Do we have any idea whether wagonload freight and sundries ever broke even postwar, or were they already doomed as concepts? Was a cost vs revenue analysis done on wagonload freight before the Beeching era?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Beeching Cuts and the Big Four
- Thread starter Mat17
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Indeed - but it would have made removal of those facilities that did exist(particularly “closure by stealth”) harder.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
I think that the problem is that virtually all freight was operated on a ‘wagonload’ basis. The large power stations, refineries and so on just didn’t exist in the way that we think of them. There were a few ‘block loads’ but they were the exception.
Disaggregated or sectorised analysis wasn’t really done pre-Beeching.
A huge amount of coal was moved especially for electricity generation and production of town gas. This was wagonload because that's the way that collieries, power stations and gas works operated. Trainload movement of coal came in with merry go round to the new big baseload power stations in the Trent and Aire Valleys.
Oil was a different matter, the oil refineries and storage depots were built for train load operation. Most oil movements were train load before Beeching, for example the oil trains out of Thames Haven and Fawley.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
You might have thought that but the number of freight depots fell from 6,395 at the end of 1948 to 5,475 by the end of 1961 - a reduction of over 14% (920 locations). All done pre-Beeching.
I'm really not sure about that. BR did very badly with oil traffic, steadily losing market share to road and pipelines pre-Beeching. The long list of 'oil terminals' at such well-known industrial hubs such as Braintree (2!), Chepstow, Cromer High, Mold, Newquay, Sudbury and many others hardly suggests 'block loads'. There was a distinct shortage of tank wagons (which BR didn't build or provide in any material numbers) and these were 2-axle 35-ton GLW at best. Low coupling strength made 15 wagons a good load. A lot of oil moved on wagonload services.
The Fawley-Bromford Bridge 1,800-ton train, when it finally arrived, was a total outlier. It took Beeching era deals with 15 new oil contracts and the advent of 25-ton axleloads and 100-ton new wagons over the next few years to get rail back into the market.
Gloster
Established Member
I think that in general oil traffic might be a bulk load from the refinery to one of the nearby marshalling yards although sometimes other traffic might be include in the consist. After that the wagons, particularly the less-inflammable Class B traffic, were much more likely to be treated as general traffic and conveyed in normal goods trains. Although there were a number of major terminals which received what were effectively block trains (Fawley seems to have gone over to this earlier than many), many terminals were relics of the 1930s and could only handle a handful of wagons at a time.
Thames Haven/Ripple Lane had block oil trains at the start of the 1960s notably long distance services to Tile Hill, Rowley Regis and Thame. The Tile Hill trains were diesel hauled to Rugby, the Rowley Regis trains diesel hauled to Didcot and the Thame trains diesel hauled to Acton.
The oil terminals in semi-rural locations were for distribution of petrol. The example that I'm most familiar with is Royston, which opened in January 1962. It was only ever served by block trains, usually 2 per day from Ripple Lane. In those days the rural road network was poor and road oil tankers much smaller than modern articulated vehicles. There was no petrol sales through out of town supermarkets. Road distribution of petrol to local garages, at least one in almost every town and village, was in small road tankers from rail served depots such as Royston. The examples you quote served their local areas in the same way.
Royston was a BP depot, but other petrol brands would have done things in a similar way. If Braintree had 2 depots then I suspect that one would be for BP garages and the other for Shell garages.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Thanks for the extra background @Magdalia . Braintree was Shell and Esso by the way but you had the right idea.
