"What if" scenario- what does BR without Beeching look like?

[Dr Hoo]

The protection of "hardship", which was the TUCC's only grounds for opposing closure, was the most meagre, flimsy layer of protection for passengers imaginable, so when one recommends against closure, I find it shocking that the Government could ignore it at will. It shows utmost contempt for passengers that they can't even abide by their own procedures.

I find it even more shocking that servants of the railway should support such a wanton disregard for passengers needs. That railway authorities and ministers behind closed doors should take it upon themselves to ignore the TUCC's decision is collusion of the lowest type.

One last try:
Railway managers, DfT officials and Ministers have to balance many different priorities of which “passenger needs” are important but not overriding.
No government has ever passed a Transport/Railways Act to ‘ban’ closures.
The nearest that we came to it was probably the Wilson/Labour manifesto promise to ‘halt major closures’ (or words to that effect) in 1964. That worked out really well, didn’t it?

In the interests of balance and fairness would you also like to ban railway and station re-openings, new builds, electrification, etc. to avoid showing wanton disregard to local residents who may not want compulsory purchase of their land, major disruption from construction work, noise, nuisance parking and so forth?

 

[yorksrob]

One last try:
Railway managers, DfT officials and Ministers have to balance many different priorities of which “passenger needs” are important but not overriding.
No government has ever passed a Transport/Railways Act to ‘ban’ closures.
The nearest that we came to it was probably the Wilson/Labour manifesto promise to ‘halt major closures’ (or words to that effect) in 1964. That worked out really well, didn’t it?

In the interests of balance and fairness would you also like to ban railway and station re-openings, new builds, electrification, etc. to avoid showing wanton disregard to local residents who may not want compulsory purchase of their land, major disruption from construction work, noise, nuisance parking and so forth?

Oh please, no Government has ever banned closures, which is why the TUCC's were there to say whether they were a bad idea. Is this that difficult an idea to grasp ? The TUCC's were the only tiny organisations standing in the way of the might of the state to say that something was a bad idea, so do you not think that they should have been listened too when they made a decision ? Given that there was no one else with the legal power to intervene on behalf of passengers ?

And if you've read my posts, you will have seen that I've criticised closures under Labour and Conservative Governments equally. I believe that the closure programme from 1962 and onwards was an unmitigated disaster, both parties were responsible for this damage, although one provided mechanisms to mitigate it in some circumstances. In the interests of balance, the Tory party in the 80's under enlightened ministers such as Norman Fowler managed to wind down the closure programme. I don't understand why you are so keen to turn this into a party political issue.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Oh please, no Government has ever banned closures, which is why the TUCC's were there to say whether they were a bad idea. Is this that difficult an idea to grasp ? The TUCC's were the only tiny organisations standing in the way of the might of the state to say that something was a bad idea, so do you not think that they should have been listened too when they made a decision ? Given that there was no one else with the legal power to intervene on behalf of passengers ?

And if you've read my posts, you will have seen that I've criticised closures under Labour and Conservative Governments equally. I believe that the closure programme from 1962 and onwards was an unmitigated disaster, both parties were responsible for this damage, although one provided mechanisms to mitigate it in some circumstances. In the interests of balance, the Tory party in the 80's under enlightened ministers such as Norman Fowler managed to wind down the closure programme. I don't understand why you are so keen to turn this into a party political issue.

Given that around 100 closure cases were declined or at least partly rejected by ministers in the aftermath of the Reshaping Report and that cases commonly spent around six months ‘on the minister’s desk’ do you have any concrete evidence that TUCC recommendations were simply ignored? So far as I can ascertain the ‘decision lag’ was typically filled with further lobbying by local interests to have proposals overturned.

I would still be interested in your comments about how the Tunbridge Wells-Eridge case was more of a “conspiracy” than any of the others. (I was a local Southern Region manager at the time.)

I would also be interested in your views on the second part of my previous post about whether re-openings and new builds should be banned to avoid showing wanton disregard to some local stakeholders.

 

[yorksrob]

Given that around 100 closure cases were declined or at least partly rejected by ministers in the aftermath of the Reshaping Report and that cases commonly spent around six months ‘on the minister’s desk’ do you have any concrete evidence that TUCC recommendations were simply ignored? So far as I can ascertain the ‘decision lag’ was typically filled with further lobbying by local interests to have proposals overturned.

