Would it be better to declare Beeching closures 'Damnatio memoriae'

[IanXC]

The Market Weighton line had a very large number of staffed level crossings and would have cost a disproportionate amount of (unavailable) investment cash to modernise.

On this point specifically the project envisaged the entire line being controlled by Strensall Signal Box with a fringe to Beverley (South) Signal box.

 

[yorksrob]

The Market Weighton line had a very large number of staffed level crossings and would have cost a disproportionate amount of (unavailable) investment cash to modernise. The first British automatic half barrier level crossing (on an entirely different route on a different region, at Spath) was still in its trial evaluation phase. And not all the crossings would have been suitable for automation anyway.

Market Weighton and Pocklington were pretty small (c. 4,000 population each), largely self-contained country towns generating relatively little travel either inwards or outwards despite a resource-hungry service pattern that needed no fewer than four separate units/crews in the peak notwithstanding long gaps at other times.

I see the old favourite "lucrative" gets another outing (alongside "useful", "handy", "worthwhile", etc.).

Anyone got any figures as to how lucrative?

I'm not really sure that "a resource hungry service pattern" is a reason to close a route.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not really sure that "a resource hungry service pattern" is a reason to close a route.

Yes, if the revenue and social benefit generated was insufficient compared to the cost of operation (and the cost alternatives, such as a bus route).

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, if the revenue and social benefit generated was insufficient compared to the cost of operation (and the cost alternatives, such as a bus route).

My point was that the first option should be to amend the service pattern before you start closing things.

 

[Llandudno]

Indeed. Betws is a massive tourist honeypot, and in that regard the line is (and long has been) seriously undermarketed - but even given this the trains are (as) busy (as a branch line gets) between about Easter and September, at least on weekends. People think of the southern bit when they think of the whole thing. The southern bit is a basket case, I completely agree (stunningly scenic though it is), but the northern bit has massive potential, in so much as any branch line does.

I think they really need to watch what ScotRail is doing with those 153s.

The southern bit of the Conwy Valley wouldn’t be such of a basket case if the Gwynedd CC subsidised bus services to Porthmadog and Dolgellau actually connected with trains at Blaenau Ffestiniog, and howabout this for a novel idea offer through fares from Llandudno and north Wales Coast stations to/from Porthmadog!

There is a little known day rover ticket (most bus drivers andrail staff are not aware of its existence, or certainly its validity!) but it is not particularly cheap.

 

[PR1Berske]

An interesting discussion.

I think Beeching has hung around because it became an easy touchstone, one historic moment that can be shorthand for "governments make mistakes" no matter how complicated the real issues were, or are.

I think about how certain topics are always brought up by people of a certain age - Beeching, joining the EEC as was, going decimal, that sort of thing - and as people from the older generation are still able to bring those references to mind, they stay alive as conversation topics, and points of references.

If we did delete Beeching from our collective minds, and former railways from the map, of course the conversation would be different. I suspect that pressing the Men in Black memory stick would nevertheless make some options obvious to us.

 

[Eyersey468]

I would argue Whitby is an example of where they got it wrong in that all its south facing routes closed and a day out by train from most places is nigh on impossible because of the need to go via Middlesbrough first

Queensbury Tunnel (which shut before Beeching), Bradford - Wakefield direct and the Bradford avoiding line are routes that possibly would still be open too for regional connectivity if they hadn't closed before their areas "urbanised" in the late 50s/60s

Regarding Whitby, I have heard the reason the Scarborough line closed was due to it being pretty much on the cliff edge, and the cost of preventing the line falling into the sea was too high

 

[yorksrob]

Regarding Whitby, I have heard the reason the Scarborough line closed was due to it being pretty much on the cliff edge, and the cost of preventing the line falling into the sea was too high

From the maps, the route doesn't appear to run close enough to the coast to support this explanation. Even today, none of the track bed appears particularly at risk from coastal erosion.

 

[HST43257]

Whitby to Rillington via Pickering was the big one for me. Cutting any decent connection with York, South/West Yorkshire, the Midlands, south or west.

 

[Bevan Price]

This is why I get so annoyed by the "Reopen Woodhead" brigade. Although it wasn't originally on Beeching's hitlist, one of the factors behind its closure to passengers in 1970 was an inability to find a way to divert services into Sheffield Midland. There were other reasons behind it, of course, like political pressure to keep the Hope Valley open, but this was a major practical problem that couldn't be solved. If Woodhead had been the only rail route from Manchester to Sheffield, you'd have been dumped at the remote and inconvenient Victoria station, with no other onward rail connections, and it would have caused a lot of issues. If Woodhead were to re-open, you'd still have the same problem now - you'd need to provide a diversion into Midland across a densely populated and highly developed area. If it was too difficult to contemplate in the sixties, I can't see it being much easier now.

