Most Ludicrous Attempted Closure Ever

Status
Not open for further replies.

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,107
I nominate the proposals in the "other" lesser known "Beeching Report" to shut all stations between Paddington and Hayes and Harlington except Ealing Broadway and abolishing the "uneconomic" inner suburban stations

Specifically naming Acton Main Line, West Ealing, Hanwell and Southall and replacing it with an "Express bus service between Hayes and a railhead at Ealing Broadway"

The plan also called for closure of the Thameslink line from Kentish Town to Moorgate as St Pancras was to be resignalled and have more capacity and continuation of services to Moorgate couldn't be justified on financial grounds.

Similarly they called for diversion of Eastern Region services to Moorgate to the Northern City Line to facilitate this closure, stating "the alternative of a link with the Southern Region Blackfriars/Holborn services via King's Cross and the City Widened Lines might entail acceptance of rolling stock of restricted capacity because of the physical limitations of the widened lines, and is not favoured"

Southern Region were struggling with capacity and proposed diverting Victoria services to Holborn Viaduct and building a new western entrance to St Pauls. If the widened lines could be closed it might be possible to extend some trains to terminate at the Widened Lines platforms at Farringdon.

On the southwestern side they plotted to close most of the stations on the Hounslow Loop "the elimination of the Hounslow Loop stopping services may be necessary"


Other ideas included extending the Bakerloo line to Hayes or the Bexleyheath Line to free up some paths on the lines into London Bridge.

Overcrowding on the Waterloo and City line was propoaed to be solved by "complete removal of seats to create more standing accomodation"

The fleet line, extending the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo Line to New Cross also appears. Debate over whether to Route via Holborn Viaduct or Ludgate Circus. Favoured route was tube to Surrey Docks, then ELL to a new Underground New Cross station and then Underground to Lewisham Clock Tower and on to either Bexleyheath or Hayes/Addiscombe.

East London line would become a shuttle service from Surrey Docks to Whitechapel or possibly Shoreditch and the service to New cross Gate would be abandoned.

A Victoria line extension to Brixton with passive provision of an extension to Crystal Palace in the long term if the Southern could be persuaded to "withdraw their service between West Norwood and Crystal Palace so that the tracks could be devoted exclusively to tube use". This would apparently assist the expansion of Southern Regions long distance capacity.

Later in the report, a reduction in certain "lightly loaded" inner suburban services on the Central Division to make room for additional services from the expanding and new towns further out was proposed but no specifics on where the axe would fall

Closure of Marylebone with Met Line running to Aylesbury (including fourth rail electrification) and High Wycombe services moved to Paddington. LT had got as far as designing "Experimental rolling stock for the Metropolitan (Aylesbury) Line on a compromise basis"

Diversion of the Great Northern services to Broad Street to Northern city line and withdrawal of Watford to Broad st. The aim being to "strengthen the case for closing Broad Street Station"

Source:

"A Railway Plan for London. Preliminary Report by a Working Party of British Railways and London Transport. March 1965.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
30,294
Location
Yorks
The proposals to close everything West of Plymouth and Newcastle to Scotland were pretty silly IMO.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
1,938
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
I nominate the proposals in the "other" lesser known "Beeching Report" to shut all stations between Paddington and Hayes and Harlington except Ealing Broadway and abolishing the "uneconomic" inner suburban stations

Specifically naming Acton Main Line, West Ealing, Hanwell and Southall and replacing it with an "Express bus service between Hayes and a railhead at Ealing Broadway"

The plan also called for closure of the Thameslink line from Kentish Town to Moorgate as St Pancras was to be resignalled and have more capacity and continuation of services to Moorgate couldn't be justified on financial grounds.

Similarly they called for diversion of Eastern Region services to Moorgate to the Northern City Line to facilitate this closure, stating "the alternative of a link with the Southern Region Blackfriars/Holborn services via King's Cross and the City Widened Lines might entail acceptance of rolling stock of restricted capacity because of the physical limitations of the widened lines, and is not favoured"

Southern Region were struggling with capacity and proposed diverting Victoria services to Holborn Viaduct and building a new western entrance to St Pauls. If the widened lines could be closed it might be possible to extend some trains to terminate at the Widened Lines platforms at Farringdon.

On the southwestern side they plotted to close most of the stations on the Hounslow Loop "the elimination of the Hounslow Loop stopping services may be necessary"


Other ideas included extending the Bakerloo line to Hayes or the Bexleyheath Line to free up some paths on the lines into London Bridge.

