Beeching: The wonderful gift of hindsight.

[A0wen]

I have a personal favourite of mistakes he made in closures as Uckfield-Lewes which was primarly closed for a road to be built. Talking of roads the Transport Minister at the time was Ernest Marples chairman of Marples/Ridgway road construction contractors.

Half right - the Lewes relief road was approved by Marples - but the railway closure wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealden_Line

To facilitate the road scheme, the British Railways Board (BRB) applied to Parliament for authorisation to re-route the line to Lewes via the alignment which had been abandoned in 1868, the so-called "Hamsey Loop". Approval was granted by section 4 of the British Railways Act 1966 which permitted:
A railway (1,586 yards in length) wholly in the parish of Hamsey in the rural district of Chailey commencing by a junction with the railway between Lewes and Cooksbridge at a point 365 yards south of Hamsey level crossing and terminating by a junction with the railway between Lewes and Eridge at a point 425 yards north-east of the bridge carrying last-mentioned railway over the river Ouse.

The new route would cost £95,000 to construct, and a request for funding was submitted to Parliament in 1966. This was turned down and the strategic function of the Uckfield line as a link to the south coast was effectively lost. BRB saw little further use for the line and applied for its abandonment.

The Conservative government lost the General Election of 1964 to Labour. By 1966 the Transport Minister was Barbara Castle, who also approved the closure of the GC Mainline (which was not recommended or proposed by Beeching).

 

[Madge Wildfire]

post-Beeching hindsight, much of the railway network around Yorkshire would still be in use. A couple of lines I'd expect still to be going:

Bradford-Thornhill Lees via Cleckheaton
Leeds-Mirfield via Heckmondwike (Leeds New Line)
Laisterdyke-Idle
Bradford-Halifax via Queensbury
Keighley-Halifax via Queensbury
Cross Gates-Harrogate via Wetherby
Skipton-Colne
Ilkley-Skipton
Pool in Wharfedale-Ilkley via Otley
Menston-Otley
Wetherby-Church Fenton via Tadcaster
Harrogate-Northallerton via Ripon
Scarborough-Middlesbrough via Whitby West Cliff
York-Hull via Beverley
Selby-Driffield
Garforth-Castleford
Sheffield-Manchester via Woodhead
Normanton-Swinton via Cudworth
Barnsley-Doncaster

Are you sure some of these would pay their way?

Keighley to Halifax?
Ilkley to Skipton?
Harrogate to Northallerton?

I can see the Scarborough - Whitby as a tourist route, but would there be many on the trains between November and April?

Even Bradford to Halifax via Queensbury, much as I would love to travel over that route, and to Keighley, would be stretched to generate the passengers.

 

[D365]

I've been reading through the various Beeching reports, my thought is that if cheaper light rail vehicles such as the PPM 60 (or larger variants) had been developed in the 50s, we would see a lot more branch lines in revenue earning passenger service. I love how Marples was forced to sell his road construction company and did... to his wife!

 

[John55]

I've been reading through the various Beeching reports, my thought is that if cheaper light rail vehicles such as the PPM 60 (or larger variants) had been developed in the 50s, we would see a lot more branch lines in revenue earning passenger service. I love how Marples was forced to sell his road construction company and did... to his wife!

You mean like these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Railbuses

 

[HSTEd]

I do wonder if the pay-train concept, combined with more multiple units, could have saved woodhead as an electrically hauled passenger route through to 1981, and possibly beyond then as a partially singled 25kV route. (Since the conductors on 25kV routes, using AWAC, were far cheaper than the scrapped 1500V conductor and most of the same masts could be used).

 

[Welshman]

I do wonder if the pay-train concept, combined with more multiple units, could have saved woodhead as an electrically hauled passenger route through to 1981, and possibly beyond then as a partially singled 25kV route. (Since the conductors on 25kV routes, using AWAC, were far cheaper than the scrapped 1500V conductor and most of the same masts could be used).

You have a good point here - the infrastructure was stilll sound [the New Woodhead tunnel only being completed in 1953, some 28 years before it was closed completely]. Sheffield Victoria could still have been closed if deemed necessary, as trains from Huddersfield used the line for a while from Penistone to reach Sheffield Midland by reversing at Nunnery Junction, so it would have been just a task of extending the catenary from there into one or two platforms at Midland.

