What were the 5 most controversial closures of the 60s?

[A0wen]

Sorry that's not correct about the K &ESR it was never part of the Southern Railway. It was one of the small independent railways that was not part of the grouping. It only ceased to be independent upon nationalisation in 1948. The Headcorn to Tenterden section was closed and lifted in 1955 with the passenger service removed from the rest of the line. Tenterden to Robertsbridge closed to freight in 1961 so the whole closure predated Beeching.

Fair point. Should have been clearer, so will lift this from Wiki:

"By 1924, the section from Tenterden to Headcorn was operating at a loss. Correspondence with the Southern Railway in 1930 led to Sir Herbert Walker stating that there was no chance of the line making a profit, and that even if passenger services were withdrawn, it was doubtful whether the receipts from freight traffic would cover operating expenses. The Southern Railway were liable to make up any operating losses, as the successor to the South Eastern and Chatham Railway under the terms of the Act of Parliament for the construction of that section of line."

The fact is the line had been identified as unviable before WW2 and had that not happened the line would either have gone bust or been subsumed by the Southern and almost certainly closed.

 

[30907]

Not so much "lines" but I think BR could have retained some chords/links for diversions during engineering works. One that springs to mind close to my heart is the former chord linking the Canterbury East and West lines just northeast of what was Harbledown Junction (that served the Elham Valley Line).

ISTR it was hardly used when built in WW2 but came into its own after the great storm of 1953 when the Kent Coast route was severed. AFAIK it was never used again, Thanet having two of everything anyway in railway terms.

I can't think of anywhere in the North of England fitting your description that would be of greater use than the various diversionary routes that survive.

 

[RT4038]

They *did* campaign on stopping Beeching in 1964, yet when in office continued the closures.

Like so often happens, promise the earth in the manifesto, but then find the economic position very different (worse) than thought, when elected into office!

 

[Irascible]

They *did* campaign on stopping Beeching in 1964, yet when in office continued the closures.

Pretty sure part of the Labour 1997 mamifesto was renationalising, not a spectacular record.

Good luck with that round here, much as I might agree with you.

It will always be Beeching and Marples fault.

Marples was dodgy independently of this topic, so it's no surprise he'll attract blame especially given family circumstances. Given how every other govt behaves you'll have a hard time convincing me someone of his character was on the up & up here, but I firmly blame BR - and maybe the MoT, although I'm not sure how hands on they were - for most of it.

And the BTC for being hopeless & letting things get that bad, too.

 

[AndrewE]

That was certainly an argument that was made, particularly when closure of the Manchester Ship Canal was mooted in the 1980s. But outside of the MSC, which had effectively remodelled much of the drainage of the North-West, I don't think you'll find any waterway historians who would say it was the clincher.

Well, the MSC is the whole river Irwell and Mersey in places, so that isn't really so surprising.

Certainly the government of the time never accepted the argument: "'Mr Austin repeats the popular fallacy that it costs more to close a canal than to maintain it... This belief is just not true', [John] Hay [Parliamentary Secretary] wrote." (Race Against Time, David Bolton, p200.)

Thanks for the lead, I will read it.
However I can imagine the practicalities of picking up and accommodating all the agricultural and other drainage and the likely ongoing costs of maintaining abandoned/culverted ordinary canals, so I find it quite believable that full closure and infilling was not justifiable.

As someone famous (or infamous) back then almost said "Well they would say that wouldn't they?"
I suspect that the truth is that it does cost more to maintain a canal open to traffic than to close it, but it would cost more to abandon it altogether than to leave it as an open channel with cascades instead of locks.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Indeed - witness the Rochdale Canal through Newton Heath which was cascaded in the 80s but has since been restored (and the Monmouthshire through Cwmbran, which hasn’t).

 

[tbtc]

Beeching was a Chairman of BR and set the ethos of the organisation to a considerable extent, therefore a Beeching closure was a BR led closure. The run-down and closure may have taken place after Beeching left, but he instilled the theory behind it.

