Salisbury to Exeter, duplicate route Beeching.

[uglymonkey]

Salisbury to Exeter survived the good Dr, even though it was a duplicate route ( which he hated). Yes it was cut to the bone & all its branches ( except Exmouth) closed, but why did it survive at all? Diversionary route when GWML closed? If that was the case and rationale, why Tavistock- Okehampton closed , when it too was a diversionary route when the GWML at Dawlish was closed ? No axe to bring, just curious.

 

[Snow1964]

The simple answer was the alternative (via Castle Cary) was too far from South East Devon, and would have left tens of thousands of people miles from any rail line, so a basic service of 2 hourly stoppers at main stations was proposed.

Some stations were subsequently reopened, and some loops added to improve frequency

 

[30907]

To add:
Rationalisation of Salisbury-Exeter was the price of its survival (though it was slightly less thorough than WR management wanted). Closure would have been difficult to justify, on a par with Paddington-Birmingham rather than the GCR.
The line was only occasionally actually used for diversions BTW.

Yeoford-Okehampton-Bere Alston was a different matter - some use as a diversionary route but far less passenger traffic (towards the end Okehampton was a single-unit job, and not busy). Gunnislake only survived (thankfully) because there was no road alternative.

 

[eldomtom2]

A lot of things survived Beeching - he wanted far more closures than proposed in his first report.

 

[coppercapped]

A lot of things survived Beeching - he wanted far more closures than proposed in his first report.

Eh? How do you know that?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Eh? How do you know that?

Good question.

 

[RT4038]

Eh? How do you know that?

Inter alia, chapter 8 of 'I tried to run a Railway' by Gerard Fiennes gives some insight.

 

[eldomtom2]

Eh? How do you know that?

"The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes"? This is hardly obscure knowledge.

 

[Dr Hoo]

"The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes"? This is hardly obscure knowledge.

That was about, err, the development of major trunk routes (not about commuting, branch lines and so on). I wasn’t aware that it proposed any additional closures. It was published at a time the new government were very optimistic about economic growth and increased demand for long distance freight traffic, etc. Didn’t really work out like that.

 

[eldomtom2]

That was Beeching attempting to dodge public criticism. It is quite clear both from the text of the report and Beeching's later statements that "not selected for development" was, with the exception of some commuter lines, a euphemism for "run down and closed".

 

[Dr Hoo]

That was Beeching attempting to dodge public criticism. It is quite clear both from the text of the report and Beeching's later statements that "not selected for development" was, with the exception of some commuter lines, a euphemism for "run down and closed".

You mean like in the Introduction where it says "It should be recognised that the purpose of this study is to select routes for future intensive use, not to select lines for closure"? Yeah. Right.

I'm not clear what you mean from "later statements" because Beeching left almost immediately after the Trunk Routes document was published. It was, of course, Beeching's successor (a railwayman) and the new government's first two transport ministers that presided over the closure of quite a few more routes that Beeching hadn't proposed. This was most obvious a little later in the Network for Development document. (This was the only major rail policy document that was co-signed by the BRB Chairman and Minister of Transport, I believe.)

It is also very relevant to this thread in that the Salisbury-Exeter line was the test ground for track rationalisation that was a key plank of the Transport Act 1968 with its Surplus Track Capacity [hasty elimination] Grants that influenced thinking for years afterwards.

 

[eldomtom2]

It is very clear that running down and closing the lines "not selected for development" was the intention from many instances in the report:

Therefore, unless future traffic levels over the through routes are likely to be many times higher than at present, the expenditure of the very large sums of money necessary for the maintenance, renewal, and improvement of all existing through routes cannot be justified, and the concentration of traffic and of development expenditure upon selected routes is clearly desirable

For the purpose of considering the effect of the future passenger traffic demand on the railway trunk system we have accepted the unavoidable conclusion that stopping services on trunk routes will decline. Most of them are grossly under-used and hopelessly uneconomic now, and are likely to become more so in future because of road improvement and further growth in car ownership. We have, therefore, restricted our consideration to inter- city passenger movements

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.

Thus, if the railways concentrate on cheap bulk movement, their prospects as trunk carriers can be revived. The danger is that failure to change, to modernise, and to concentrate, will cause the present decline to continue. The real choice is between an excessive and increasingly uneconomic system, with a corresponding tendency for the railways as a whole to fall into disrepute and decay, or the selective development and intensive utilisation of a more limited trunk route system.

For the sake of clarity, it is emphasised that non-selection of lines for intensive development does not necessarily mean that they will be abandoned in the foreseeable future, nor even that money will not be spent upon some of them to improve their suitability for their continuing purpose. It is emphasised that the developed trunk lines will be supported by several thousand miles of freight feeder lines, and that clarification of the position with regard to trunk route development will facilitate decisions about the feeder network. It is also emphasised that the provision of capacity for commuter traffics into the main urban areas is the subject of separate consideration.

