Regarding Dorchester, which had the two goods facilities on opposite sides of Weymouth Avenue, not quite facing one another, it was dependent on where it originated. Bear in mind that until 1960 there were London passenger trains from both, as the WR Weymouth boat trains started from Paddington and stopped there. The principal freight was incoming coal of course, followed by other manufactures from further north. If they originated anywhere on the (ex) LNER, they came via Banbury, Swindon and Westbury to the WR West station, keeping it off the LMR. If originated on the LMR then via Bath, the S&D to Templecombe, Salisbury and Poole, to the Southern, likewise ensuring no revenue to the WR.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Beeching Cuts and the Big Four
- Thread starter Mat17
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Ah, yes. Inter-regional gamesmanship for revenue manipulation.
Now, what was that in the Transport Act 1947 about the duty to provide an "efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport"? Never mind.
Falcon1200
Established Member
It was just a suggestion! Impregnable evergreen contracts? Probably not, but what then is the explanation for the fact that BR wasted little time closing Rewley Road to passenger traffic but, despite all the hassle of the swingbridge, continued serving the yard for freight for decades afterwards?
Last edited:
Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 11,920
Anyone able to hazard an educated guess at to how many track miles (apportioned between the one time 'Big Four') there still were in 1963, and how many miles were subsequently lost, when the Beeching and subsequent other cuts started being implemented?
Beeching cuts - Wikipedia
Gives various figures for route mileage, track mileage might be a bit more difficult to establish figures for.
I would expect the proportion of track miles to drop much less sharply than route miles.Beeching cuts - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Gives various figures for route mileage, track mileage might be a bit more difficult to establish figures for.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Stabbing in the dark a bit here but one might assume that 'convenience to passengers' would have encouraged the concentration of passenger activities at the former GWR station whereas the default for any freight customer was usually going too be 'leave me alone'. There was no concept of a 'profit centre' or 'cost centre' back in the day.
As the years passed some locations saw investment in coal concentration depots; West Drayton, Aylesbury, Exmouth Junction, Droitwich Spa, Shrewsbury and Gobowen for example, whereas I don't think that Oxford ever had one. Traditional coal traffic in flat-bottomed mineral wagons was just left to wither away gradually with no obvious strategy to achieve economy until it was too late to save anything.
Michael Bonavia (who filled many a role in the 'new' British railway(re) organisations following Nationalisation) wrote about many 'personalities' and issues related to the making and changing of decisions. It reads much as a book written today, 75 years on! Industrial relations and lack of investment are much the same too. The 'Beeching report' was only 15years after Nationalisation and we have lurched on more than 60 years since then
What, if anything, do we learn?
In addition to Michael Bonavia's work ( British Rail: The First 25 Years), I have recently re-read Gerrard Fiennes' account ( I Tried to Run a Railway) and find a lot of commonality beyond the personal inferences of 'not my fault'. Both Bonavia and Fiennes found themselves in a variety of roles over time as a result of yet another reorganisation. Fiennes particularly makes the observation that reorganisation saps energy and takes focus away from the day-to-day 'getting things done'. I dare say it was no-one's job to consider, let alone 'save', wagonload 'business'. Marshalling yards were 'the answer'- rather like deckchairs on the Titanic while the band played on. I think it's more about top people 'playing trains' and thereby showing they are 'in charge', e.g New Rail Alphabet, Great British Railways, strikes and resisting them, cutting Hs2, 'reversing Beeching', egos rather than 'economic reasons'.
ac6000cw
Established Member
I would have thought the opposite - singling former double-track routes like Salisbury - Exeter and Oxford - Worcester - Hereford, and reducing some quadruple to triple/double track would reduce track mileage without reducing route mileage.
Probably depends on how many of the closed routes were substantially single track. Guessing fewer than we might now suppose. Certainly losses such as the GC and Waverley routes would have helped boost the “track miles” - double track (at least) throughout
Falcon1200
Established Member
Good point. I am sure I have read somewhere (although cannot find it now of course) that in the 1930s the GWR Oxford Stationmaster also became responsible for Rewley Road, an early example of sensible rationalisation! The two stations being adjacent presumably helped.
I wouldn't have thought the track miles lost to singled but retained routes would offset the balance of things like the multi-track inner city approaches being retained while large swathes of single track were abandoned completely. Would be an interesting project though if somebody can find reliable sources!
Dr Hoo
Established Member
I've been knocking together some statistics from BR Annual Reports and Transport Statistics UK for selected years from the end of 1947 through to 1994/5. Although a lot of route closed over that time the 'average number of running line km/route km' seems to have remained remarkable constant at 1.9-2.0. Still got some more checking to do.
(None of this is broken down into Big Four or Region, unfortunately.)