Did Beeching get it right in Scotland?

[matchmaker]

Passenger services on the Airdrie-Bathgate-Bathgate Junction (now Newbridge Jn) route were withdrawn as long ago as 1954....well before Beeching.

The line was still open as a through route as late as the early 1970s - it was used for Sunday diversions when Edinburgh - Glasgow via Falkirk was being readied for the 2x27 push pull services.

 

[Rescars]

That rings a bell from the 80s, I holidayed in the general area on several occasions then and am starting to remember road signs to "Gatehouse Station" and it being someway from the town. Obviously the railway was long gone by then (earliest trip 1982, latest 1990) but presumably a small settlement of that name had grown up round the station.

There are quite a few towns in the area, and the nearest surviving stations are a considerable distance away, so in some ways - with the NI boat traffic too - it's surprising that it couldn't sustain a rail service.

Gatehouse station was seriously remote - seven miles or so up a road to nowhere! Unlike New Galloway (Mossdale), remarkably there was no settlement at Gatehouse station beyond a couple of railway cottages. While the railway remained open there was a chapel however - this was accommodated in a carriage shorn of its bogies. The final vehicle used for this purpose was the Great Northern Royal saloon dating from 1889. This was installed in Feb 1965, but was only in use for three months before the line was closed and was then broken up. A sad end to an historic vehicle.

 

[D6130]

The line was still open as a through route as late as the early 1970s - it was used for Sunday diversions when Edinburgh - Glasgow via Falkirk was being readied for the 2x27 push pull services.

Yes indeed....it didn't close as a through route until 1982. I was a passenger on the final Railtour, hauled by 40 084.

 

[Taunton]

There was actually quite a lot of continuing freight on the Bathgate line, of course including various coal mines along the way. The British Leyland van factory at Bathgate, a government initiative for a declining mining area, used to have parts in and completed vehicles out, by rail.

One of the features of these areas of Scotland, which I noticed when in Edinburgh in the 1970s, was a continuing insularity, local shops and employment met most needs, but also a considerable and well-developed bus service all around which handled what demand there was, which had long proved more convenient than an intermittent rail service. To take Bathgate to Edinburgh, the rail service, operated as a sort of obscure extension of the Glasgow Queen Street Low Level suburban Airdrie line, ever since WW2 had been (surprisingly) just a few trains a day, with intervals of 3 to 4 hours, until they let go altogether in the mid-1950s. The bus was every 15 minutes, not only that but on busy Saturday afternoons there were often two or even three buses on each departure. The railway had clearly long given up.
.

 

[30907]

One of the features of these areas of Scotland, which I noticed when in Edinburgh in the 1970s, was a continuing insularity, local shops and employment met most needs, but also a considerable and well-developed bus service all around which handled what demand there was, which had long proved more convenient than an intermittent rail service. ... The bus was every 15 minutes, not only that but on busy Saturday afternoons there were often two or even three buses on each departure. ....

Self-sufficiency and frequent buses - a description which could apply to large areas of urban Northern England at the time, with similar consequences for train services.
(And in that context, Beeching's proposals broadly made reasonable sense.)

(Rather OT, but reflecting on my own youth in middle-class suburban London: Dad commuted, by train of course, but shopping trips etc. went no further than Bromley or occasionally Beckenham on the bus, not much over a mile - with an annual trip to the lights of Croydon for Christmas shopping (!); by comparison, my daily 5-mile train journey to secondary school was long distance!)

 

[Dr Hoo]

I know that this thread is looking through the traditional prism of Dr Beeching's passenger closure proposals. But a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned the Glasgow-Gourock/Wemyss Bay electrification; new liner train terminals for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen; and some of the earliest merry-go-round coal services for Cockenzie and Longannet power stations.

The Good Doctor clearly admired Scotland's management, with the GM, James Ness, being invited to join him at BRBHQ to work up the Development of Major Trunk Routes document of 1965. Who better to take an informed view of whether most Anglo-Scottish traffic needed more the WCML and whether development (or even retention) of Newcastle-Edinburgh, the Glasgow & South Western and the Waverley Route was also justified at the time?