Having had a look, short of major construction work in Sheffield city centre, I think you'd have had to take trains off Woodhead at Penistone and run them via Barnsley. It would have made the journey somewhat longer, and required the expense of electrifying that section.

It is incorrect to say that Sheffield Victoria had worse connections than Sheffield Midland - before they started rerouting services, Victoria was the main station for all services towards Doncaster & Lincolnshire, and also had through services to York, Nottingham & beyond. The only "problem" was connections to Derby & Birmingham.

However I would agree that Midland is a bit better situated than Victoria for Sheffield City Centre.

 

[Journeyman]

It is incorrect to say that Sheffield Victoria had worse connections than Sheffield Midland - before they started rerouting services, Victoria was the main station for all services towards Doncaster & Lincolnshire, and also had through services to York, Nottingham & beyond. The only "problem" was connections to Derby & Birmingham.

However I would agree that Midland is a bit better situated than Victoria for Sheffield City Centre.

By the time Woodhead closed, there were very few, if any, other services at Victoria, and of course now there are none, so unless you can get into Midland, you'd have a serious problem with where to put trains in Sheffield.

 

[Iliketrains123]

Lines and stations should only close if they are completely obsolete (Newhaven Marine etc) not because they have low passenger numbers.
Closing the Heart of Wales line to fund East-West Rail is a false economy.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Lines and stations should only close if they are completely obsolete (Newhaven Marine etc) not because they have low passenger numbers.
Closing the Heart of Wales line to fund East-West Rail is a false economy.

An extreme opinion, and extremist too. The Heart Of Wales line is not the route in Wales most frequently cited as appropriate for closure. What would be false about the "economy" i.e. the large reduction in tax-payer outlay in closing such lines?

 

[yorksrob]

An extreme opinion, and extremist too. The Heart Of Wales line is not the route in Wales most frequently cited as appropriate for closure. What would be false about the "economy" i.e. the large reduction in tax-payer outlay in closing such lines?

It's a very sensible opinion.

The railway should be told to reduce the overall cost of its existing network. It is an extreme position to sacrifice the entire service for some passengers instead of expecting the industry as a whole to cut its cloth a bit more.

 

[zwk500]

It's a very sensible opinion.

The railway should be told to reduce the overall cost of its existing network. It is an extreme position to sacrifice the entire service for some passengers instead of expecting the industry as a whole to cut its cloth a bit more.

It's not a very sensible opinion, but it is a reasonable position to take on public service.

Most of the costs of the railway are in maintaining the infrastructure. If even 1 train a month goes down there, you've got to pay to keep the track, ballast, platforms, viaducts, tunnels etc in check. So if very few people are using it, why keep shelling out? Given that the railway does provide a public service, passenger numbers alone cannot be the single deciding factor. There are many ways to add up the numbers, and things like feeder traffic are very important. But if a line simply isn't delivering value for money, how long can you justify supporting it with public funds?

 

[yorksrob]

It's not a very sensible opinion, but it is a reasonable position to take on public service.

Most of the costs of the railway are in maintaining the infrastructure. If even 1 train a month goes down there, you've got to pay to keep the track, ballast, platforms, viaducts, tunnels etc in check. So if very few people are using it, why keep shelling out? Given that the railway does provide a public service, passenger numbers alone cannot be the single deciding factor. There are many ways to add up the numbers, and things like feeder traffic are very important. But if a line simply isn't delivering value for money, how long can you justify supporting it with public funds?

Leaving aside the genuine 1 train a day routes (which are comparatively few anyway) any passenger route which forms a regular passenger service that is used by passengers in their day to day lives shouldn't close. Afterall, there are country lanes that carry one tractor and a milk wagon a week, yet we don't seem to have a problem with councils paying for these.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Leaving aside the genuine 1 train a day routes (which are comparatively few anyway) any passenger route which forms a regular passenger service that is used by passengers in their day to day lives shouldn't close. Afterall, there are country lanes that carry one tractor and a milk wagon a week, yet we don't seem to have a problem with councils paying for these.

This is a poor comparison, because barely-used country lanes basically don't cost anything, as there is hardly any wear on them. If they are severely damaged e.g. through subsidence they often are closed where access is available a different way.

 

[Journeyman]

Leaving aside the genuine 1 train a day routes (which are comparatively few anyway) any passenger route which forms a regular passenger service that is used by passengers in their day to day lives shouldn't close. Afterall, there are country lanes that carry one tractor and a milk wagon a week, yet we don't seem to have a problem with councils paying for these.

You're trying to make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion about how railway funding is spent. Saying that any route that carries any passengers at all should never close is ridiculous.

 

[yorksrob]

This is a poor comparison, because barely-used country lanes basically don't cost anything, as there is hardly any wear on them. If they are severely damaged e.g. through subsidence they often are closed where access is available a different way.

With the exception of catastrophic failures, councils are still expected to repair potholes, maintain signage and distribute chippings occasionally.

