Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[Gwr12345]

Did Beeching ever comment on what would happen to the routes he didn't highlight in Development of Major Railway Trunk Routes, I always thought he never commented on it.

 

[eldomtom2]

Did Beeching ever comment on what would happen to the routes he didn't highlight in Development of Major Railway Trunk Routes, I always thought he never commented on it.

I'm just going to quote what I've said before on the topic:

The focus of The Reshaping of British Railways and The Development Of The Major Railway Trunk Routes was different. The focus of the first was to propose (among other things) that steps be taken in the immediate future to close a large number of lines; the focus of the second was to develop a vision of what the railway should look like in twenty years and what network would be necessary to achieve that vision.

Because of this broad-level look, Beeching's expectation was presumably that it would be followed by more detailed studies, with the possibility that these studies could lead to results that meant that which routes would be developed would change - for example, he brings up North London commuter services, heavily reliant on the main lines unlike those in the southeast, as an example of something that would have to be taken to account in more planning.

Thus the value of Trunk Routes is that it is Beeching presenting his vision of what the railway of the then-future should look like. It is through this vision that we can see why most of the routes "not selected for development" would have closed under his vision, at least to passenger traffic.

Beeching is very clear in his report that he believed the railways had too many trunk routes, and that the number of them that the railway directed trains and funds into could be greatly reduced. This, then, leaves the question of what would happen to those routes not deemed one of the trunk routes of the future.

For starters, Beeching directly states that one of the goals of publishing the report is "so that any future proposals for trunk line closure, or diminutions of line utilisation, can be seen in a broader context". This is an explicit statement of a desire for further closures than those recommended in the Reshaping report (which itself was not fully implemented).

But beyond that, we can see how most of the lines "not selected for development" do not fit into his vision of the railway. First, an important thing to understand about Beeching's selection of trunk routes is that he expected the transfer of through trains onto the selected trunk routes to be total - for instance, he proposed routing traffic from Newcastle, York, etc. to Scotland not over the ECML through Berwick but instead over the Tyne Valley line and then onto the WCML.

Thus, the only remaining traffic on the routes "not selected for development" would be local services. And it is very clear what Beeching thought of local services outside of the major cities' commuter services. He repeats over and over again that the railways need to focus on "bulk movement", and provides maps showing how the proposed trunk route network links all major centres of population. With passenger traffic he is explicit as to the meaning of this:

"The role of the railways will be to concentrate upon the provision of bulk transport over routes of heavy demand, and over medium to long distances... ...while leaving shorter distances and cross country journeys to coaches and the private car."

In other words, railways cannot compete economically with road transport over the non-trunk routes and should not bother.

In addition, Beeching is explicit that one of the key purposes of selecting trunk routes is to reduce infrastructure costs. Singling lines etc. will do very little to balance the books when a line's only left with local services...

 

[AlastairFraser]

This was always deluded thinking of the highest order and only absolute ideologues could ever come up with it. Where are all those coach services now?

Thankfully congestion put paid to that! And in 2023, if the current government had any ideas in that direction, they've even less chance of making it successful, due to the significant shortage of coach drivers.

 

[daodao]

This was always deluded thinking of the highest order and only absolute ideologues could ever come up with it. Where are all those coach services now?

Not necessarily deluded. How many long distance passenger trains are there in many countries, e.g. as diverse as Latvia and Brazil?

@eldomtom2

Beeching's principles were sound, but the data for making specific decisions and recommendations was often of poor quality and unrefined.

It is clear now that the Newcastle-Edinburgh main line is key route, and its elimination would have been a mistake. However, other main lines that have been retained are now white elephants and deserve to be eliminated; examples include the ex-Midland Settle and Carlisle route, the ex-GSW route from Gretna Green to Kilmarnock, and the ex MS&L main line from Barnetby to Retford via Brigg. Should they have been closed in the 1960s? - probably not due to their freight-carrying role, but this has now virtually disappeared.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Not necessarily deluded. How many long distance passenger trains are there in many countries, e.g. as diverse as Latvia and Brazil?

@eldomtom2

Beeching's principles were sound, but the data for making specific decisions and recommendations was often of poor quality and unrefined.

