Beeching Cuts and the Big Four

[Mat17]

When the Big Four were nationalised in the 1940s there were many duplicated routes that came under BR ownership. When the Beeching cuts came around, many routes were pruned. In my neck of the woods it seems that the former LMS (ex-Midland) lines were favoured over the LNER (ex-GCR) ones.

Which led me to wonder, out of the Big Four, which of those former companies lost the greatest route mileage (or amount of routes) under the Beeching and subsequent cuts?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm not sure you can tease out a worst case of Big 4 routes culled by Beeching and later.
The Southern was certainly the least affected, especially once the South Western lines west of Salisbury were transferred to the Western in 1963.
The LMS lost many routes in the north west and Yorkshire, the LNER also in Yorkshire/Notts/Lincs, and both in rural Scotland.
The GWR lost much of its network in Wales and the west country (along with most of the ex-Southern network).

Closures of main stations and diversion to the rival one were rife, and it seemed that in WR territory the ex-LMS stations lost out.
I think only Cheltenham Spa Lansdown was preferred to an ex-GWR station (Cheltenham St James closed).
Manchester lost Exchange and Central (so did Liverpool), Leeds lost Central, Nottingham lost Victoria, Derby lost Friargate.
Birmingham lost Snow Hill which later reopened.
And of course the GC main line north of Aylesbury.
Joint lines didn't generally fare well in the closures (M&GN, S&D etc).

BR preferred the Standedge route between Manchester and Leeds, but the CLC (ex-LNER) between Manchester and Liverpool.
One of the Manchester-Sheffield routes needed to close, and BR eventually ditched the Woodhead route, largely because of the continuing freight traffic on the Midland route via Hope (although the Bakewell line closed).

Overall. I'd say the part of the network worst affected was that of the ex-L&Y, which laid waste to much of the railway in Lancashire and Yorkshire.
Carving up BR into strictly geographic regions didn't help, and generally the "foreign" lines lost out in the rationalisation process.

 

[edwin_m]

Typically the last lines to open were the first to close. This is probably because the first lines in a particular area were most likely to serve it in an optimal way, and later lines had to exploit gaps and niches which were probably less valuable as a whole. Joint lines were similar, in that they usually existed because two or more out-of-area companies decided to challenge an incumbent who had already grabbed most of the plum traffic. The fact the economics weren't good enough for any company to try it on their own in the heyday of railways usually meant that they become heavily loss-making as rail traffic declined.

So in the Nottingham area for example, the Midland served everywhere reasonably well and the main routes mostly survived, but although the GC and GN provided arguably better routes north and south they didn't provide that comprehensive network and all their main routes duplicated the Midland (and each other in some cases). Notice I've gone back to pre-Grouping companies, as they were the origin of most of the duplication and the Big Four did very little to reduce it even when they inherited multiple routes between the same places.

 

[Mat17]

Notice I've gone back to pre-Grouping companies, as they were the origin of most of the duplication and the Big Four did very little to reduce it even when they inherited multiple routes between the same places.

I guess that's why I went for the Big Four era, on a hunch that not a lot might have changed. That's not to say that lines didn't close in the 1920s and 30s. They certainly did, but surely not on the scale which came in the 1950s and 60s.

 

[Taunton]

It is notable that the formerly competing South Eastern, and London Chatham & Dover, who between them managed to run duplicate lines into every town of consequence in Kent, have lost hardly any of this duplicated mileage. The Bromley North branch, very few passengers, has survived 125 years after the merger that made Bromley South the town's main station. Maidstone has a main route to London, crossed by one running between two lesser towns. However many different ways are there between Dover and London?

 

[The exile]

It is notable that the formerly competing South Eastern, and London Chatham & Dover, who between them managed to run duplicate lines into every town of consequence in Kent, have lost hardly any of this duplicated mileage. The Bromley North branch, very few passengers, has survived 125 years after the merger that made Bromley South the town's main station. Maidstone has a main route to London, crossed by one running between two lesser towns. However many different ways are there between Dover and London?

Once outside of the Greater London area, very few of those duplicate routes are parallel and close - so they serve different catchment areas. Notably the two routes through Maidstone and Canterbury each intersect at getting on for right angles, thus catering for completely different local traffic flows.

 

[30907]

It is notable that the formerly competing South Eastern, and London Chatham & Dover, who between them managed to run duplicate lines into every town of consequence in Kent, have lost hardly any of this duplicated mileage.

The possible rationalisation was carried out by the SECR (Chatham), Government (Greenwich Pk) and SR (Thanet).

The Bromley North branch, very few passengers, has survived 125 years after the merger that made Bromley South the town's main station.

