• 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!

Why a delay lifting a remaining line

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andy873

Member
Joined
23 Mar 2017
Messages
933
Hi,

Well back on my favorite subject - the Great Harwood loop line, I think I have worked out (after 5 years research) the timeline for its removal.

However, one thing still puzzles me...

The Down line was lifted from Sept 1965 to Jan 1966 which included demolition of two stations and removal of most of the infrastructure leaving simply the Up line in tact.

But the Up line was not lifted until around Sept 1967, so why would BR wait this long?

I know the power station was a huge customer probably receiving 1 to 2 train loads of coal per day, do you think BR were simply making sure supplies were going okay before they lifted the Up line?

Maybe they were trying to sell the land ahead of the lift?

Any ideas are welcome as this one still has me puzzled!

Attached is a simply diagram so you can see the layout, the section of the Up line eventually lifted is in red.

Thanks,
Andy.
 

Attachments

  • Map.png
    Map.png
    7.8 KB · Views: 52
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West
Might it simply be that 'other things' were a more important demand on the staff's time and they came back when there was nothing else to do?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Might it simply be that 'other things' were a more important demand on the staff's time and they came back when there was nothing else to do?
That sounds about right to me. Similarly Clayton West closed in 1983, but Huddersfield to Stocksmoor kept double track until around 1987/88 despite not being required to operate the remaining hourly-at-best passenger service to Sheffield.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,028
Location
West Wiltshire
It was not uncommon, as it was harder to remove the final track (others could be lifted onto train alongside). Back in 1960s was also more chance of a large freight facility opening so sometimes a single line was kept whilst decisions were made.

Obviously recovery of final track meant dismantling and moving it to collection vehicles and there wasn’t modern telehandlers or telescopic cranes etc in 1960s.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,601
Location
Somerset
If
a) the track components weren't of sufficient quality to be needed for re-use elsewhere
b) the land hadn't been sold (or had been sold "as seen")
c) recovery costs were greater than those of "doing nothing"

why bother?

This is of course a situation frequently seen in Germany. Whereas our statutory protection applies to railway (passenger) services, theirs applies to track / track bed, so the sight of branchlines rusting away for years is normal, while signs protecting non-barriered level crossings remain in situ (and legally enforceable) even when the trackbed resembles enchanted forests either side of the road...
 

Andy873

Member
Joined
23 Mar 2017
Messages
933
Thanks every one, interesting, it's always puzzled me but what you're all saying this this did happen from time to time.

I think BR were nervous about not interrupting the supply of coal to the power station, after all the CEGB would have been one of their biggest customers. I do wonder you know if they were "hedging their bets" in the sense that if difficulties arose with supply it wouldn't take too much effort to reconnect the western end of the line back to the other main running line - but that's just a theory.

That said, I do have a copy of a meeting (1964) BR & the staff / NUR where BR state even then they were going to lift both lines.

Regarding using one line to help remove the other... a friend of mine told me a good while ago that's what they did, they used the "Up" line to help with the removal of the "Down" line and two stations.
 
Last edited:

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,835
I'd suggest as well that in the 1960s so many lines, yards and sidings were being closed that there simply weren't the resources available to lift them all quickly, or much demand for the materials recovered. I don't think BR used outside contractors anything like as much as the modern railway does, so there'd have been a limited number of track gangs available, and lifting redundant tracks would have been low on their priority list.
 

Andy873

Member
Joined
23 Mar 2017
Messages
933
I'd suggest as well that in the 1960s so many lines, yards and sidings were being closed that there simply weren't the resources available to lift them all quickly, or much demand for the materials recovered. I don't think BR used outside contractors anything like as much as the modern railway does, so there'd have been a limited number of track gangs available, and lifting redundant tracks would have been low on their priority list.
Thanks DelW,

More great points raised, makes more and more sense when you look at it that way.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,867
Location
Airedale
That sounds about right to me. Similarly Clayton West closed in 1983, but Huddersfield to Stocksmoor kept double track until around 1987/88 despite not being required to operate the remaining hourly-at-best passenger service to Sheffield.
Slightly different case, as singling the line involved track and signal alterations at both places. Gt Harwood Jn - Padiham was just redundant track.
Thanks every one, interesting, it's always puzzled me but what you're all saying this this did happen from time to time.

