What if theory on the railway network

[Prestige15]

Something i'm curious to know.

What if all lines across the UK (i.e Great Central Mainline, or Bedford - Northampton) have never closed?

Will it make the railway better or worse?

 

[JonathanH]

Something i'm curious to know.

What if all lines across the UK (i.e Great Central Mainline, or Bedford - Northampton) have never closed?

Will it make the railway better or worse?

Not at all the first person to have that thought about the Great Central.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/great-central-mainline-closure.225197/page-5#post-5424392

The problem is that the railway would have had more lines to focus limited resources on rather than building up services on the most useful routes. Therefore having more lines open means people have more connections and places to go but potentially the railway isn't better as a result of investment having to be spread over more lines.

It shouldn't be forgotten that much of the railway remained in a sort of managed decline for many years through the 70s and 80s (albeit with positives as well in places) so the lines that closed before would have had to weather that issue.

 

[SynthD]

The railway might be blamed for holding on to too much land better used for housing and other redevelopment. I expect there would be a few lines where, if it had held a parliamentary service through the decades until the recent renaissance, they could be reinstated to a usefulness we are missing.

 

[The Planner]

It would suck up more subsidy for a start.

 

[Tangent]

Something i'm curious to know.

What if all lines across the UK (i.e Great Central Mainline, or Bedford - Northampton) have never closed?

Will it make the railway better or worse?

I think a lot depends what you mean by 'all lines'. The pre-BR railway networks were shaped by freight demand as much as passenger demand, and were also shaped by particular types of freight flow - coal traffic being the most important example. Whatever happens in the railway world, that kind of demand is going to drop over the course of the late C20.

Possibly, you might have a situation where the railways were still able to carry a great deal of freight volume. Or you would have a situation where overall rail mileage remained relatively constant. But both of these situations only sound really plausible if closures took place alongside new lines opening.

 

[6Gman]

Something i'm curious to know.

What if all lines across the UK (i.e Great Central Mainline, or Bedford - Northampton) have never closed?

Will it make the railway better or worse?

The level of investment in the 60s onwards would have been lower and more thinly spread.

So, overall, worse.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I was wondering whether all the additional junctions on a much larger network would also mean that there were many more constraints? i.e. more options but lower frequency on main lines due to crossing moves?

Particularly as demand rose during the last 20 years.

 

[Irascible]

Something i'm curious to know.

What if all lines across the UK (i.e Great Central Mainline, or Bedford - Northampton) have never closed?

Will it make the railway better or worse?

This isn't the same country as the early 60s, so assuming you're allowed to close lines that have no use ( as opposed to little use ) a fair chunk of the network would have shut anyway, as heavy industry shut down & then so did coal & other raw material supplies. You could perhaps assume we didn't lose quite so much heavy industry if you like, but the mines are going to shut regardless.

Next up you have to assume that governments who were more adverse to pruning the rail network were also less road focussed otherwise there's just not enough traffic until the population really started growing. Some of the rail network was not terribly useful anyway, or constructed in a daft way which would need more investment to fix, so unless you did fix awful junctions or stupidly placed stations, that's not really "better". A less road-focussed government might start planning new towns on major rail lines ( hey, might even have made the Great Central useful! ). Taken in isolation, not shutting anything would have left us with some places with better links, but mostly a pain in the backside.

The other thing to think about is capacity issues - if the network is creaking *now*, imagine if it was taking connecting passengers as well as the extra passengers you've kept by not focussing on roads - as well as all the freight that's not going via road. I'd imagine habitation patterns would change a little if we're all public transport focussed, outside of conurbations anyway.

--

The other what-if is "what if reshaping the railways had been over a 20 year period" or some other lengthy time - not necessarily starting in the early 60s, maybe if the BTC had got a clue earlier. Lengthier processes to decide about the economics of routes, starting to use social value as well as economic, basic railways etc. No matter what scenario though, something is going to shut, because the nation changes.

 

[david1212]

For All Lines realistically worse due to the subsidy to provide an hourly service with the most basic trains. Some made serious losses even when few owned a car and rural trains provided a better service than buses could. Now how many would have even double figures on any train and worst case run totally empty ?

Some lines would be useful and of course proposed for reopening ... but that is going OT for this thread.