I would still be interested in your comments about how the Tunbridge Wells-Eridge case was more of a “conspiracy” than any of the others. (I was a local Southern Region manager at the time.)

I would also be interested in your views on the second part of my previous post about whether re-openings and new builds should be banned to avoid showing wanton disregard to some local stakeholders.

Yes, on Tunbridge Wells - Eridge, the TUCC ruled against closure. That was clearly rejected.

I don't see what reopenings have to do with it. There is a world of difference between closing an established transport link and reinstating a new one.

I suspect that this is pure obfuscation to deflect attention from your obvious support for the closure programme.

You were a Southern region manager at the time. Did you support the passengers interests on Tunbridge Wells -Eridge and stand up for the railway ?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yes, on Tunbridge Wells - Eridge, the TUCC ruled against closure. That was clearly rejected.

I don't see what reopenings have to do with it. There is a world of difference between closing an established transport link and reinstating a new one.

I suspect that this is pure obfuscation to deflect attention from your obvious support for the closure programme.

You were a Southern region manager at the time. Did you support the passengers interests on Tunbridge Wells -Eridge and stand up for the railway ?

Thanks for this. I think that there is still some misunderstanding about the powers of a TUCC. They were never able to “rule against” anything. They held a hearing and produced a report, essentially focussed on hardship and often giving some very sensible recommendations as to how it might be mitigated. This was then considered by the Minister alongside other evidence from BR and civil servants.

My point about re-openings and new lines was purely to draw out the fact that in modern life very many people’s interests are affected by any change. The recent ‘wading through treacle’ of a lengthy TWA inquiry into the Hope Valley Line enhancements (near where I now live) has been a good example that (outside those who undertake the 2% of trips in the North made by train) not everybody likes the idea of a Class 60 chugging away outside their bedroom window for example. Some of the good citizens of Dore and Bamford feel that the Minister has shown a wanton disregard for their interests. But that’s life.

As to whether I support(ed) the closure programme, I have never made a secret of the fact that the line nearest my home in the mid-1960s was one of the ones closed to passenger services. So I know all about ‘hardship’ in that regard. I was, however, able even then to understand that the nearly empty trains must have been losing money hand over fist and the local bus services were actually quite adequate.

Even as a schoolboy I arranged group travel to support and draw attention to the declining Snow Hill services. I was there for the end of steam on the Paddington run in 1962, the end of main line services in 1967, the final closure of the link to Moor Street not long afterwards and made and placed the wreath on the final public departure to Wolverhampton a couple of years later after the local PTA/PTE took a holistic decision not to support the line and replace it with the 79 bus route.

I still decided to seek a job with BR after leaving school because I saw the wider potential.

Later on in my career, on the Southern Region, I had no difficulty in appreciating that initiatives such as modernising and electrifying the Hastings Line through Tunbridge Wells was a better use of available funding than struggling to maintain a few thinly-patronised trains to Eridge when the line was practically falling to pieces. Tunbridge Wells West Station still had gas lighting, I believe!

Moving to Scotland I had to preside over a couple of minor closures that had been initiated during the Chris Green era but never proposed a closure myself. I was, however, involved at various stages in schemes that led to the opening or re-opening of 35 stations. Some of the best ones went from first meeting to being open in less than a year.

Closures are always sad but I have never had a problem in understanding that some cases are justified. I have also never had a problem in accepting that politicians have a right to decide what the priorities for the nation are. In the past Railways were seen as a low priority. More recently they have done relatively well. In future other public services may be seen as a more deserving destination for scarce Treasury cash.

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks for this. I think that there is still some misunderstanding about the powers of a TUCC. They were never able to “rule against” anything. They held a hearing and produced a report, essentially focussed on hardship and often giving some very sensible recommendations as to how it might be mitigated. This was then considered by the Minister alongside other evidence from BR and civil servants.

My point about re-openings and new lines was purely to draw out the fact that in modern life very many people’s interests are affected by any change. The recent ‘wading through treacle’ of a lengthy TWA inquiry into the Hope Valley Line enhancements (near where I now live) has been a good example that (outside those who undertake the 2% of trips in the North made by train) not everybody likes the idea of a Class 60 chugging away outside their bedroom window for example. Some of the good citizens of Dore and Bamford feel that the Minister has shown a wanton disregard for their interests. But that’s life.