It is clear now that the Newcastle-Edinburgh main line is key route, and its elimination would have been a mistake. However, other main lines that have been retained are now white elephants and deserve to be eliminated; examples include the ex-Midland Settle and Carlisle route, the ex-GSW route from Gretna Green to Kilmarnock, and the ex MS&L main line from Barnetby to Retford via Brigg. Should they have been closed in the 1960s? - probably not due to their freight-carrying role, but this has now virtually disappeared.

The S and C has a huge tourist pull for the area - most of the roads in the area couldn't handle the traffic needed to replace the railway's carrying capacity in the Dales.

The Brigg line currently struggles due to the ridiculously sparse service on the line, but would get a decent patronage with a decent service to Brigg and the villages on that section itself, and with a decent through service to Sheffield through Gainsborough.
There is also the other potential traffic source of Humberside Airport, which may expand and get a railway station, due to the likelihood of Leeds Bradford overcrowding in future, very limited room for expansion in future and the next nearest international airport (Doncaster Sheffield) being closed recently. Ryanair could be persuaded if LBA increased their landing fees.

The GSW is crucial as a diversionary line - get rid of that and you place a lot of pressure on either coach operators to run down the M74, or you need enough diesels to run down the Tyne Valley and up the ECML as there is a limit on traction electricity draw for some sections north of Newcastle.
These WCML closures don't always happen at short notice either - look at the failure of Lamington Viaduct around New Year 2016. Many forum members, including myself, will happily attest to the difficulty of getting RRBs at short notice.

 

[muddythefish]

Not necessarily deluded. How many long distance passenger trains are there in many countries, e.g. as diverse as Latvia and Brazil?

@eldomtom2

Beeching's principles were sound, but the data for making specific decisions and recommendations was often of poor quality and unrefined.

It is clear now that the Newcastle-Edinburgh main line is key route, and its elimination would have been a mistake. However, other main lines that have been retained are now white elephants and deserve to be eliminated; examples include the ex-Midland Settle and Carlisle route, the ex-GSW route from Gretna Green to Kilmarnock, and the ex MS&L main line from Barnetby to Retford via Brigg. Should they have been closed in the 1960s? - probably not due to their freight-carrying role, but this has now virtually disappeared.

On the other hand, Beeching axed many routes where there was no apparent passenger demand at the time but now would be very well used and closing them has obviously been a mistake.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Not necessarily deluded. How many long distance passenger trains are there in many countries, e.g. as diverse as Latvia and Brazil?

When there is no passenger rail network to speak of, or the only railways are urban/suburban metros, then coach services do play a useful role. But that is not the case in this country.

 

[The Ham]

When there is no passenger rail network to speak of, or the only railways are urban/suburban metros, then coach services do play a useful role. But that is not the case in this country.

It's also a fairly safe bet that the number of people who nice about is lower where they have to rely on road based travel options compared to where there's rail options.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

On the other hand, Beeching axed many routes where there was no apparent passenger demand at the time but now would be very well used and closing them has obviously been a mistake.

Closing them wasn't always the mistake, making them impossible to re-open was.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Closing them wasn't always the mistake, making them impossible to re-open was.

Indeed. And some might say that the 'Scorched Earth' policy implemented after many of these closure(s) was done primarily to ensure that they never could re-open.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. And some might say that the 'Scorched Earth' policy implemented after many of these closure(s) was done primarily to ensure that they never could re-open.

Quite. Germany by contrast has done a lot of mothballing of lines - abandoned, but not lifted and the land not sold.

That has happened here in places of course - the existence of a partly-freight mothballed Oxford-Bletchley route has made it far, far easier to reopen it. Yes, EWR is basically a brand new route, but the line remaining in place has stopped things being built in the way.

The trend for lines to be converted to cycleways I suppose protects them in other ways, though at the cost of needing to provide a replacement cycle path if reopened.

 

[RT4038]

This was always deluded thinking of the highest order and only absolute ideologues could ever come up with it. Where are all those coach services now?

I would point out it was only the impression of @Merle Haggard, and that there were several circumstances at the time, some of which are again prevalent today.

 

[Falcon1200]

The trend for lines to be converted to cycleways I suppose protects them in other ways

Not only applicable to disused lines, but in urban areas local lines which are double track should be singled and the space released used for a cycle-only path; No pedestrians, dogs or children getting in the cyclists' way!

