Route closure leading to greatest strategic loss

[yorksrob]

Oh no - not another chance to go bashing decisions made over 50 years ago in a completely different era.

It all depends what is meant by 'strategic' - lines on a map or potential for business?

Based on the latter, and evidenced by the amount of traffic conveyed since re-opening, I would suggest that the closure of the line from Farringdon to Holborn Viaduct (Low Level) has been the greatest strategic loss (and since re-instated)

I would argue that "strategic" means some greater value as part of the wider network, over and above that relating to the areas actually served. So for example, whilst Bodmin Road - Padstow would have had excellent potential for business, as a branch line, its value would mainly be in terms of those areas.

 

[A0wen]

I would argue that Okehampton and Tavistock are significant centres in Devon. In terms of being slower and longer, it was slightly, but not significantly.

I needed a laugh today, so thanks for providing it.

Tavistock is the 14th largest place in Devon, Okehampton is 24.

Above Tavistock - and not rail connected - you have: Sidmouth, Bideford, Brixham and Tiverton

 

[yorksrob]

I needed a laugh today, so thanks for providing it.

Tavistock is the 14th largest place in Devon, Okehampton is 24.

Above Tavistock - and not rail connected - you have: Sidmouth, Bideford, Brixham and Tiverton

As it happens, Sidmouth, Bideford and Tiverton should also not have been closed. But as with my above post, they would have been lines solely for those towns, rather than strategic links in themselves.

I'm undecided about Brixham, but I have considered it.

 

[Taunton]

Okehampton to Bere Alston. It was opposed at the time and done for economic reasons rather than lack of use

The trains were empty. It was obviously not the way to go from Exeter to Plymouth. What other traffic could it serve, circumnavigating the wilds of Dartmoor

Both Okehampton (small town) and Bere Alston (isolated village) are, in the traditions of this route, nowhere near the stations named after them.

Did the Glasgow-Aberdeen diversion via Dundee really not add much time? The route via Forfar was really a pretty fast piece of railway.

It was indeed a fast piece of railway, mainly because there was nowhere worthwhile to stop. Diverting through the 4th largest city in Scotland, little extra mileage, gave a substantial frequency boost to a range of mainstream journeys; Glasgow to Dundee, Dundee to Aberdeen, etc. It was really just sorting out pre-1923 operating patterns.

 

[RT4038]

I would argue that "strategic" means some greater value as part of the wider network, over and above that relating to the areas actually served. So for example, whilst Bodmin Road - Padstow would have had excellent potential for business, as a branch line, its value would mainly be in terms of those areas.

Surely the 'some greater value' has also got to take into consideration the amount of potential use 'as part of the wider network', as much as a branch line with (untapped) excellent potential for interchange traffic with the rest of the network would have 'some greater value as part of the wider network' ?

This really suggests that the lines closed that have the greatest 'strategic' potential are most likely to be 'missing' cross-country links in the most populated parts of the country, or suitable branch lines to towns that have considerably grown since closure.

The usual enthusiast led suggestions of Dumfries-Stranraer, Galashiels-Carlisle, Okehampon-Bere Alston, Darlington-Penrith or the Somerset & Dorset line, crossing lots of green fields and small towns, and not capable of serving any major long distance flows better than existing lines, are really not going to cut it.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely the 'some greater value' has also got to take into consideration the amount of potential use 'as part of the wider network', as much as a branch line with (untapped) excellent potential for interchange traffic with the rest of the network would have 'some greater value as part of the wider network' ?

This really suggests that the lines closed that have the greatest 'strategic' potential are most likely to be 'missing' cross-country links in the most populated parts of the country, or suitable branch lines to towns that have considerably grown since closure.

The usual enthusiast led suggestions of Dumfries-Stranraer, Galashiels-Carlisle, Okehampon-Bere Alston, Darlington-Penrith or the Somerset & Dorset line, crossing lots of green fields and not capable of serving any major long distance flows better than existing lines, are really not going to cut it.

There's an element of semantics involved, but yes the best strategic link would serve a lot of journeys in its own right as well.