You're trying to make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion about how railway funding is spent. Saying that any route that carries any passengers at all should never close is ridiculous.

Where am I trying to make it impossible to have a discussion ?

The passenger network that we have is reasonably suited to the distribution population of the country.

Frankly we've seen the national network increase in size very little over the last twenty five years, yet the costs of the network have inflated by a much greater degree over that time.

Why should passengers accept their routes being closed when these costs aren't being addressed ?

BTW, you do realise that by saying "You're trying to make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion", your effectively attempting to censor my right to respond to arguments that I disagree with, don't you.

 

[simonw]

Regarding Whitby, I have heard the reason the Scarborough line closed was due to it being pretty much on the cliff edge, and the cost of preventing the line falling into the sea was too high

It closed because apart from Whitby and Scarborough it doesn't serve anywhere of any size. And the places it served are still not large enough to support a service.

 

[HSTEd]

The problem is we have got ourselves stuck in "defending the sacred network"

Even if we wanted to serve most of these places today, we wouldn't build railways anything like what we have.

This is actually one of the reasons I've been interested in Japanese narrow gauge tilting multiple units.
Something like that, fitted with track brakes, might be able to speed up journeys on these lines enough to make them more attractive.

But ultimately, the Heart of Wales line goes from a small town to another town, through possibly the most lightly populated terrain south of the Antonine wall.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is we have got ourselves stuck in "defending the sacred network"

Even if we wanted to serve most of these places today, we wouldn't build railways anything like what we have.

This is actually one of the reasons I've been interested in Japanese narrow gauge tilting multiple units.
Something like that, fitted with track brakes, might be able to speed up journeys on these lines enough to make them more attractive.

But ultimately, the Heart of Wales line goes from a small town to another town, through possibly the most lightly populated terrain south of the Antonine wall.

To take the Whitby line as an example, it's true that it probably wouldn't be built where it is now, but I'd rather have an existing windy Victorian railway than a state of the art, brand new line that no one would build. You wouldn't need to speed up the line to make it more attractive - people clearly want to use it. It needs a good service with a decent interval and good capacity.

 

[Mikey C]

This is a poor comparison, because barely-used country lanes basically don't cost anything, as there is hardly any wear on them. If they are severely damaged e.g. through subsidence they often are closed where access is available a different way.

And country lanes are used by walkers and cyclists

Not forgetting the small issue of the emergency services and maintenance workers (electricity, water, gas etc)

 

[yorksrob]

And country lanes are used by walkers and cyclists

As are local trains.

 

[Journeyman]

As are local trains.

But in sufficient numbers to maintain very expensive, dedicated infrastructure? Possibly not.

 

[yorksrob]

But in sufficient numbers to maintain very expensive, dedicated infrastructure? Possibly not.

I don't think I would call a route with minimal signalling such as Settle Junction - Carnforth, very expensive to maintain. Particularly compared to a country road.

 

[Journeyman]

I don't think I would call a route with minimal signalling such as Settle Junction - Carnforth, very expensive to maintain. Particularly compared to a country road.

Compared to a road, it's massively expensive to maintain.

 

[stuu]

I don't think I would call a route with minimal signalling such as Settle Junction - Carnforth, very expensive to maintain. Particularly compared to a country road.

I'd love to see some figures.. but would be prepared to put a large some of money on rail costing at least 10x more per mile to maintain than a country road carrying a similar number of people

 

[chorleyjeff]

Perhaps it would be better to obliterate all pre Beeching maps of the railways, and destroy all remaining surface featurse of alignments, so it was if they had never existed.

That way we wouldn't end up with people constantly trying to reopen them, even though today you wouldn't build a railway on these routes, even if you wanted to reach the same stations.

(Earthworks are cheap, gradients are easy and land take is expensive)


[This is a thread created at the suggestion of the mods, and is not entirely serious about obliterating them from history, but its a nice rhetorical flourish, so I've just included the original post above]

Good luck with that proposal.
The vocal diehards will never accept that any railway line has reached the end of its natural life or indeed was stillborn.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The problem is we have got ourselves stuck in "defending the sacred network"

Even if we wanted to serve most of these places today, we wouldn't build railways anything like what we have.

This is actually one of the reasons I've been interested in Japanese narrow gauge tilting multiple units.
Something like that, fitted with track brakes, might be able to speed up journeys on these lines enough to make them more attractive.

But ultimately, the Heart of Wales line goes from a small town to another town, through possibly the most lightly populated terrain south of the Antonine wall.

The Central Wales was a fortunate survivor (discussed before) , as described by Ian Marchant (author of "Parallel Lines" and who studied at Lampeter) , much of mid Wales was a green desert - depopulated from the 1930's onwards as farming could not sustain the population in all sorts of ways from imported raw materials as in timber , a flat meat market and so on. It would have been much worse had the Cambrian gone..........