As to whether I support(ed) the closure programme, I have never made a secret of the fact that the line nearest my home in the mid-1960s was one of the ones closed to passenger services. So I know all about ‘hardship’ in that regard. I was, however, able even then to understand that the nearly empty trains must have been losing money hand over fist and the local bus services were actually quite adequate.

Even as a schoolboy I arranged group travel to support and draw attention to the declining Snow Hill services. I was there for the end of steam on the Paddington run in 1962, the end of main line services in 1967, the final closure of the link to Moor Street not long afterwards and made and placed the wreath on the final public departure to Wolverhampton a couple of years later after the local PTA/PTE took a holistic decision not to support the line and replace it with the 79 bus route.

I still decided to seek a job with BR after leaving school because I saw the wider potential.

Later on in my career, on the Southern Region, I had no difficulty in appreciating that initiatives such as modernising and electrifying the Hastings Line through Tunbridge Wells was a better use of available funding than struggling to maintain a few thinly-patronised trains to Eridge when the line was practically falling to pieces. Tunbridge Wells West Station still had gas lighting, I believe!

Moving to Scotland I had to preside over a couple of minor closures that had been initiated during the Chris Green era but never proposed a closure myself. I was, however, involved at various stages in schemes that led to the opening or re-opening of 35 stations. Some of the best ones went from first meeting to being open in less than a year.

Closures are always sad but I have never had a problem in understanding that some cases are justified. I have also never had a problem in accepting that politicians have a right to decide what the priorities for the nation are. In the past Railways were seen as a low priority. More recently they have done relatively well. In future other public services may be seen as a more deserving destination for scarce Treasury cash.

I certainly admire your work in bringing attention to the Snow Hill closures, and I recognise that the loss of the through route to Lewes may have affected your view on Tunbridge Wells to Eridge

I can't understand your attitude that gives carte blanche to Ministers to close lines without scrutiny. Because the TUCC's were the only scrutiny that closure proposals got. They were the one shred of democracy on the whole sorry affair, ablnd as far as you seem to be concerned, they seem to be ignorable by ministers at the drop of a hat..

 

[Fireless]

BR was in dire need of changes at that time, so keeping the status quo would not have been an option.
How those changes would have looked like would have depended about entirely on the political will of that time.

The political will "Cut that losses as quick as possible" with a businessman in charge of the project would have ended up with something quite similar to the Beeching reports.
Some details might have been different but the principle would have been pretty much the same.

Yet, the more interesting scenario would have been the political will "Turn BR into a modern state railway with the aim of serving the people while being as efficient as possible".
The key elements would have been new state of the art integrated timetable (a frequent service with attractive journey times can make a lot of difference, especially on branch lines) and a continuous modernisation process to keep the network up-to-date, both in terms of technology and traffic demands.

 

[deltic]

I certainly admire your work in bringing attention to the Snow Hill closures, and I recognise that the loss of the through route to Lewes may have affected your view on Tunbridge Wells to Eridge

I can't understand your attitude that gives carte blanche to Ministers to close lines without scrutiny. Because the TUCC's were the only scrutiny that closure proposals got. They were the one shred of democracy on the whole sorry affair, ablnd as far as you seem to be concerned, they seem to be ignorable by ministers at the drop of a hat..

Dont follow the democracy argument. TUCC were not elected - the government was and the Minister was implementing Government policy.

Ironically the fact that we have a franchise system where each franchise lasts longer than a single Parliament means that the rail network is now more protected from closures than perhaps for the whole of the last 100 years.

 

[yorksrob]

Dont follow the democracy argument. TUCC were not elected - the government was and the Minister was implementing Government policy.

Ironically the fact that we have a franchise system where each franchise lasts longer than a single Parliament means that the rail network is now more protected from closures than perhaps for the whole of the last 100 years.

This is true - "democracy" was probably the wrong word. "Accountability to passengers" would have been a more accurate phrase.

 

[Journeyman]

As a footnote to our conversations regarding closures in Sussex, I've just read (Railway Magazine, July 1985) that the TUCC ruled against the closure of the Tunbridge Wells to Eridge line, and that this was overruled by Nicholas Ridley.