 

[gg1]

Not only applicable to disused lines, but in urban areas local lines which are double track should be singled and the space released used for a cycle-only path; No pedestrians, dogs or children getting in the cyclists' way!

How many currently dual track urban lines have a low enough service frequency to make singling feasible?

 

[yorksrob]

Closing them wasn't always the mistake, making them impossible to re-open was.

Theoretically yes, but in reality even where a track bed remains in place it is notoriously difficult to reopen.

Keeping a parliamentary service would have been better.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not only applicable to disused lines, but in urban areas local lines which are double track should be singled and the space released used for a cycle-only path; No pedestrians, dogs or children getting in the cyclists' way!

Presumably if you get a flat and have to get off and push you're automatically fined via a gateline at each end?

 

[Falcon1200]

How many currently dual track urban lines have a low enough service frequency to make singling feasible?

The train service would be amended to run in flights, basically inward to town in the morning and back out in the afternoon and evening.

Presumably if you get a flat and have to get off and push you're automatically fined via a gateline at each end?

But if the flat was due to an infrastructure defect, eg sharp stones on the path, you would be entitled to Delay Repay!

(PS all posts made in accordance with the thread title.....)

 

[py_megapixel]

But if the flat was due to an infrastructure defect, eg sharp stones on the path, you would be entitled to Delay Repay!

(PS all posts made in accordance with the thread title.....)

Presumably not if the sharp stones were found earlier than 22:00 on the evening before though...

 

[option]

Yes I agree on the North South divide issue. Spending on rail per passenger in the SE is markedly lower than the North due to the disparity in passenger numbers (and of course around 25% of the UK population live in the SE). Spending in all areas is needed but before people moan about the expenditure on Crossrail/Elizabeth line being better spent elsewhere they should remember that a fair proportion of this money was raised from local taxation. There is nothing to stop other areas doing the same.

Local taxation like the Business Rates levy on corporate HQs of national companies, & government offices.
The GLA collects a precept on Council Tax, paid by those MPs with second homes there (which they then expense), & London based civil servants (the highest paid ones are in London)
So, some of that local taxation is actually from national money.

Is there a mechanism for an English Region to do that? I don't think so.

Local Authorities can charge a Community Infrastructure Levy, but it has to be spent within their area, & if there's a Parish Council or Neighbourhood Plan, a proportion gets devolved down to that level.
The actual amounts raised aren't life changing though; In 2020/21 Birmingham raised £3m from it. Building 3 new, basic, stations on an existing line, with no electrification, is costing £60m+.
Even if you got matched funding from central government, its over a decade for a city the size of Birmingham to raise the funds that way, & with no funding of any other projects.
There's lots of other things it would get spent on, & quicker;

Community Infrastructure Levy

This guidance explains what the Community Infrastructure Levy is and how it operates.

www.gov.uk

I would question how much money the North gets, it's very easy to define how much infrastructure spending is/isn't spent in any given location (interestingly whenever this comes to many overlook that the South East tends to be fairly low down the list - so if only looking at infrastructure spending arguably the South East should also get more).

However there's another factor the amount of subsidy that is spent in any given area. That is harder to define, however is typically more in the North than the south.

I previously worked out that if SWR/SWT was given the same level of subsidy as TPE then the extra money would have allowed them to pay for Crossrail 2 within something like 10 years (it may have been less or a bit more I don't recall the exact numbers).

But there is investment in infrastructure that reduces operating costs, &/or increases usage, which leads to reduced subsidy requirements.
So some of that higher subsidy is due to decisions to not invest in those areas.

 

[RT4038]

Local Authorities can charge a Community Infrastructure Levy, but it has to be spent within their area, & if there's a Parish Council or Neighbourhood Plan, a proportion gets devolved down to that level.
The actual amounts raised aren't life changing though; In 2020/21 Birmingham raised £3m from it. Building 3 new, basic, stations on an existing line, with no electrification, is costing £60m+.
Even if you got matched funding from central government, its over a decade for a city the size of Birmingham to raise the funds that way, & with no funding of any other projects.
There's lots of other things it would get spent on, & quicker;

As you point out, the Community Infrastructure Levy raises (in the grand scheme of things) small amounts, which likely are going to have to be partly spent on other items such as schools etc. Unless there is a major commercial development, the amounts involved will not even scratch the surface of any rail project. In the provinces, a major commercial development is going to have so much political leverage that CIL payments are going to be negotiated to a minimum in exchange for the project going ahead at all.