In terms of Okehampton Bere Alston, I would imagine a fair amount of travel between Tavistock, Lydeford, Okehampton and Crediton as well as to/from the ends.

 

[edwin_m]

I would argue that Okehampton and Tavistock are significant centres in Devon. In terms of being slower and longer, it was slightly, but not significantly.

I would argue that "strategic" means some greater value as part of the wider network, over and above that relating to the areas actually served. So for example, whilst Bodmin Road - Padstow would have had excellent potential for business, as a branch line, its value would mainly be in terms of those areas.

IF it's similar or faster via Newton Abbot, with no major capacity issues, then the only way the Okehampton route can meet your definition of "strategic" is as an alternative to the Dawlish for network resilience purposes. I suggest that's a far weaker justification than a route such as Oxford-Cambridge which severed many potential links beyond its own limits.

There's an element of semantics involved, but yes the best strategic link would serve a lot of journeys in its own right as well.

In terms of Okehampton Bere Alston, I would imagine a fair amount of travel between Tavistock, Lydeford, Okehampton and Crediton as well as to/from the ends.

None of these flows can remotely be considered strategic.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm always surprised how we managed to lose Rugby-Wigston (Leicester) and Bedford-Hitchin, linking up the WCML/MML/ECML away from London.
They were insignificant locally, and had been run down over decades, but had great strategic value.
Another such link was Northampton-Market Harborough, which went much more recently.

Historically, it was a pity the Oxford & Rugby was not completed to Rugby, instead being diverted direct to Birmingham instead from Fenny Compton.
Connections between the GWR and LNWR systems were always poor (except with the joint lines around the Marches and Wirral)

 

[yorksrob]

IF it's similar or faster via Newton Abbot, with no major capacity issues, then the only way the Okehampton route can meet your definition of "strategic" is as an alternative to the Dawlish for network resilience purposes. I suggest that's a far weaker justification than a route such as Oxford-Cambridge which severed many potential links beyond its own limits.


None of these flows can remotely be considered strategic.

True that the mid-Devon route does rely on providing an alternative to the main line for its strategic position.

In terms of the local flows mentioned, I never claimed that they were strategic flows - I was mentioning them in response to a previous post.

 

[Taunton]

The usual enthusiast led suggestions ...

The one I think was unlucky was the Waverley, Edinburgh to Carlisle. It was bleak south of Galashiels but had reasonable business north of there. If it could have hung on for another couple of years that would take it to the start of WCML electrification, when the main Carstairs route was closed in the daytime (because it was busier at night) for years, and Edinburgh was effectively cut off from the south. Glasgow had the G&SW line from Carlisle but Edinburgh had nothing. It would never have been closed then. That would take it to 1974, a very different political landscape. Single tracking, in the days when BR costing systems were simplistically based on track-miles would have assisted.

I'm always surprised how we managed to lose Rugby-Wigston (Leicester) and Bedford-Hitchin,

A misfortune was that Northampton to Bedford was Midland, with the LNWR either side. I suspect if it had been LNWR a competent service would have developed from Birmingham to Cambridge, instead of a silly series of disjointed locals. The junctions were all the right way round. The LMS could have sorted this out after 1923 but attitudes were too entrenched.

Rugby to Leicester, the old Midland line, had the issue that the junction at Rugby was right at the north end of the platforms with a sharp turnout banging across the Up WCML tracks. It must have been in the gunsights of Euston for a long time.

 

[edwin_m]

The one I think was unlucky was the Waverley, Edinburgh to Carlisle. It was bleak south of Galashiels but had reasonable business north of there. If it could have hung on for another couple of years that would take it to the start of WCML electrification, when the main Carstairs route was closed in the daytime (because it was busier at night) for years, and Edinburgh was effectively cut off from the south. Glasgow had the G&SW line from Carlisle but Edinburgh had nothing. It would never have been closed then.