I count that as a Government conspiracy.

Nope. BR was, again, short of money. The Hastings line was being electrified and resignalled, and there was a need therefore to reconfigure and resignal the junction at the Tunbridge Wells end. Sufficient money was unavailable to do so. The line was also in a mess in terms of needing substantial repairs, and the custom on it was very low indeed. It was a justified closure.

 

[RLBH]

Yet, the more interesting scenario would have been the political will "Turn BR into a modern state railway with the aim of serving the people while being as efficient as possible".
The key elements would have been new state of the art integrated timetable (a frequent service with attractive journey times can make a lot of difference, especially on branch lines) and a continuous modernisation process to keep the network up-to-date, both in terms of technology and traffic demands

That may well be the case - but it would have required a government willing to subsidise the railways, which would be unlikely without a clear demonstration that they couldn't find themselves. And it would probably still have involved cutting some uneconomic branches.

What would really have made a difference is integration with buses, but the British approach to transport regulation makes that virtually impossible. The BTC was probably the best possibility for achieving this, but it managed somehow to be both overambitious and unimaginative, and lost the opportunity.

 

[coppercapped]

Oh please, no Government has ever banned closures, which is why the TUCC's were there to say whether they were a bad idea. Is this that difficult an idea to grasp ? The TUCC's were the only tiny organisations standing in the way of the might of the state to say that something was a bad idea, so do you not think that they should have been listened too when they made a decision ? Given that there was no one else with the legal power to intervene on behalf of passengers ?

And if you've read my posts, you will have seen that I've criticised closures under Labour and Conservative Governments equally. I believe that the closure programme from 1962 and onwards was an unmitigated disaster, both parties were responsible for this damage, although one provided mechanisms to mitigate it in some circumstances. In the interests of balance, the Tory party in the 80's under enlightened ministers such as Norman Fowler managed to wind down the closure programme. I don't understand why you are so keen to turn this into a party political issue.

You simply don't understand the reason behind the creation of the CTCC and TUCCs.

I have written in other threads that the main effect of the 1947 Transport Act was that it set the railways, as they were at the end of the 1930s, in aspic. That included the Transport Users Consultative Committees which replaced Panels set up by the Ministry of Transport Act 1919 and the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933. The 1947 Act simply re-formed them to suit the changed legal framework of the nationalised transport industry.

The 1947 Transport Act in Section 6 (7) defined the purposes of the Consultative Committees (it allowed for separate Committees for passengers and for goods or combined Committees considering both sets of users) as:

Every Committee appointed under this section shall consider and, where it appears to the Committee to be necessary, make recommendations in regard to any matter (including charges) affecting the services and facilities provided by the Commission which has been the subject of representations (other than representations which appear to the Committee to be frivolous) made to the Committee…

Section 6 (8) states

Minutes shall be kept of the proceedings of every such Committee and copies of the minutes and of the recommendations or conclusions of any such Committee shall—
(a) in the case of a Transport Users Consultative Committee, be sent to the Central Transport Consultative Committee and to the Commission;
(b) in the case of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, be sent to the Minister and to the Commission,
and where a copy of a recommendation of the Central Transport Consultative Committee is sent to the Minister, the Minister may give such directions to the Commission with respect to the matters dealt with by the recommendation as he thinks fit, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.

The critical phrase is "as he thinks fit".

There is nothing there, and never was even in the 1947 Act, that the Minister had to follow the recommendations of the CTCC. There is no conspiracy - the Minister was ALWAYS given a free rein to make decisions as he saw fit.

 

[yorksrob]

You simply don't understand the reason behind the creation of the CTCC and TUCCs.

I have written in other threads that the main effect of the 1947 Transport Act was that it set the railways, as they were at the end of the 1930s, in aspic. That included the Transport Users Consultative Committees which replaced Panels set up by the Ministry of Transport Act 1919 and the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933. The 1947 Act simply re-formed them to suit the changed legal framework of the nationalised transport industry.

The 1947 Transport Act in Section 6 (7) defined the purposes of the Consultative Committees (it allowed for separate Committees for passengers and for goods or combined Committees considering both sets of users) as:


Section 6 (8) states


The critical sentence is "as he thinks fit".