Overcrowding on the Waterloo and City line was propoaed to be solved by "complete removal of seats to create more standing accomodation"

The fleet line, extending the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo Line to New Cross also appears. Debate over whether to Route via Holborn Viaduct or Ludgate Circus. Favoured route was tube to Surrey Docks, then ELL to a new Underground New Cross station and then Underground to Lewisham Clock Tower and on to either Bexleyheath or Hayes/Addiscombe.

East London line would become a shuttle service from Surrey Docks to Whitechapel or possibly Shoreditch and the service to New cross Gate would be abandoned.

A Victoria line extension to Brixton with passive provision of an extension to Crystal Palace in the long term if the Southern could be persuaded to "withdraw their service between West Norwood and Crystal Palace so that the tracks could be devoted exclusively to tube use". This would apparently assist the expansion of Southern Regions long distance capacity.

Later in the report, a reduction in certain "lightly loaded" inner suburban services on the Central Division to make room for additional services from the expanding and new towns further out was proposed but no specifics on where the axe would fall

Closure of Marylebone with Met Line running to Aylesbury (including fourth rail electrification) and High Wycombe services moved to Paddington. LT had got as far as designing "Experimental rolling stock for the Metropolitan (Aylesbury) Line on a compromise basis"

Diversion of the Great Northern services to Broad Street to Northern city line and withdrawal of Watford to Broad st. The aim being to "strengthen the case for closing Broad Street Station"

Source:

"A Railway Plan for London. Preliminary Report by a Working Party of British Railways and London Transport. March 1965.
Some of these proposals seem reasonable, for example extending LU into south London and extending the Met line to Aylesbury.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
70,555
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I believe basically all of Merseyrail was proposed for closure at one point, wasn't it? And that wasn't just in the more extreme ones like the main Serpell report. Buses and cars were thought to be enough.
 

tbwbear

Member
Joined
28 Nov 2017
Messages
205
I believe basically all of Merseyrail was proposed for closure at one point, wasn't it? And that wasn't just in the more extreme ones like the main Serpell report. Buses and cars were thought to be enough.

Yes, I think so. You beat me to my own suggestion - "Liverpool to Southport" (I think that was in the original Beeching closure list)
 

Cheshire Scot

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2020
Messages
448
Location
North East Cheshire
Most of the stuff in the most extreme Serpell report option.
Serpell's lack of common sense was highlighted by proposal to keep the West Highland open as far as Crianlarich only. Presumably the combined passenger volumes for Oban and Fort William/Mallaig suggested the southern end was economic but the more northern/western parts not, despite the fact the beyond Crianlarich volumes represented 95% plus of the passenger numbers on the route as far as Crianlarich. The south end of the line would be 'economic' with only the remaining less than5% of total traffic! The rest of the volume would be lost to rail completely, some not travelling at all and the rest by road. No doubt connecting buses northwards would have been seen as the theoretical 'economic' solution but in all probability hardly anyone would use them, rendering these 'uneconomic' too.

No doubt there were other equally senseless suggestions but mercifully I don't remember the detail.
 

JonathanH

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
9,250
The Marylebone busway.
On of the bidders for the Fenchurch Street route at the outset of privatisation proposed that it should be converted into a busway. There was no explanation as to how it would have been possible to move such numbers of people by bus.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,048
Location
Reston City Centre
On the southwestern side they plotted to close most of the stations on the Hounslow Loop "the elimination of the Hounslow Loop stopping services may be necessary"

I can see the logic in that - the Hounslow Loop could be seen as a waste of capacity given that the finite number of paths out of Waterloo could be used for longer distance services that could remove more cars from the road - whilst the nature of "loop" services means that they have to match up with paths in each direction (e.g. you can't have a long layover at a terminus) which can cause reliability problems and can give undue "weight" in the timetable

If the plan was to replace the services with diverted District Line (or the services that we now call Overground) then I could understand if people saw priority being maximising the long distance paths out of Waterloo.