 

[RT4038]

This isn't the same country as the early 60s, so assuming you're allowed to close lines that have no use ( as opposed to little use ) a fair chunk of the network would have shut anyway, as heavy industry shut down & then so did coal & other raw material supplies. You could perhaps assume we didn't lose quite so much heavy industry if you like, but the mines are going to shut regardless.

Next up you have to assume that governments who were more adverse to pruning the rail network were also less road focussed otherwise there's just not enough traffic until the population really started growing. Some of the rail network was not terribly useful anyway, or constructed in a daft way which would need more investment to fix, so unless you did fix awful junctions or stupidly placed stations, that's not really "better". A less road-focussed government might start planning new towns on major rail lines ( hey, might even have made the Great Central useful! ). Taken in isolation, not shutting anything would have left us with some places with better links, but mostly a pain in the backside.

The other thing to think about is capacity issues - if the network is creaking *now*, imagine if it was taking connecting passengers as well as the extra passengers you've kept by not focussing on roads - as well as all the freight that's not going via road. I'd imagine habitation patterns would change a little if we're all public transport focussed, outside of conurbations anyway.

--

The other what-if is "what if reshaping the railways had been over a 20 year period" or some other lengthy time - not necessarily starting in the early 60s, maybe if the BTC had got a clue earlier. Lengthier processes to decide about the economics of routes, starting to use social value as well as economic, basic railways etc. No matter what scenario though, something is going to shut, because the nation changes.

The problem with a question like this is the amount of assumptions that have to be made, and the more assumptions that are made the more fantastical they become.

Obviously one assumption that has to be made is that of finance. Are we talking about not closing any lines and not increasing the level of subsidy paid / investments made, over how much was actually given to the railway industry 1950 to 2020, or something else? Whatever assumption is made on this question is going to be key to any speculative answer (the higher the subsidy the more fantastical the assumption). Another important assumption would be on what kind of political system would the country have had to have for the Government to be 'less-road focused', bearing in mind the likely clamour for private road transport from both individuals and business, seeing what was available elsewhere in the world? Now of course you could make more assumptions, but we are really starting to get into never never land.

There are some examples around the world of being 'less-road focused', but they didn't really work so well in the end (dragging the economy down), required a much different political system to us, and when that changed the railways shrunk very quickly and painfully. East Germany and South Africa spring to mind.

 

[Techniquest]

There were plenty of lines that would be extremely poor performing if they still existed, so it's a mighty good thing they were eliminated. Of course, a lot of stuff went before the Beeching era.

Take for example the line from New Radnor to Leominster. More details here:

Leominster and Kington Railway - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This was once upon a time my old 'local' line, especially if it had not been closed for 29 years before I had been created. It closed way back in 1955 to passengers, 9 years later for freight. It ran through mostly rural terrain, and even now the villages and towns it served are hardly thriving areas of population. It was not the original goal to terminate outside of a village in Radnorshire, but to continue and link up to the railway through the middle of Wales (without checking this was to be in Builth Wells or Llandrindod Wells, I haven't read the article I linked to), which never happened.

Even if it had stayed opened, the subsidy required to operate the line at all would have been huge. It also doesn't really serve places people actually go to, the majority of that part of Herefordshire/Radnorshire go to either Hereford or Llandrindod Wells, Leominster is not exactly the most exciting place to visit nor the most useful. So where today's passengers for the line would come from, I have no idea!

Closure of the line did help the area though, as the Kington bypass took over part of the trackbed. The town would be seriously crippled by today's traffic if the bypass wasn't there, and if I was a betting man I'd put money on that being the case in many places. Kington being the biggest place on the line west of Leominster, you'd think it would have a station ideally located for it wouldn't you? Oh no, not at all, so even if it had stayed open it would have been useless for the majority of the town.

Similar stories apply to the Titley Junction to Presteigne branch, the branch from Titley Junction towards Hay-on-Wye through the villages of Lyonshall and Eardisley as well as other places, and to the line from Hereford to Hay-on-Wye. I'd be here all night talking about those basket cases, but let me quickly summarise it:

Isolated, rural countryside with hamlets and villages does not make for a well-used railway! Some parts of Herefordshire, and in this case I've moved my attention to the area around Holme Lacy, Ballingham and onwards towards Ross-on-Wye, are so Isolated that you have to have either a big vehicle or walk everywhere. On those roads, I'd not fancy taking my chances walking, and even then it's a long way from anywhere with shops or other useful things!

