• 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!

Disused Railways: Should tracks have been lifted in the 60s?

Status
Not open for further replies.

New Girl

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2020
Messages
14
Location
Hayle Cornwall
Good morning, I'm not sure if I'm on the correct Forum or not, if not please forgive me
Dr Beeching sliced the Rail Network to bits in the 1960s and made a right pig's ear of it
After he closed all the Branch Lines, what on earth possessed the rail companies to lift the tracks
Surely they could have been left in place in case of emergencies or Heretage lines could have taken them over like they did with some
I'm thinking of the old Plymouth / Tavistock / Oakhampton branch because of the disaster in 2014, when the main line between Penzance and Paddington was washed away at Dawlish
If the Tavistock branch had still been in place Cornwall would not have been cut off for weeks
I have heard that there are people who want to reopen this branch and, as far as I have heard Devon County Council are backing the scheme to reopen the branch
The section from Oakhampton to Exeter is still in place
Another line that should never have been ripped up is the old line from Scarborough to whitby, and Pickering to Malton
If both these lines had been retained surely the NYMR could have earned quite a large ammount of money running services from Malton, via Pickering to Whitby and down to Scarborough
Another line that was earmarked for closer was the Esk Valley Line but it was saved
I would be interested to hear people's views on this
Sharon
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,867
Location
Airedale
Welcome to the forum!
It is good to have diversionary routes but unfortunately, you cannot simply "leave tracks in place" for emergencies.
The track has to be maintained so that the rails stay straight (or curved) and level; otherwise wooden sleeper rot unnoticed and weeds become small trees.
You also have to maintain some points and keep some sort of signalling and telecoms, not to mention all the bridges.
And you have to keep the line secure, otherwise, sadly, wires and even rails start to disappear and buildings get vandalised.
All that costs a lot of money, which is why British Railways (and their private predecessors) tended to sell the rail for scrap (or reuse it, if it was good enough) and sometimes sell off the land.

There have been lots of discussions on here about the Tavistock line, I'll let you search for them!
As for the Whitby lines - the Esk Valley survived basically because it was impossible to provide a reliable bus service for school pupils. The Scarborough line suffered from bus competition.
Unfortunately, there wasn't a railway right through from Pickering to Malton, it joined the main line a few miles outside the town.

Hope that helps!
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,073
As stated above just leaving the tracks in place isn't practical but, with hindsight, it would have been desirable to preserve the underlying rights of way for some lines.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,825
Location
Yorks
Interestingly the Bicester - Bletchley line spent a fair amount of time mothballed in place earlier in this century after the freight traffic dried up.

Doubtless this has made EW rail reopening a lot easier than would have been the case had the route been sold off and built on, as per practice in the 1960's.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,688
Location
Devon
Good morning, I'm not sure if I'm on the correct Forum or not, if not please forgive me
Dr Beeching sliced the Rail Network to bits in the 1960s and made a right pig's ear of it
After he closed all the Branch Lines, what on earth possessed the rail companies to lift the tracks
Surely they could have been left in place in case of emergencies or Heretage lines could have taken them over like they did with some
I'm thinking of the old Plymouth / Tavistock / Oakhampton branch because of the disaster in 2014, when the main line between Penzance and Paddington was washed away at Dawlish
If the Tavistock branch had still been in place Cornwall would not have been cut off for weeks
I have heard that there are people who want to reopen this branch and, as far as I have heard Devon County Council are backing the scheme to reopen the branch
The section from Oakhampton to Exeter is still in place
Another line that should never have been ripped up is the old line from Scarborough to whitby, and Pickering to Malton
If both these lines had been retained surely the NYMR could have earned quite a large ammount of money running services from Malton, via Pickering to Whitby and down to Scarborough
Another line that was earmarked for closer was the Esk Valley Line but it was saved
I would be interested to hear people's views on this
Sharon


If you have a free day to spare reading through the 1095 posts on this thread (oh and you don’t mind reading the odd bit of heated debate ;)), you’ll find pretty much most of the Okehampton route arguments here:
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,462
The reason tracks were lifted and land sold off was to raise cash. As the pressures on the public sector emerged in the late 1950's/early 1960's, all nationalised industries were increasingly kept cash poor and had to liquidate surplus assets relatively quickly to help balance the books.