I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make. Anyone who's seen my posts will know that I'm generally very critical of BR's approach to route closures during the 1960's. Also the fact that the railway was capable of pursuing a more balanced approach to closures from the 1920's onwards, illustrates that the methodology espoused by Beeching wasn't inevitable (something I've also pointed out on many occasions.

I'm making the point that you seem to want to pin blame on one person (even after he was no longer working at BR, he's blamed for "instilling the theory" - you'll do what you can to avoid blaming BR for things - it wasn't BR's fault, it was one man pulling all of the strings

People keep having these kind of arguments on the Forum though - all the good things were because of BR, all of the bad things were the fault of the Government or one or two particular people in BR (who wouldn't have been "proper railway men" etc)

 

[yorksrob]

I'm making the point that you seem to want to pin blame on one person (even after he was no longer working at BR, he's blamed for "instilling the theory" - you'll do what you can to avoid blaming BR for things - it wasn't BR's fault, it was one man pulling all of the strings

People keep having these kind of arguments on the Forum though - all the good things were because of BR, all of the bad things were the fault of the Government or one or two particular people in BR (who wouldn't have been "proper railway men" etc)

As I've sais previously, it's about an ethos, which is set by management, as well as policy, which is set by Government.

 

[Irascible]

As I've sais previously, it's about an ethos, which is set by management, as well as policy, which is set by Government.

One thing I've never seen laid out is who else was installed along with the good Dr - I very much doubt he turned up on his own & managed to win everyone's hearts & minds...

 

[Journeyman]

As I've sais previously, it's about an ethos, which is set by management, as well as policy, which is set by Government.

Railways had been closing at a pretty steady pace since the First World War. All Beeching did was take a strategic view of the situation, and apply common criteria to things. Given the nasties crawling around under the rock he lifted - he was horrified by the financial disaster he found - he didn't have much wiggle room in what he could recommend. Ultimately, though, BR and the government were free to accept or reject his suggestions. Unfortunately, they were better at accepting the closures than the suggested development programme, but ultimately, I don't think Beeching deserves being cast as a villain. Given the limitations of data available, and the parameters he was given to work with, I think his methodology was sound, and there weren't any serious blunders in what he recommended.

 

[tbwbear]

Railways had been closing at a pretty steady pace since the First World War.

Yes, certainly through the 50s, a quick check of the figures on Wikipedia suggests that the average for route miles closing for the 11 years before Beeching (1952 to 1962) was 242 miles a year. For the 11 years after (1963-1973) it is 369 miles a year. So only around a 50% increase on a per year basis.

Reading through the second Beeching Report (1965) - I think possibly his major "blunder" was over estimating Freight and under estimating the success of (then, about to be launched) Inter-City. His prediction was for long distance passenger traffic to decline to 1984 - whereas by the late 60s passenger traffic provided more revenue than freight.

 

[mike57]

Not in any order and cocentrating on areas I am familar with, but to my mind:

York - Beverley, as well as being more direct serves Market Weighton, Pocklington and Stamford Bridge, I would assume the other stations with the exception of possibly Earswick would have been closed.
Harrogate - Ripon - Northallerton, because as well serving Ripon it provided a useful diversion route for the ECML
Uckfield - Lewes, the closure left the Uckfield branch as a 'withered arm' and made no sense.
Hull - Withernsea, Even with an accelarated bus service this year it still takes about 25 mins longer by bus in 2021 than it did by train in 1960, there would be a commuter and shopper market to keep trains busy year round. A couple of new chords could have allowed trains to use the newer route around Hull used by the trains to the docks, as the original route out of Hull had level crossings at busy roads.
Waverley Route, partially reversed, closure left a huge rail desert in the Scottish Borders.

I have often wondered if a diesel tram could or has ever been built, light weight and good braking, and line of sight operation with minimal signalling on branch lines, but still running into the connecting 'main line' station. Pacers were probably the nearest to this, but I am thinking of something with more tram characteristics, better braking, optional low floor exit, top speed maybe 50-60mph. Lightly used branches could then be operated much more efficently, whilst still providing the service into the nearest heavy rail station. If you look at routes where buses replaced trains journey times very rarely compete.