(if the plan was for no replacement whatsoever then that's different, of course, but the two "loops" out of Waterloo must cause a few problems)

Other ideas included extending the Bakerloo line to Hayes or the Bexleyheath Line to free up some paths on the lines into London Bridge

Sounds good to me

Overcrowding on the Waterloo and City line was propoaed to be solved by "complete removal of seats to create more standing accomodation"

Given the lack of simple solutions for the Waterloo & City, and the fact that the majority of passengers will be using it for a pretty short journey at rush hour, this seems a suggestion worth at least considering - any other options were going to be rather expensive (given the short duration of journeys and the fact that demand is very "peak")

The fleet line, extending the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo Line to New Cross also appears. Debate over whether to Route via Holborn Viaduct or Ludgate Circus. Favoured route was tube to Surrey Docks, then ELL to a new Underground New Cross station and then Underground to Lewisham Clock Tower and on to either Bexleyheath or Hayes/Addiscombe

Sounds interesting - obviously years before the Docklands and Millennium Dome gave the Stanmore line a different eastern destination - has to be seen in the context of the reference to the ELL being cut back

A Victoria line extension to Brixton with passive provision of an extension to Crystal Palace in the long term if the Southern could be persuaded to "withdraw their service between West Norwood and Crystal Palace so that the tracks could be devoted exclusively to tube use". This would apparently assist the expansion of Southern Regions long distance capacity

So extending the Victoria line to replace the Southern stoppers through Sydenham (to free up paths at London Bridge for longer distance services), instead of the eventual solution which was extending the ELL to replace the Southern stoppers through Sydenham (to free up paths at London Bridge for longer distance services) - sounds a reasonable option to consider IMHO

Most of the stuff in the most extreme Serpell report option.

I do wonder whether the "worst" Serpell options were more about "putting something demonstrably bad on the desk of a Minister so that we breathe a sigh of relief when their final decision is something less controversial - rather than a manifesto commitment to make such cuts.

Governments do this kind of thing, so that we are grateful for them settling on a "less bad" option - just like the way that they sometimes include an option that they know isn't serious but will look good in the eyes of some campaign group - so I don't know how much weight to put on the suggestions - some of which seem deliberate provocative

Serpell's lack of common sense was highlighted by proposal to keep the West Highland open as far as Crianlarich only. Presumably the combined passenger volumes for Oban and Fort William/Mallaig suggested the southern end was economic but the more northern/western parts not, despite the fact the beyond Crianlarich volumes represented 95% plus of the passenger numbers on the route as far as Crianlarich. The south end of the line would be 'economic' with only the remaining less than5% of total traffic! The rest of the volume would be lost to rail completely, some not travelling at all and the rest by road. No doubt connecting buses northwards would have been seen as the theoretical 'economic' solution but in all probability hardly anyone would use them, rendering these 'uneconomic' too

Maybe because the freight justified keeping it open that far - wasn't there timber from Crainlarach? (just a guess)
 

Vespa

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2019
Messages
820
Location
Merseyside
I believe basically all of Merseyrail was proposed for closure at one point, wasn't it? And that wasn't just in the more extreme ones like the main Serpell report. Buses and cars were thought to be enough.
I remember reading about how the lines south of Liverpool Central was closed down, station abandoned until revived by Merseyrail electrics.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
16,200
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Serpell's lack of common sense was highlighted by proposal to keep the West Highland open as far as Crianlarich only. Presumably the combined passenger volumes for Oban and Fort William/Mallaig suggested the southern end was economic but the more northern/western parts not, despite the fact the beyond Crianlarich volumes represented 95% plus of the passenger numbers on the route as far as Crianlarich. The south end of the line would be 'economic' with only the remaining less than5% of total traffic! The rest of the volume would be lost to rail completely, some not travelling at all and the rest by road. No doubt connecting buses northwards would have been seen as the theoretical 'economic' solution but in all probability hardly anyone would use them, rendering these 'uneconomic' too.

No doubt there were other equally senseless suggestions but mercifully I don't remember the detail.
I think part of the logic was that Crianlarich was, or became, a loading point for timber from the area.
So the line would have been needed for freight to that point.
But passenger-wise, it was uneconomic north of Craigendoran and no doubt still is.
 

Mcr Warrior

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
4,675
Serpell's lack of common sense was highlighted by proposal to keep the West Highland open as far as Crianlarich only.
Wasn't Serpell once disparagingly referred to as the boy taking down notes in the (1960) Stedeford Committee?
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,107
London was unique in largely escaping closures such as these. Liverpool Birmingham West Yorkshire and Manchester have and are still spending much tribute reopening suburban lines and stations.

A large part of that was down to the Southern not only electrifying but actively promoting and advertising their suburban services wheras the other regions saw them as an unrenumerative nuisance and ran them down in some cases pretty well since Grouping.