There is nothing there, and never was even in the 1947 Act, that the Minister had to follow the recommendations of the CTCC. There is no conspiracy - the Minister was ALWAYS given a free rein to make decisions as he saw fit.

I'm not denying that the Minister had the legal ability to override a TUCC decision (he clearly did, otherwise it wouldn't have happened).

I'm decrying the fact that he did as this was the only element of accountability to passengers within the whole process. It effectively means that there was no real accountability to passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

Nope. BR was, again, short of money. The Hastings line was being electrified and resignalled, and there was a need therefore to reconfigure and resignal the junction at the Tunbridge Wells end. Sufficient money was unavailable to do so. The line was also in a mess in terms of needing substantial repairs, and the custom on it was very low indeed. It was a justified closure.

One has to ask how and why the line was allowed to get into such a "mess" in the first place. It's the Lewes viaduct debacle all over again.

 

[Journeyman]

One has to ask how and why the line was allowed to get into such a "mess" in the first place. It's the Lewes viaduct debacle all over again.

The line was massively under-used for years and was primarily only retained for the DEMU maintenance facilities at Tunbridge Wells West. It was expensively manually signalled as well. The closure of lines either side of it drastically reduced its value as a through route, and the surviving shuttle service carried tiny handfuls of people. As soon as the maintenance facilities could be moved, it became entirely unnecessary to keep the line open.

I've just had a look at the Groombridge to Tunbridge Wells bus service - it runs at hourly frequency for much of the day Monday to Saturday, which is at least as good as the train was in its final years. With closure of Uckfield - Lewes and all the other services that ran via Tunbridge Wells West, the train offered no significant advantages over what the bus can currently offer.

BR had to choose what it spent its limited resources on, and quite correctly decided that significant improvements to London - Hastings services were a priority.

 

[yorksrob]

The line was massively under-used for years and was primarily only retained for the DEMU maintenance facilities at Tunbridge Wells West. It was expensively manually signalled as well. The closure of lines either side of it drastically reduced its value as a through route, and the surviving shuttle service carried tiny handfuls of people. As soon as the maintenance facilities could be moved, it became entirely unnecessary to keep the line open.

I've just had a look at the Groombridge to Tunbridge Wells bus service - it runs at hourly frequency for much of the day Monday to Saturday, which is at least as good as the train was in its final years. With closure of Uckfield - Lewes and all the other services that ran via Tunbridge Wells West, the train offered no significant advantages over what the bus can currently offer.

BR had to choose what it spent its limited resources on, and quite correctly decided that significant improvements to London - Hastings services were a priority.

The only closures were to the west of the route (towards three bridges and Lewes). It retained full connectivity to the East.

At the very least single tracking could have been considered, which could have removed the need for a lot of signalling and track infrastructure (Grove junction could have been controlled from Tonbridge).

I suspect that BR would have got on with this had the decision to close been rejected.

Even throughout the 80's and 90's there was a campaign to reverse the unjustifiable decision to close Uckfield to Lewes, for which this closure was a massive setback - a pre-emptive strike perhaps.

 

[Journeyman]

Even throughout the 80's and 90's there was a campaign to reverse the unjustifiable decision to close Uckfield to Lewes, for which this closure was a massive setback - a pre-emptive strike perhaps.

I'll agree Uckfield to Lewes wasn't the wisest move, but there were problems with the line that had to be resolved, and there wasn't much cash to resolve them with. I don't think it's fair to treat Beeching like he had access to a crystal ball - he didn't, and had to make the best judgements that he could with limited resources, and in difficult circumstances.

 

[coppercapped]

I'm not denying that the Minister had the legal ability to override a TUCC decision (he clearly did, otherwise it wouldn't have happened).

I'm decrying the fact that he did as this was the only element of accountability to passengers within the whole process. It effectively means that there was no real accountability to passengers.

As you have just invented the concept of 'accountability to passengers' having tried 'democracy' which was shown to be an incorrect description of the process, what do you mean by it?

 

[yorksrob]

I'll agree Uckfield to Lewes wasn't the wisest move, but there were problems with the line that had to be resolved, and there wasn't much cash to resolve them with. I don't think it's fair to treat Beeching like he had access to a crystal ball - he didn't, and had to make the best judgements that he could with limited resources, and in difficult circumstances.

