Beeching & beyond Lines that should have been kept open

[Buttsy]

Surely the most stupid idea ever was to retain the Esk Valley line in to Whitby. Nice though it is all the other (closed) routes to Whitby seem to have more potential for traffic!

Having read a fair amount about this, when hardship (which was the only criterion used in the closure process for retaining a line) was considered for the 3 routes remaining into Whitby under Beeching etc, only on the Esk Valley line was the hardship defined as 'Grave' rather than 'Severe'. Also, there was difficulty in getting a bus to serve the stations/villages on this route. If there had been any chance of being able to close the Esk Valley line, it would have been closed by BR/Government minister and Whitby would not be on the rail map at all...

 

[Harpers Tate]

Yes, that's my understanding of it; that to replace the "social" aspect of the Esk Valley railway with a bus would have been geographically impossible and it was that alone that saw the route retained.

Of course, one of the things that did not appear to be considered as part of Beeching's rationlisation (both here and elsewhere) was to tarmac over the trackbed and use buses instead of trains to supply the social need along the same route. That might have been a more cost-effective approach, and might indeed have offered a way to save many of the former rail routes that have gone completely.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Yes, that's my understanding of it; that to replace the "social" aspect of the Esk Valley railway with a bus would have been geographically impossible and it was that alone that saw the route retained.

Of course, one of the things that did not appear to be considered as part of Beeching's rationlisation (both here and elsewhere) was to tarmac over the trackbed and use buses instead of trains to supply the social need along the same route. That might have been a more cost-effective approach, and might indeed have offered a way to save many of the former rail routes that have gone completely.

Nonsense there was something called the railway conversion league that thought you could turn railway lines into roads, and was seriously looked at by the then road obsessed ministry of transport. Even they came to the conclusion it was bonkers as bridge clearances and narrow with of railway land would have made conversion prohibitavely expense.

 

[Harpers Tate]

The conversion league were, if I recall correctly, advocating making railways into true, multi-user roads.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear in what I was thinking; that a paved railway route would be used exclusively by buses which were operated by and as part of, the Railway. As a direct replacement for branch line trains. In which case, of course, there would be no need for extended clearances (provided, of course, single-deckers were used) nor great width. And as buses are of course driven by sight, no need for signalling, tokens and other such costly essentials.

 

[sarahj]

I remember the conversion group. One of them was interviewed on Newsnight when the Serpell report was published. TBH, he seemed a bit mad, and I never heard of them again.

SJ

 

[Lankyline]

The major case for Penrith - Keswick, as i understand it, is tourism and the fact that the road network in and around Keswick is becoming heavily congested and also commuting & better access to WMCL north & south

Take a look at www.keswickrailway.com which puts the case for reopening and is for those who haven't seen the site, details what is happening to try & get this line reopened.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely the most stupid idea ever was to retain the Esk Valley line in to Whitby. Nice though it is all the other (closed) routes to Whitby seem to have more potential for traffic!

No, the most stupid idea ever was to close all the routes to Whitby, which (Surprise Surprise It's Cilla' ere) was exactly the solution proposed by Dr Beeching.

Certainly the direct route via Pickering would be useful, although to be fair you'd be surprised just how well used the route to Middlesborough is end to end. Whitby is very popular with the Geordies, Makems and Teesiders.

It's also the infrequent service rather than the geographical route of the branch that tends to make it less convenient than other lines from the York direction (I know this from experience as a regular user of the line).

 

[tbtc]

No, the most stupid idea ever was to close all the routes to Whitby, which (Surprise Surprise It's Cilla' ere) was exactly the solution proposed by Dr Beeching.

Certainly the direct route via Pickering would be useful, although to be fair you'd be surprised just how well used the route to Middlesborough is end to end. Whitby is very popular with the Geordies, Makems and Teesiders.

It's also the infrequent service rather than the geographical route of the branch that tends to make it less convenient than other lines from the York direction (I know this from experience as a regular user of the line).

Odd that there's been no regular daily through service from the Newcastle/ Sunderland area - I'd have thought that a through 156 every morning/ teatime would have attracted a few through passengers (though I think the same about the Redcar area having no through link to Sunderland/ Newcastle too)

 

[yorksrob]

Odd that there's been no regular daily through service from the Newcastle/ Sunderland area - I'd have thought that a through 156 every morning/ teatime would have attracted a few through passengers (though I think the same about the Redcar area having no through link to Sunderland/ Newcastle too)

The last train back on Saturday is advertised as a through service to Newcastle. There were quite a few stayed on past Middlesborough when I got off there on Saturday.