That's putting it far too strongly in my view. Edinburgh's primary route to the south was and still is the ECML, which was unaffected. London, Manchester and Birmingham remained accessible by either route and the closest major cities south of Edinburgh are accessed via the ECML anyway. The flows for which the Waverley would have provided a worthwhile alternative are all much less significant.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps it would be useful to provide a definition of ‘strategic route’. In my book it is one that covers a significant flow or flows between major centres of population and/or production, and that there is no ready alternative that offers broadly similar levels of capacity or journey time.

By that measure, most of the suggestions don’t cut it.

My vote goes to Oxford - Cambridge, or more accurately Bicester - Bletchley and Bedford to Cambridge (upper Thames Valley - MK - Bedford - Cambridge) and I have some sympathy with March - Spalding (Freight from east coast ports to Yorkshire and NE), and if pushed, and I’m in a very good mood on a sunny day, Matlock to Buxton (E Mids to the North West).

Yes it was. By your argument, Crewe - Manchester wouldn't be part of a strategic route to Manchester.

That’s not his argument. Crewe to Manchester is very much a strategic route from South Wales and the Marches to Manchester. I would argue it is not a strategic route between London and Manchester, which is what I think you are suggesting. Crewe itself was (in times of old) a significant centre of production, ie the works.

 

[A0wen]

I'm always surprised how we managed to lose Rugby-Wigston (Leicester) and Bedford-Hitchin, linking up the WCML/MML/ECML away from London.
They were insignificant locally, and had been run down over decades, but had great strategic value.
Another such link was Northampton-Market Harborough, which went much more recently.

Historically, it was a pity the Oxford & Rugby was not completed to Rugby, instead being diverted direct to Birmingham instead from Fenny Compton.
Connections between the GWR and LNWR systems were always poor (except with the joint lines around the Marches and Wirral)

I'm not on Bedford - Hitchin.

Don't forget that line had been built because the Midland wanted a 'cheap' way into London so they built that line to connect with the GN and gain access to Kings X.

Once that use had gone it became a relatively lightly used rural line. Even having an airforce base (Henlow) on it didn't provide enough traffic to sustain it.

Hitchin was a small market town back in the 1960s, the places the line served en-route were all small or insignificant. Add in Hitchin station is nowhere near the town centre, so people travelling into Hitchin for market day would have used the bus.

Yes, it gained connection from the south ECML to the Midland Mainline - but the first place which *might* be considered a traffic destination is Leicester - and that could be met via Peterboro.

 

[swt_passenger]

Oh no - not another chance to go bashing decisions made over 50 years ago in a completely different era.

It all depends what is meant by 'strategic' - lines on a map or potential for business?

Yes, and I don’t think ‘strategic’ covers many of the routes suggested so far.

 

[341o2]

There's an element of semantics involved, but yes the best strategic link would serve a lot of journeys in its own right as well.

In terms of Okehampton Bere Alston, I would imagine a fair amount of travel between Tavistock, Lydeford, Okehampton and Crediton as well as to/from the ends.

It was the residents of Tavistock which formed much of the opposition to closure, having already lost the GW branch and that trains would still run to Bere Alston. Objections were made on the basis of claiming the line was a branch line did not truly represent its function, and its strategic value argued. The real issue being the cost of maintaining Meldon Viaduct.

Yes, the line had been recommended for closure by Beeching, rumours were confirmed towards the end of 1965, and Ministerial consent being given in April 1966. Edit. BR applied for closure 1965, Ministerial consent being given 21 April 1966, Richard Marsh had replaced Barbara Castle 6 April

 

[Taunton]

That's putting it far too strongly in my view. Edinburgh's primary route to the south was and still is the ECML, which was unaffected. London, Manchester and Birmingham remained accessible by either route and the closest major cities south of Edinburgh are accessed via the ECML anyway. The flows for which the Waverley would have provided a worthwhile alternative are all much less significant.

Not really. There were no services from Edinburgh to Manchester or Birmingham via the ECML. The first such to Birmingham, with quite some publicity, came in I think 1973 or 74, it was just an extension back of a morning Newcastle to Paignton cross-country train, which I amused my colleagues in Edinburgh by christening it the "Torbay Express".

