It seems that traditional working of some branches was firmly rooted in the ninteenth century and little thought had been given to the changing demographics following the Second World War and the rundown of heavy industry in the valleys. The Valleys are ideally suited to rail travel because they all run, roughly north - south, to the sea where the employment prospects are greatest

Aber Valley: Senghenydd - Caerphilly. The route served a short densely populated valley. The branch was only about three miles in length and the trains should have run through to Cardiff rather than terminate at Caerphilly, not only to avoid the necessity of changing but to provide additional capacity on the heavily used Caerphilly - Cardiff section.

Caerphilly - Newport to serve a growing area of population to the south east of the town and serve main line connections at Newport.

Porthcawl because, together with Nottage, it is a dormitory area for Cardiff and Swansea and, of course, a popular seaside resort. It would have benefited from through services to both cities. The layout, at Pyle, permitted this but was seldom exploited except for summer excursion traffic.

One only has to look at the lines which have been re-instated to see what should have been done. All the lines that served Cardiff, without a change of train survived the cull. All of those that have re-opened serve Cardiff direct: Maesteg; Aberdare; Ebbw Vale and The Vale of Glamorgan. Each one has proved to be a success. There is no reason to suppose that others with the same facility would not be equally successful.

There are other more marginal cases but I'll leave those alone for now.

Major good points there, especially about Porthcawl. Insanely, look at the traffic Barry Island gets - a vastly inferior beach too! It was always looked at them days at the purchase on the station not the destination! Barry Island probably only survived due to the direct link to Cardiff!!!

It baffles me those advocating Beechings decisions when making unmanned stations, allowing rail freight to compete with road etc, and analysing the TO destination as well as the from would have been far more pertinent.

There WERE bad lines of course, but the point is the roads are now at a standpoint. A lot of the lines closed would have made it easier long term. Bad policies in the 60s are hurting us now big time! Never mind London, it is tragic here in Wales!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Conspracies aside, in most cases the first company to build into an area will have the most comprehensive network, so when rationalisation is needed it is probably the lines built later that will go first because they may provide for some of the links between places but probably not all.

So for example the GC (and connecting GN lines) served Nottingham well but Derby only indirectly, and famously the only town served only by the GC London Extension was Lutterworth. The Midland network was less good for Nottingham but on balance better for the region as a whole, including links to Birmingham and Lincoln and easily re-connected to the GN Grantham-Nottingham line which is the only non-Midland line surviving in daily passenger use in the Nottingham area.

Around Bristol it was unsurprisingly the GWR lines that survived with the Midland/S&D being closed where they duplicated the GWR routes. Trying to keep the Midland instead would have involved making some new major links including one between the two lines at Bath. Incidentally I checked on Wikipedia and national rail and it is now possible to do Bath to Bournemouth every hour, wih a change at Southampton, in slightly less end-to-end time than the two fastest trains over the S&D in 1938 (which I imagine weren't much faster at closure).

Bath/ Bristol to Bournemouth by road today is slow, A modern dmu s and d would be very competitive time wise. The midland served eastern Bristol suburbs which is not duplicate it would be thriving commuter territory today, likewise the population of the towns at the north end of the s and d would support a commuter service into Bath/ Bristol.

 

[edwin_m]

I agree the Midland line would have had value for Bristol urban journeys. These were probably negligible at the time of Beeching, when the ex-GWR routes duplicated all significant flows. Sicne then, like other medium-sized cities, greater mobility and traffic congestion has created a greater role for any rail lines that still exist as seen with Severn Beach and the Metro proposals.

However I doubt a modern interurban DMU service on a hilly route would average more than 40mph (see the Hope Valley for example), which is almost exactly the speed of the 1938 fast journeys I mentioned above and slower than travelling from Bath to Bournemouth with a change at Southampton.

Nor can I see enough demand for a reasonable train service between Bath and Bournemouth, two medium-sized cities with little intermediate traffic and no potential to be part of a longer through route. Even the route that links Cardiff, Bristol, Bath, Salisbury, Southampton and Portsmouth only gets an hourly service.

I can't see much potential for a commuter market either. Radstock only has 5000 or so people and Shepton Mallet has about 10000. Compare with 100000 for Mansfield.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree the Midland line would have had value for Bristol urban journeys. These were probably negligible at the time of Beeching, when the ex-GWR routes duplicated all significant flows. Sicne then, like other medium-sized cities, greater mobility and traffic congestion has created a greater role for any rail lines that still exist as seen with Severn Beach and the Metro proposals.

However I doubt a modern interurban DMU service on a hilly route would average more than 40mph (see the Hope Valley for example), which is almost exactly the speed of the 1938 fast journeys I mentioned above and slower than travelling from Bath to Bournemouth with a change at Southampton.

Nor can I see enough demand for a reasonable train service between Bath and Bournemouth, two medium-sized cities with little intermediate traffic and no potential to be part of a longer through route. Even the route that links Cardiff, Bristol, Bath, Salisbury, Southampton and Portsmouth only gets an hourly service.

I can't see much potential for a commuter market either. Radstock only has 5000 or so people and Shepton Mallet has about 10000. Compare with 100000 for Mansfield.

You forgot busy Blandford.

The S&D seems very similar in character to the East Suffolk line to me. With some rationalisation it could have survived into a busy local route.

 

[Eagle]

Bath/ Bristol to Bournemouth by road today is slow.