So, really quickly then, would I want to see much of the old railway still in existence? Of course, some of it would be nice to see, but having seen a lot of long-closed railway areas, it is clear to see why they closed!

 

[krus_aragon]

I think a lot depends what you mean by 'all lines'. The pre-BR railway networks were shaped by freight demand as much as passenger demand, and were also shaped by particular types of freight flow - coal traffic being the most important example. Whatever happens in the railway world, that kind of demand is going to drop over the course of the late C20

To take some early C20 examples, many parts of South Wales had two railways per valley: one either side of the valley. These railways would have been built by different companies competing for the vast coal traffic, but there was little point in having two lines serving the same communities once the companies had all been grouped with the GWR in the 1920s.

Keeping all those railway lines open to this day, with the decline and disappearance of coal traffic in the latter parts of the C20, would have been utterly impractical.

 

[Irascible]

The problem with a question like this is the amount of assumptions that have to be made, and the more assumptions that are made the more fantastical they become.

Obviously one assumption that has to be made is that of finance. Are we talking about not closing any lines and not increasing the level of subsidy paid / investments made, over how much was actually given to the railway industry 1950 to 2020, or something else? Whatever assumption is made on this question is going to be key to any speculative answer (the higher the subsidy the more fantastical the assumption). Another important assumption would be on what kind of political system would the country have had to have for the Government to be 'less-road focused', bearing in mind the likely clamour for private road transport from both individuals and business, seeing what was available elsewhere in the world? Now of course you could make more assumptions, but we are really starting to get into never never land.

There are some examples around the world of being 'less-road focused', but they didn't really work so well in the end (dragging the economy down), required a much different political system to us, and when that changed the railways shrunk very quickly and painfully. East Germany and South Africa spring to mind.

There's also two ways to look at it - the one you and I looked at was "would the country be better off having put in place the necessities to keep all these lines open", and then we had to try and work out what those necesseties were - and I really do think it'd be the govt going "get on the flippin trains! here's your New Town, look, trains!" as well as both stripping everything down to bare necessities, and also getting a cluie much earlier & the "Modernisation plan" being actually modern in execution - so part 1 almsst entirely unrealistic unless they taxed cars out of the reach of everyone but the wealthy, and part two something of a miracle at the time.

The other way is handwave every line which still actually connects things back into existence presumably modernised, and then decide if GB today would be better off. To that, I think I just say "ouch, operating costs". There are a few cases which might pass a BCR test today if there wasn't the costs of basically building a new railway, but the *whole* lot?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There were plenty of lines that would be extremely poor performing if they still existed, so it's a mighty good thing they were eliminated. Of course, a lot of stuff went before the Beeching era.

Take for example the line from New Radnor to Leominster. More details here:

Leominster and Kington Railway - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This was once upon a time my old 'local' line, especially if it had not been closed for 29 years before I had been created. It closed way back in 1955 to passengers, 9 years later for freight. It ran through mostly rural terrain, and even now the villages and towns it served are hardly thriving areas of population. It was not the original goal to terminate outside of a village in Radnorshire, but to continue and link up to the railway through the middle of Wales (without checking this was to be in Builth Wells or Llandrindod Wells, I haven't read the article I linked to), which never happened.

Even if it had stayed opened, the subsidy required to operate the line at all would have been huge. It also doesn't really serve places people actually go to, the majority of that part of Herefordshire/Radnorshire go to either Hereford or Llandrindod Wells, Leominster is not exactly the most exciting place to visit nor the most useful. So where today's passengers for the line would come from, I have no idea!

Closure of the line did help the area though, as the Kington bypass took over part of the trackbed. The town would be seriously crippled by today's traffic if the bypass wasn't there, and if I was a betting man I'd put money on that being the case in many places. Kington being the biggest place on the line west of Leominster, you'd think it would have a station ideally located for it wouldn't you? Oh no, not at all, so even if it had stayed open it would have been useless for the majority of the town.