Bearing in mind it's one train shuttling backwards and forwards along a mainly single track, the scope for through services is limited.

 

[MCW]

(snip) TBH, he seemed a bit mad, and I never heard of them again.

SJ

that could be said for many people involved in the railway history during the Beeching era

 

[Gareth Marston]

I remember the conversion group. One of them was interviewed on Newsnight when the Serpell report was published. TBH, he seemed a bit mad, and I never heard of them again.

SJ

Definitely the loony fringe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The conversion league were, if I recall correctly, advocating making railways into true, multi-user roads.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear in what I was thinking; that a paved railway route would be used exclusively by buses which were operated by and as part of, the Railway. As a direct replacement for branch line trains. In which case, of course, there would be no need for extended clearances (provided, of course, single-deckers were used) nor great width. And as buses are of course driven by sight, no need for signalling, tokens and other such costly essentials.

Like most suggestions the flaw looking at it from a 1960's view is that it means spending money on the railway even its a railway road with a railway bus on it. I like the idea in that it addresses 2 of the big flaws in the closure programme keeping hold of contributory revenue and protecting the route. Marbles and friends wanted the modernisation money diverted to the road building programme even if there wasn't a conspiracy to close the railways so even if it was a suggestion on the table at the time there was no money there to implement it.

 

[edwin_m]

If the railway didn't go to the right place to carry the passengers, then it doesn't seem sensible to spend £££ paving over the trackbed only to obtain... a bus which just goes to the same places.

At the time of Beeching road congestion was virtually unheard of in rural areas so the buses would have had relatively swift journeys. Despite this few of them survived.

 

[Eagle]

If the railway didn't go to the right place to carry the passengers, then it doesn't seem sensible to spend £££ paving over the trackbed only to obtain... a bus which just goes to the same places.

I think the point was that a bus road is a lot cheaper to run and maintain than a rail line (and similarly buses are cheaper than trains).

But as you point out, you could just send the buses along normal roads anyway, and then you could close the rail line altogether, which is even cheaper. It's not surprising that this is what actually happened.

 

[Harpers Tate]

We were contemplating the Esk Valley line a few posts back, and the reasons for its survival. Which were, almost entirely, social need brought about by the inaccessibility of the places served to buses. Hence the validity of the suggestion to use railway buses on the paved trackbed.

 

[yorksrob]

Except that, whatever the reasons for the Esk Valley's survival, it is now heavily used as an end to end through route, lnking Whitby to the rest of the country via the national rail network, so any attempt to turn it into a self contained bus route would have been a mistake. Exactly the mistake that McNulty made infact.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I contend that if the service were operated by and as part of the Railway, it matters little what sort of rolling stock is used. As long as there are such niceties as integrated timetabling and ticketing and interchange facilities.

Agreed that it makes through services impossible. In the case of the Esk Valley, they are not a substantial part of its pattern. The same is (or at least, could be) true of many other routes both open and shut. And if costs are substantially reduced, then increased frequency (and hence convenience for those connecting) might be feasible.

In all other respects, why would a vehicle on rubber tyres with steering (vs. a train proper) make any material difference to anyone (except, perhaps, enthusiasts!)?

It would have reduced costs, I suspect, by a big margin. It may even have been a means by which many other routes now sadly long lost might have been retained. It seems to me that running limited stop buses on a paved trackbed (in other words, a train-like service in all respects other than the vehicle itself) would offer trip times commensurate with those seen by branch line trains and much reduced over conventional bus services on conventional roads.

 

[yorksrob]

Rail replacement buses have through ticketing and are theoretically, at least organised to connect with trains, yet they remain a bugbear for passengers. Lack of luggage space, lack of tables, extended journey times, buses just don't cut the mustard.

Also, Beeching was doing his work long before the concept of the basic railway had been developed. I doubt very much that a basic single track with minimal signalling requires much more maintenance expenditure than a paved roadway, bear in mind that track tends to last for fifty years on average.