The one major thing missing was a positive attitude. By the time of its closure, Woodhead was seen as a freight route only,and there was too much freight capacity over the Pennines in 1981. And that was that. There was little or no regard for possible passenger potential.

 

[John55]

You have a good point here - the infrastructure was stilll sound [the New Woodhead tunnel only being completed in 1953, some 28 years before it was closed completely]. Sheffield Victoria could still have been closed if deemed necessary, as trains from Huddersfield used the line for a while from Penistone to reach Sheffield Midland by reversing at Nunnery Junction, so it would have been just a task of extending the catenary from there into one or two platforms at Midland.

The one major thing missing was a positive attitude. By the time of its closure, Woodhead was seen as a freight route only,and there was too much freight capacity over the Pennines in 1981. And that was that. There was little or no regard for possible passenger potential.

What passenger potential? There was never a local electric service through the tunnel which is a bit of an indicator of lack of business.

The through services are now running via the Hope Valley line and are now faster than the service from Sheffield Victoria to Piccadilly were so adding a reversal is unlikely to improve that.

All the current services go beyond any electrification that existed 30 years ago so would have required at best a change of loco. In the old days steam locos were changed a lot so the penalty was not noticable but it would be now.

So how would replacing the OHLE (partially), the power supply, the traction and electrifying into Sheffield Midland be worthwhile?

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm fairly convinced that the only way that the Woodhead would have survived would have involved de-wiring it in the early 80s and using diesel traction on all services.

 

[tbtc]

By the time of its closure, Woodhead was seen as a freight route only,and there was too much freight capacity over the Pennines in 1981. And that was that. There was little or no regard for possible passenger potential.

What passenger potential? There was never a local electric service through the tunnel which is a bit of an indicator of lack of business.

The through services are now running via the Hope Valley line and are now faster than the service from Sheffield Victoria to Piccadilly

The problem being that services through the Hope Valley are limited by the amount of freight services (esp the cement to/from Hope - hence the Northern service running twice as often at weekends, when there are fewer freight trains around).

Does that qualify as irony?

 

[Tiny Tim]

In the old days steam locos were changed a lot so the penalty was not noticable but it would be now.

Really? How 'old' are these days? Steam locos ran for 12 to 16 days between boiler washouts in the 1950s, the crews were changed more often than the locos.

 

[D1009]

I've played this game before; It seems that Messrs Flanders & Swann jumped the gun a bit with the lyrics of 'Slow Train'. Presumably they took the station names from the original report rather than actual closures. Still a beautifully evocative song, though.

The song was released on record in 1964, though may have been written earlier, in any event before many of the Beeching cuts had been implemented. I heard it was inspired by them looking at the index to stations of an old Bradshaw, hence "Armley Moor Arram" at the end.

It was introduced :

"No, I think I agree with the old lady who said, "if God had intended us to fly, He would never have given us the railways!" So we've written a song about the railways instead.
Unusual song this for us, perhaps, because it's really quite a serious song, and it was suggested by all those marvelous old local railway stations with their wonderful evocative names, all due to be, you know, axed and done away with one by one, and these are stations that we shall no longer be seeing when we aren't able to travel anymore on the slow train."

Thankfully some survived and some have been reopened.

 

[Welshman]

What passenger potential? There was never a local electric service through the tunnel which is a bit of an indicator of lack of business.

The through services are now running via the Hope Valley line and are now faster than the service from Sheffield Victoria to Piccadilly were so adding a reversal is unlikely to improve that.

So how would replacing the OHLE (partially), the power supply, the traction and electrifying into Sheffield Midland be worthwhile?

With respect, you are the one mentioning a "local electric service". The OP, with whom I was agreeing, simply mentioned a "Pay-train concept with more multiple units". I did not take that as implying they would have to stop at every station on the route!