I think BR were nervous about not interrupting the supply of coal to the power station, after all the CEGB would have been one of their biggest customers. I do wonder you know if they were "hedging their bets" in the sense that if difficulties arose with supply it wouldn't take too much effort to reconnect the western end of the line back to the other main running line - but that's just a theory.
Was Gt Harwood Junction left in place till the second track was lifted? Your diagram suggests both tracks had been lifted from GH station to the junction anyway.
 

Andy873

Member
Joined
23 Mar 2017
Messages
933
Slightly different case, as singling the line involved track and signal alterations at both places. Gt Harwood Jn - Padiham was just redundant track.

Was Gt Harwood Junction left in place till the second track was lifted? Your diagram suggests both tracks had been lifted from GH station to the junction anyway.
The Up line was disconnected only a short distance from the other main line I am led to believe hence a slight suspicion, but I am only using it as one possible reason.
 

Pigeon

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2015
Messages
802
This is of course a situation frequently seen in Germany. Whereas our statutory protection applies to railway (passenger) services, theirs applies to track / track bed...

Ach! Good for Germany. If only we had similar protection. It is maddening the way we in Britain are so obsessed with the notion that you absolutely cannot just have something unless you are continually using every last little bit of it. Any fragments that we merely happen not to be using right now, we compulsively smash them up and destroy them and jump up and down on the bits and then flog off the crushed debris... and the result is that when we later find that we do need those bits again, we are stuck. I have long wished that it was illegal to behave in such a short-sighted and destructive manner, and it is good to be able to retort to those who respond to such an idea with a Pavlovian shriek that you "can't" do that - meaning that we currently happen not to and therefore it is inconceivable that anyone anywhere ever could do it - by enlightening them that in Germany something very similar is done.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
It was not uncommon, as it was harder to remove the final track (others could be lifted onto train alongside). Back in 1960s was also more chance of a large freight facility opening so sometimes a single line was kept whilst decisions were made.

Obviously recovery of final track meant dismantling and moving it to collection vehicles and there wasn’t modern telehandlers or telescopic cranes etc in 1960s.
It may also be related to the price they could get for scrap steel.
 

Grecian 1998

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2019
Messages
416
Location
Bristol
The condition of the track seems to be a factor. The majority of the track taken out of use between Salisbury - Exeter in 1967 was quickly lifted and used elsewhere as it was in good condition. In comparison the track taken out of use when the Uckfield line was singled in 1989-90 was in pretty poor condition. Significant sections of the disused track can still be seen in situ in Video 125's 'Uckfield Thumper' DVD filmed in 2003, 13 years after the line was singled.
 

Andy873

Member
Joined
23 Mar 2017
Messages
933
Thanks again everyone!

When you add up all the logical reasons mentioned here it does make sense, it could have been any one or a combination of factors. The line west of Padiham power station by now was just the "left overs" from removing the down line and two stations, essentially a basic single line, or a very long siding, depends on your point of view.

Thanks,

Andy.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,835
I've just been catching up with an article in July's Railway Magazine about the Woodhead line, including its closure and dismantling.

There's a picture of a class 47 standing at the very end of the remaining intact rails coupled to a brake van at the end of a train of open wagons loaded with sleepers.

The caption reads "After closure in 1981, one track was left in place for five years in case of an upturn in traffic, but then track lifting got underway leading to sad sights like this at Crowden in the second half of the 1980s, with no 47329 at one end of a track recovery train."

So a parallel example, except that this had been a main line and was left in place for rather longer.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
I have long wished that it was illegal to behave in such a short-sighted and destructive manner, and it is good to be able to retort to those who respond to such an idea with a Pavlovian shriek that you "can't" do that - meaning that we currently happen not to and therefore it is inconceivable that anyone anywhere ever could do it - by enlightening them that in Germany something very similar is done.
It's also the case in at least one Australian state - New South Wales - which is even more notable given that Australian procedures were for the most part directly copied from those in use in Britain. Specifically, an Act of Parliament is required to formally close a line or part thereof - so many are simply left "disused". The Main North Line is one such line - over 200 km of it north of Armidale hasn't seen traffic since the early '90s but the formation is almost entirely still intact; rails, sleepers, bridges, viaducts, pretty much everything bar signals (which I understand were recovered for spare parts). And, as in Germany, the level crossing signage is still legally enforceable :p