What might be useful for routes such as the Esk would be more tailored track access and stock arrangements. Such a route won't cost as much to maintain in terms is signalling as a top link railway, so why not have a lower charge to reflect this, and if the TOC's owned the trains on these routes outright, that would have an impact on costs. Much better than pie in the sky ideas of concreting over the track bed.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Ah yes. Bustitution. Let me see:

- organised to connect with trains. At Doncaster during the recent Hatfield disruption the clever people involved decided these should depart from the absolutely MOST distant stand in the adjacent interchange. I'd have to say - had a bus-train been a designed-in part of "the system" it seems more probable that it would depart from, well, the station, I guess.

- lack of luggage space. Whereas modern trains have plenty, right? There is another thread on here in which the lack of space for bicycles on trains is debated. Yet in Tenerife, it's a popular pastime to take one's bike on the bus up the mountain, and cycle back down. The bus they use - this is a normal public service by the way - has room for, oh I dunno - 20 or so bikes. And not in a separate trailer. On board. Actually underneath the passenger floor. Many long-distance coaches have such a space for luggage. Not exactly rocket science. So again, if this were a designed part of the system, there is no good reason for luggage space to be an issue.

- extended journey times. Why would a bus, running along the formation of a former branch line rail route take any longer than a train going the same way? It's only because they have to meander less direct roads in and out of towns and/or contend with other traffic. Both matters not relevant in the case of a bus-train service.

The negatives you describe about bustitution are specific to the way in which bustitution is carried out and don't necessarily have to apply to a paved railway. The roads and trip times are unavoidable in bustitution but would not be a factor in a converted rail route. Luggage space and departure proximity are both matters of design which could be handled right now if there were the will.

 

[yorksrob]

And supposing you do manage to get yor goodly buses to whiz along at the same speed as a train, which, lest we forget, would need to do the end bit to the station along the streets of Middlesbrough, how long is this road surface that we've put down at great expense, going to last before it needs replacing again ? I‘m guessing not fifty years. And don‘t forget, you still have all the bridges and structures to maintain. I‘m seeing a hell of a lot of expense for few overall savings and no benefit. Perhaps these luxury buses with intimate room for personal space and luggage do exist somewhere, but I ‘ve yet to hear of them over here, and if existing bus routes don‘t use luxury buses that compare to the comfort of a sprinter, what on earth makes you think that some sort of Whitby busway will use them.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

And supposing you do manage to get yor goodly buses to whiz along at the same speed as a train, which, lest we forget, would need to do the end bit to the station along the streets of Middlesbrough, how long is this road surface that we've put down at great expense, going to last before it needs replacing again ? I‘m guessing not fifty years. And don‘t forget, you still have all the bridges and structures to maintain. I‘m seeing a hell of a lot of expense for few overall savings and no benefit. Perhaps these luxury buses with intimate room for personal space and luggage do exist somewhere, but I ‘ve yet to hear of them over here, and if existing bus routes don‘t use luxury buses that compare to the comfort of a sprinter, what on earth makes you think that some sort of Whitby busway will use them.

Indeed. If the Cambridgeshire (mis-)guided busway has taught us anything, it's that the cost of the infrastructure of such things is not cheap!

 

[Harpers Tate]

...would need to do the end bit to the station along the streets of Middlesbrough....

...that the cost of the infrastructure of such things is not cheap!

So, let me get this straight. I was suggesting, initially, that - using the Esk Valley Line as a case in point - one alternative to retaining the heavy railway would be to create a dedicated, railway-run, bus service operated along the same trackbed, by the Railway and fully integrated in terms of interchange and ticketing. A fully designed system.

So
a) a fully designed system would, I suggest, not be driving the streets of Middlesbrough. Why would anyone design it in such a way?

b) taking account of all the costs
= of tearing up the track and paving the surface and any other related civil engineering required for the conversion; discounted over, say, 50 years
= of providing and replacing the vehicles as required
= of maintaining the infrastructure
= of staff both on the route (signallers; not required at all) and on the vehicle/s
= of maintaining the infrastructure
= of maintaining and operating level crossings, token machines, signalling cables, and so on
= and anything else I haven't mentioned
you honestly believe that heavy rail route costs are even close to being similar to a dedicated roadway?

And, if you leave out the "tearing up the track" costs from the equation, in respect of many closed routes (where that happened anyway, of course) that there would not have been a case for retention as a railway bus route?

Oh, and speeds? Do you really believe that a bus operating the Esk Valley route would need to run substantially slower than the 30-40mph that trains travel at? I seriously doubt it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

...
b) taking account of all the costs
= of tearing up the track and paving the surface and any other related civil engineering required for the conversion; discounted over, say, 50 years...

