Why did Sandy-Potton-Cambridge close and not Hitchin-Royston-Cambridge also?

[yorksrob]

They still are. A W*therspoons, a couple of craft beer brewery/shops that do a bit of on trade, and one other larger pub.

Sounds as though they could do with the buffet express these days !

 

[30907]

Your timetable would seem to confirm the point that Sandy-Potton-Cambridge was always part of a longer distance line!!

I don't think that's in doubt - but it basically went to Bletchley where it connected with its company's main line to the North and Midlands.

In fact I would suspect that was its main use to Cambridge people - pre Beeching it would have been far the best way to do such a trip (the present cross-country route via Leicester is a post-Beeching creation).

 

[RT4038]

The crazy thing about closure, though, is that the decision was taken in 1967, the same year that the development of Milton Keynes was announced. I recall my dad pointing that out at the time. You would have thought that somebody in DfT (actually I think it was all part of Environment then) might have put two and two together. Oxford - Cambridge didn't have to stay a rural backwater. It was, as far as I know, double track all the way. According to Mr W Pedia, an experimental diesel service using an articulated 3-car unit was run in 1938/39, achieving a 1 hour 45 minute journey time, which shows what could have been achieved in the 60s and 70s if BR had had a mind to.

The line was single track between Bedford St Johns [actually Bedford no. 2 signalbox by the Ouse Bridge] and Sandy, with passing places at Willington and Blunham.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I don't think that's in doubt - but it basically went to Bletchley where it connected with its company's main line to the North and Midlands.

In fact I would suspect that was its main use to Cambridge people - pre Beeching it would have been far the best way to do such a trip (the present cross-country route via Leicester is a post-Beeching creation).

You have a variety of routes out of Cambridge to get to the Midlands, surely - but wasn't there a Cambridge - Birmingham service via Leicester before 1960?

Going Cambridge - Bletchley to get anywhere on the LNW would really not have been a great way to go. In 1960, it would have been a 90 min ride to Bletchley (even longer before the advent of the DMUs) and then change. Bletchley had the odd express stopping, but it was not an important 'inter-city' station even in the mid 60s, so moving on from there would not normally have been very easy.

From Cambridge you could go west by:

Bletchley - Slow, not many trains and poor connections onwards
Kettering via Huntingdon - but only three trains a day, VERY slow, and no way to go further west directly
Northampton via Peterboro East - slow, not too many trains, and Northampton is no better to head north than Bletchley.
Nuneaton/Liecester/Birmingham
Peterboro, change to Grantham, change to Nottingham/Derby

It really wasn't easy going west from Cambridge to any location other than those served directly (and even then it was hardly an attractive service) though I'm sure some passengers could be found who did both, of course.

I would posit that a good percentage of the passenger numbers using Sandy - Cambridge back in the day would be locals, a handful of commuters/school children and shoppers from the likes of Potton. And before someone else says it, Cambridge station is not well sited for the city centre, so there wouldn't have been many of these.

In terms of revenue for the railway, it wouldn't have been noticed even compared to the traffic to ntermediate stations on the Hitchin towards Kings Cross, let alone the through traffic. One single working of the Cambridge Buffet express would bring in more revenue than a day's traffic on the OP's selected Sandy-Cambridge section.

Which might just have played a part in its closure.

 

[2192]

..... the ability to use the trackbed which runs almost east-west was a benefit to Ryle who had already started designing the 5km scope as a successor to the 1km - the track did get re-laid to a gauge of 20ft or so .

Think what the GWR could have done with a 20ft gauge! ...

 

[A0wen]

The crazy thing about closure, though, is that the decision was taken in 1967, the same year that the development of Milton Keynes was announced. I recall my dad pointing that out at the time. You would have thought that somebody in DfT (actually I think it was all part of Environment then) might have put two and two together. Oxford - Cambridge didn't have to stay a rural backwater. It was, as far as I know, double track all the way. According to Mr W Pedia, an experimental diesel service using an articulated 3-car unit was run in 1938/39, achieving a 1 hour 45 minute journey time, which shows what could have been achieved in the 60s and 70s if BR had had a mind to.