On BR the Regional rationalisation sections lasted until at least the 1970's.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,274
Presumably some of the track from minor branch lines was reused elsewhere, even if only in sidings and yards?
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
Presumably some of the track from minor branch lines was reused elsewhere, even if only in sidings and yards?
Possibly so, but remember that back in the early 1960s very few of the branch lines and secondary routes would include 'modern' material like flat-bottomed rail and concrete sleepers that could be re-used in any quantities. Especially in an era when the goods yard and marshalling yard were also fading away in the switch to block trains, new container terminals and so forth. Far fewer sidings were needed.
Much of the kit would have been pre-war and probably nearly life expired in terms of rust and rot if not actual wear and tear on lightly used lines.
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
The big mistake was not maintaining the right of way. The universities line (East West Rail) is a classic example of where this would have bennefitted the reopening of a line.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,083
You have to remember that if the track hadn't been lifted, the local scrappies would have done it anyway. Protecting an abandoned line is expensive and a waste of resources.
But the key thing is that at the time cash was king - and BR were under instructions to liquidate assets and raise as much cash as possible. Scrap as much steel and other metals as possible, demolish buildings and sell the stone, sell unused or abandoned land, and get rid of as many cash liabilities as possible, such as bridges.
If getting rid brought in cash, then it happened
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,995
As stated above just leaving the tracks in place isn't practical but, with hindsight, it would have been desirable to preserve the underlying rights of way for some lines.
The big mistake was not maintaining the right of way. The universities line (East West Rail) is a classic example of where this would have bennefitted the reopening of a line.
As well as rights of way this should have extended to infrastructure, where on some routes bridges/viaducts were seemingly demolished with indecent haste or embankments swept away. What hasn't helped is where in various parts of the country old track formations were happily reassigned for road use, e.g. for the A66 alongside Bassenthwaite Lake or parts of the A34 in Berkshire/Hampshire.

I know you can't preserve everything in the hope of future re-use, but equally a lot of it seemed haphazard. In many cases this safeguarding has been removed in relatively recent times.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,083
The big mistake was not maintaining the right of way. The universities line (East West Rail) is a classic example of where this would have bennefitted the reopening of a line.

50 years of non-use of an unrequired asset, maintaining of which would have been a sinkhole recurring cost.
Was it really a mistake? Unfortunate maybe, mistake no.
 

New Girl

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2020
Messages
14
Location
Hayle Cornwall
Sorry yes so it did it joined the Malton / Scarborough line further down, I believe at Rillington, regarding the closure of branch lines, they should never have been closed in the first place
 

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,883
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
Sorry yes so it did it joined the Malton / Scarborough line further down, I believe at Rillington, regarding the closure of branch lines, they should never have been closed in the first place
This was looked at in an official report a number of years back and the costs involved in reopening Rillington - Pickering are staggering.
Principally in reinstating track through the middle of Pickering.
There would be no cooperation from the NYMR due to the probability of losing paths on their railway unless an end on connection with no through running.
The possibility of a meaningful increase in speed would be unlikely as the line has never been more than 40 mph.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
Sorry yes so it did it joined the Malton / Scarborough line further down, I believe at Rillington, regarding the closure of branch lines, they should never have been closed in the first place
Plenty of branch lines should never have been built - they were always doomed to be financial basket cases.......
And some assets were destroyed with indecent haste, almost as if someone wanted to ensure that lines could never be (affordably) reopened.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Sorry yes so it did it joined the Malton / Scarborough line further down, I believe at Rillington, regarding the closure of branch lines, they should never have been closed in the first place

Well, you're entitled to your opinion but considering the losses they would have made, and would still have been making, how would you provide the necessary funding?
 

leytongabriel

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2013
Messages
587
Plenty of branch lines should never have been built - they were always doomed to be financial basket cases.......
And some assets were destroyed with indecent haste, almost as if someone wanted to ensure that lines could never be (affordably) reopened.
Wareham - Swanage perhaps . There had a been a fight around the closure and the track was lifted with what some consider to be indecent haste.
 