 

[Taunton]

I know that this thread is looking through the traditional prism of Dr Beeching's passenger closure proposals. But a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned the Glasgow-Gourock/Wemyss Bay electrification; new liner train terminals for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen; and some of the earliest merry-go-round coal services for Cockenzie and Longannet power stations.

Alas "merry-go-round" in name only. Although it had the modern HAA hoppers, the actual operation was sad. Part of that time in Edinburgh described above involved the new mainstream colliery in the east of Scotland, Bilston Glen, which was a principal source for Cockenzie power station, it was Scotland's newest (1950s-60s) and largest colliery, but of any "going-round" there was none, the wagons were broken up and tripped through the loading bunker by an NCB shunter, reassembled, coupled Class 20s came down light engine, and took the train a couple of miles, to Millerhill yard, where it was parked up (among the dumped Clayton Class 17s).

Later, further locos came along and took it another couple of miles to the power station, which again was a dead end, no loop. You could actually see the power station from the colliery, but despite all the investment, and a very considerable number of hoppers in the fleet, productivity seemed just like the old days. It wasn't like they achieved in Yorkshire at all. Articles about Longannet power station, much supplied from Ayrshire, seemed just the same. I reckoned at the time you could run Cockenzie entire power station with one single rake of hoppers from its two main collieries.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Alas "merry-go-round" in name only. Although it had the modern HAA hoppers, the actual operation was sad. Part of that time in Edinburgh described above involved the new mainstream colliery in the east of Scotland, Bilston Glen, which was a principal source for Cockenzie power station, it was Scotland's newest (1950s-60s) and largest colliery, but of any "going-round" there was none, the wagons were broken up and tripped through the loading bunker by an NCB shunter, reassembled, coupled Class 20s came down light engine, and took the train a couple of miles, to Millerhill yard, where it was parked up (among the dumped Clayton Class 17s).

Later, further locos came along and took it another couple of miles to the power station, which again was a dead end, no loop. You could actually see the power station from the colliery, but despite all the investment, and a very considerable number of hoppers in the fleet, productivity seemed just like the old days. It wasn't like they achieved in Yorkshire at all. Articles about Longannet power station, much supplied from Ayrshire, seemed just the same. I reckoned at the time you could run Cockenzie entire power station with one single rake of hoppers from its two main collieries.

A lot of truth there.

As was always the case, it ‘took three to tango’ with MGR - NCB, BR and CEGB/SSEB. At least BR did their bit with the wagons (and the larger Longannet had a nice loop). Not sure that Dr B could have done more on his own, in his time.

 

[Taunton]

A lot of truth there.

As was always the case, it ‘took three to tango’ with MGR - NCB, BR and CEGB/SSEB. At least BR did their bit with the wagons (and the larger Longannet had a nice loop). Not sure that Dr B could have done more on his own, in his time.

Well known magazine photographer and enthusiast Derek Cross wrote an article about getting a ride on an Ayrshire to Longannet "MGR" train, just the same, had taken the previous day to load at the colliery by an NCB loco, ran to Longannet via Stirling, didn't even go round the loop but afterwards carried on to Dunfermline and was stabled.

Beeching seemed good at getting substantial funds out of the government for modernisation, but here were three separate modernisation big spends squandered; the new Millerhill marshalling yard built on the Waverley line which closed as it was completed and was never really used; the Clayton Class 17 diesels which never worked properly, and the "merry-go-round" that wasn't. Contrast with the very successful Edinburgh-Glasgow high speed push-pull, done on a shoestring with secondhand locos and coaches gathered together.

 

[eldomtom2]

I know that this thread is looking through the traditional prism of Dr Beeching's passenger closure proposals. But a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned the Glasgow-Gourock/Wemyss Bay electrification; new liner train terminals for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen; and some of the earliest merry-go-round coal services for Cockenzie and Longannet power stations.