BIB - not that crazy in the context of the time - Milton Keynes was envisaged as being largely self-sufficient with housing, jobs etc in the same way the 'New Towns' that had been built in the previous 15 or so years were. There wasn't the demand to travel to MK in the way there is now and certainly not from Oxford or Cambridge.

It should be remembered that even in the 1980s Cambridge still had relatively infrequent services to London - no through services to Kings Cross (they'd been withdrawn when electrification reached Royston), infrequent services to Norwich and Peterboro as well.

 

[30907]

You have a variety of routes out of Cambridge to get to the Midlands, surely - but wasn't there a Cambridge - Birmingham service via Leicester before 1960?

I've rechecked the 1958 timetables on Timetableworld.com, and I can't find one.
There's a Norwich-Birmingham via Rugby (not Northampton) in the morning, and a 2.26 Ely-Birmingham via Peterborough (North) and Leicester. Journey Cambridge-Birmingham 4hr and 5hr respectively.

From Cambridge you could go west by:

Bletchley - Slow, not many trains and poor connections onwards

But see above - the least worst.

Peterboro, change to Grantham, change to Nottingham/Derby

Even the GN at Peterborough wasn't easy to get to.

It really wasn't easy going west from Cambridge to any location other than those served directly (and even then it was hardly an attractive service)

That's an understatement. Even in the early 80s there was just one Birmingham DMU daily, though Norwich-Birmingham was up to about 5tpd, usually with Cambridge connections at March.

Back in 1960 of course Cambridge was a small market town, plus a university whose undergraduates were not expected to go away during Term - when I arrived at the Other Place (a much larger city) in 1971 more than one weekend away per term was still frowned upon - so the lack of cross country routes isn't that strange.

 

[edwin_m]

Even in the early 80s there was just one Birmingham DMU daily.

And the one time I used it (1983 or 84) it was a Cravens Class 105, hardly suitable for a long journey.

 

[24Grange]

Thanks everyone for all the replies- a lot of useful background and information.
One thing I forget about lines such as this ( the whole Oxford/Cambridge experience) is that places along it generate their own traffic - e.g. a town generates commuter traffic from the few small village stops either side of it. However very little traffic is generated from one end to the other (unlike Kings Cross - Cambridge say). The only similar sort of thing I can think of was Plymouth/Okehampton/Exeter. When either end ( Tavistock - Plymouth and Okehampton-Exeter generated traffic and commuting to the nearest centre of employment/school/college etc - but the middle bit didn't generate hardly anything - hence closure as a through route.

 

[ac6000cw]

And the one time I used it (1983 or 84) it was a Cravens Class 105, hardly suitable for a long journey.

I concur with that - I moved to Cambridge in 1980 and had family in Birmingham, so used the service periodically.

In those days, travelling west by road from Cambridge was also a slow experience on largely single-carriageway roads with few bypasses - the (old/original) A45 in particular was not much better than a B-road in parts between St. Neots and Northampton, and the old A428/A421 wasn't much better.

 

[RT4038]

Thanks everyone for all the replies- a lot of useful background and information.
One thing I forget about lines such as this ( the whole Oxford/Cambridge experience) is that places along it generate their own traffic - e.g. a town generates commuter traffic from the few small village stops either side of it. However very little traffic is generated from one end to the other (unlike Kings Cross - Cambridge say). The only similar sort of thing I can think of was Plymouth/Okehampton/Exeter. When either end ( Tavistock - Plymouth and Okehampton-Exeter generated traffic and commuting to the nearest centre of employment/school/college etc - but the middle bit didn't generate hardly anything - hence closure as a through route.