My 1962 Eastern Region Timetable does show some longer-distance trains going/originating beyond Sheffield Victoria, but there were also quite a number of trains shuttling between Manchester-Sheffield and vv. only, giving Manchester-Sheffield a basic hourly service. I think these were a "local electric service"

The best times for these, calling at Guide Bridge and Penistone only, were 53-55 minutes. Compare that with today's best times via the Hope Valley of 52-54 minutes, then there is nothing in it. But these Woodhead timings were achieved in 1962! Think what they could have been now had that line seen the same amount of investment in line improvements as we have seen on the Hope Valley line. And yet despite these improvements, we are now just managing the same times between Manchester and Sheffield as were enjoyed over Woodhead 50 years ago.

 

[LE Greys]

With respect, you are the one mentioning a "local electric service". The OP, with whom I was agreeing, simply mentioned a "Pay-train concept with more multiple units". I did not take that as implying they would have to stop at every station on the route!

My 1962 Eastern Region Timetable does show some longer-distance trains going/originating beyond Sheffield Victoria, but there were also quite a number of trains shuttling between Manchester-Sheffield and vv. only, giving Manchester-Sheffield a basic hourly service. I think these were a "local electric service"

The best times for these, calling at Guide Bridge and Penistone only, were 53-55 minutes. Compare that with today's best times via the Hope Valley of 52-54 minutes, then there is nothing in it. But these Woodhead timings were achieved in 1962! Think what they could have been now had that line seen the same amount of investment in line improvements as we have seen on the Hope Valley line. And yet despite these improvements, we are now just managing the same times between Manchester and Sheffield as were enjoyed over Woodhead 50 years ago.

Surely a bigger problem was that it was non-standard. The cost of rewiring the whole route for 25 kV was probably a bit higher than was worthwhile for the route. Another problem was the loss of coal traffic. I don't remember the actual closure date, but wasn't it after Thatcher decided to start closing down coal mines. Pity though, it would have made a useful diversionary route for the WCML, and imagine pairs of 86/5s (introduced a bit early) replacing the EM1s. It also might have been a good incentive to wire the Midland in the '80s.

 

[Pen Mill]

Woodhead closed finally in 1981 . Passenger services were stopped much earlier in 1970.
The main Thatcher/Scargill spat was in 1984/5 but I believe it was indeed a downturn in Trans-Pennine coal traffic that brought about the closure of the line.

Great shame !

I think I read once that the masts carrying the 1500v DC overhead weren't suitable for 25 Kva so an upgrade would've been a virtual new build , I could be wrong.

 

[Waverley125]

Are you sure some of these would pay their way?

Keighley to Halifax?
Ilkley to Skipton?
Harrogate to Northallerton?

I can see the Scarborough - Whitby as a tourist route, but would there be many on the trains between November and April?

Even Bradford to Halifax via Queensbury, much as I would love to travel over that route, and to Keighley, would be stretched to generate the passengers.

Keighley-Halifax and Pool-Otley-Ilkley-Skipton would likely be heavy freight routes, as they would allow trains to access the S&C while avoiding Leeds or the heavily-used lines into Leeds from the South & West.

Leeds-Wetherby-Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton would provide an alternative route to the north, and an ability to run direct Leeds-Northallerton stoppers, serving several prime commuter towns, as well as enough pathing space for a regular semi-fast to Middlesbrough each hour (i.e. Leeds, Wetherby, Harrogate, Ripon, Northallerton, Yarm, Thornaby, Middlesbrough)

 

[billio]

Leeds-Wetherby-Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton would provide an alternative route to the north, and an ability to run direct Leeds-Northallerton stoppers, serving several prime commuter towns, as well as enough pathing space for a regular semi-fast to Middlesbrough each hour (i.e. Leeds, Wetherby, Harrogate, Ripon, Northallerton, Yarm, Thornaby, Middlesbrough)

In hindsight, closing the line north of Harrogate was a mistake, likewise the route to Leeds through Wetherby. Given the size of the population in these areas and the rather well-off population I am sure services would be quite heavily used, especially if there were TPE or EC trains running on the lines. However, extra trains on these lines would just add to the pressure on Leeds station and it's approaches..

 

[Waverley125]

billio-I totally agree. Had beeching not happened, we would most likely have seen a serious upgrade of the East Leeds Line long before now, including widening the Marsh Lane viaduct and a new station at Marsh Lane.

 

[billio]

billio-I totally agree. Had beeching not happened, we would most likely have seen a serious upgrade of the East Leeds Line long before now, including widening the Marsh Lane viaduct and a new station at Marsh Lane.