kermit

Member
Joined
2 May 2011
Messages
592
I could be wrong, but I thought the French generally left rails and stations in place after lines closed? If so, did they encounter theft / vandalism on the scale assumed by some here?
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
I could be wrong, but I thought the French generally left rails and stations in place after lines closed? If so, did they encounter theft / vandalism on the scale assumed by some here?
A related and probably more illuminating question might be 'what proportion of mothballed French lines were subsequently re-activated and at what cost?'.
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
The big mistake was not maintaining the right of way. The universities line (East West Rail) is a classic example of where this would have bennefitted the reopening of a line.
50 years of non-use of an unrequired asset, maintaining of which would have been a sinkhole recurring cost.
Was it really a mistake? Unfortunate maybe, mistake no.
Appology if unclear, my comment about maintaining the right of way refered to not building anything i.e. roads, houses, on the track bed rather than physical maintanence.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
Dr Beeching sliced the Rail Network to bits in the 1960s and made a right pig's ear of it
After he closed all the Branch Lines, what on earth possessed the rail companies to lift the tracks
This discussion has run on here for years :) . But basically :

The bulk of what Beeching proposed for closure was quite redundant, and had been ever since the motor bus became practical in the 1920s and took what quite small traffic there ever had been on such lines. And then the general public bought cars ...

A good proportion of the lines closed were in irrelevant places, stations not even convenient for the places they were named after. Which is why usage fell away.

Beeching also developed Inter-City high speed regular services, container Freightliners, Merry-go-round coal, eliminated steam locos years ahead of plan, implemented wide-scale modern signalling, put a big welded rail plan in place, etc - all by persuading the government to make very substantial investment.

There were just a couple of cases where tracks were left, and service reinstated a few years later due to a change of plan. Invariably after a few years non-use the tracks needed to be replaced anyway. And it's not just the rails, after a period of non-maintenance the underlying formation needs considerable sorting out as well. The drainage becomes choked and broken. The signals would be rusted and need replacing. Etc.

What else should have been kept instead of being sold off as surplus to realise its asset value? All the old steam locomotives? All the inner city land where old goods depots had been? When you bought your new house, did you keep the old one as well, unused, just in case it might become useful again some day?
 
Last edited:

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,867
Location
Airedale
I could be wrong, but I thought the French generally left rails and stations in place after lines closed? If so, did they encounter theft / vandalism on the scale assumed by some here?
After withdrawal of passenger services many lines remained open for occasional freight, eg cereals traffic, so were not strictly closed.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
As well as rights of way this should have extended to infrastructure, where on some routes bridges/viaducts were seemingly demolished with indecent haste or embankments swept away. What hasn't helped is where in various parts of the country old track formations were happily reassigned for road use, e.g. for the A66 alongside Bassenthwaite Lake or parts of the A34 in Berkshire/Hampshire.

I know you can't preserve everything in the hope of future re-use, but equally a lot of it seemed haphazard. In many cases this safeguarding has been removed in relatively recent times.

Why wouldn't you reuse the redundant track bed of an outmoded transport system to relieve congestion on its replacement?
Also, in a lot of places, low height bridges were demolished to facilitate road traffic, also abutments and overbridges demolished to bring road widths out of the horse & cart age into something suitable for modern road motors.
Many Acts of Parliament for the building of lines had clauses to offer back land to the original owners should their use cease. Lying dormant for a few years maybe, 50 would be pushing it a bit!
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
This discussion has run on here for years :) . But basically :

The bulk of what Beeching proposed for closure was quite redundant, and had been ever since the motor bus became practical in the 1920s and took what quite small traffic there ever had been on such lines. And then the general public bought cars ...

A good proportion of the lines closed were in irrelevant places, stations not even convenient for the places they were named after. Which is why usage fell away.

Beeching also developed Inter-City high speed regular services, container Freightliners, Merry-go-round coal, eliminated steam locos years ahead of plan, implemented wide-scale modern signalling, put a big welded rail plan in place, etc - all by persuading the government to make very substantial investment.

There were just a couple of cases where tracks were left, and service reinstated a few years later due to a change of plan. Invariably after a few years non-use the tracks needed to be replaced anyway. And it's not just the rails, after a period of non-maintenance the underlying formation needs considerable sorting out as well. The drainage becomes choked and broken. The signals would be rusted and need replacing. Etc.

What else should have been kept instead of being sold off as surplus to realise its asset value? All the old steam locomotives? All the inner city land where old goods depots had been? When you bought your new house, did you keep the old one as well, unused, just in case it might become useful again some day?