However, on the Bedford-Cambridge section this generated local traffic amounted to very little. Prior to closure, the morning 'peak' train from Cambridge to Bedford (arriving about 8.25a.m.) , with all its potential of school and workers traffic, carried an average of 20 passengers. The splendid omnibus services of the district had long since taken the lion's share of local passengers. Even then, there was no regular 'bus service from Gamlingay or Potton to Sandy or Bedford - their only regular 'bus links were to Biggleswade - and this service was quite thin outside of weekday peak hours and Saturdays. The possibility of any numbers of people regularly commuting from Bedford to Cambridge or vice-versa was just unthinkable - in those days a Bedford person getting a job in Cambridge (or vice versa) would have moved there without second thought.
Local trade into Cambridge was in an even worse position - the two stations closest to Cambridge (Old North Road and Lord's Bridge) were not at any settlement, Gamlingay too small to produce any worthwhile trade and Potton in another County. The villages close by the line of rail, but without convenient stations, were amply served by the local bus company (Service no. 118). The whole area was much more rural and focused on farming.

When the line shut a replacement bus service (no. 428), running about every two hours [similar quantity to the trains, but at a more regular interval], was introduced using 39-45 seat single deckers. Considering the small number of passengers that the train carried, it is not surprising that the service was uneconomic (even though it served more communities) and only lasted just over 3 years before being reduced into two parts and assimilated into the existing bus network.

The line was first proposed for closure in 1959, long before the Beeching Plan. (Up there with other hopeless cross country lines such as the M&GN and M&SWJ.) A quirk of circumstances, discussed previously on this forum, retained the line then up to 1967, and the Bedford-Bletchley section to the present day.

 

[Taunton]

I have always felt it unfortunate that the short Northampton to Bedford line was Midland, and not LNWR. The independent Bedford & Northampton Railway sold out to the Midland in 1885. The LNWR had Rugby to Northampton, and Bedford to Cambridge, and could have offered a ready service Birmingham-Rugby-Northampton-Bedford-Cambridge. In the usual way, neither the LMS nor BR sorted this out when they were all part of one company. There was LNWR Birmingham-Rugby-Peterborough, notably more direct than the present-day service, but these trains never seemed extended to Cambridge.

Of course, the principal reason why such lines remained was not for passengers at all, but for freight. The LNWR line from Bletchley allowed them to handle freight from all over the country to Bedford and Cambridge, so probably were not concerned about a second line to Bedford. Similarly the Midland takeover enabled them to now run freight themselves to Northampton, while their line down from Leicester let them serve Rugby. Staff in those days worked freight and passenger equally, with little division. It was always important to freight salesmen of the era to offer through, even if indirect, transit, as this was generally faster and gave better revenue than connecting it to another company - who in those days generally didn't even know it was coming until it was shunted into the exchange sidings. The Midland were past masters at this, they pushed hard for such through freight as London to Bristol, or Birmingham to Carlisle. And by their line from Kettering to Cambridge they could haul coal from the East Midlands directly there.

 

[30907]

I have always felt it unfortunate that the short Northampton to Bedford line was Midland, and not LNWR. The independent Bedford & Northampton Railway sold out to the Midland in 1885. The LNWR had Rugby to Northampton, and Bedford to Cambridge, and could have offered a ready service Birmingham-Rugby-Northampton-Bedford-Cambridge. In the usual way, neither the LMS nor BR sorted this out when they were all part of one company.

Would the N&B then have run to St Johns rather than Midland?

Slightly OT, but was there ever a regular passenger service connecting the two Bedford stations?

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Of course, the principal reason why such lines remained was not for passengers at all, but for freight. The LNWR line from Bletchley allowed them to handle freight from all over the country to Bedford and Cambridge,

I have a vague memory of noting an 8F at Sandy in 1963 when we were on our way to King's Cross...I wonder what kind of freight was carried over this route and with what frequency?

Would the N&B then have run to St Johns rather than Midland?