Block trains of around 500 tons gross (say, 350 tons of product), together with all the faffing around with brake vans were hardly great shakes (and ironically probably weakened the rail wagonload freight product by taking away a nice steady base load from the local trip and just leaving a few seasonal wagons of coal, cattle, fertiliser, etc.)Rowley Regis was certainly an important depot in the industrial and populous Black Country. I was a bit confused to note that according to the Official Hand-book of Railway Stations, &c. neither Tile Hill nor Thames was listed as having an oil terminal in 1962 (or earlier). [The Hand-book ceased after that year as the last vestiges of the Railway Clearing House were swept away.]
ac6000cw
Established Member
Yes, it was - I grew up about 2 miles from it, and watching the banking of oil trains between Cradley Heath and Rowley Regis up the 1 in 50 'Old Hill bank' was partly what first got me interested in railways 52 years ago... (A Peak or 47 stabled at Stourbridge was the usual banker back then, which also banked trains towards Dudley up a similarly steep gradient).
All now erased - the current station car park is on the site of the former oil depot (north side of the line), and the former gas terminal on the south side is an industrial estate. Also long gone is a small yard just east of there at Langley Green, which handled traffic to the large Albright and Wilson chemical plant at Oldbury, accessed via the stub of the ex-GWR Oldbury branch.
Last edited:
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Some great memories there. I remember an ailing DMU being banked from Stourbridge Junction once.
I suppose, hypothetically, had the analysis been done (even in say, 1935) most of the wagonload traffic would be uneconomical, even with a generous view of cost allocation?
Was there any great amount of wagonload traffic in the 1950s which could probably have covered its own costs, even in the face of the loss of the majority of the infrastructure for wagonload traffic?
But how many of those were simply the closure of one of the two (or more) companies’ facilities in the same town?
Sir Felix Pole
Member
The GWR did make a start withdrawing goods facilities from small stations in parts of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset in the 30s. Large new depots were built, with the aid of government money, at Taunton, Goodrington (Paignton), St. Austell and Redruth. The surrounding district was served by the GWR's own fleet of road motor vehicles, with the trunk haul only by rail.
This was to be the model for the whole system but further rollout was curtailed by WW2. Coal traffic continued to be handled locally by rail, however, which lessened the savings somewhat. Coal merchants were also notorious for retaining wagons for months on end - effectively using them as their own coal scuttles.
This was to be the model for the whole system but further rollout was curtailed by WW2. Coal traffic continued to be handled locally by rail, however, which lessened the savings somewhat. Coal merchants were also notorious for retaining wagons for months on end - effectively using them as their own coal scuttles.
Michael Bonavia (who filled many a role in the 'new' British railway(re) organisations following Nationalisation) wrote about many 'personalities' and issues related to the making and changing of decisions. It reads much as a book written today, 75 years on! Industrial relations and lack of investment are much the same too. The 'Beeching report' was only 15years after Nationalisation and we have lurched on more than 60 years since then
What, if anything, do we learn?
ac6000cw
Established Member
It's part of the life cycle of large mature industries, really, not least because the performance of the economy (of the country) also tends to be cyclical. When the economy does badly railway customers spend less if they can, so budgets for new rolling stock, maintenance and investment get reduced to match that (and the opposite when the economy is doing well). No one should be surprised at what's happening now to railway finances and investment - the railways have been through it several times before for similar economic reasons.Michael Bonavia (who filled many a role in the 'new' British railway(re) organisations following Nationalisation) wrote about many 'personalities' and issues related to the making and changing of decisions. It reads much as a book written today, 75 years on! Industrial relations and lack of investment are much the same too. The 'Beeching report' was only 15years after Nationalisation and we have lurched on more than 60 years since then
What, if anything, do we learn?
"Coal scuttles" - like it!
Dr Hoo
Established Member
(Having been away from my reference books for a few days...)
It does seem to have been general attrition of marginal locations rather than any obvious rationalisations within the same town. There had been a few cases - Whitstable Harbour from Canterbury West had gone in the early 1950s as one such case.
The Handbook of Stations (1956 edition) is very interesting as it was broadly coincident with the Modernisation Plan getting under way and before any substantial fallout from the 1955 ASLEF footplate strike had been factored into decision making. From looking at it you get the impression that the model of 'anything (no matter how small) from anywhere to anywhere else (regardless of distance) for anybody' was still in vogue. New mechanised marshalling yards and a new fleet of low-powered diesel locomotive suitable for short-distance pickup trips would make this more 'efficient'.