Sir Eustace Missenden was said to be aghast after nationslisation when moved from the Southern to north of the River at the appallingly run down state of the LMS suburban and outer suburban stations out of London.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
70,555
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
On of the bidders for the Fenchurch Street route at the outset of privatisation proposed that it should be converted into a busway. There was no explanation as to how it would have been possible to move such numbers of people by bus.

It'd clearly be possible, you just need more buses. However, it's a stupid idea.
 

Cheshire Scot

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2020
Messages
448
Location
North East Cheshire
Maybe because the freight justified keeping it open that far - wasn't there timber from Crainlarach? (just a guess)

I think part of the logic was that Crianlarich was, or became, a loading point for timber from the area.
So the line would have been needed for freight to that point.
But passenger-wise, it was uneconomic north of Craigendoran and no doubt still is.
The 1960s/70s flow of timber from Crianlarich had been northwards, to Corpach, but it would have ceased around that time EDIT: it ceased in 1980 when the Corpach Mill ceased producing it's own pulp and relied only on imported pulp (which came mainly by rail).

Timber loading to destinations further south had started from several locations on the West Highland, Fort William, Taynuilt, Crianlarich and Arrochar, possibly others I may have forgotten, but I'd very much doubt the Crianlarich and Arrochar volumes would have sustained keeping the line open especially if the much larger volumes of other freight to/from Fort William predominantly alumina, oil and pulp inwards, aluminium and paper outwards - as well as some timber - were not deemed sufficient. Timber would probably amount to less than 25% of the total freight on the line, so if the majority of the freight was being written off why would such a small volume - even if the FW and Taynuilt loadings were roaded to Crianlarich - justify keeping the sourthern part open, maybe one train per day, it would still be uneconomic. I recall another thread noting timber did not attract high rates, and it probably only ran on the back of the other more renumerative flows.
Maybe it was assumed all freight traffic beyond Crianlarich would transfer between road and rail there, which if that was the assumption it would appear pretty rash.

I recall a map which showed passenger volumes which seemed to be intended to illustrate the justification that passenger volumes south of Crianlarich were sufficient to justify retention but not for either leg further north. It was this nonsensical analysis of passenger volumes which generated much of the criticism at the time.

As LNW_GW Joint notes passenger services were, and no doubt still are, uneconomic even with (presumably) significant reductions in operating cost resulting from the change to Sprinters (plus still loco hauled sleeper), and RETB signalling (which replaced around 15 signal boxes with just one plus the box in Fort William retained for the immediate local area).
 
Last edited:

Dr_Paul

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2013
Messages
1,041
Overcrowding on the Waterloo and City line was proposed to be solved by "complete removal of seats to create more standing accommodation"
Not a bad idea, seeing how crowded the W&C line gets at rush hour. Perhaps there could be some tip-up seats that could be used at off-peak times.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
2,054
On of the bidders for the Fenchurch Street route at the outset of privatisation proposed that it should be converted into a busway. There was no explanation as to how it would have been possible to move such numbers of people by bus.

The Railway Conversion League 1958 to 1994, Major Angus Dalgleish and Paul Withrington. What other forgotten names are there? Gerry Adams once quipped: "They haven't gone away, you know" but I think these conversionists have gone away, for now anyway. Dalgleish later joined UKIP while Withrington died earlier this year.

 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
2,734
Location
Hope Valley
I nominate the proposals in the "other" lesser known "Beeching Report" to shut all stations between Paddington and Hayes and Harlington except Ealing Broadway and abolishing the "uneconomic" inner suburban stations

Specifically naming Acton Main Line, West Ealing, Hanwell and Southall and replacing it with an "Express bus service between Hayes and a railhead at Ealing Broadway"

The plan also called for closure of the Thameslink line from Kentish Town to Moorgate as St Pancras was to be resignalled and have more capacity and continuation of services to Moorgate couldn't be justified on financial grounds.

Similarly they called for diversion of Eastern Region services to Moorgate to the Northern City Line to facilitate this closure, stating "the alternative of a link with the Southern Region Blackfriars/Holborn services via King's Cross and the City Widened Lines might entail acceptance of rolling stock of restricted capacity because of the physical limitations of the widened lines, and is not favoured"

Southern Region were struggling with capacity and proposed diverting Victoria services to Holborn Viaduct and building a new western entrance to St Pauls. If the widened lines could be closed it might be possible to extend some trains to terminate at the Widened Lines platforms at Farringdon.