 

[trebor79]

I have often wondered if a diesel tram could or has ever been built, light weight and good braking, and line of sight operation with minimal signalling on branch lines, but still running into the connecting 'main line' station. Pacers were probably the nearest to this, but I am thinking of something with more tram characteristics, better braking, optional low floor exit, top speed maybe 50-60mph. Lightly used branches could then be operated much more efficently, whilst still providing the service into the nearest heavy rail station. If you look at routes where buses replaced trains journey times very rarely compete.

But if any journey beyond the nearest heavy rail station is going to involve a change, then you might as well save the expense associated with maintaining a railway in rural countryside and provide a bus. There are still buses to this day from eg Peterborough to Kings Lynn replacing long lost rail routes.

 

[yorksrob]

But if any journey beyond the nearest heavy rail station is going to involve a change, then you might as well save the expense associated with maintaining a railway in rural countryside and provide a bus. There are still buses to this day from eg Peterborough to Kings Lynn replacing long lost rail routes.

The example that springs to mind for me is Padstow.

I've used the bus connection from Bodmin Road and it is expensive compared to the rail network, the timetable connects to an extent, but you're at the mercy of traffic conditions.

The journey takes a long time and belts around a lot of narrow country roads to the extent that I often feel a bit nautious on it.

So theoretically the bus does work, but it's in no way near as good quality a link as the railway service would have been.

 

[XAM2175]

I have often wondered if a diesel tram could or has ever been built, light weight and good braking, and line of sight operation with minimal signalling on branch lines, but still running into the connecting 'main line' station. Pacers were probably the nearest to this, but I am thinking of something with more tram characteristics, better braking, optional low floor exit, top speed maybe 50-60mph.

I'm thinking of something along the lines of the Stadler RS1 or the smaller vehicles in Alstom's Coradia LINT range - though even these are built and operated to heavy rail standards.

I've used the bus connection from Bodmin Road and it is expensive compared to the rail network, the timetable connects to an extent, but you're at the mercy of traffic conditions. ... So theoretically the bus does work, but it's in no way near as good quality a link as the railway service would have been.

I think it should go without saying that an acceptable bus replacement or extension of a rail service should at a minimum have full integration of ticketing and and co-ordination of timetabling. Treating trains and buses as being in competition with each-other for local and regional journeys is one of the attitudes really holding back the development of effective and efficient public transport in the UK.

 

[mike57]

But if any journey beyond the nearest heavy rail station is going to involve a change, then you might as well save the expense associated with maintaining a railway in rural countryside and provide a bus. There are still buses to this day from eg Peterborough to Kings Lynn replacing long lost rail routes.

The problem is buses are slower than trains even on low speed branch lines, take my example of Hull - Withernsea, even in LNER steam days the best journeys were about 40mins and all stations were about 55mins, with the introduction of DMUs the all stations time improved, currently the 'fast' bus takes 1h 7m the normal bus another 20 mins on top of that. Buses dont tend to have toilets and have limited luggage space, and dont always arrive at the railway station, (Hull is better off in that respect, as the bus station and railway station are integrated into one place), there is frequently no through ticketing, traffic conditions mess with timetables, the list goes on. Buses as rail replacement just dont cut it for anything over a few miles within an urban area. My thinking is that more could have been done to reduce operating costs, but of course that would probably of fallen foul of ingrained working practices. Again to take the Hull - Withernsea example 40mins would be easily acheiveable with say 4 stops, Hedon, Keyingham, Otteringham and Patrington. 'One engine' east of Hedon, single track, automatic crossings, no freight provision. It could have worked, but at the time there was no appetite for it.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm thinking of something along the lines of the Stadler RS1 or the smaller vehicles in Alstom's Coradia LINT range - though even these are built and operated to heavy rail standards.


I think it should go without saying that an acceptable bus replacement or extension of a rail service should at a minimum have full integration of ticketing and and co-ordination of timetabling. Treating trains and buses as being in competition with each-other for local and regional journeys is one of the attitudes really holding back the development of effective and efficient public transport in the UK.

Yes, if there was GW through ticketing as with the branchlines, that would improve the situation. But it's not the whole storey.

 

[XAM2175]

But it's not the whole storey.