The problems of the route centred around the viaduct through Lewes which had been allowed to fall into disrepair. Apparently this led to the line over the viaduct being single tracked, speed restricted and a shuttle train operating whereby a passenger from the coast would have to change trains at Lewes, then Barcombe Mills to make a journey Northwards. According to the Wealden Campaign, even this "service" didn't manage to put off the clientelle. One might have expected BR to just repair enough of the viaduct to single the track over it.

The route is interesting because it is an apt illustration of the litany of failure that characterised all sides of the closure programme:

• Beeching listed the line South of Crowborough, potentially leaving Uckfield isolated.
• Marples approves a £350k grant towards the construction of the pheonix causeway in Lewes, but isn't prepared to pay £135k to bridge the railway. The "Mother of Parliaments" also refuses to grant £95k to divert the route via Hamsey.
• 1966, BR applies to close the whole route from Hurst Green to Lewes.
• At the TUCC, the objectors use the DfT's own cost benefit analysis for (what is incredibly) the first time such analysis has been used to assess a closure. It finds that the route, which apparently generated less than £5k in revenue, if closed would lead to a £570k loss in terms of travel time. The Goverment concludes that this would involve inconvenience rather than hardship, and decides that this is outweighed by the cost of retention.
• A change in minister and a 1968 transport white paper means that BR can apply for a grant to run unrenumerative lines - but this only applies to the "London" area, which only extends as far as Uckfield (apparently), so the section South of there is closed. Quite apart from leaving everyone outside of London to swivel, this means that a potentially useful through route with the coast with an even spread of passengers becomes a commuter heavy branch line to the middle of the countryside.

Anyone who thinks that the closure programme was justified should read this and weep. Travesties like this were happenning all over the country.

Beeching might not have had a crystal ball, however one might have expected him to notice the value of having secondary routes during renewals during the West Coast Mainline electrification for example. He could possibly have borrowed a copy of the DfT's cost benefit analysis, which was apparently used in the construction of the M1. Clearly the Uckfield line objectors had the resources to conduct an analysis.

We've talked a lot about the common carrier obligation etc, perhaps the most outmoded concept was the idea that the railway should pay for itself entirely through the farebox. I wonder whether anybody suggested this on the Stedeford commttee.

 

[yorksrob]

As you have just invented the concept of 'accountability to passengers' having tried 'democracy' which was shown to be an incorrect description of the process, what do you mean by it?

I think it would be big headed of me to claim credit for inventing the concept of "accountability to passengers" after 180 years of passenger railways. It would be a pretty bad indictment of the industry if it had taken 180 years.

For avoidance of doubt, I mean the process by which the interests of railway passengers are represented during closure proceedings.

 

[30907]

Yes, on Tunbridge Wells - Eridge, the TUCC ruled against closure. That was clearly rejected.

Did you support the passengers interests on Tunbridge Wells -Eridge and stand up for the railway ?

I can't find a reference to the 1980s report online, only to the 1966 one - I would be interested to know the wording.

Supporting the interests of specific passengers and standing up for the railway may be in conflict - or at least, a person might reasonably take that view.

 

[yorksrob]

I can't find a reference to the 1980s report online, only to the 1966 one - I would be interested to know the wording.

Supporting the interests of specific passengers and standing up for the railway may be in conflict - or at least, a person might reasonably take that view.

Neither can I unfortunately. It was referred to in the Railway Magazine.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The problems of the route centred around the viaduct through Lewes which had been allowed to fall into disrepair. Apparently this led to the line over the viaduct being single tracked, speed restricted and a shuttle train operating whereby a passenger from the coast would have to change trains at Lewes, then Barcombe Mills to make a journey Northwards. According to the Wealden Campaign, even this "service" didn't manage to put off the clientelle. One might have expected BR to just repair enough of the viaduct to single the track over it.