On the southwestern side they plotted to close most of the stations on the Hounslow Loop "the elimination of the Hounslow Loop stopping services may be necessary"


Other ideas included extending the Bakerloo line to Hayes or the Bexleyheath Line to free up some paths on the lines into London Bridge.

Overcrowding on the Waterloo and City line was propoaed to be solved by "complete removal of seats to create more standing accomodation"

The fleet line, extending the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo Line to New Cross also appears. Debate over whether to Route via Holborn Viaduct or Ludgate Circus. Favoured route was tube to Surrey Docks, then ELL to a new Underground New Cross station and then Underground to Lewisham Clock Tower and on to either Bexleyheath or Hayes/Addiscombe.

East London line would become a shuttle service from Surrey Docks to Whitechapel or possibly Shoreditch and the service to New cross Gate would be abandoned.

A Victoria line extension to Brixton with passive provision of an extension to Crystal Palace in the long term if the Southern could be persuaded to "withdraw their service between West Norwood and Crystal Palace so that the tracks could be devoted exclusively to tube use". This would apparently assist the expansion of Southern Regions long distance capacity.

Later in the report, a reduction in certain "lightly loaded" inner suburban services on the Central Division to make room for additional services from the expanding and new towns further out was proposed but no specifics on where the axe would fall

Closure of Marylebone with Met Line running to Aylesbury (including fourth rail electrification) and High Wycombe services moved to Paddington. LT had got as far as designing "Experimental rolling stock for the Metropolitan (Aylesbury) Line on a compromise basis"

Diversion of the Great Northern services to Broad Street to Northern city line and withdrawal of Watford to Broad st. The aim being to "strengthen the case for closing Broad Street Station"

Source:

"A Railway Plan for London. Preliminary Report by a Working Party of British Railways and London Transport. March 1965.
Presumably this report flowed from the 1964 Labour Manifesto?

"Labour will draw up a national plan for transport covering the national networks of road, rail and canal communications, properly co-ordinated with air, coastal shipping and port services. The new regional authorities will be asked to draw up transport plans for their own areas. While these are being prepared, major rail closures will be halted."
 

bassmike

On Moderation
Joined
23 Aug 2010
Messages
143
Location
lenham kent
Unfortunately, similar attitudes still exist today in many spheres. All the time you have semi or unqualified persons of limited vision and very likely personal interests in a position to influence affairs, you will have the same problem.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
30,294
Location
Yorks
Lewes - Uckfield is a particularly poorly thought through one.

Leaving a reasonably used coastal route as dead end branchline defies all logic.
 

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
2,470
Lewes - Uckfield is a particularly poorly thought through one.

Leaving a reasonably used coastal route as dead end branchline defies all logic.

Wasn't there a viaduct, or anyway large bridge, just north of Lewes on this route -- in bad condition; and repairs to it would have been extremely expensive; this cited as a factor, at the time of closure? One could argue over excuses, versus compelling reasons; but this could be seen as having genuine relevance.
 

Mcr Warrior

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
4,675
Wasn't there a viaduct, or anyway large bridge, just north of Lewes on this route -- in bad condition; and repairs to it would have been extremely expensive; this cited as a factor, at the time of closure? One could argue over excuses, versus compelling reasons; but this could be seen as having genuine relevance.
If so, will no doubt have been costed like the one at Ribblehead. :rolleyes:
 

davetheguard

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
1,387
Leaving a reasonably used coastal route as dead end branchline defies all logic

Unless you're actually looking to eventually close the whole route. Take away the through traffic and you immediately weaken the case for retention.

I must admit I'd never heard of the proposal -mentioned in 21C01's first sentence- to close the Western Region inner suburban stations before. With hindsight, utterly bonkers, and surely inner suburban stations like Southall would even then have been busier than some further out on the same line like Iver or Taplow? They certainly seemed a lot quieter than Southall when I first got to know the route in the late '70s.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,107
Wasn't there a viaduct, or anyway large bridge, just north of Lewes on this route -- in bad condition; and repairs to it would have been extremely expensive; this cited as a factor, at the time of closure? One could argue over excuses, versus compelling reasons; but this could be seen as having genuine relevance.
There was nothing wrong with the viaduct other than it being in the way of the County Councils nice new Lewes Ring Road.