Similar stories apply to the Titley Junction to Presteigne branch, the branch from Titley Junction towards Hay-on-Wye through the villages of Lyonshall and Eardisley as well as other places, and to the line from Hereford to Hay-on-Wye. I'd be here all night talking about those basket cases, but let me quickly summarise it:

Isolated, rural countryside with hamlets and villages does not make for a well-used railway! Some parts of Herefordshire, and in this case I've moved my attention to the area around Holme Lacy, Ballingham and onwards towards Ross-on-Wye, are so Isolated that you have to have either a big vehicle or walk everywhere. On those roads, I'd not fancy taking my chances walking, and even then it's a long way from anywhere with shops or other useful things!

So, really quickly then, would I want to see much of the old railway still in existence? Of course, some of it would be nice to see, but having seen a lot of long-closed railway areas, it is clear to see why they closed!

As you clearly know the area well, may I ask: was it a mistake to close the line between Gloucester and Hereford via Ross-On-Wye?

 

[Techniquest]

As you clearly know the area well, may I ask: was it a mistake to close the line between Gloucester and Hereford via Ross-On-Wye?

Herefordshire has been my 'home' county for many years, and since taking up cycling I've been finding so much more to see than I would ever have done before. Still some areas to explore, and that will come in time.

Honest opinion? I think if the railway had survived it would have seen some use today, but it ran through some seriously rural areas so it would not have been the most useful route. Similar for Ledbury to Gloucester, it would have been very useful but it is so infrequently used I'm told the final Route 132 bus between the two places ran earlier this year. Demand for such a journey just isn't there.

So many railways in my area qualify as 'basket case' status. There's not even a strong case for reopening most of the closed stations on the lines which remain. So yes, I would absolutely say it was the best thing to do, close the old lines.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Herefordshire has been my 'home' county for many years, and since taking up cycling I've been finding so much more to see than I would ever have done before. Still some areas to explore, and that will come in time.

Honest opinion? I think if the railway had survived it would have seen some use today, but it ran through some seriously rural areas so it would not have been the most useful route. Similar for Ledbury to Gloucester, it would have been very useful but it is so infrequently used I'm told the final Route 132 bus between the two places ran earlier this year. Demand for such a journey just isn't there.

So many railways in my area qualify as 'basket case' status. There's not even a strong case for reopening most of the closed stations on the lines which remain. So yes, I would absolutely say it was the best thing to do, close the old lines.

Thank you.

In the pre-Covid era, when rail passenger numbers were rising consistently, I used to wonder if an hourly service between Paddington and Hereford via Swindon and Gloucester would have been financially viable if the route had remained open.

 

[Techniquest]

Thank you.

In the pre-Covid era, when rail passenger numbers were rising consistently, I used to wonder if an hourly service between Paddington and Hereford via Swindon and Gloucester would have been financially viable if the route had remained open.

For the bit between Gloucester and Hereford, even if running ultra-fast with just a stop in Ross-on-Wye between the two, I seem to recall that the line would be quite slow and twisty, running through some of the most isolated parts of Herefordshire going. Except for places like the parts of Herefordshire around the Welsh border in the Black Mountains, for obvious reasons. So even running 'fast' it would not be an appealing journey.

Useful, no doubt to the tiny amount of people living in some of the areas it would serve, but considering even an hourly bus service with cheap fares does not load too well for the full journey (which is pretty slow to be fair, not helped by some really tight sections) as it is. The railway would never be able to compete with Stagecoach on fares, so the trains would inevitably run empty!

Put simply, a 153 would be sufficient most of the time!

 

[A0wen]

Something i'm curious to know.

What if all lines across the UK (i.e Great Central Mainline, or Bedford - Northampton) have never closed?

Will it make the railway better or worse?

Closures were not just a Beeching thing - the "Big 4" e.g. Canterbury & Whitstable line lost its passenger services in 1931.

I think had such economies not been made there is ever chance one of the Big 4 might have gone bust before WW2 and certainly after WW2 British Rail would, by any normal definition, have gone bust such would have been the level of unsustainable losses.

 

[6Gman]

For the bit between Gloucester and Hereford, even if running ultra-fast with just a stop in Ross-on-Wye between the two, I seem to recall that the line would be quite slow and twisty, running through some of the most isolated parts of Herefordshire going. Except for places like the parts of Herefordshire around the Welsh border in the Black Mountains, for obvious reasons. So even running 'fast' it would not be an appealing journey.