It's no use attempting to deny that Beeching's vision for the railway was of a much smaller network than we have.

 

[Grecian 1998]

It is also very relevant to this thread in that the Salisbury-Exeter line was the test ground for track rationalisation that was a key plank of the Transport Act 1968 with its Surplus Track Capacity [hasty elimination] Grants that influenced thinking for years afterwards.

Not entirely successfully given that Yeovil Junction - Sherborne was hurriedly reinstated shortly after singling in 1967 before the track had been removed due to the 'optimism' as to how much could be removed.


There has always been a much larger population between Salisbury - Exeter than Westbury - Exeter (particularly given Frome is bypassed). There was significant scope to improve the intermediate service - prior to 1964 Honiton and Gillingham had minimal London services as they weren't junctions, whereas now these are 2 of the 3 busiest intermediate stations.

I think the original rationalisation plan was stops only at Honiton, Axminster, Crewkerne, Sherborne (railhead for Yeovil) and Gillingham. Obviously that got pared back.

I had an old VHS cab ride from Salisbury to Exeter in 1987 in which the driver, cameraman and inspector discuss the influence of Sherborne School. Apparently enough establishment figures in the 1960s had been schooled there to prevent any talk of closing the route to their old alma mater. Obviously speculative, but quite feasible given similar threats to the 'Deerstalker Express' in the 1990s.

 

[nw1]

Not entirely successfully given that Yeovil Junction - Sherborne was hurriedly reinstated shortly after singling in 1967 before the track had been removed due to the 'optimism' as to how much could be removed.


There has always been a much larger population between Salisbury - Exeter than Westbury - Exeter (particularly given Frome is bypassed). There was significant scope to improve the intermediate service - prior to 1964 Honiton and Gillingham had minimal London services as they weren't junctions, whereas now these are 2 of the 3 busiest intermediate stations.

I think the original rationalisation plan was stops only at Honiton, Axminster, Crewkerne, Sherborne (railhead for Yeovil) and Gillingham. Obviously that got pared back.

To be fair for a time that was close to the typical stopping pattern in early/mid 1983, which was (and I can still hear the announcement at Woking, including the intonations) "Basingstoke, Andover, Salisbury, Tisbury, Gillingham, Sherborne, Yeovil (sic), Crewkerne, Axminster, Honiton, Exeter Central and Exeter St Davids". The only additions were Tisbury and Yeovil Junction. Templecombe opened in late 1983 (and I think I remember the Exeter trains being manually announced at Woking when it opened) while Feniton only briefly closed, something like 1967-71, and Whimple never closed (I think???) but both were missed by all but a small number of peak services.

The simple answer was the alternative (via Castle Cary) was too far from South East Devon, and would have left tens of thousands of people miles from any rail line, so a basic service of 2 hourly stoppers at main stations was proposed.

Some stations were subsequently reopened, and some loops added to improve frequency

The single-track nature of part of the route still gives some stations a bucolic, "deep in the country" feel. Tisbury is one good example, it still feels like something out of the 1960s in some ways, until, that is, a 159 draws in rather than a Warship and Mk-I stock, or whatever. This is enhanced by the Tisbury area still being thoroughly unspoilt, a rare thing in this part of southern England. Not a bad thing for character, but the single line does of course impose some severe restrictions on the timetable and singling in retrospect was a monumentally silly decision.

 

[geoffk]

These changes have meant that, apart from the GW main line, the growing city of Exeter, with significant inward commuting, is served by railways which are all or mostly single-track. Delays approaching St. Davids or Exmouth Junction, or at Newton Abbot, can cause dislocation over a long time period, e.g. trains being turned short or stops missed, a not infrequent occurrence on the Exmouth line. The proportion of single track west of Salisbury (75%) is a major performance challenge. A Network Rail study in 2020 envisaged additional capacity west of Axminster to allow an hourly Devon Metro service but I don't how far through the approval process this has got.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Inter alia, chapter 8 of 'I tried to run a Railway' by Gerard Fiennes gives some insight.

In his famous memoirs, Mr Fiennes mentions that he wanted fewer stations than pressure groups and local politicians were willing to accept and that consequently the service was inferior to what he had planned. He did not say he wanted to close more track. These details have nothing to do with Dr. Beeching's report.

That was Beeching attempting to dodge public criticism. It is quite clear both from the text of the report and Beeching's later statements that "not selected for development" was, with the exception of some commuter lines, a euphemism for "run down and closed".

That is not correct. As has been reiterated innumerable times in this forum, Dr. Beeching's original assessment of the railway routes divided them into three groups: 1) those which were obviously hopeless, pointless and should be closed; 2) those which were obviously viable and worthy of serious investment; and 3) those which fell into neither of the two previous groups. Dr. Beeching stressed that no immediate decision should be made about this third group. Contrary to what you have suggested, several of them were not "run down and closed" but instead still function today. The route between Salisbury and Exeter is a prime example.