I believe the '50 years' you state is a reasonable expected lifespan of a railway under the usage levels currently of the Esk Valley line. The lifespan of a busway (guided or otherwise) would certainly not be 50 years before the route would require complete closure to be resurfaced. The 'Manchester Road' busway in Bradford has been operating less than 20 years and is full of hastily-patched potholes due to the fact that the rubber tyres of the buses are constantly wearing away the same few-inches-width of the surface. Indeed this phenomenon has been levelled as a criticism of the Leeds 'Trolleybus' project.

Every so often there are proposals for heavy freight use of the Middlesbrough-Whitby line- none of them have so far come off, but if the route was a busway, lorries would be the only option other than sending stuff by sea. Would said lorries be permitted to use the busway, or would there be yet more heavy lorries on the overstretched roads across the National Park? And what of the NYMR summer services extending to Whitby- not to mention said line losing the connection to the rest of the network.

 

[yorksrob]

So, let me get this straight. I was suggesting, initially, that - using the Esk Valley Line as a case in point - one alternative to retaining the heavy railway would be to create a dedicated, railway-run, bus service operated along the same trackbed, by the Railway and fully integrated in terms of interchange and ticketing. A fully designed system.

So
a) a fully designed system would, I suggest, not be driving the streets of Middlesbrough. Why would anyone design it in such a way?

The route through Middlesborough station will still be required for trains, so you'll have to come on to the road at some stage, and that depends on how you hit one way systems, pedestrianised zones etc.

b) taking account of all the costs
= of tearing up the track and paving the surface and any other related civil engineering required for the conversion; discounted over, say, 50 years

As 61653HTAFC has mentioned, the cost over fifty years is more likely
to be around two and a half times the initial cost of relaying the thing.

= of providing and replacing the vehicles as required

Again, trains cost more, but they also last a lot longer, so I don't believe the bus option is any where near as cheap as it is at first made out to be.

= of maintaining the infrastructure

We've already touched on the track/surface way. The rest of the structures consist in large part of bridges, embankments, cuttings, drainage etc, all of which will still need to be maintained, so minimal savings there.

= of staff both on the route (signallers; not required at all) and on the vehicle/s

Well, we've already mentioned vehicles so I won't repeat myself, however, in terms of staff on the route, I'm aware of only one manned signal box, and this is likely to go as part of NR's cull of the signal boxes at some stage.

The last train I caught down there consisted of 2 156 units coupled together with 1 x driver and 1 x guard. A staff to passenger ratio that is as good as, if not better than any bus system.

= of maintaining and operating level crossings, token machines, signalling cables, and so on

True, the signalling system is rudimentary and the level crossings automated, but I can't pretend there isn't a cost. That said, this will undoubtedly come down even more over time as the NR programme comes to the area.

you honestly believe that heavy rail route costs are even close to being similar to a dedicated roadway?

I think that given the above, the cost of rail is competitive, particularly given the end product is of a better quality.

And, if you leave out the "tearing up the track" costs from the equation, in respect of many closed routes (where that happened anyway, of course) that there would not have been a case for retention as a railway bus route?

Well, with an existing railway, you'd be foolish not to include the cost of tearing it up, but on your wider point, the truth is that had this been seen as a viable option in the past, we would probably have been left with an even smaller, less flexible railway network today.

Oh, and speeds? Do you really believe that a bus operating the Esk Valley route would need to run substantially slower than the 30-40mph that trains travel at? I seriously doubt it.

I've yet to come across a bus that's as fast, comfortable or doesn't lurch about much more than a train (even a pacer) at speed, busway or no busway.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Well, it's all guesswork as I doubt any of us has reliable access to all the costs and other factors involved. I simply doubt that it was even considered or evaluated at the time. Which is a shame, because if it had been, and if my own guesswork is closer to the truth, we may have been able to retain a more comprehensive network (a mix of real railway plus converted route) than we have today.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well, it's all guesswork as I doubt any of us has reliable access to all the costs and other factors involved. I simply doubt that it was even considered or evaluated at the time. Which is a shame, because if it had been, and if my own guesswork is closer to the truth, we may have been able to retain a more comprehensive network (a mix of real railway plus converted route) than we have today.

Though if half of it was tarmacked over, it wouldn't really be a network in any workable sense!