The route is interesting because it is an apt illustration of the litany of failure that characterised all sides of the closure programme:

• Beeching listed the line South of Crowborough, potentially leaving Uckfield isolated.
• Marples approves a £350k grant towards the construction of the pheonix causeway in Lewes, but isn't prepared to pay £135k to bridge the railway. The "Mother of Parliaments" also refuses to grant £95k to divert the route via Hamsey.
• 1966, BR applies to close the whole route from Hurst Green to Lewes.
• At the TUCC, the objectors use the DfT's own cost benefit analysis for (what is incredibly) the first time such analysis has been used to assess a closure. It finds that the route, which apparently generated less than £5k in revenue, if closed would lead to a £570k loss in terms of travel time. The Goverment concludes that this would involve inconvenience rather than hardship, and decides that this is outweighed by the cost of retention.
• A change in minister and a 1968 transport white paper means that BR can apply for a grant to run unrenumerative lines - but this only applies to the "London" area, which only extends as far as Uckfield (apparently), so the section South of there is closed. Quite apart from leaving everyone outside of London to swivel, this means that a potentially useful through route with the coast with an even spread of passengers becomes a commuter heavy branch line to the middle of the countryside.

Anyone who thinks that the closure programme was justified should read this and weep. Travesties like this were happenning all over the country.

Beeching might not have had a crystal ball, however one might have expected him to notice the value of having secondary routes during renewals during the West Coast Mainline electrification for example. He could possibly have borrowed a copy of the DfT's cost benefit analysis, which was apparently used in the construction of the M1. Clearly the Uckfield line objectors had the resources to conduct an analysis.

We've talked a lot about the common carrier obligation etc, perhaps the most outmoded concept was the idea that the railway should pay for itself entirely through the farebox. I wonder whether anybody suggested this on the Stedeford commttee.

There is some interesting stuff here but it is perhaps worth remembering that the use of cost-benefit analysis in transport scheme appraisals was still pretty cutting edge in the 1960s.
As I understand it the first real application in GB was the post hoc study undertaken on the M1. (It wasn't done before it was built.) The first prospective transport scheme in GB to benefit was the Victoria Line. The work was done by Michael Beesley, who had been brought in to help the DfT by none other than Ernest Marples.
(Another of Marples' shrewd moves was to commission Colin Buchanan to write the seminal report on Traffic in Towns. This was really the first point at which the downsides of continuous road traffic growth were laid bare, particularly in terms of the effect on the local population.)
Overall Marples' 'Three Busy B's' - Beeching, Beesley and Buchanan - probably did more to influence overall British transport policy for the better than any other triumvirate before or since.
Beesley went on to be Chief Economic Adviser to the Ministry of Transport under Barbara Castle by the way.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Although a 'reshaping' was required the methodology in deciding what to keep and what to close was often flawed. A town the size of Mansfield lost it's railway while the branch to Southminster remained - even on the same line you have stations like Yetminster and Chetnole in the middle of nowhere retaining stations while further up the line Sparkford closes. There just seemed to be scant justification for some closures while a whole network was kept in the South East commuter belt. Teynham, Selling, Marden, Chilham - were they really worth saving at that time against closing Wellington (Somerset), Hanley, Dudley, Washington. Petty politics prevented the plan from doing it's job properly leading to the many anomalies it created in axing services to some sizeable towns while retaining halts that hardly ever saw a passenger.

 

[Journeyman]

Although a 'reshaping' was required the methodology in deciding what to keep and what to close was often flawed. A town the size of Mansfield lost it's railway while the branch to Southminster remained - even on the same line you have stations like Yetminster and Chetnole in the middle of nowhere retaining stations while further up the line Sparkford closes. There just seemed to be scant justification for some closures while a whole network was kept in the South East commuter belt. Teynham, Selling, Marden, Chilham - were they really worth saving at that time against closing Wellington (Somerset), Hanley, Dudley, Washington. Petty politics prevented the plan from doing it's job properly leading to the many anomalies it created in axing services to some sizeable towns while retaining halts that hardly ever saw a passenger.

I can't argue with any of that, but I think the flaws in methodology were simply down to the size of the task and the very limited means to obtain and process data properly - I don't blame incompetence or conspiracy. As others have also mentioned, Beeching's remit was pretty narrow - cost/benefit and social needs weren't really considered.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the closures were somewhat inconsistently carried out, and if everything had shut as Beeching had planned, then a lot of the anomalies you've mentioned would have been eliminated.

Anything that got past about 1969/70 and was still on the hitlist generally survived, once subsidies were seen as a solution.