I think the 'substantial investment by government' ship had sailed by the time of Beeching. The investment money for what you rightly point out had to (by and large) come from sales of redundant land, track and assets - Nottingham Victoria station was a particularly valuable case in point.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,825
Location
Yorks
It's a pity that we didn't appreciate the value of railway routes as wildlife corridors in the 1960's.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,825
Location
Yorks
This discussion has run on here for years :) . But basically :

The bulk of what Beeching proposed for closure was quite redundant, and had been ever since the motor bus became practical in the 1920s and took what quite small traffic there ever had been on such lines. And then the general public bought cars ...

A good proportion of the lines closed were in irrelevant places, stations not even convenient for the places they were named after. Which is why usage fell away.

Beeching also developed Inter-City high speed regular services, container Freightliners, Merry-go-round coal, eliminated steam locos years ahead of plan, implemented wide-scale modern signalling, put a big welded rail plan in place, etc - all by persuading the government to make very substantial investment.

There were just a couple of cases where tracks were left, and service reinstated a few years later due to a change of plan. Invariably after a few years non-use the tracks needed to be replaced anyway. And it's not just the rails, after a period of non-maintenance the underlying formation needs considerable sorting out as well. The drainage becomes choked and broken. The signals would be rusted and need replacing. Etc.

What else should have been kept instead of being sold off as surplus to realise its asset value? All the old steam locomotives? All the inner city land where old goods depots had been? When you bought your new house, did you keep the old one as well, unused, just in case it might become useful again some day?

Obviously this opinion is not universally held on this forum.

An alternative was that Beeching was unduly obsessed with route closures and tended to view all statistics and figures through this prism.
 

Titfield

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2013
Messages
1,667
Wareham - Swanage: the track was left extant between Worgret Junction (near Wareham) to Furzebrook for oil trains. The section that was lifted in 6 weeks was from Furzebrook to Swanage.
Was it indecent haste or simply BR deciding that once the closure has occured it was in their (BRs) finanical interest to lift and sell the track as quickly as possible. Of course the real haste is the sale of the track. How long it took to lift would have been a matter for the contractors. The track bed was purchased by Dorset County Council and Swanage Town Council. I do not know the terms of sale but it may have been a condition of the sale that the track was removed.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Local councils mostly couldn't wait to redevelop many railway routes for things like road widenings and by-passes and commercial sites in old station/goods yard areas.
Some found a use as telecoms or pipeline routes, or (more recently) footpath/cycling/bridleway routes with some economic value.
The closure/rationalisation period extended well past Beeching, for instance the closure of major city centre stations (in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham, Sheffield etc), with remaining trains concentrated on one station.

The policy was to close duplicate routes where the main traffic could be handled on other lines - hence the loss of the Okehampton route.
Places like Gloucester were rationalised and the old Midland route through the city (via Eastgate) was quickly redeveloped (at the cost of losing some through services).
Other lines closed when major structures needed replacement but the remaining traffic couldn't support the renewal.
The Midland route through south Yorkshire was closed because of mining subsidence, with Leeds/York traffic diverted to other lines.
The GC Woodhead route was closed because it lost its primary east-west coal traffic.
Track singling was all the rage at one time as a way to reduce costs, but in some cases went too far - BR was actually paid to do that.

Investment deliberately went into the most productive lines, so the WCML was electrified in preference to the alternative GW/Midland/GC routes to the north.
There were even plans to divert all northern traffic to Euston, at the expense of the ECML, but they were not carried out (except for Scottish sleepers).
Railways being resuscitated today have to be rebuilt in a major way to meet modern standards.
Leaving track down is irrelevant really, as it will all have to be replaced.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
The closure/rationalisation period extended well past Beeching, for instance the closure of major city centre stations (in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham, Sheffield etc), with remaining trains concentrated on one station.
It also started long before Beeching; e. g. the LNWR station in Oxford.
 

Ashley Hill

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
3,199
Location
The West Country
We can all think of routes that should never have shut. Had Beeching possessed a crystal ball I'm sure many would have survived his axe. I agree that at least the trackbed should protected for possible future use especially though towns and cities ,but I always felt that once the track had been lifted or major structure demolished then the fight was lost. Likewise once the trackbed is sold off the chance of reopening becomes harder especially if Sustrans are the owners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top