 

[tbtc]

Well, it's all guesswork as I doubt any of us has reliable access to all the costs and other factors involved. I simply doubt that it was even considered or evaluated at the time. Which is a shame, because if it had been, and if my own guesswork is closer to the truth, we may have been able to retain a more comprehensive network (a mix of real railway plus converted route) than we have today.

One of the arguments against Beeching that I've never really understood is that BR should have left all of the infrastructure intact so that the lines could easily be reinstated at a later date.

The reason I don't "buy" the argument is that at the time rural lines were outdated/ failures - there was no inkling of the boom that we've had in the past generation - you might as well criticise BT for removing old phone boxes because we may need lots of landlines in red boxes in city centres in fifty years time - in Beeching's day the branchline seemed much like a red phone box does to us in 2013.

BUT, one way that this could have been avoided on some lines would be to retain them as a dedicated bus-based corridors - obviously much cheaper to maintain the infrastructure, much cheaper/easier to source additional capacity, and if there was a boom a few decades later then easier to reconvert to heavy rail (compared to rebuilding something like the Waverley route which was partly built upon).

It'd only work on some routes (i.e. where a branch split off at a junction - maybe Leuchars to St Andrews would work as an example), since you couldn't run the bus/ coach along a railway line beyond the junction.

Certainly better than outright closure - may have kept some routes running.

Indeed. If the Cambridgeshire (mis-)guided busway has taught us anything, it's that the cost of the infrastructure of such things is not cheap!

If its taught me anything, its taught me that problems between the Council and Contractors allegedly trying to cut corners (which can happen on any infrastructure project) are seized upon by rail enthusiasts, despite there being nothing specific to guided buses that caused the costs to escalate.

 

[yorksrob]

If its taught me anything, its taught me that problems between the Council and Contractors allegedly trying to cut corners (which can happen on any infrastructure project) are seized upon by rail enthusiasts, despite there being nothing specific to guided buses that caused the costs to escalate.

Yes, but it should also have taught that busway conversion is neither a cheap nor easy solution for the future of an existing railway.

I'm also not convinced that Beeching era BR or the Government would have had the capital to invest in such conversions.

 

[PR1Berske]

I'm not sure if the line should have been kept open in its entirety in the 1960s: I'm fairly sure it genuinely was losing a lot of money, although the fact it was never dieselised can't have helped. The Meols Cop-Crossens electric stretch at least, though, should have been kept open.

The trackbed should have been kept clear, though, as I'd say Banks, Longton and Penwortham at least would be well able to support railway stations today. I'd suggest a best case scenario for the line would be the proposed opening of a nuclear power station near Hesketh Bank in the late 1960s: the track was left down between Preston and HB until about 66/67 for this purpose. So, open the power station and you retain the line through Penwortham. Couple that with the Crossens electrics surviving, and the line could easily have been reopened to passengers throughout in the 1980s or 1990s when passenger levels were more buoyant.

Sadly, the trackbed at both Preston and Southport ends (as well as at Longton) has now been pretty thoroughly obliterated, so the line ain't coming back!

But you can certainly walk that line - because I've done at least half of it (well I've done both halves of it but this is where it begins

(http://liampennington.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/walking-west-lancs-part-1.html)

 

[MarkyT]

Some problems in conversion of railway branch lines to dedicated bus routes:

If only single lane with passing places some kind of signalling provision would still have to remain.

Many branch lines share main line track from a junction to a major town or interchange station. There may not be room alongside the main line for dedicated road lanes and diverting buses onto possibly busy town centre streets for the last few miles could significantly extend journey times.

Not so easy to add vehicles to cover peaks in demand. Each additional bus requires a driver and possibly a conductor and it might be might be difficult to add extra services to single lane infrastructure without additional passing places (and their signalling - see above) - multiple buses could run in convoys however if the passing places were long enough.

There could be pressure from other user interests to be allowed to use what could be seen as underused road infrastructure and the extra costs then required to accommodate other local buses, taxis, cyclists etc over all or parts of route.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Some problems in conversion of railway branch lines to dedicated bus routes:

If only single lane with passing places some kind of signalling provision would still have to remain.

There's a section of the old Mid Wales Line Moat Lane Junction to Brecon south of Erwood station station alongside the River Wye for 3 mile southwards that's a single lane unclassified road it even uses the old railway bridges. You just get in the groove imagining your driving a Cambrian 0-6-0 or a BR built LMS 46xxx and some idiot comes round the corner straight at you doing 75 mph - I know the road and drive at the same speed as the steamers ready to hit the brakes!