 

[edwin_m]

Although a 'reshaping' was required the methodology in deciding what to keep and what to close was often flawed. A town the size of Mansfield lost it's railway while the branch to Southminster remained - even on the same line you have stations like Yetminster and Chetnole in the middle of nowhere retaining stations while further up the line Sparkford closes. There just seemed to be scant justification for some closures while a whole network was kept in the South East commuter belt. Teynham, Selling, Marden, Chilham - were they really worth saving at that time against closing Wellington (Somerset), Hanley, Dudley, Washington. Petty politics prevented the plan from doing it's job properly leading to the many anomalies it created in axing services to some sizeable towns while retaining halts that hardly ever saw a passenger.

At the time somewhere like Mansfield or Dudley was an industrial town where nearly everyone worked locally, so the demand for passenger travel was far less than might be expected for a town of its size. For similar reasons the roads were probably fairly clear so buses could be expected to do a good job. Smaller places in the south east (but perhaps not as far out as Southminster) were more likely to have outward commuter traffic so would generate more passengers relative to population.

There was also some kind of presumption that buses would be preferred for local service wherever possible. I can't comment on Yetminster or Chetnole but I think this explains things like Avoncliff staying open while Limpley Stoke closed, and closure to Tavistock but keeping Gunnislake.

In later years general increase in car use and the decline of industry made those industrial towns into commuter towns as well, and also made buses less effective as a medium-distance transport mode. Hence the need for heavy or light rail to serve Mansfield and Dudley.

 

[yorksrob]

I can't argue with any of that, but I think the flaws in methodology were simply down to the size of the task and the very limited means to obtain and process data properly - I don't blame incompetence or conspiracy. As others have also mentioned, Beeching's remit was pretty narrow - cost/benefit and social needs weren't really considered.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the closures were somewhat inconsistently carried out, and if everything had shut as Beeching had planned, then a lot of the anomalies you've mentioned would have been eliminated.

Anything that got past about 1969/70 and was still on the hitlist generally survived, once subsidies were seen as a solution.

It would have been a more consistent, albeit still a pretty dire scenario had the plan been carried out as planned. RN Hardy in his book suggests that Beeching always thought that routes such as Liverpool - Southport would have been saved, however, I'm not so sure, given that the option of support wasn't really looked at in the report (from what I recall), and as far as I'm aware.

In terms of post Beeching, regarding my example of Hurst Green to Lewes, there really wasn't any lack of available data to show how important the route was, certainly by 1966 - the fact that it ended up truncated was down to policy failure.

 

[yorksrob]

Although a 'reshaping' was required the methodology in deciding what to keep and what to close was often flawed. A town the size of Mansfield lost it's railway while the branch to Southminster remained - even on the same line you have stations like Yetminster and Chetnole in the middle of nowhere retaining stations while further up the line Sparkford closes. There just seemed to be scant justification for some closures while a whole network was kept in the South East commuter belt. Teynham, Selling, Marden, Chilham - were they really worth saving at that time against closing Wellington (Somerset), Hanley, Dudley, Washington. Petty politics prevented the plan from doing it's job properly leading to the many anomalies it created in axing services to some sizeable towns while retaining halts that hardly ever saw a passenger.

In truth the Marden's and Chilham's of this world do pretty well to this day. Marden warranted reconstruction by NSE in the 1980's. Unfortunately Wellington was in the way of the fast InterCity railway, which seems a bit counter-productive to cut off such a large town.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

In truth the Marden's and Chilham's of this world do pretty well to this day. Marden warranted reconstruction by NSE in the 1980's. Unfortunately Wellington was in the way of the fast InterCity railway, which seems a bit counter-productive to cut off such a large town.

Maybe Marden and Chilham do now but apart from the peak flows back when closures were being made and well into the 90's neither station warranted the level of service especially late evening services where no one ever got on or off. Apparently everyone must agree that Selling and Teynham should have closed in the Beeching era.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe Marden and Chilham do now but apart from the peak flows back when closures were being made and well into the 90's neither station warranted the level of service especially late evening services where no one ever got on or off. Apparently everyone must agree that Selling and Teynham should have closed in the Beeching era.

I must admit, I don't know a lot about Selling and Teynham (I grew up in Ashford, so didn't get to visit the Chatham lines that much), but I'm inclined to think that the stations outside the SE, such as Wellington should have stayed open, rather than that wayside stations in the South East should have closed !