A station nearer to the bus station would have been useful, say on York Street. That's just as convenient for many parts of the centre of Leeds as the main station is.

 

[341o2]

The song was released on record in 1964, though may have been written earlier, in any event before many of the Beeching cuts had been implemented. I heard it was inspired by them looking at the index to stations of an old Bradshaw, hence "Armley Moor Arram" at the end.

It was introduced :

"No, I think I agree with the old lady who said, "if God had intended us to fly, He would never have given us the railways!" So we've written a song about the railways instead.
Unusual song this for us, perhaps, because it's really quite a serious song, and it was suggested by all those marvelous old local railway stations with their wonderful evocative names, all due to be, you know, axed and done away with one by one, and these are stations that we shall no longer be seeing when we aren't able to travel anymore on the slow train."

Thankfully some survived and some have been reopened.

Yes, the the song was inspired by station names, there really was a Troublehouse Halt. Thankfully

"Noone departs, Noone arrives
......................................
From St Erth to St Ives" Did not happen

The Beeching report began to be put into practice in 1964, such as the withdrawal of the Atlantic Coast Express

 

[bailey65]

Whatever the arguments about beeching closed railways are to me a sign of industrial and economic decline and decay,that pretty much fits the picture of what is happening in this country today.

 

[John55]

Whatever the arguments about beeching closed railways are to me a sign of industrial and economic decline and decay,that pretty much fits the picture of what is happening in this country today.

I disagree. The closure of railways in the 1900 - 1970 period was the result of the recognition that in the UK we built far too many railways in the first place. When the railway had to face real competition from the end of the first world war onwards wholesale closures were inevitable because there were too many railways which never had enough traffic to generate enough income to maintain and renew them.

This tends to be supported by the tendency for old railways to survive but new ones close.

 

[Greenback]

I disagree. The closure of railways in the 1900 - 1970 period was the result of the recognition that in the UK we built far too many railways in the first place. When the railway had to face real competition from the end of the first world war onwards wholesale closures were inevitable because there were too many railways which never had enough traffic to generate enough income to maintain and renew them.

This tends to be supported by the tendency for old railways to survive but new ones close.

It's true that too many railways were built, and the Railway Mania age is, I think, a fine indication of the capitalist system - everyone jumps on the bandwagon of a scheme that is designed to make money, but after a certain point so many are in on the act that the bubble inevitably bursts.

I agree that some of the lines built never made any money at all, and if you look at the railway network purely as a money making scheme, then far more of them should have been closed.

Fortunately, very few people tend to view railways purely in terms of their profitability, and I hope that continues to be the case.

 

[LE Greys]

It's true that too many railways were built, and the Railway Mania age is, I think, a fine indication of the capitalist system - everyone jumps on the bandwagon of a scheme that is designed to make money, but after a certain point so many are in on the act that the bubble inevitably bursts.

I agree that some of the lines built never made any money at all, and if you look at the railway network purely as a money making scheme, then far more of them should have been closed.

Fortunately, very few people tend to view railways purely in terms of their profitability, and I hope that continues to be the case.

A lot of the companies were spending money outmanoeuvring each other rather than looking for profit. The Caledonian and North British were very well known for this, and Fife was absolutely riddled with lines because of this. There are a few current lines cobbled together from bits of others, the whole Aberdeen Road for a start, where there is a milepost in the station showing the mileage from Carlisle by a route that no longer exists! Sometimes, parts of the newer route are actually better - although I won't go into the GCR vs Midland debate here - for instance the LSWR route to Exeter was almost always quicker than the GWR route up until the Western Region got hold of it. An incumbent route tends to do better.

 

[Greenback]

A lot of the companies were spending money outmanoeuvring each other rather than looking for profit. The Caledonian and North British were very well known for this, and Fife was absolutely riddled with lines because of this. There are a few current lines cobbled together from bits of others, the whole Aberdeen Road for a start, where there is a milepost in the station showing the mileage from Carlisle by a route that no longer exists! Sometimes, parts of the newer route are actually better - although I won't go into the GCR vs Midland debate here - for instance the LSWR route to Exeter was almost always quicker than the GWR route up until the Western Region got hold of it. An incumbent route tends to do better.