The Good Doctor clearly admired Scotland's management, with the GM, James Ness, being invited to join him at BRBHQ to work up the Development of Major Trunk Routes document of 1965. Who better to take an informed view of whether most Anglo-Scottish traffic needed more the WCML and whether development (or even retention) of Newcastle-Edinburgh, the Glasgow & South Western and the Waverley Route was also justified at the time?

Out of curiosity, is there anything Beeching did that you think was a mistake?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Out of curiosity, is there anything Beeching did that you think was a mistake?

A very fair and interesting question! As a child I was sad that the line that ran closest to where I lived had its passenger service withdrawn. I had enjoyed my trips with mum on virtually empty trains when we were the only ones joining or alighting at the local station. I had enjoyed being invited into the booking office to keep warm as we waited for our train (because the staff didn't bother lighting a fire in the proper waiting room as so few people would use it).

But once I'd grown up a bit and commuted on a steam train to school on another route and seen electrification going on in the Birmingham area I understood that the railway was modernising and offered a great long-term career - joining BR as a teenager in the early 1970s. The careers master realised that I might not be university material but clearly understood railways. Reading magazines such as Modern Railways and books by G Freeman-Allen helped me make sense of what Dr B's strategy had been and how coherent it was. I also quickly realised that his name had become a lightning conductor for any expression of dissatisfaction with the railways and any aspect of policy surrounding them (even if the topic in question dated from before he came on the scene or after he had left or came from outside parties such as local authorities or governments after the one that had appointed him and given him his remit). I am also not one to revel in 20/20 hindsight about whether he should have anticipated economic, political, demographic and environmental changes over the subsequent 60 years.

Does that help to satisfy your curiosity?

(And just to remain within the spirit of this thread's title; I did enjoy over eight years working for BR in Scotland and gained a great insight into the country and its transport needs.)

 

[eldomtom2]

Does that help to satisfy your curiosity?

It avoids answering the question!

 

[Sun Chariot]

Out of curiosity, is there anything Beeching did that you think was a mistake?

Personally, the only decision I think was wrong at the time, was complete removal of Alloa's passenger services. The other decisions I believe were fair, driven by the need to cut losses and reduce the level of required investment.

Where we've seen reopened lines, that - in my view - has been driven by a level of growth in housing / demand which, at the time, would not have been clearly foreseeable.

 

[RT4038]

It avoids answering the question!

I think you can take it that the answer is, by and large, no.

It is very difficult, well nigh impossible, to objectively critique the work of Beeching from this distance of time without (a) falling foul of hindsight, and (b) failing to take into account the macro circumstances of the time that the work was undertaken.

I do get deja vu that we are heading for another similar exercise, of the current level of railway costs getting too expensive for the public purse and other social spending / living standard issues taking priority.

 

[jadmor]

There was actually quite a lot of continuing freight on the Bathgate line, of course including various coal mines along the way. The British Leyland van factory at Bathgate, a government initiative for a declining mining area, used to have parts in and completed vehicles out, by rail.

One of the features of these areas of Scotland, which I noticed when in Edinburgh in the 1970s, was a continuing insularity, local shops and employment met most needs, but also a considerable and well-developed bus service all around which handled what demand there was, which had long proved more convenient than an intermittent rail service. To take Bathgate to Edinburgh, the rail service, operated as a sort of obscure extension of the Glasgow Queen Street Low Level suburban Airdrie line, ever since WW2 had been (surprisingly) just a few trains a day, with intervals of 3 to 4 hours, until they let go altogether in the mid-1950s. The bus was every 15 minutes, not only that but on busy Saturday afternoons there were often two or even three buses on each departure. The railway had clearly long given up.
.

I can agree with that sentiment. My timetables for 1968 show a very patchy service of more or less 1 train an hour from Rosyth at a time when Eastern Scottish were running 2 buses an hour from Edinburgh to Dunfermline with 1 continuing to Perth. By 1972, the rail service had at least become regular interval, albeit still only 1 train an hour. Even this level of service looks generous compared to what was on offer to the Border towns before closure.
Both the Edinburgh to Perth and Waverley lines suffered from being seen only as main lines- in which role they had become increasingly redundant- rather than as potential outer-suburban feeders into Edinburgh; if these lines had been singled and a reasonable regular interval service introduced, the example of the new Borders line suggests they would have been reasonably successful.