Yes, of course, there are a whole number of circumstances in which a bus service will struggle to adequately replace heavy rail - but by that same measure there are circumstances where a properly-connected bus service can deliver similar utility to trains and at a significantly lower cost.

 

[Mikey C]

The problem is buses are slower than trains even on low speed branch lines, take my example of Hull - Withernsea, even in LNER steam days the best journeys were about 40mins and all stations were about 55mins, with the introduction of DMUs the all stations time improved, currently the 'fast' bus takes 1h 7m the normal bus another 20 mins on top of that. Buses dont tend to have toilets and have limited luggage space, and dont always arrive at the railway station, (Hull is better off in that respect, as the bus station and railway station are integrated into one place), there is frequently no through ticketing, traffic conditions mess with timetables, the list goes on. Buses as rail replacement just dont cut it for anything over a few miles within an urban area. My thinking is that more could have been done to reduce operating costs, but of course that would probably of fallen foul of ingrained working practices. Again to take the Hull - Withernsea example 40mins would be easily acheiveable with say 4 stops, Hedon, Keyingham, Otteringham and Patrington. 'One engine' east of Hedon, single track, automatic crossings, no freight provision. It could have worked, but at the time there was no appetite for it.

But then there are also examples where the railway station (for the branch line) is really poorly located, whereas the bus can go where into the centre of town

Indeed the reason buses are slower - that they stop more often - is also one of their benefits, as it means the same route can serve more places, rather than everyone having to go to one place, the railway station which might be a long way from where you want to go

 

[daodao]

York - Beverley, as well as being more direct serves Market Weighton, Pocklington and Stamford Bridge, I would assume the other stations with the exception of possibly Earswick would have been closed.
Harrogate - Ripon - Northallerton, because as well serving Ripon it provided a useful diversion route for the ECML
Uckfield - Lewes, the closure left the Uckfield branch as a 'withered arm' and made no sense.
Hull - Withernsea, Even with an accelarated bus service this year it still takes about 25 mins longer by bus in 2021 than it did by train in 1960, there would be a commuter and shopper market to keep trains busy year round. A couple of new chords could have allowed trains to use the newer route around Hull used by the trains to the docks, as the original route out of Hull had level crossings at busy roads.
Waverley Route, partially reversed, closure left a huge rail desert in the Scottish Borders.

Beeching's recommendations were mostly sound. Closure of the above routes, at least in part, was a wise thing to do, as most of them are duplicate services, not serving places of any significance. Beverley-York was an example case; there is currently an hourly service from Hull to York via an alternative route.

The exceptions are Galashiels to Edinburgh (since re-opened) and Ripon-Harrogate. Hull-Withernsea took a roundabout route, via multiple LCs, to reach Paragon station. I would have closed the Uckfield line entirely, as it runs through empty countryside and Edenbridge has an alternative station. I accept that since the 1960s the population of Crowborough and Uckfield has increased, but London commuters could railhead to an alternative station.

 

[steamybrian]

The exceptions are Galashiels to Edinburgh (since re-opened) and Ripon-Harrogate. Hull-Withernsea took a roundabout route, via multiple LCs, to reach Paragon station. I would have closed the Mid Sussex line entirely, as it runs through empty countryside and Edenbridge has an alternative station.

It would appear your knowledge of the South East is "suspect".
The Mid-Sussex line runs between Horsham-Arundel Jn which carries over one million passengers per year.
If you mean the line between Hurst Green-Uckfield then consider that Edenbridge Town, Hever and Cowden are in Kent. A rural route which serves growing commuter towns such as Edenbridge, Crowborough and Uckfield. Stations such as Eridge are "park and ride" stations which up to last year had annual receipts of around a quarter of million pounds. It is widely reported that more passengers travelled towards Lewes prior to closure in 1969 than towards London.

 

[RT4038]

It is widely reported that more passengers travelled towards Lewes prior to closure in 1969 than towards London.

(a) This doesn't seem very likely, and (b) would mean that the line did not carry many passengers at all.

I have seen this claim before made by enthusiasts and re-opening protagonists, but never any hard statistics or facts from the era.