 

[eldomtom2]

That is not correct. As has been reiterated innumerable times in this forum, Dr. Beeching's original assessment of the railway routes divided them into three groups: 1) those which were obviously hopeless, pointless and should be closed; 2) those which were obviously viable and worthy of serious investment; and 3) those which fell into neither of the two previous groups.

That on its own is worthless without talking about how Beeching defined a viable route and what his vision for the railway was. As I believe I have made very clear with evidence, his vision was not one that saw a future for Salisbury-Exeter, or indeed many other lines that are open today.

Contrary to what you have suggested, several of them were not "run down and closed" but instead still function today.

Yes, because for a variety of reasons Beeching did not get to implement his vision...

 

[30907]

To be fair for a time that was close to the typical stopping pattern in early/mid 1983, which was (and I can still hear the announcement at Woking, including the intonations) "Basingstoke, Andover, Salisbury, Tisbury, Gillingham, Sherborne, Yeovil (sic), Crewkerne, Axminster, Honiton, Exeter Central and Exeter St Davids". The only additions were Tisbury and Yeovil Junction.

...of which Tisbury originally had only a token service, like Whimple.

 

[RT4038]

In his famous memoirs, Mr Fiennes mentions that he wanted fewer stations than pressure groups and local politicians were willing to accept and that consequently the service was inferior to what he had planned. He did not say he wanted to close more track. These details have nothing to do with Dr. Beeching's report.

p144 of my edition: ' Back in the office, I sat forlornly in front of my authorised version. No railway west of Plymouth. No Exeter-Salisbury. No Taunton-Westbury-Reading. In a while I rallied............. I had at least saved a little. West of Plymouth; Exeter-Salisbury; Taunton-Westbury-Reading were in as grey 'routes not for development'. ' This is fairly conclusive evidence of Dr Beeching's thinking at some point. Never said this was part of Beeching's report 'The Reshaping of British Railways'.

That on its own is worthless without talking about how Beeching defined a viable route and what his vision for the railway was. As I believe I have made very clear with evidence, his vision was not one that saw a future for Salisbury-Exeter, or indeed many other lines that are open today.

Yes, because for a variety of reasons Beeching did not get to implement his vision...

The vision of his remit - a profitable British Railways. As you say, for a variety reasons not least that the country would not stomach such a small system, not achieved.

 

[PTR 444]

Going into alternative history mode, but I wonder what the impact would have been if Beeching had closed the GWR Reading - Taunton route and left Salisbury - Exeter fully double track, making that the main Intercity route from London to the South West.

It probably could have been done while cutting off only a handful of smaller settlements. Intercity trains could have run Waterloo - Exeter (reverse) - Plymouth with a non-stop run between Salisbury and Exeter, while there would still be room for a supplementary regional service between Waterloo and Exeter similar to now except that the smaller stations (Tisbury, Templecombe, Whimple, Feniton) probably would have never reopened. With this provision, there would have been no need to keep the Reading - Taunton line open west of Newbury, although Westbury - Castle Cary would likely have remained open if there was still demand to run trains on the Heart of Wessex Line.

 

[Gloster]

Going into alternative history mode, but I wonder what the impact would have been if Beeching had closed the GWR Reading - Taunton route and left Salisbury - Exeter fully double track, making that the main Intercity route from London to the South West.

It probably could have been done while cutting off only a handful of smaller settlements. Intercity trains could have run Waterloo - Exeter (reverse) - Plymouth with a non-stop run between Salisbury and Exeter, while there would still be room for a supplementary regional service between Waterloo and Exeter similar to now except that the smaller stations (Tisbury, Templecombe, Whimple, Feniton) probably would have never reopened. With this provision, there would have been no need to keep the Reading - Taunton line open west of Newbury, although Westbury - Castle Cary would likely have remained open if there was still demand to run trains on the Heart of Wessex Line.

Tisbury and Whimple never closed.

If the line had remained double-track, I wonder if there might still have been a sparse local service from Exeter as far as Honiton or Axminster.

 

[PTR 444]

Tisbury and Whimple never closed.

Ahh my mistake. In that case, they probably would have closed if Intercity trains were routed that way due to the need to keep those at a the maximum linespeed.

If the line had remained double-track, I wonder if there might still have been a sparse local service from Exeter as far as Honiton or Axminster.

Probably, depending on the pathing of the fast trains.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It is very clear that running down and closing the lines "not selected for development" was the intention from many instances in the report:





It's no use attempting to deny that Beeching's vision for the railway was of a much smaller network than we have.