I was travelling at the time from Edinburgh to Liverpool, which I did perforce mainly by car. Once the WCML electrification opened a series of expresses from Edinburgh to Liverpool (and also Manchester, Birmingham, etc) started which were an immediate hit in picking up this repressed demand, including a lot of day return leisure travellers from Liverpool to Edinburgh.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps it would be useful to provide a definition of ‘strategic route’. In my book it is one that covers a significant flow or flows between major centres of population and/or production, and that there is no ready alternative that offers broadly similar levels of capacity or journey time.

By that measure, most of the suggestions don’t cut it.

My vote goes to Oxford - Cambridge, or more accurately Bicester - Bletchley and Bedford to Cambridge (upper Thames Valley - MK - Bedford - Cambridge) and I have some sympathy with March - Spalding (Freight from east coast ports to Yorkshire and NE), and Matlock to Buxton (E Mids to the North West).




That’s not his argument. Crewe to Manchester is very much a strategic route from South Wales and the Marches to Manchester. I would argue it is not a strategic route between London and Manchester, which is what I think you are suggesting. Crewe itself was (in times of old) a significant centre of production, ie the works.

I take your point about Crewe.

But in terms of Chinley - Matlock, there is no direct alternative between Manchester and the East Midlands. The alternatives all involve going a long way east or south. And the existing routes clearly don't have the capacity. By your own argument, this route should be a contender.

oops - I see we agree on Chinley - Matlock !

 

[A0wen]

Perhaps it would be useful to provide a definition of ‘strategic route’. In my book it is one that covers a significant flow or flows between major centres of population and/or production, and that there is no ready alternative that offers broadly similar levels of capacity or journey time.

By that measure, most of the suggestions don’t cut it.

My vote goes to Oxford - Cambridge, or more accurately Bicester - Bletchley and Bedford to Cambridge (upper Thames Valley - MK - Bedford - Cambridge) and I have some sympathy with March - Spalding (Freight from east coast ports to Yorkshire and NE), and Matlock to Buxton (E Mids to the North West).

I'm not convinced by Matlock - Buxton (or Chinley to be pedantic about it) - yes, it gave Derby a better link to Manchester, but did it really work that well for Nottingham or Leicester ?

I think there's a better case for the GC in terms of the GC mainline and Woodhead - no reversals needed in Nottingham, a fast, electrified trans-pennine route. Added benefit it also took in Sheffield without the need for reversals.

Hindsight always being helpful, I do wonder about the Didcot, Newbury & Southampton line - closed pre Beeching. The volume of container traffic from Southampton probably couldn't have been foreseen back then, but that traffic to head north either has to head up to London, around the congested NLL onto whichever line it needs or head up through Basingstoke and Reading. Running further west and heading north at Didcot might have been useful. Probably would never have been viable for passenger traffic, but there's something to be said for trying to separate passenger and freight.

 

[yorksrob]

It was the residents of Tavistock which formed much of the opposition to closure, having already lost the GW branch and that trains would still run to Bere Alston. Objections were made on the basis of claiming the line was a branch line did not truly represent its function, and its strategic value argued. The real issue being the cost of maintaining Meldon Viaduct.

Yes, the line had been recommended for closure by Beeching, rumours were confirmed towards the end of 1965, and Ministerial consent being given in April 1966. Transport secretary was Barbara Castle

And quite right too. Tavistock has been greatly disadvantaged by the closure.

 

[A0wen]

I take your point about Crewe.

But in terms of Chinley - Matlock, there is no direct alternative between Manchester and the East Midlands. The alternatives all involve going a long way east or south. And the existing routes clearly don't have the capacity. By your own argument, this route should be a contender.

Define East Midlands - because you do have direct Manchester - Nottingham services.

And direct Manchester - Leicester services have been tried but weren't that well used.

 

[yorksrob]

Define East Midlands - because you do have direct Manchester - Nottingham services.

And direct Manchester - Leicester services have been tried but weren't that well used.

Manchester - Nottingham isn't really direct though.

In terms of Manchester - Leicester I'm aware of this being available during the short lived project Rio, but this wasn't really marketed as a NW - East Midlands link. It was a Manchester - London replacement.