Slightly OT, but was there ever a regular passenger service connecting the two Bedford stations?

I don't believe there ever was.

 

[RT4038]

Would the N&B then have run to St Johns rather than Midland?

Slightly OT, but was there ever a regular passenger service connecting the two Bedford stations?

There was never a regular passenger service between the two stations.

I doubt there was ever a prospect of the N&B selling out to the L&NW. Firstly - why would the L&NW want the line, which passed through no traffic generating or terminating points, when any freight traffic could travel via Bletchley and passenger traffic insufficient to be economic, and secondly the L&NW would have had to negotiate the Midland from Oakley Junction through Bedford Midland Road to Bedford St. Johns, which would have been plain awkward for no real gain in 1885.

 

[70014IronDuke]

However, on the Bedford-Cambridge section this generated local traffic amounted to very little. Prior to closure, the morning 'peak' train from Cambridge to Bedford (arriving about 8.25a.m.) , with all its potential of school and workers traffic, carried an average of 20 passengers.

It doesn't make any real difference to the overall economics of the line at the time, I'm sure, but I can personally attest to the fact that those numbers are, relatively, quite innaccurate, because I did my own personal survey of that train in terms of arrivals in the summer of 67 (June or July) for two weeks. I think it was more like 08.40 arrival in that timetable.

ACcording to my own count, it was a very stable 33 -36 alighting at Bedford St Johns, so roughly speaking 70% over the 20 that you state. Moreover, these were only those alighting - I could not also reliably count those on the train. And in fact, I don't remember I counted those joining, which I'd guess would be about 3-4 on most days, meaning in total about 20, maybe 25 max on average in the three carriages heading to Bletchley.

To repeat, I am not saying these extra numbers make the line profitable or even close to breaking even - but I mention it as a fact because I counted them every day at that time. I never imagined at the time I'd be bringing this up some 56 years later!

The possibility of any numbers of people regularly commuting from Bedford to Cambridge or vice-versa was just unthinkable -

Fully agree.

 

[leytongabriel]

I remember people being incredulous that the 70's GN electrification stopped at the not very major city of Royston rather than going on to Cambridge. Semi-fast diesels used to do King's Cross - Cambridge in an hour twenty something as I remember it and then it was all change and hop on the shuttle. Or via Liverpool St of course where a 47 might whisk you there in an hour nine or thereabouts. Of course the strategic thinking to get bit by bit funding, Anglia line first, became clear eventually to us industry outsiders but it didn't put the British way of doing these things in a very good light.

 

[ac6000cw]

I remember people being incredulous that the 70's GN electrification stopped at the not very major city of Royston rather than going on to Cambridge. Semi-fast diesels used to do King's Cross - Cambridge in an hour twenty something as I remember it and then it was all change and hop on the shuttle. Or via Liverpool St of course where a 47 might whisk you there in an hour nine or thereabouts. Of course the strategic thinking to get bit by bit funding, Anglia line first, became clear eventually to us industry outsiders but it didn't put the British way of doing these things in a very good light.

AFAIK, the reason electrification didn't go any further than Royston at the time was due to the costs of re-signalling the Cambridge area (which in the 1970's still largely retained its steam-age signalling and track layout), and adding another grid power feed near Cambridge to support operation north of Royston.

My understanding is that the expensive parts of an electrification scheme are the complex layouts at major stations and the grid feeder stations, so it's understandable that adding on the costs of resignalling and electrifying the Cambridge area to the GN suburban scheme was a step too far at the time.

 

[Bald Rick]

AFAIK, the reason electrification didn't go any further than Royston at the time was due to the costs of re-signalling the Cambridge area (which in the 1970's still largely retained its steam-age signalling and track layout), and adding another grid power feed near Cambridge to support operation north of Royston.