It is staggering to see how many places retained duplicated (or multiplicated) facilities in close proximity. For example:
Wolverhampton retained full depots from the GWR, L&NWR and Midland in close proximity;
Leicester retained depots around both the Midland and GC lines together with Belgrave Road GN and West Bridge, both reached by convoluted branch lines;
Norwich retained City, Thorpe and Victoria, with Trowse as a bonus;
Tyndrum Upper and Lower - yes;
Crianlarich Upper and Lower - yes;
Staines Central LSW and West GWR - yes;
Tavistock North LSW and South GWR - yes;
You get the picture?
The small town of Wisbech not only boasted two goods depots at East GE and North M&GN but also further public 'truck load' facilities at each of the two harbour branches and several further wayside facilities at various points along the Wisbech & Upwell Tramway!
All of these references are to public goods facilities, not private sidings or purely coal depots.
Falcon1200
Established Member
Although elsewhere rationalisation was carried out quickly; In Oxford, for example, the ex-LNWR terminus as Rewley Road was closed as early as 1951 with passenger services transferred to the ex-GWR station.
In reference to the multiple goods facilities at some places, perhaps there was, then, simply too much traffic to concentrate it at fewer locations, sadly not the case in later years of course.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
In Oxford, Rewley Road was retained for goods, albeit only in full truck loads and not things like livestock. Only needed four staff to work the canal swingbridge.
I'm prepared to concede that locations like Wolverhampton may still have been 'too busy' for serious rationalisation but plenty of less 'industrial' duplicates survived. Dorchester South and West, Dorking North and Town, Bexhill West and Central, Buxton Central and South, Brackley Central and Town, Blaenau Ffestiniog Central and North... Need I go on?
Note that under section 3(2)(a) of the Transport Act 1947 the British Transport Commission were under no obligation to continue the provision of any particular form of goods transport between any particular points. (One wonders how many of the managers had actually read and understood that bit before the mid-1950s or even later.)
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Slightly off topic - but a rail freight point - road had overtaken rail for traffic movements at Tilbury Docks from as early as 1946 , closely followed by Park Royal (London in the 20th Century) , market forces I guess...........
Falcon1200
Established Member
Indeed (and I wish I had paid more attention to the swingbridge operation when spotting at Oxford in the 70s), but the cost and inconvenience of operating and maintaining the bridge surely meant that BR would have disposed of Rewley Road completely as soon as they possibly could! Presumably the traffic could either not have been accommodated elsewhere, and/or did freight contracts mean that BR had to continue awkward locations whether they wanted to or not; Applicable to many other locations too, possibly?
Dorking and Dorchester's stations are on separate lines with no obvious way to connect them (even in the 50's/60s) so closing one or the other of them would have restricted traffic. Given both town's primary station would be on the busier line towards London, closing the station on the quieter line may well have been seen as more trouble than it was worth.
Not sure that is quite so significant for goods traffic, which is what is being discussed?
Not quite so significant, but the general principle probably still applies. Especially if you are keeping both stations open for passenger traffic regardless.
WesternLancer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 7,200
Something of an aside but this post prompted me to check out what had happened with the swing bridge as I new restoration was an ambition. Anyway that work has been done which is great to read but theie website also includes a link to a video of the bridge in action back int he day - from teh John Huntly railway film archive
from:
Rewley Road Swing Bridge
Very nice to see it restored and preserved, tho seeing it in action back in the day would have been fascinating
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Surely not? Did the GWR, LMS and so on really enter into impregnable 'evergreen' contracts with 'one bloke and a horse & cart' coal merchants to provide a service at a particular location for as long as they wanted it? Presumably these hypothetical contracts had been somehow novated to bind the BTC in such a way that they were even proof against an explicit statutory power to cease providing such a service. Wow!