Most history books go into detail about the people who proposed new lines in the very early days of the Railway Age. They were normally interested in profits first and foremost. Some promised rather fanciful levels of dividends to those who invested in their schemes.

It usually became clear fairly quickly that the costs were underestimated and traffic expectations overestimated. It was this that caused the mergers, amalgamations and buy outs that led to the competition between the strongest of the companies to survive.

Sorry if I didn't make it clear that I was talking about the first few decades of railways, rather than the late 19th and early 20th century periods.

 

[SemaphoreSam]

Well, many small, abandoned lines were very profitable up until, say the 19 teens and 20's, when trams, buses and cars started to compete. As with canals, anticipated profit doesn't usually account for technological change. Interestingly, rail went down in usage, but now, with the price of fuel, electrification, etc, it is relatively more efficient now. If the costs of roads were borne by car/lorry owners, by weight and length of trip, as is now becoming possible by smart readers, rail will become even more attractive...it's much cheaper to maintain a line of rail, than a 6 lane road. Sam

 

[tbtc]

I disagree. The closure of railways in the 1900 - 1970 period was the result of the recognition that in the UK we built far too many railways in the first place. When the railway had to face real competition from the end of the first world war onwards wholesale closures were inevitable because there were too many railways which never had enough traffic to generate enough income to maintain and renew them.

This tends to be supported by the tendency for old railways to survive but new ones close.

True.

Since we were the first country (or one of the first) to build many railways, and they were built privately (rather than in an organised manner) there were plenty of duplicate lines, even in rural areas, so plenty of waste to be removed in Beeching's eyes.

If you were starting today with a blank sheet of paper you'd do things very differently to the muddle of lines that were built.

 

[John55]

Fortunately, very few people tend to view railways purely in terms of their profitability, and I hope that continues to be the case.

While this is probably the view of all or most of us on this forum it does come at a price. That price is the begging bowl to the taxpayer to keep the show on the road.

I was quite surprised a few years ago to find how little hostility there was in the general attitude to the "Beeching Plan" when it was published. The view even in some enthusiast magazines was that "something had to be done and thank goodness someone has come up with an idea". Hence the plans went through more or less as proposed.

The attitude to particular items was much more hostile when a route was to close of course.

Since 1970 there has never been a time when closing railways had any level of popular support or even the indifference of 1962 so the Treasury has reluctantly coughed up enough money to keep the railway going. We have not had to take really hard a decision on the lines of "the hospitals or the railways" yet but if it comes to that I doubt the railways will do well. (I count Treasury and Local government support as income by the way not just ticket sales.)

On a different aspect of this thread the Flanders and Swan song was inspired by a piece in the Guardian newspaper according to an article in the Railway Mag a few years ago. The author had traced one of the oddities in the song to something in that article and that article only.

 

[tbtc]

We have not had to take really hard a decision on the lines of "the hospitals or the railways" yet but if it comes to that I doubt the railways will do well

TBH I'm amazed that the current Government (which is making bit cuts in public spending) is finding money for large railway investment, when the last Government (which sloshed money around the public sector happily) spent much less- I honestly expected railways would be an easy cut for the coalition.

 

[yorksrob]

I disagree. The closure of railways in the 1900 - 1970 period was the result of the recognition that in the UK we built far too many railways in the first place. When the railway had to face real competition from the end of the first world war onwards wholesale closures were inevitable because there were too many railways which never had enough traffic to generate enough income to maintain and renew them.

This tends to be supported by the tendency for old railways to survive but new ones close.

To an extent - although it's hard to think of any closure between 1968-70 that isn't regrettable nowadays.

 

[LE Greys]

To an extent - although it's hard to think of any closure between 1968-70 that isn't regrettable nowadays.

Well, maybe. The Hull and Barnsley was a bit of a pointless route. Originally built as an out-flanking move because of the North Eastern's complete control of traffic into Hull, it almost exactly duplicates several parts of the previous route (quite deliberately). That was run down long before Beeching, but actual closure did not happen until after the report. The stub branch to Drax incorporates part of the route, along with part of the Selby-Goole line, which was arguably more useful in that it allowed traffic from Grimsby to avoid Doncaster when heading towards Leeds or York.