My understanding is that the expensive parts of an electrification scheme are the complex layouts at major stations and the grid feeder stations, so it's understandable that adding on the costs of resignalling and electrifying the Cambridge area to the GN suburban scheme was a step too far at the time.

That sounds right.

IIRC, Royston - Cambridge was a late addition to the ‘Anglia West’ electrification, which was originally just Stortford - Cambridge. Nice work by BR.

 

[leytongabriel]

Interesting stuff, thanks. It might have been urban myth, but it was being said that the figures for the Stortford - Cambridge electrification wouldn't stand up at all if Cambridge had been electrified already from Royston. Perhaps the 'West Anglia' area we then had which incorporated both routes made a difference too.

 

[ac6000cw]

Another factor at play by the 1980s was the age of the DMUs which provided the local services south of Cambridge to Bishops Stortford & Royston - with electrification those services were mostly run by stretching the existing EMU fleets to cover them, so there was a saving of rolling stock costs.

Also by that time I think BR had worked out how to 'play the game' to get smaller projects past UK Treasury scrutiny/approval without too much fuss being generated. Hence the overall Royston/Bishops Stortford to Cambridge & Kings Lynn area resignalling and electrification project being broken up into a series of smaller projects spread over about 10 years.

 

[D6130]

Hence the overall Royston/Bishops Stortford to Cambridge & Kings Lynn area resignalling and electrification project being broken up into a series of smaller projects spread over about 10 years.

This sounds rather familiar to those of us living on or near the Trans-Pennine line!

 

[Bald Rick]

Another factor at play by the 1980s was the age of the DMUs which provided the local services south of Cambridge to Bishops Stortford & Royston - with electrification those services were mostly run by stretching the existing EMU fleets to cover them, so there was a saving of rolling stock costs.

Also by that time I think BR had worked out how to 'play the game' to get smaller projects past UK Treasury scrutiny/approval without too much fuss being generated. Hence the overall Royston/Bishops Stortford to Cambridge & Kings Lynn area resignalling and electrification project being broken up into a series of smaller projects spread over about 10 years.

Royston to Cambridge and Stortford to Cambridge were authorised separately, but managed as one programme.

Kings Lynn was very separate and 5 years later. Many of the same people though (who had gone and done the ECML inbetween). However a lot of scope was removed to get it back to budget, and even then it went over.

 

[WesternLancer]

It doesn't make any real difference to the overall economics of the line at the time, I'm sure, but I can personally attest to the fact that those numbers are, relatively, quite innaccurate, because I did my own personal survey of that train in terms of arrivals in the summer of 67 (June or July) for two weeks. I think it was more like 08.40 arrival in that timetable.

ACcording to my own count, it was a very stable 33 -36 alighting at Bedford St Johns, so roughly speaking 70% over the 20 that you state. Moreover, these were only those alighting - I could not also reliably count those on the train. And in fact, I don't remember I counted those joining, which I'd guess would be about 3-4 on most days, meaning in total about 20, maybe 25 max on average in the three carriages heading to Bletchley.

To repeat, I am not saying these extra numbers make the line profitable or even close to breaking even - but I mention it as a fact because I counted them every day at that time. I never imagined at the time I'd be bringing this up some 56 years later!


Fully agree.

Fascinating to read those personal insights!

 

[a good off]

The Hitchin to Cambridge section also generated a reasonable amount of freight traffic at places like Foxton with the branch to Barrington Cement works, Royston with oil and grain, Letchworth with coal, plus the through freights such as the Fen Drayton- KX sand.

If they’d have built a curve from Letchworth to Arlesey and retained the Sandy to Bedford section, the Oxford to Cambridge connections would’ve been retained.

 

[DerekC]

The line was single track between Bedford St Johns [actually Bedford no. 2 signalbox by the Ouse Bridge] and Sandy, with passing places at Willington and Blunham.

I had forgotten that - although I travelled the line a good few times, one one memorable occasion in the front of the early morning DMU from Bletchley to Cambridge, with the rising sun in the driver's eyes and a bit of rag draped at the top of the windscreen to help him see!