It always was! Bromley N was always a suburban branch terminus - though admittedly Bromley S didn't become a stop for express trains until SR days.

 

[Taunton]

Once outside of the Greater London area, very few of those duplicate routes are parallel and close - so they serve different catchment areas. Notably the two routes through Maidstone and Canterbury each intersect at getting on for right angles, thus catering for completely different local traffic flows.

But they all went through to London, through Beeching's time and long after. I don't think there were any Kent electric services until recent times that didn't. Even Maidstone West went, in two opposing directions, to London, with Maidstone East providing a third. And although Ramsgate's stations were rationalised, it still kept three routes to London.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The SE & CR closed the SER Chatham Central branch in 1911 as an obvious duplication of the LCDR main line services. In 1927 the SR moved the main line over to use the newer SER bridge across the Medway at Rochester. The original LCDR bridge remained unused, but was eventually removed and the foundations used for a second road bridge in 1970.

 

[eldomtom2]

BR preferred the Standedge route between Manchester and Leeds, but the CLC (ex-LNER) between Manchester and Liverpool.
One of the Manchester-Sheffield routes needed to close, and BR eventually ditched the Woodhead route, largely because of the continuing freight traffic on the Midland route via Hope (although the Bakewell line closed).

I thought it was rather that Hope Valley had passenger services and Woodhead didn't, as well as the latter being the last remaining outpost of 1500V DC electrification - back in the days of Beeching, when there wasn't much interest in preserving local passenger services, the preference was firmly for Woodhead over Hope Valley.

 

[Taunton]

One of the Manchester-Sheffield routes needed to close, and BR eventually ditched the Woodhead route, largely because of the continuing freight traffic on the Midland route via Hope

Actually the bulk of the Woodhead traffic in later years was coal MGR traffic from Yorkshire to Fidlers Ferry power station, and that was rerouted, diesel hauled throughout, via Standedge and Stalybridge-Stockport. In fact this fitted in anyway with structural changes in the coal mining industry, whose centre in Yorkshire had moved somewhat northwards, such as to Selby mine, and Healey Mills was proving a more central yard to focus the traffic on than Wath.

 

[trebor79]

Notice I've gone back to pre-Grouping companies, as they were the origin of most of the duplication and the Big Four did very little to reduce it even when they inherited multiple routes between the same places.

That's an interesting point, why did the Big Four do so little rationalisation? Even though a lot of freight still went to local stations, many of the lines must have been heavily loss making.

 

[matchmaker]

Two thirds of the ex-LMS termini in Glasgow were closed.

 

[steamybrian]

The possible rationalisation was carried out by the SECR (Chatham), Government (Greenwich Pk) and SR (Thanet).

It always was! Bromley N was always a suburban branch terminus - though admittedly Bromley S didn't become a stop for express trains until SR days.

That's an interesting point, why did the Big Four do so little rationalisation? Even though a lot of freight still went to local stations, many of the lines must have been heavily loss making.

The Southern Railway undertook a lot of rationalisation when it took over in 1923.
Many stations in the same town owned by competing companies were closed such as in Midhurst, Leatherhead, Epsom as well as the rationalisation in the Thanet area of Margate/Ramsgate. Other stations closed - Dover Harbour, Ludgate Hill or Merton Abbey were near other stations.
A number of uneconomic branch lines were closed- Tooting- Merton Park, Canterbury & Whitstable, Elham Valley Line, Sandgate-Hythe, Dungeness branch, Kemp Town branch, Dyke branch, Chichester- Midhurst, Ash-Farnham, Hurstbourne- Fullerton, Lee-on-Solent branch, Bishops Waltham-Botley, Ringwood- Christchurch and of course Lynton-Barnstaple Railway.

 

[Mat17]

The Southern Railway undertook a lot of rationalisation when it took over in 1923.
Many stations in the same town owned by competing companies were closed such as in Midhurst, Leatherhead, Epsom as well as the rationalisation in the Thanet area of Margate/Ramsgate. Other stations closed - Dover Harbour, Ludgate Hill or Merton Abbey were near other stations.
A number of uneconomic branch lines were closed- Tooting- Merton Park, Canterbury & Whitstable, Elham Valley Line, Sandgate-Hythe, Dungeness branch, Kemp Town branch, Dyke branch, Chichester- Midhurst, Lee-on-Solent branch, Bishops Waltham-Botley, Ringwood- Christchurch and of course Lynton-Barnstaple Railway.

Which perhaps accounts for the ex-Southern losing the least under Beeching perhaps, as it had been tackled pre-Nationalisation?

 

[simonw]

That's an interesting point, why did the Big Four do so little rationalisation? Even though a lot of freight still went to local stations, many of the lines must have been heavily loss making.