Bristol to Bournemouth is actually quicker by road via Newbury, would you believe.

You forgot busy Blandford.

Anyway, the largest town in the S&D route between Poole and Bath is Wimborne. (Also I don't know why people forget that the trains called at Poole, and that Poole is almost as large a town as Bournemouth.)

 

[yorksrob]

Of course, and Wimbourne

 

[LateThanNever]

A rather larger example would be the retention of Barnstaple-Exeter (which I think was LSWR, no doubt if I'm mistaken someone will correct me) rather than Barnstaple-Taunton GWR route which would have allowed direct services to Paddington. Of course, both routes served a largely rural area, bar one or two settlements along each.

The Barnstaple Taunton route is now mainly dual carriageway/3 lane road(linking to the M5) with a bad accident record and generally referred to locally as the Tiverton bi - pass!

 

[edwin_m]

Anyway, the largest town in the S&D route between Poole and Bath is Wimborne. (Also I don't know why people forget that the trains called at Poole, and that Poole is almost as large a town as Bournemouth.)

According to a quick Google check Wimborne is around 12000 people and Blandford is less than 9000, and only Blandford was actually on the S&D main line. For these places I guess you would be thinking of commuting southward rather than northward as was being discussed previously. The Castleman's Corkscrew line that actually served Wimborne and various other places would have been more worth saving than the S&D.

I agree the populations of intermediate towns are similar to those on the East Suffolk Line. However the East Suffolk is less than half the length of the S&D and is reasonably time competitive with the Norwich route for journeys between Lowestoft (64000-odd) and Ipswich or London, whereas the S&D would only be competitive for journeys to or from the small intervening towns.

 

[Eagle]

According to a quick Google check Wimborne is around 12000 people and Blandford is less than 9000, and only Blandford was actually on the S&D main line.

Wimborne was on the S&D route, as the line from Blandford initially only went to Wimborne (facing London, meaning that services to Poole and Bournemouth had to run the loco around).

The Wimborne avoiding line through Corfe Mullen was only built in 1927 at the recommendation of the newly-formed LMS, by which time S&D services were already pretty run-down (other than long-distance holiday specials there were only one or two services a day that went the whole way from Bath to Poole). It lasted just 35 years before it closed.

 

[yorksrob]

According to a quick Google check Wimborne is around 12000 people and Blandford is less than 9000, and only Blandford was actually on the S&D main line. For these places I guess you would be thinking of commuting southward rather than northward as was being discussed previously. The Castleman's Corkscrew line that actually served Wimborne and various other places would have been more worth saving than the S&D.

I agree the populations of intermediate towns are similar to those on the East Suffolk Line. However the East Suffolk is less than half the length of the S&D and is reasonably time competitive with the Norwich route for journeys between Lowestoft (64000-odd) and Ipswich or London, whereas the S&D would only be competitive for journeys to or from the small intervening towns.

Given a direct route between two large urban areas, people are likely to use them. Don't forget, that like Castle Cary, the settlements on the S&D serve a fairly large hinterland which will attract custom.

 

[edwin_m]

If there was a big enough market between Bath and Bournemouth then someone would have put on a direct train reversing at Southampton, which as I have suggested above would be quicker and serve more population than the S&D. And the argument on hinterland cuts both ways, as many of the intermediate towns on the S&D are within the hinterland of other rail routes!

 

[APT]

The Potteries Loop.

Incredible short sighted decision to close it.

It would have turned over millions as a travel solution in Stoke on Trent. Especially now they are developing Hanley as the true City Centre.

It could have also been a successful tram route.

 

[yorksrob]

If there was a big enough market between Bath and Bournemouth then someone would have put on a direct train reversing at Southampton, which as I have suggested above would be quicker and serve more population than the S&D. And the argument on hinterland cuts both ways, as many of the intermediate towns on the S&D are within the hinterland of other rail routes!

Geographically, many aren't though.

Reversing at Southampton may well serve more population, but it wouldn't be the same population as the the S&D.

I have no doubt that had the S&D survived, its would now be a busy and vital link to all the towns settlements in the area. The availability of a direct link between Bath and the Bournemouth area would bolster it's use, with people opting not to change trains.

 

[edwin_m]

Geographically, many aren't though.

Reversing at Southampton may well serve more population, but it wouldn't be the same population as the the S&D.

I have no doubt that had the S&D survived, its would now be a busy and vital link to all the towns settlements in the area. The availability of a direct link between Bath and the Bournemouth area would bolster it's use, with people opting not to change trains.

I'd be more likely to be convinced if you could identify any other route serving similar populations with similar characteristics (parallel route linking both ends, negligible onward journey opportunities either end) which operates a successful train service.

 

[anthony263]

Caerphilly - Newport to serve a growing area of population to the south east of the town and serve main line connections at Newport.

Porthcawl because, together with Nottage, it is a dormitory area for Cardiff and Swansea and, of course, a popular seaside resort. It would have benefited from through services to both cities. The layout, at Pyle, permitted this but was seldom exploited except for summer excursion traffic.

There are other more marginal cases but I'll leave those alone for now.

I certainly agree with Railfuture's suggestion of a lightrail link from Porthcawl to Pyle and Bridgend. Porthcawl is growing and we only have to see how many use the train from Pyle and well used the X2 bus service is to see how a railink would benefit the town.