BIB - not that crazy in the context of the time - Milton Keynes was envisaged as being largely self-sufficient with housing, jobs etc in the same way the 'New Towns' that had been built in the previous 15 or so years were. There wasn't the demand to travel to MK in the way there is now and certainly not from Oxford or Cambridge.

I recall MK being advertised as a "new city" and explicitly not a new town of the standard London-peripheral type like Harlow or Hemel Hempstead. A city would expect to have good transport links to other big places in the region. DfT are supposed to be forward looking. It's always easy to say "oh well, they didn't know what would happen" - but they were and are supposed to think strategically and in the long term, and they generally don't. The fact that we are now spending squillions to build a new railway through a corridor on which we used to have a perfectly good one is a failure of strategic planning. From personal experience I can say that these failures don't occur because DfT are stupid, but because they are politically driven and politicians don't do long term, what ever they might say.

 

[Ianno87]

I had forgotten that - although I travelled the line a good few times, one one memorable occasion in the front of the early morning DMU from Bletchley to Cambridge, with the rising sun in the driver's eyes and a bit of rag draped at the top of the windscreen to help him see!

I recall MK being advertised as a "new city" and explicitly not a new town of the standard London-peripheral type like Harlow or Hemel Hempstead. A city would expect to have good transport links to other big places in the region. DfT are supposed to be forward looking. It's always easy to say "oh well, they didn't know what would happen" - but they were and are supposed to think strategically and in the long term, and they generally don't. The fact that we are now spending squillions to build a new railway through a corridor on which we used to have a perfectly good one is a failure of strategic planning. From personal experience I can say that these failures don't occur because DfT are stupid, but because they are politically driven and politicians don't do long term, what ever they might say.

The plus side is that, with East West Rail there'll be a much better interurban railway than if the old line via Sandy and Potton had been retained. Must faster and with better journey times.

 

[A0wen]

I had forgotten that - although I travelled the line a good few times, one one memorable occasion in the front of the early morning DMU from Bletchley to Cambridge, with the rising sun in the driver's eyes and a bit of rag draped at the top of the windscreen to help him see!

I recall MK being advertised as a "new city" and explicitly not a new town of the standard London-peripheral type like Harlow or Hemel Hempstead. A city would expect to have good transport links to other big places in the region. DfT are supposed to be forward looking. It's always easy to say "oh well, they didn't know what would happen" - but they were and are supposed to think strategically and in the long term, and they generally don't. The fact that we are now spending squillions to build a new railway through a corridor on which we used to have a perfectly good one is a failure of strategic planning. From personal experience I can say that these failures don't occur because DfT are stupid, but because they are politically driven and politicians don't do long term, what ever they might say.

Neither Cambridge nor Oxford are particularly big places, even less so back then.

Even now Cambridge is only 124,000 and Oxford 152,000 - compare that with Coventry 366,000 or Leicester 330,000.

There might have been a justification for keeping an MK - Oxford link, but don't forget MK didn't have a station for several years instead relying on Bletchley or Wolverton. I don't think anyone was travelling from MK to Cambridge, and even now relatively few do.

 

[24Grange]

The Hitchin to Cambridge section also generated a reasonable amount of freight traffic at places like Foxton with the branch to Barrington Cement works, Royston with oil and grain, Letchworth with coal, plus the through freights such as the Fen Drayton- KX sand.

If they’d have built a curve from Letchworth to Arlesey and retained the Sandy to Bedford section, the Oxford to Cambridge connections would’ve been retained.

Is this domestic coal at Letchworth? Did the power station ever open?

 

[30907]

Neither Cambridge nor Oxford are particularly big places, even less so back then.

Percivals/Premier ran a twice daily coach at 9.15 and 18.15 (via Aylesbury Tring Luton Hitchin IIRC). So not exactly busy.