Useful, no doubt to the tiny amount of people living in some of the areas it would serve, but considering even an hourly bus service with cheap fares does not load too well for the full journey (which is pretty slow to be fair, not helped by some really tight sections) as it is. The railway would never be able to compete with Stagecoach on fares, so the trains would inevitably run empty!

Put simply, a 153 would be sufficient most of the time!

It's not an area I know at all but I did wonder if it might be the equivalent of Crewe - Shrewsbury with Ross playing the role of Whitchurch, and no through Manchester - Cardiff to share the overheads!

So, an hourly or two-hourly 153.

 

[Mintona]

I live near to one of the other former halts on the old Gloucester - Ross - Hereford line. I’d love to still have a railway here now. The buses have been pretty much axed between Ross and Gloucester, they’re only hourly and take an hour for a journey that is 30 minutes in the car. Having a train that could do the journey in ~30 minutes would be so much better.

On a similar note, railways in the Forest of Dean would be so useful. Everybody drives everywhere. I appreciate it’s never going to happen.

 

[Irascible]

Closures were not just a Beeching thing - the "Big 4" e.g. Canterbury & Whitstable line lost its passenger services in 1931.

I think had such economies not been made there is ever chance one of the Big 4 might have gone bust before WW2 and certainly after WW2 British Rail would, by any normal definition, have gone bust such would have been the level of unsustainable losses.

If the post-war govt had started subsidising instead of nationalising, the *bus* network ( and even air network ) might have been interesting by now - might we have sutch wonders as integratd bus networks ( the GWR at least already had such a thing anyway ). I guess the various anti-monopoly authorities might have forced whatever companies we had at this point to hive them off but hey, groundwork. Does a line couint as still being there if the original operator is running it with a bus?

Would have been interesting to see if something like the RCH evolved into something a bit more like NR too.

 

[A0wen]

Does a line couint as still being there if the original operator is running it with a bus?

In many parts of the world, yes. On Railforums..... I think a poster of your standing and calibre can probably guess the likely response

 

[RT4038]

If the post-war govt had started subsidising instead of nationalising, the *bus* network ( and even air network ) might have been interesting by now - might we have sutch wonders as integratd bus networks ( the GWR at least already had such a thing anyway ). I guess the various anti-monopoly authorities might have forced whatever companies we had at this point to hive them off but hey, groundwork. Does a line couint as still being there if the original operator is running it with a bus?

Would have been interesting to see if something like the RCH evolved into something a bit more like NR too.

The post-war govt didn't need to subsidise the bus network - it was making good money at that time, by and large. The railways were not, and required huge capital investment to modernise , so the solution was clear - close them down. By post-war the railways had lost the local passenger battle already - the time for Govt intervention for integration would have been the 1920s/1930s. However, countries that did that have had a pretty mixed bag of results, and often still didn't prevent closure of large amounts of their rail systems. By the time of the post-war govt the die was already cast.

 

[Techniquest]

It's not an area I know at all but I did wonder if it might be the equivalent of Crewe - Shrewsbury with Ross playing the role of Whitchurch, and no through Manchester - Cardiff to share the overheads!

So, an hourly or two-hourly 153.

Fair enough, I hope my posts have been helpful. I had assumed it was not an area of vast expertise, so I hope my posts did not come across in a bad way. Certainly I see the comparison to the Crewe-Shrewsbury line, which I have to confess is not an area of huge expertise for me.

I should be changing that a little tomorrow, I've been through it many times but never properly explored the area beyond the immediate area of the stations. Except for Whitchurch, and my over-riding memory of that during a short wait for a train was visiting a Bargain Booze! It must be a decent size place to have a big bypass around it though!

How the likes of Yorton have stayed open is beyond me. Probably just easier to leave such stations there given its place on the mainline.

I live near to one of the other former halts on the old Gloucester - Ross - Hereford line. I’d love to still have a railway here now. The buses have been pretty much axed between Ross and Gloucester, they’re only hourly and take an hour for a journey that is 30 minutes in the car. Having a train that could do the journey in ~30 minutes would be so much better.

On a similar note, railways in the Forest of Dean would be so useful. Everybody drives everywhere. I appreciate it’s never going to happen.

I think we had a group visit to Ross-on-Wye many years ago, and we had a visit to the remains of the old station there. I don't have any photos and memory doesn't tell me when it was.