The LNER closed a few lines. I imagine without WW2 a number of lines would have closed as time progressed.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Which perhaps accounts for the ex-Southern losing the least under Beeching perhaps, as it had been tackled pre-Nationalisation?

I don't think so. Sure, the Southern (Railway) closed a few branches, and yes, they would surely have gone under BR and Beeching - but overall the Southern lost no main or even secondary lines the way the other BR regions did, except, you might argue, for Exeter - Plymouth via Okehampton.

I haven't seen any figures, but surely as a proportion of the maximum route mileage, the SR was least hit.

 

[d9009alycidon]

Two thirds of the ex-LMS termini in Glasgow were closed.

And all of their Edinburgh termini!

 

[HSTEd]

The former Southern Region does appear to contain some odd duplications even today, for example the Caterham line does appear to rather parallel the Oxted line.
Why did the Caterham line survive? Was it simply that it had been electrified before any cuts really became necessary?

 

[zwk500]

The former Southern Region does appear to contain some odd duplications even today, for example the Caterham line does appear to rather parallel the Oxted line.
Why did the Caterham line survive? Was it simply that it had been electrified before any cuts really became necessary?

The Southern also put a lot of effort into passenger (commuter) traffic, so would have satisfied Beeching's inspections even on wet February thursdays. The Caterham and Oxted lines only run parallel for a short distance, although it is perhaps slightly surprising the local stations on this stretch of the Oxted line survived, although I suspect that even back then Surrey/Sussex Commuters could make themselves heard. I'm not sure if the RAF presence at Kenley was still material in Beeching's time.

 

[30907]

The Southern also put a lot of effort into passenger (commuter) traffic, so would have satisfied Beeching's inspections even on wet February thursdays. The Caterham and Oxted lines only run parallel for a short distance, although it is perhaps slightly surprising the local stations on this stretch of the Oxted line survived, although I suspect that even back then Surrey/Sussex Commuters could make themselves heard. I'm not sure if the RAF presence at Kenley was still material in Beeching's time.

There's a considerable height difference between the two lines.

 

[edwin_m]

The Southern also put a lot of effort into passenger (commuter) traffic, so would have satisfied Beeching's inspections even on wet February thursdays.

Very few London commuter routes run by any of the "Big 4" companies were closed. The Southern's good fortune was probably more about having a greater proportion of such routes than anyone else. If only "main lines" were considered then I'd guess the Southern would have lost a similar proportion to the other three.

 

[Calthrop]

I guess that's why I went for the Big Four era, on a hunch that not a lot might have changed. That's not to say that lines didn't close in the 1920s and 30s. They certainly did, but surely not on the scale which came in the 1950s and 60s.

The Southern Railway undertook a lot of rationalisation when it took over in 1923.
Many stations in the same town owned by competing companies were closed such as in Midhurst, Leatherhead, Epsom as well as the rationalisation in the Thanet area of Margate/Ramsgate. Other stations closed - Dover Harbour, Ludgate Hill or Merton Abbey were near other stations.
A number of uneconomic branch lines were closed- Tooting- Merton Park, Canterbury & Whitstable, Elham Valley Line, Sandgate-Hythe, Dungeness branch, Kemp Town branch, Dyke branch, Chichester- Midhurst, Ash-Farnham, Hurstbourne- Fullerton, Lee-on-Solent branch, Bishops Waltham-Botley, Ringwood- Christchurch and of course Lynton-Barnstaple Railway.

The LNER closed a few lines. I imagine without WW2 a number of lines would have closed as time progressed.

It's my understanding that the Big Four did close a considerable number of -- pretty much, highly "marginal" -- lines (and much more often than not, to passenger only; freight continued to run) chiefly in the ten years leading up to World War II (as you intimate, @simonw, few closures during the war years -- "almost everything was needed"). Strong impression is got, that the greater part of this branch-line closing was done by the LNER and LMS -- this contributed-to by their having been bigger, more extensive systems, with considerably greater mileage, than the other two. A fair number of lines were closed by the GWR, especially in Wales; smallest number of all, closed by the Southern, notwithstanding run-down by @steamybrian as above.

Grimmest closure years in the Big Four era were 1930 and 1931. 22/9/1930 -- date of end of summer timetable -- saw the biggest single bout of closures: 17 lines w.e.f. that date; but another 27 closed on assorted dates in the course of that year (no SR lines closed in 1930; the "action" was by the other three companies). 1931 saw closure of a further 35 lines, this time by all four companies including several lines of the SR (I don't have info to hand, as to which on @steamybrian's list these were). 1930 and '31 also saw a certain amount of closures of small "village" stations, on lines which remained in use for [semi-] fast passenger. There were an appreciable number of closures also, in other years in the overall 1929 to '39 time-span.