The bulk of traffic at modestly-sized towns would have been coal, typically moved from both South Wales and the Midlands (encompassing the main types of solid fuel). At places with only one depot the wagons would have been trundled around to reach it from sources anywhere. It would have been purely fortuitous that it might have been easier to move Welsh coal to Dorchester West or Midlands coal to Dorchester South, etc..
But you've hit the nail on the head. The bulk of 1950s railway management seemed to regard any strategic thinking as 'too much trouble'. When Dr Beeching was appointed he had the special traffic census figures from April 1961 metaphorically waiting for him on his desk when he took up full command and was soon able to establish that one third of freight stations combined only produced 1% of receipts and even one half combined only produced 3% of receipts. Amazingly, nobody else seems to have previously noticed this despite having spent hundreds of millions on new marshalling years and underpowered 'trip' diesel locomotives.
Fantastic video link @WesternLancer . Thanks.
WesternLancer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 7,200
Very much thanks to @Falcon1200 for reminding me of it - I recall seeing it in Oxford, isolated and in advanced decay on a visit quite some years ago and fearing it would never really survive, so superb to see the work that the local group has done to restore and save it.
Last edited:
Gloster
Established Member
Coal was generally supplied from the nearest coalfield, with the exception of speciality ones such as Best Steam Coal or Food Grade Anthracite. However, the way that there were far more users in relation to supplies in some areas, such as the south and east of the country, than others meant that some long hauls were unavoidable. Your merchant in Dorchester was liable to find that he couldn’t get supplies from the Bristol coalfield, due to its limited output, or even from South Wales as it was in demand, and might have to settle for coal from the Midlands. Very long hauls were unusual, although I have read of Food Grade Anthracite for the whisky industry at Keith coming from Ammanford.
There were occasions when BR had to effectively buy out a merchant in order to close a yard, but this was mostly because a contract had been signed agreeing to lease an area of ground or deliver wagons for a number of years. If BR wanted to close the yard before the end of the agreed period the trader could claim that he had invested in his facilities and BR should buy him out/pay him compensation/offer him an alternative and costs (you can bet he would). Such was the speed of change in the 1960s that it was worth paying out to close the yard, but earlier on it was probably seen as too much trouble.
There were occasions when BR had to effectively buy out a merchant in order to close a yard, but this was mostly because a contract had been signed agreeing to lease an area of ground or deliver wagons for a number of years. If BR wanted to close the yard before the end of the agreed period the trader could claim that he had invested in his facilities and BR should buy him out/pay him compensation/offer him an alternative and costs (you can bet he would). Such was the speed of change in the 1960s that it was worth paying out to close the yard, but earlier on it was probably seen as too much trouble.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Certainly , well into the 1970's best Welsh anthracite would be railed from GCG / Abernant to Nairn and other distant Scottish locations - they even made a whole train up on one occasion which caused some local interest.
Another factor was the increased use of water-borne coal for electricity generation - the likes of Battersea received a large % by "colliers" post war , as did many others in the London & SE region...........though gas coal stayed on rail pretty much to the end. 40% less use of rail for this coal by the 1950's , .............
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Whilst there is a lot of underlying truth in this, it still begs the question of why British Railways/Railway Executive/BTC had presumably been renewing, extending and granting new inflexible leases 'on the nod' ever since 1948.
The best option was to come up with a scheme that had benefits for the merchant as well as the Railway i.e. coal concentration depots. With mechanised handling and a range of grades/sizes of coal alway in stock it could be a lot easier than ordering up the odd '16-ton mineral' of coal, one at a time and then shovelling it out by hand in the pouring rain once it arrived. As well as being constantly hassled by the local stationmaster or goods agent about demurrage on detained wagons.
BR could benefit from a block load from Toton or Severn Tunnel Junction, etc. (if not a complete trainload) and there could be some negotiation on standard mileage rates. Wagon detention, after hopper discharge, could be minimal.
But it took years to come up with most scheme like this.