The bus being hourly must be frustrating, do you not get the 32 running now? Or is that peak time only? I did a 32 via Newent some months back, but that was 5-something in the evening. There's some nice parts of Gloucestershire around there with some good cycling opportunities. Diverting the 33 via Mitcheldean really does slow it down, and those roads from Lea are terrible! Don't ask me for a comment on the A4136 from Huntley to Mitcheldean, I think my legs have only just recovered! Although, to be fair, I was riding into a moderately strong headwind on them too. The downhill towards Longhope was pretty fun though, that's a nice looking village and I will have to explore the area more by cycle eventually. Before you ask, no I won't be doing the big climb up the A road from it!

I agree the Forest of Dean would be popular for rail travellers if it was still there, but it just wouldn't justify its existence in this day and age sadly You have reminded me that I still have a lot of that area to explore!

 

[yorksrob]

There are some more nuanced "what if's" which are also interesting to contemplate. For example, what if the region's had been allowed to go through their more gradual weeding out of branch lines, rather than going through a top-down process of cuts as advocated by Beeching. Would we have more network today, or would the same level of closures have occurred, just over a longer period.

What if the government had maintained individual grants for services, rather than switching to a block subsidy. Would it have removed the incentive for later closures such as Bridport ?

What if the common carrier obligation had been scrapped prior to the implementation of the modernisation plan. Would more savings have been stacked up on passenger routes leading to fewer closures ? etc

 

[A0wen]

There are some more nuanced "what if's" which are also interesting to contemplate. For example, what if the region's had been allowed to go through their more gradual weeding out of branch lines, rather than going through a top-down process of cuts as advocated by Beeching. Would we have more network today, or would the same level of closures have occurred, just over a longer period.

The bigger problem was the regions were based on the historic 'big 4' - so you had huge areas of overlap and little sensible co-ordination. The management of those regions was largely still made up of former 'big 4' people as well, so when lines were transferred into their region they still showed their old loyalties when it came down to an attitude towards closures. Probably the best example of this were the fortunes of the GC / GW lines from Marylebone. When transferred to London Midland it was run down in favour of the WCML - even into BR days, places like Banbury saw a sparse service and there was barely an service between London & Birmingham using the "old" GW route via High Wycombe, Banbury etc. It was only when, what are now, the Chiltern lines, were transferred to Western Region did things start to improve.

I think there are still, relatively few, branch lines which were closed under the Beeching report, which wouldn't have ultimately still closed. Most of the rural ones are still serving low population rural areas. And many of the "secondary" routes which people claim would have been "strategically important" now had a relatively sparse service - certainly far less than those who advocate the reopening of such lines would accept even today.

To give an example - the Northampton - Peterborough line in 1961 there were 5 trains a day which covered the whole line leaving Northampton at 7.13, 9.28, 12.28, 5.10 and 6.42 (SO). There were about 6 others between Northampton and Wellingborough, unevenly spaced through the day. On Sundays there were 3 trains between Northampton & Wellingborough. Yet those who have posted on here advocating its re-opening seem to think there's sufficient demand for an hourly or better service 18 hours a day. Whilst I accept that the population has grown during the subsequent 60 years, to somehow believe there is demand for something over a 600% increase in the service level of 1961 is pushing it somewhat.

 

[gg1]

There are some more nuanced "what if's" which are also interesting to contemplate. For example, what if the region's had been allowed to go through their more gradual weeding out of branch lines, rather than going through a top-down process of cuts as advocated by Beeching. Would we have more network today, or would the same level of closures have occurred, just over a longer period.

What if the government had maintained individual grants for services, rather than switching to a block subsidy. Would it have removed the incentive for later closures such as Bridport ?

What if the common carrier obligation had been scrapped prior to the implementation of the modernisation plan. Would more savings have been stacked up on passenger routes leading to fewer closures ? etc

Two particularly interesting 'what ifs' IMO would be:

What if the 1955 modernisation plan also included a rationalisation element, far less severe than Beeching in terms of closures (maybe 30-40% of the route mileage highlighted by Beeching) but large scale conversion to paytrains on the more lightly used routes and the majority of stations on such routes becoming unstaffed.

What if the LNER had inherited the NER's enthusiasm for electrification resulting in full electrification of the ECML by 1939 plus Woodhead and all commuter routes into Kings Cross and Liverpool Street?