In other words, there is no practical mechanism for English Regions to raise money locally to fund rail projects which come anywhere close to building new/reopening lines etc

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Complementry food and drink should be got rid of in 1st class to allow a reduction in 1st class fares and a return of a cafe/bistro/resturant car for all, but keep an at seat service for 1st class passengers...much like how they do it in some of mainland Europe.

I shall now log off and prepare myself for the backlash for when I next log on!

Better quality food and drink should be available in 1st class with silver service provided in proper restaurant cars on dedicated trains and no second class passengers should be allowed to board those special trains to ruin the ambiance

 

[eldomtom2]

North American freight railroads have 19th-century attitudes to labour relations and safety.

 

[Bletchleyite]

North American freight railroads have 19th-century attitudes to labour relations and safety.

Not controversial and does have a firm foundation in logic.

 

[YourMum666]

IETs are arguably the best new intercity train we have gotten since the IC225

 

[Bletchleyite]

IETs are arguably the best new intercity train we have gotten since the IC225

Other than the Sophia seats I would go for that. Though the 397 would probably give them a run for their money.

They have flaws, but I generally quite like them.

 

[YourMum666]

Other than the Sophia seats I would go for that. Though the 397 would probably give them a run for their money.

They have flaws, but I generally quite like them.

So do I, I’m quite fond of them. The only reason why they get so much slack is because they replaced HSTs.

 

[al78]

Not only applicable to disused lines, but in urban areas local lines which are double track should be singled and the space released used for a cycle-only path; No pedestrians, dogs or children getting in the cyclists' way!

Not even sure if it is legally possible to designate a route only for cyclists and illegal for pedestrians, but if cyclists don't want pedestrians, dogs or children getting in the way, much of the road network is suitable for that. Cycling from Southwater to Broadbridge Heath via the Worthing road and Tower Hill is a blast compared to the Downs link.

 

[Brush 4]

Continuing the reversal of BR rationalisation. Much has been done already but, more redoubling, 3 or 4 tracking, single lead junctions to double, reinstating disused platforms*, passing loops.

*Like Swindon, Hartlepool and soon, Newquay...

Removing bushes, trees from risky locations, like Salisbury and also to open up views that were once visible.

Reconnect any freight depots that used to have them and force firms to use them by jailing managers and shareholders who object.

(remember the thread title......)

 

[gg1]

The train service would be amended to run in flights, basically inward to town in the morning and back out in the afternoon and evening.

So largely useless for anyone other than commuters, would require more units to run than the existing service and each unit would spend the bulk of the day sitting idle.

 

[miklcct]

I would say, on the contrary, that railway lines in this country should not be converted to bus routes, because even where that would on paper be better, it would be ruined because in Britain we simply don't know, and refuse to learn, how to run a bus service properly. Lack of timetable or fare integration with other modes, lack of live information, poor reliability, low-quality vehicles... the list goes on.

Apart from the infrastructure, there is no inherent difference in how to run a bus service v.s. how to run a tram service properly. Lack of timetable, fare integration or live information is not bus-specific. Poor reliability and low-quality vehicles also aren't bus specific as well, they can happen on trams and trains as well.

I think my most "controversial" opinion would have to be: At privatization Intercity, NSE and Regional Railways should have been franchised off as whole entities rather than being split down by region/route. Open Access Operators would still be allowed on my "'ideal'" privatized network of course.

(However under the current fractured system I agree with a previous poster, in that "the more TOCs the better").

I agree. If so, we would already have a proper classification of train services.

And the GWR should run the Resding/Bristol to Brum services

GWR is too big already, please don't add more routes to it. My controversial opinion is that GWR should split, reversing to the past when there were Thames Trains and Wessex Trains.

GWR itself should only operate the intercity routes operated by Intercity Express Trains, Wessex Trains should take over all the South West regional routes, while the Thames Valley services should be assigned as follow:
London - Didcot, London - Newbury, Reading - Newbury: remain with GWR
Twyford - Henley, Maidenhead - Marlow, Slough - Windsor, West Ealing - Greenford: transfer to Elizabeth line
Reading - Basingstoke, Reading - Redhill: transfer to South Western Railway