Here's an interesting topic I was thinking about when looking at a railway map after the Beeching cuts in Scotland, was Dr Beeching generally "right" with the majority of his proposals in Scotland? I suppose if you live in an area that would benefit from a station today perhaps you'd disagree with some cuts, but we I want to look at it in the context of the 1950s, before population changes and such like happened many decades later. The lack of foresight to safeguard routes is also a separate discussion.

With the exception of the Waverley line (as far as Hawick, IMO) and the Far North Line (which was thankfully was saved), were the majority of Beeching's proposals and eventual cuts in Scotland actually the right? I'd also be interested to know what closures he got wrong and the reasoning for why.

It would be hard to argue that the closure of, for example, the Glenogle line was a mistake, given the existence of an alternative route via the West Highland. On the other hand, is there much justification for keeping the Far North line open these days, given the major upgrades to the road to Wick/Thurso? It must be taking a lot in subsidy to keep it going.

 

[RT4038]

Both the Edinburgh to Perth and Waverley lines suffered from being seen only as main lines- in which role they had become increasingly redundant- rather than as potential outer-suburban feeders into Edinburgh; if these lines had been singled and a reasonable regular interval service introduced, the example of the new Borders line suggests they would have been reasonably successful.

Although this would have much less 'obvious' in 1968 though - the Borders line is very rural within a short distance of leaving Edinburgh, and then commuting from the border towns to Edinburgh would have been virtually unheard of - if you got in job in Edinburgh you'd have moved there. (Comparatively it was much easier then). To Eskbank/Dalkeith/Rosewell there was frequent Eastern Scottish buses - the 'suburban' service to Rosewell & Hawthornden had been withdrawn already (1963?)

 

[Western Sunset]

Compared to England and Wales, Scotland seemed to get off quite leniently. Especially with all the subsequent re-openings.

 

[jadmor]

I think you can take it that the answer is, by and large, no.

It is very difficult, well nigh impossible, to objectively critique the work of Beeching from this distance of time without (a) falling foul of hindsight, and (b) failing to take into account the macro circumstances of the time that the work was undertaken.

I do get deja vu that we are heading for another similar exercise, of the current level of railway costs getting too expensive for the public purse and other social spending / living standard issues taking priority.

My own (non expert) view is that the biggest mistake of the Beeching Era was the assumption that the railways could be operated without subsidy. Although cuts were necessary, and probably overdue , cuts alone were never going to make the railways operate at a profit - or not until the network had been cut to about 3 to 5,000 route miles. Barbara Castle finally realised that the cuts were not making much of a difference and agree to stabilise the network at around the 12 to 13,000 route mile mark.

A very fair and interesting question! As a child I was sad that the line that ran closest to where I lived had its passenger service withdrawn. I had enjoyed my trips with mum on virtually empty trains when we were the only ones joining or alighting at the local station. I had enjoyed being invited into the booking office to keep warm as we waited for our train (because the staff didn't bother lighting a fire in the proper waiting room as so few people would use it).

But once I'd grown up a bit and commuted on a steam train to school on another route and seen electrification going on in the Birmingham area I understood that the railway was modernising and offered a great long-term career - joining BR as a teenager in the early 1970s. The careers master realised that I might not be university material but clearly understood railways. Reading magazines such as Modern Railways and books by G Freeman-Allen helped me make sense of what Dr B's strategy had been and how coherent it was. I also quickly realised that his name had become a lightning conductor for any expression of dissatisfaction with the railways and any aspect of policy surrounding them (even if the topic in question dated from before he came on the scene or after he had left or came from outside parties such as local authorities or governments after the one that had appointed him and given him his remit). I am also not one to revel in 20/20 hindsight about whether he should have anticipated economic, political, demographic and environmental changes over the subsequent 60 years.