A river bridge further north was claimed to be unfit for traffic Ribblehead style resulting in bus substitution between Isfield and Barcombe Mills while the closure was decided on.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
12,093
Location
Airedale
I nominate the proposals in the "other" lesser known "Beeching Report" to shut all stations between Paddington and Hayes and Harlington except Ealing Broadway and abolishing the "uneconomic" inner suburban stations
Specifically naming Acton Main Line, West Ealing, Hanwell and Southall and replacing it with an "Express bus service between Hayes and a railhead at Ealing Broadway"

Southern Region were struggling with capacity and proposed diverting Victoria services to Holborn Viaduct and building a new western entrance to St Pauls. If the widened lines could be closed it might be possible to extend some trains to terminate at the Widened Lines platforms at Farringdon.

Later in the report, a reduction in certain "lightly loaded" inner suburban services on the Central Division to make room for additional services from the expanding and new towns further out was proposed but no specifics on where the axe would fall

Closure of Marylebone

Fascinating - I missed this in 65 despite avidly reading my Dad's Railway Mag.

As tbtc says, much of this (except Southall and Marylebone) makes good sense in the context of greatly increased demand for longer distance commuting (it was already happening in places like Longfield Staplehurst and Fleet) - and has either happened or is still on the cards.

The idea of Farringdon as an overflow to Holborn is fascinating - thouh Victoria Eastern was only really busy when boat trains arrived in the peak.

Many Central Division suburban routes were relatively lightly loaded back then, and the 1967 revised timetable brought cuts (mainly via Tulse Hill IIRC).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
30,294
Location
Yorks
Wasn't there a viaduct, or anyway large bridge, just north of Lewes on this route -- in bad condition; and repairs to it would have been extremely expensive; this cited as a factor, at the time of closure? One could argue over excuses, versus compelling reasons; but this could be seen as having genuine relevance.

There was indeed - the one through the centre of Lewes.

If so, will no doubt have been costed like the one at Ribblehead. :rolleyes:

Indeed. That has to be suspected.

Unless you're actually looking to eventually close the whole route. Take away the through traffic and you immediately weaken the case for retention.

Yes, that could have been a factor. It certainly did for the Tunbridge Wells - Eridge section.

I think I read somewhere that the whole route was originally up for closure, but only the Northern section to Uckfield was repreived.
 

zwk500

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
2,488
Location
Milton Keynes
There was indeed - the one through the centre of Lewes.
The viaduct through Lewes wasn't a problem - the Relief road cut through an embankment, and the bridge causing a problem was north of the town.
Indeed. That has to be suspected.
The river bridge was heavily damaged in flooding - the same flood that led the county engineer to request BR demolish the platforms at Lewes station to help drain the town. Funnily enough, the BR engineer wasn't too keen.
Yes, that could have been a factor. It certainly did for the Tunbridge Wells - Eridge section.

I think I read somewhere that the whole route was originally up for closure, but only the Northern section to Uckfield was repreived.
BR actually petitioned parliament to retain the route by reinstating the line via Hamsey. It just didn't have the money to do it itself.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
30,294
Location
Yorks
The viaduct through Lewes wasn't a problem - the Relief road cut through an embankment, and the bridge causing a problem was north of the town.

The river bridge was heavily damaged in flooding - the same flood that led the county engineer to request BR demolish the platforms at Lewes station to help drain the town. Funnily enough, the BR engineer wasn't too keen.

BR actually petitioned parliament to retain the route by reinstating the line via Hamsey. It just didn't have the money to do it itself.

I read about the proposal to blow up the platforms in one of the late V Mitchell's books. Lewes is one of my favourite stations, so I'm glad BR refused it.

I've heard about the idea to reinstate via Hamsey. I wasn't sure of the extent ti which BR supported the idea at the time. It certainly would have been an improvement over the current situation.
 

65477

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2017
Messages
102
Thanks to @21C101 for both starting this thread and providing the source of their information, the report being availabl on the excellent Railways Archive website:


however with a pedant hat on it is actually wrong the refer this to this as the second Beeching Report as there was actually a 2nd report called: "The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes"

that has already been discussed in this forum


People tend to forget that Beeching was appointed exactly 60 years ago in March 1961. The world was totally different then. What will be more interesting is what will happen over the next few years not dwelling on the past. What seems like a "Ludicrous Attempted Closure" today might be seen in totally different light once traffic has settled down to what will become the zero carbon post Covid & post Brexit normal.

Also I took the OP's question and opening post to talk about lines/stations that have been proposed for closure but are still open - not lines that actually closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top