 

[L+Y]

It's my understanding that the Big Four did close a considerable number of -- pretty much, highly "marginal" -- lines (and much more often than not, to passenger only; freight continued to run) chiefly in the ten years leading up to World War II (as you intimate, @simonw, few closures during the war years -- "almost everything was needed"). Strong impression is got, that the greater part of this branch-line closing was done by the LNER and LMS -- this contributed-to by their having been bigger, more extensive systems, with considerably greater mileage, than the other two. A fair number of lines were closed by the GWR, especially in Wales; smallest number of all, closed by the Southern, notwithstanding run-down by @steamybrian as above.

Grimmest closure years in the Big Four era were 1930 and 1931. 22/9/1930 -- date of end of summer timetable -- saw the biggest single bout of closures: 17 lines w.e.f. that date; but another 27 closed on assorted dates in the course of that year (no SR lines closed in 1930; the "action" was by the other three companies). 1931 saw closure of a further 35 lines, this time by all four companies including several lines of the SR (I don't have info to hand, as to which on @steamybrian's list these were). 1930 and '31 also saw a certain amount of closures of small "village" stations, on lines which remained in use for [semi-] fast passenger. There were an appreciable number of closures also, in other years in the overall 1929 to '39 time-span.

To follow on from that re Beeching- which was the single worst year of the Beeching era?

 

[Calthrop]

To follow on from that re Beeching- which was the single worst year of the Beeching era?

Immediate answer, "from gut rather than statistical knowledge", 1964 -- others will likely have precise info re this question.

 

[Magdalia]

To follow on from that re Beeching- which was the single worst year of the Beeching era?

I have a book called "Doctor Beeching's Axe 50 years on". It isn't the perfect source but it does give an answer within a few minutes.

Immediate answer, "from gut rather than statistical knowledge", 1964 -- others will likely have precise info re this question.

This gut instinct looks like a good one. The book has 64 closures in 1964. Next highest are 45 in 1965 and 30 in 1966.

 

[L+Y]

Quite remarkable how quickly the axe fell after the report was published.

 

[BrianW]

Typically the last lines to open were the first to close. This is probably because the first lines in a particular area were most likely to serve it in an optimal way, and later lines had to exploit gaps and niches which were probably less valuable as a whole. Joint lines were similar, in that they usually existed because two or more out-of-area companies decided to challenge an incumbent who had already grabbed most of the plum traffic. The fact the economics weren't good enough for any company to try it on their own in the heyday of railways usually meant that they become heavily loss-making as rail traffic declined.

So in the Nottingham area for example, the Midland served everywhere reasonably well and the main routes mostly survived, but although the GC and GN provided arguably better routes north and south they didn't provide that comprehensive network and all their main routes duplicated the Midland (and each other in some cases). Notice I've gone back to pre-Grouping companies, as they were the origin of most of the duplication and the Big Four did very little to reduce it even when they inherited multiple routes between the same places.

I'm no expert ... I imagine many criteria were involved in decision-making. I find this observation of the comparatively low amount of 'rationalisation' post-Grouping interesting, esp bearing in mind the rationale for the Grouping- were the economic pressures not felt as they were in the time leading up to Beeching? Was there no Marples, or Marples-Ridgeway? Were societal 'obligations' stronger?

 

[WAB]

I'm no expert ... I imagine many criteria were involved in decision-making. I find this observation of the comparatively low amount of 'rationalisation' post-Grouping interesting, esp bearing in mind the rationale for the Grouping- were the economic pressures not felt as they were in the time leading up to Beeching? Was there no Marples, or Marples-Ridgeway? Were societal 'obligations' stronger?

Closures were politically challenging and bureaucratic. There was also no meaningful cost allocation to each service meaning that vast costs were appearing in central or regional budgets, but with little idea where the costs were being incurred. For example, the cost of providing a certain level of staffing at a junction could be allocated to the mainline if you were trying to justify the branch, or vv. Trains which appeared to be busy enough could be total loss makers, and many operators considered more passengers = profit, regardless of the cost vs. benefit.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Quite remarkable how quickly the axe fell after the report was published.

I think BR had decided to eliminate many traditional steam-worked services without bothering to try an optimised diesel service to cut costs.
In the end I think the bottleneck for closures was in the regional HQs who couldn't formulate the closure proposals fast enough.
Ordering of new DMUs stopped, so the aim was to make the fleet work as many ex-steam services as possible, which put unsuitable suburban DMUs on long-distance services (eg Manchester-Holyhead).
Mind you, TfW still seems to do some of that today (eg 150s on Manchester-Cardiff).