Does that help to satisfy your curiosity?

(And just to remain within the spirit of this thread's title; I did enjoy over eight years working for BR in Scotland and gained a great insight into the country and its transport needs.)

Given your experience as an insider, can I ask this question? Would it be at all fair to characterise the management of Scotland's passenger railways in the 60s as somewhat unimaginative, possibly even defeatist? I have mentioned elsewhere in this topic that by the early 70s, regular interval working was introduced in Fife and some Inverness services were running via Kirkcaldy. Could this not have been tried in 1968?

you might also have a view on why the service from Edinburgh to Perth via Fife was so poor in those years? One would expect that a line linking three large centres of population would have reasonable demand.

 

[eldomtom2]

It is very difficult, well nigh impossible, to objectively critique the work of Beeching from this distance of time without (a) falling foul of hindsight, and (b) failing to take into account the macro circumstances of the time that the work was undertaken.

This argument only works if you accept the same of Beeching's contemporary critics.

 

[The Puddock]

I've always thought Beeching closed the wrong line between Elgin and Keith. The ex GNoSR line via Craigellachie and Dufftown was a wee bit less direct but passed through more settlements and (at the time) generated more freight traffic, primarily from the various distilleries, than the ex Highland road via Lhanbryde and Mulben. The latter line also features the huge viaduct over the river Spey at Orton/Boat o' Brig which I would have thought BR would be very keen to get rid of. Of course, the line was retained for freight traffic from Keith as far as Dufftown but closed as a through route in 1968. I've never seen anything explaining the reasoning for choosing Mulben over Craigellachie and it would be interesting to find out the thinking behind it.

 

[Falcon1200]

I believe that Glasgow to Barrhead and Kilmarnock was also proposed for closure, anyone know the given reason it was saved?

Presumably in that case Kilmarnock/Dalry would have been retained instead. However Glasgow/Barrhead would surely have survived for suburban traffic, and the line onwards to Lugton would have had to be kept for the military traffic to Giffen, plus there were the stations at Dunlop and Stewarton (albeit these were actually closed for a short time!). So perhaps BR saw the Barrhead/Kilmarnock route as the better option to keep, reduced it to single track (since partially reversed of course) and closed Kilmarnock/Dalry instead.

 

[30907]

I've always thought Beeching closed the wrong line between Elgin and Keith. The ex GNoSR line via Craigellachie and Dufftown was a wee bit less direct but passed through more settlements and (at the time) generated more freight traffic, primarily from the various distilleries, than the ex Highland road via Lhanbryde and Mulben. The latter line also features the huge viaduct over the river Spey at Orton/Boat o' Brig which I would have thought BR would be very keen to get rid of. Of course, the line was retained for freight traffic from Keith as far as Dufftown but closed as a through route in 1968. I've never seen anything explaining the reasoning for choosing Mulben over Craigellachie and it would be interesting to find out the thinking behind it.

The post-Beeching service replicated the existing pattern of a direct Aberdeen-Inverness express service.
The Craigellachie route is a good 9 miles longer; it serves Keith better, but Dufftown was a mile out of town and Craigellachie isn't a metropolis , so you would have been adding a significant chunk to the through journey for relatively little benefit.

 

[McRhu]

Had the Hamilton-Stonehouse-Coalburn/Strathaven lines been retained, towns such as Stonehouse, Strathaven and Lesmahagow may have become desirable Glasgow commuter towns....but those lines were expensive to maintain - with several large steel viaducts - and the M74 came along less than ten years after closure in 1965. The line was of course reopened as far as Larkhall in recent years....but the demolished viaducts would preclude any reopening beyond there.

As a matter of interest, the Lesmahagow trackbed through Kirkmuirhill has recently been bulldozed to allow for housebuilding. I always hate seeing old routes erased, further extinguishing the faint hope of a future reopening. As regards Beeching I never forgave him for the Callander & Oban. Did he not also recommend closing the West Highland?