 

[Bald Rick]

But in terms of Chinley - Matlock, there is no direct alternative between Manchester and the East Midlands. The alternatives all involve going a long way east or south. And the existing routes clearly don't have the capacity. By your own argument, this route should be a contender.

You might have missed where I said I have some sympathy with that line.

I'm not convinced by Matlock - Buxton (or Chinley to be pedantic about it) - yes, it gave Derby a better link to Manchester, but did it really work that well for Nottingham or Leicester ?

I’m not convinced either, but it has a better case than most others. Even for Leicester and Derby to Manchester (and the North West), it would only be about 5 minutes quicker than going via Dore South, assuming a non stop run by both routes, and as you say that’s been tried without much success. As it happens I’m not in a good mood so I’m minded to say it’s not such a great loss.

Fair point about Didcot - Southampton.

 

[A0wen]

Manchester - Nottingham isn't really direct though.

In terms of Manchester - Leicester I'm aware of this being available during the short lived project Rio, but this wasn't really marketed as a NW - East Midlands link. It was a Manchester - London replacement.

In what way is it not "direct" ?

Looking at a map, you head south-east from Manchester to get to Sheffield and South to get to Nottingham.

If you draw a straight line from Nottingham to Manchester you miss Derby by a mile, so that didn't work for Nottingham.

 

[yorksrob]

In what way is it not "direct" ?

Looking at a map, you head south-east from Manchester to get to Sheffield and South to get to Nottingham.

If you draw a straight line from Nottingham to Manchester you miss Derby by a mile, so that didn't work for Nottingham.

And since when did the entire East Midlands comprise Nottingham ?

 

[A0wen]

And since when did the entire East Midlands comprise Nottingham ?

Well, since it's the pretty much the same size as Leicester - and significantly bigger than Derby, it seems somewhat remiss to ignore it. The fact it doesn't help your argument is an agreeable irrelevance.

In fact if you look at the 'urban' area then Nottingham is bigger.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, since it's the pretty much the same size as Leicester - and significantly bigger than Derby, it seems somewhat remiss to ignore it. The fact it doesn't help your argument is an agreeable irrelevance.

Not really, it just means that what is an appropriate route for Nottingham might not be for the rest of the East Midlands.

Actually, I have quite a bit of experience of travelling the route between Sheffield and Leicester via Nottingham. It is a fine route, and very enjoyable in a 1st class mk3, but fast and direct it ain't.

 

[Stathern Jc]

It is stirring the pot to suggest that the GC was ??

 

[CW2]

When people resort to the "strategic" angle, it usually means "We can't possible make any conventional business case for this, so we are scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to justify retaining this facility."
(Incidentally, I count myself as equally culpable in that case!)
That being said, I'd add my vote to the Didcot Newbury and Southampton railway.

 

[A0wen]

It is stirring the pot to suggest that the GC was ??

<cough> see post #48

 

[edwin_m]

Not really. There were no services from Edinburgh to Manchester or Birmingham via the ECML. The first such to Birmingham, with quite some publicity, came in I think 1973 or 74, it was just an extension back of a morning Newcastle to Paignton cross-country train, which I amused my colleagues in Edinburgh by christening it the "Torbay Express".

I was travelling at the time from Edinburgh to Liverpool, which I did perforce mainly by car. Once the WCML electrification opened a series of expresses from Edinburgh to Liverpool (and also Manchester, Birmingham, etc) started which were an immediate hit in picking up this repressed demand, including a lot of day return leisure travellers from Liverpool to Edinburgh.

Your post implies there were no services between Edinburgh and Manchester/Birmingham prior to the northern WCML electrification either, so one probably wouldn't have been put on via the Waverley route during WCML closures. There has been no Edinburgh-ECML-Manchester or Liverpool direct service until recent months, but it would always have been easily possible with a change at Newcastle or York. So I really don't see that the Waverley route provides a strategic alternative to the WCML for any flow - and it probably has less of a case to be strategic than the Okehampton route considering that it would have been a lot slower and after its closure other (admittedly less direct) alternative Edinburgh-Carlisle routes were available via Newcastle or Glasgow.