 

[yorksrob]

(a) This doesn't seem very likely, and (b) would mean that the line did not carry many passengers at all.

I have seen this claim before made by enthusiasts and re-opening protagonists, but never any hard statistics or facts from the era.

It does seem intuitive though.

Coastway services towards Brighton seem to sustain a more steady level of local travel throughout the day, whereas the London bound services (in my experience) tend to be more peak orientated.

I can well imagine Uckfield and Crowborough having a healthy all-day loading towards Brighton in a similar way.

 

[30907]

It does seem intuitive though.

Coastway services towards Brighton seem to sustain a more steady level of local travel throughout the day, whereas the London bound services (in my experience) tend to be more peak orientated.

I can well imagine Uckfield and Crowborough having a healthy all-day loading towards Brighton in a similar way.

Coastway is pretty urbanised by comparison with Crowborough-Lewes which, from my limited experience around 1970, was pretty quiet offpeak.
It could still have been busier than Uckfield/Crowborough towards London, which was really still beyond the daily commute range in the mid 60s: the 1963 diesel timetable has the first fast train from Uckfield at 8.26, returning at 6.10, which speaks for itself (there were a couple of offpeak ones too). Other trains were mostly all stations.

Of course, inland dormitory towns have grown since then, including on the Uckfield line.

 

[yorksrob]

Coastway is pretty urbanised by comparison with Crowborough-Lewes which, from my limited experience around 1970, was pretty quiet offpeak.
It could still have been busier than Uckfield/Crowborough towards London, which was really still beyond the daily commute range in the mid 60s: the 1963 diesel timetable has the first fast train from Uckfield at 8.26, returning at 6.10, which speaks for itself (there were a couple of offpeak ones too). Other trains were mostly all stations.

Of course, inland dormitory towns have grown since then, including on the Uckfield line.

This is true.

It's always struck me as well that Uckfield and Crowborough are rather more substantial than the settlements between Tunbridge Wells and St Leonards, for example, which has always retained an hourly stopping service at least.

 

[zwk500]

It is widely reported that more passengers travelled towards Lewes prior to closure in 1969 than towards London.

(a) This doesn't seem very likely, and (b) would mean that the line did not carry many passengers at all.

I have seen this claim before made by enthusiasts and re-opening protagonists, but never any hard statistics or facts from the era.

I believe this claim is made strictly in respect to Uckfield and the now-closed stations south of it. It is very possible this was the case in the 1960s.

Coastway services towards Brighton seem to sustain a more steady level of local travel throughout the day, whereas the London bound services (in my experience) tend to be more peak orientated.

And yet Brighton trains are 4-car all day and London trains have a well loaded 8-car even off-peak (or did a few years ago when I used them regularly)

I can well imagine Uckfield and Crowborough having a healthy all-day loading towards Brighton in a similar way.

Uckfield yes, Crowborough less so. Of course, the A26 between Crowborough and Uckfield is a slow road at a safe speed, so a decent rail connection could change that.

 

[yorksrob]

And yet Brighton trains are 4-car all day and London trains have a well loaded 8-car even off-peak (or did a few years ago when I used them regularly)

Uckfield yes, Crowborough less so. Of course, the A26 between Crowborough and Uckfield is a slow road at a safe speed, so a decent rail connection could change that.

My observations were at Hastings on a mid-morning. I suppose the Victoria's probably got busier further on !

 

[zwk500]

My observations were at Hastings on a mid-morning. I suppose the Victoria's probably got busier further on !

Hastings passengers for London will presumably prefer the SE services via Tonbridge. My observations are mainly journeys to/from Lewes.

 

[yorksrob]

Hastings passengers for London will presumably prefer the SE services via Tonbridge. My observations are mainly journeys to/from Lewes.

Indeed. Although from my recollections, there were often more people catching the coastways than the Charing Cross trains of a mid-morning as well.

 

[zwk500]

Indeed. Although from my recollections, there were often more people catching the coastways than the Charing Cross trains of a mid-morning as well.

Fair enough - I only ever got as far as Bexhill by train myself. Either way it's some distance from the topic - the only recollections that would really help would be somebody who lived in Uckfield in the early 60s!