 

[yorksrob]

The bigger problem was the regions were based on the historic 'big 4' - so you had huge areas of overlap and little sensible co-ordination. The management of those regions was largely still made up of former 'big 4' people as well, so when lines were transferred into their region they still showed their old loyalties when it came down to an attitude towards closures. Probably the best example of this were the fortunes of the GC / GW lines from Marylebone. When transferred to London Midland it was run down in favour of the WCML - even into BR days, places like Banbury saw a sparse service and there was barely an service between London & Birmingham using the "old" GW route via High Wycombe, Banbury etc. It was only when, what are now, the Chiltern lines, were transferred to Western Region did things start to improve.

I think there are still, relatively few, branch lines which were closed under the Beeching report, which wouldn't have ultimately still closed. Most of the rural ones are still serving low population rural areas. And many of the "secondary" routes which people claim would have been "strategically important" now had a relatively sparse service - certainly far less than those who advocate the reopening of such lines would accept even today.

To give an example - the Northampton - Peterborough line in 1961 there were 5 trains a day which covered the whole line leaving Northampton at 7.13, 9.28, 12.28, 5.10 and 6.42 (SO). There were about 6 others between Northampton and Wellingborough, unevenly spaced through the day. On Sundays there were 3 trains between Northampton & Wellingborough. Yet those who have posted on here advocating its re-opening seem to think there's sufficient demand for an hourly or better service 18 hours a day. Whilst I accept that the population has grown during the subsequent 60 years, to somehow believe there is demand for something over a 600% increase in the service level of 1961 is pushing it somewhat.

That raises another interesting "what if". What if the reorganisation of the region's hadn't taken place in the early 1950's. Would there have been a more even approach to rationalisation. For example, would more routes in the South West of the old SR such as the Dartmoor line have survived.

Two particularly interesting 'what ifs' IMO would be:

What if the 1955 modernisation plan also included a rationalisation element, far less severe than Beeching in terms of closures (maybe 30-40% of the route mileage highlighted by Beeching) but large scale conversion to paytrains on the more lightly used routes and the majority of stations on such routes becoming unstaffed.

What if the LNER had inherited the NER's enthusiasm for electrification resulting in full electrification of the ECML by 1939 plus Woodhead and all commuter routes into Kings Cross and Liverpool Street?

Indeed. When you think of routes that closed in the mid-1960's prior to any attempt at rationalisation taking place, could they have been made to cover costs. York - Beverley via Market Weighton is the classic example that springs to mind.

Interestingly, of the lines listed for closure that were rationalised, some survived (Ashford - Hastings) whilst others closed (Alton - Winchester). I certainly think that it would have been easier to retain something like Christ's Hospital - Shoreham with some rationalisation.

Perhaps in an alternative universe, if the Modernisation plan has included some "invest to save" funds to automate level crossings etc.

 

[6Gman]

Two particularly interesting 'what ifs' IMO would be:

What if the 1955 modernisation plan also included a rationalisation element, far less severe than Beeching in terms of closures (maybe 30-40% of the route mileage highlighted by Beeching) but large scale conversion to paytrains on the more lightly used routes and the majority of stations on such routes becoming unstaffed.

What if the LNER had inherited the NER's enthusiasm for electrification resulting in full electrification of the ECML by 1939 plus Woodhead and all commuter routes into Kings Cross and Liverpool Street?

I've always felt that the Modernisation Plan and the Beeching Report came in the wrong order.

 

[D6130]

To take some early C20 examples, many parts of South Wales had two railways per valley: one either side of the valley.

Yes....indeed in the Pontypridd/Caerphilly/Taff's Well area there were even three competing lines in the same valley pre-1930s. The same applied to some other coalfield areas, such as the Leen Valley, North of Nottingham and the Barnsley/Cudworth area in Yorkshire. This was largely due to 'Johnny-come-lately' companies such as the Barry and Hull & Barnsley Railways constructing expensively-engineered direct routes from the most lucrative coalfields to their own purpose-built new ports....passing through nowhere in particular en route. As a result, any passenger services that were provided on these routes were ecomomic basket cases from the start. If you want to find out more about the huge financial and engineering waste accrued by such grandiose projects, try Googling 'Llanbradach Viaduct'.