 

[Bevan Price]

I think that closure of some lines was inevitable, (indeed, some should never have been built), but in my opinion, Beeching made (or was forced to make) some dubious choices.
1. Some lines were making relatively small losses, but (as an outside observer) it was seemed that closure was "the best option" - few attempts seem to have been considered about how to reduce operating costs.
2. He seemed to have "a down" on route duplication, ignoring, for example, the need to have alternative routes for diversions, etc. So, could the Waverley route have been saved, but with some long single line sections, and closure of some of the least-used stations ?

 

[Helvellyn]

I think that closure of some lines was inevitable, (indeed, some should never have been built), but in my opinion, Beeching made (or was forced to make) some dubious choices.
1. Some lines were making relatively small losses, but (as an outside observer) it was seemed that closure was "the best option" - few attempts seem to have been considered about how to reduce operating costs.
2. He seemed to have "a down" on route duplication, ignoring, for example, the need to have alternative routes for diversions, etc. So, could the Waverley route have been saved, but with some long single line sections, and closure of some of the least-used stations ?

I think it's interesting how many routes retained loco-hauled services until Sprinterisation in the late 1980s and I wonder if the Waverley route (and the retained GSWR route) would have benefited from being operated by CrossCountry DMUs (or even something like the Class 123 InterCity units)?

I also wonder if the Waverley route could have been kept but close the route from Carstairs towards Edinburgh instead. But I'm not sure what that would have done to journey times.

 

[eldomtom2]

I think that closure of some lines was inevitable, (indeed, some should never have been built), but in my opinion, Beeching made (or was forced to make) some dubious choices.
1. Some lines were making relatively small losses, but (as an outside observer) it was seemed that closure was "the best option" - few attempts seem to have been considered about how to reduce operating costs.
2. He seemed to have "a down" on route duplication, ignoring, for example, the need to have alternative routes for diversions, etc. So, could the Waverley route have been saved, but with some long single line sections, and closure of some of the least-used stations ?

Beeching made his thoughts very clear in the Development of the Major Trunk Routes - there was no room for passenger service on branch lines in his vision of the future railway. Converting main lines into branch lines would be focusing on the part of the railway he wanted to eliminate.

 

[Eyersey468]

I think that closure of some lines was inevitable, (indeed, some should never have been built), but in my opinion, Beeching made (or was forced to make) some dubious choices.
1. Some lines were making relatively small losses, but (as an outside observer) it was seemed that closure was "the best option" - few attempts seem to have been considered about how to reduce operating costs.
2. He seemed to have "a down" on route duplication, ignoring, for example, the need to have alternative routes for diversions, etc. So, could the Waverley route have been saved, but with some long single line sections, and closure of some of the least-used stations ?

Whilst I agree some lines could have been saved if operating costs had been reduced, in 1963 how would the unions have reacted to staff reductions?

 

[eldomtom2]

Whilst I agree some lines could have been saved if operating costs had been reduced, in 1963 how would the unions have reacted to staff reductions?

Less badly than to line closures, I'd presume...

 

[Dr Hoo]

Beeching made his thoughts very clear in the Development of the Major Trunk Routes - there was no room for passenger service on branch lines in his vision of the future railway. Converting main lines into branch lines would be focusing on the part of the railway he wanted to eliminate.

I know that you are very attached to your interpretations of the Development of Major Trunk Routes document (most of which was apparently drafted by James Ness, previously General Manager of the Scottish Region rather than Dr B himself).
Could you remind us all where the document actually says anything like what you have written, please? (Page numbers will do for me.)

 

[eldomtom2]

Page 32:

The role of the railways will be to concentrate upon the provision of bulk transport over routes of heavy demand, and over medium to long distances. By so doing, they will be able to provide a cheaper alternative to air, on certain longer routes, and provide a faster and more comfortable alternative to road over intermediate and long distances, while leaving shorter distances and cross country journeys to coaches and the private car, which these forms of transport are able to cover more economically.