I have yet to see any evidence that Dr Beeching ever had a 'vision' of the size of the network that he somehow 'wanted'. That would have been totally uncharacteristic backwards reasoning for someone with the analytical mind of an industrial engineer and senior ICI Divisional Manager.

As has been pointed out, Beeching identified three broad categories of line: (a) those with clear good prospects, (b) complete no-hopers - especially for passenger traffic, and (c) those where things were unclear.

The Reshaping Report had done the sums for the broadly one third of the network (that hadn't already see its passenger services withdrawn in British Transport Commission days) that was generating about 1-2% of the business. I.e. category (b).

The Development of Major Trunk Routes document was about defining category (a) in the light of emerging trends like the growth in oil traffic, imported iron ore, new base load power stations like Didcot and so on. Not all of these routes were necessarily that those had been busiest previously because of various industrial, economic and demographic changes.

The new government had been elected in 1964 on a platform of 'no major closures'. This would appear to broadly have settled things (at least for a time) in relation to category (c).

It would have made no sense to propose or recommend any further withdrawals of passenger services (beyond those in the Reshaping Report) in a document published under the new government.

 

[Grecian 1998]

In the alternative history where Waterloo - Exeter is the mainline, it's instructive to look at the lack of stations between Westbury - Exeter and Totnes Plymouth. Places such as Somerton, Wellington, Cullompton, South Brent and Plympton have no station (and Ivybridge was without for many years) in order that fast services could run without being held up by stopping services.

I think it's inevitable that the same closures would have happened and Whimple and Tisbury would have gone with them. Possibly even Crewkerne.

With this provision, there would have been no need to keep the Reading - Taunton line open west of Newbury, although Westbury - Castle Cary would likely have remained open if there was still demand to run trains on the Heart of Wessex Line.

The Heart of Wessex was never threatened by Beeching, although there was a bizarre proposal to close all stations from Frome to Weymouth so it could be fully utilised as a trunk route to the Channel Islands. However it had declined so much by the 1980s that Yeovil - Dorchester was one of the few lines to appear on all of the possible closure option plans of the Serpell Report.

Frome - Westbury might have survived, along with the line to Merehead Quarry, but if the line had otherwise been left to justify itself I doubt Frome - Dorchester would have done.

 

[leytongabriel]

Somwthing deep in the memory bank is suggesting that when they were deciding which route to Exeter was going to be the principal one, a point in the LWSR line's favour was that there was more intermediate traffic than on the Berks and Hants line. Not enough of a plus point to ovecome the disadvantage of reversing at St David's and a steep climb, but indicates maybe that closure wasn't on the books at the time.

With the stopping services it now has, it seems the trains empty out majorly going westward with a bit of local traffic coming in as Exeter approaches.

 

[Grecian 1998]

That is the general pattern - trains are usually quietest between Yeovil Junction and Axminster - but it's more than 'a bit' of local traffic. Axminster and Honiton are two of the three busiest intermediate stations (along with Gillingham) and based on my experience there's considerably more journeys to Exeter from those stations than towards London, particularly from Honiton.

 

[30907]

Places such as Somerton, Wellington, Cullompton, South Brent and Plympton have no station (and Ivybridge was without for many years) in order that fast services could run without being held up by stopping services.

Not convinces that was the reason - the problem was the economics of the stoppers. Except on summer Saturdays the express service wasn't that frequent back then.

BTW there was discussion in Trains Illustrated/Modern Railways in the early 60s as to the pros and cons of the two routes (and rumour has it that the timetable planners at Wimbledon/Waterloo had some ideas...). With the growth in aggregates traffic the future of the B and H at least is secure?

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The platforms of all the intermediate stations between Taunton and Exeter , apart from Sampford Peverell (on the site of Tiverton Parkway), were recessed off the main line anyway so it wouldn't have been an issue if they had been worth retaining. The intermediate stations between Totnes and Plymouth had all gone by 1959, except for South Brent which was retained purely as the junction for Kingsbridge and succumbing just a year after that line's closure.

 

[Gloster]

Burlescombe, Hele & Bradninch and Silverton all had side platforms directly on the double track; Sampford Peverell was recessed. Norton Fitzwarren was two island platforms.

Source: Cooke’s Diagrams, Section 15.

 

[Irascible]

With no Taunton-Newbury...

* Salisbury has some slow approaches
* How does traffic from Merehead / Watley get east? Salisbury too? does that start making a mess further east?
* I suspect it might still be quicker to go to Paddington via Bristol than reverse & cope with the twistier bits of the WoE. I've been on a fair number of scheduled trains in the past which did that anyway ( and one which went Paddington--Swindon-Westbury-Taunton, although that really doesn't sound like a regular service! )

-

It's a little irritating now that there was so much pruning west of Axminster, but Exeter was a rather smaller place and there's closer dormitary towns like Tiverton that lost everything.