Of course if it were to be reopened now I expect you'd probably re-sleeper and re-rail a lot of it (the existing stuff is mostly lightweight jointed rail from the late '50s on timber or steel sleepers) and the bridges are most definitely knackered - but crucially the corridor has been protected.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,601
Location
Somerset
Ach! Good for Germany. If only we had similar protection. It is maddening the way we in Britain are so obsessed with the notion that you absolutely cannot just have something unless you are continually using every last little bit of it. Any fragments that we merely happen not to be using right now, we compulsively smash them up and destroy them and jump up and down on the bits and then flog off the crushed debris... and the result is that when we later find that we do need those bits again, we are stuck. I have long wished that it was illegal to behave in such a short-sighted and destructive manner, and it is good to be able to retort to those who respond to such an idea with a Pavlovian shriek that you "can't" do that - meaning that we currently happen not to and therefore it is inconceivable that anyone anywhere ever could do it - by enlightening them that in Germany something very similar is done.
Yes - it would be great as additional protection - campaigners over there would quite like our statutory service protection.
 

Trackman

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2013
Messages
2,923
Location
Lewisham
I've just been catching up with an article in July's Railway Magazine about the Woodhead line, including its closure and dismantling.

There's a picture of a class 47 standing at the very end of the remaining intact rails coupled to a brake van at the end of a train of open wagons loaded with sleepers.

The caption reads "After closure in 1981, one track was left in place for five years in case of an upturn in traffic, but then track lifting got underway leading to sad sights like this at Crowden in the second half of the 1980s, with no 47329 at one end of a track recovery train."

So a parallel example, except that this had been a main line and was left in place for rather longer.
Single track was left in place because of an Union agreement otherwise it would have been lifted a lot sooner.
 

Andy873

Member
Joined
23 Mar 2017
Messages
933
Again, all interesting facts here, and so it seems it wasn't uncommon to leave a line alone for a "period of time".

What I can tell you is that a meeting 13th March 1964 BR stated there intent to lift both lines from Gt. Harwood junction on the West end all the way Eastward to the power station at Padiham.

The meeting was chaired by someone from the Preston D.M.O. - I presume D.M.O. means Divisional management office?

I am now really left with just one mystery, I know at some point later the line was singled from the power station to Rose Grove junction, but I don't know when - maybe I should start a new thread on this?

Thanks,
Andy.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,290
Location
Up the creek
Again, all interesting facts here, and so it seems it wasn't uncommon to leave a line alone for a "period of time".

What I can tell you is that a meeting 13th March 1964 BR stated there intent to lift both lines from Gt. Harwood junction on the West end all the way Eastward to the power station at Padiham.

The meeting was chaired by someone from the Preston D.M.O. - I presume D.M.O. means Divisional management office?

I am now really left with just one mystery, I know at some point later the line was singled from the power station to Rose Grove junction, but I don't know when - maybe I should start a new thread on this?

Thanks,
Andy.
I think that DMO was normally Divisional Manager’s Office, although I am not particularly familiar with the area. When I get a chance I will check in copies of the Cumbrian Railways Association’s journal.
 

D6130

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2021
Messages
5,652
Location
West Yorkshire/Tuscany
IIRC, with the rapid decline in wagonload freight traffic, coupled with the mass line closures following the Beeching Report, quite a few closed lines were used for the storage of large numbers of redundant wagons until such time as they could be scrapped....especially in industrial areas such as the North-East of England. I can remember as a child seeing long lines of wagons stored on the double track Bowesfield Junction-Redmarshall Junction section of the Castle Eden branch following its closure in 1966....and also the Penrith-Appleby line, although that was a pre-Beeching closure in 1962. It may be that one track of the Great Harwood Loop was left in situ for that very purpose, even if it was not subsequently used as such.
 

24Grange

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2021
Messages
237
Location
Baldock
A lot of time, just after Beeching, there was so much track to remove there could be a significant delay in removing it as the department was overwhelmed with work. E.g. a lot of the East Devon branches were not removed immediately as the department was too busy singling the main Exeter - Waterloo line and didn't have the time. I'm sure there are other examples. ( Okehampton Bere Alston ? Was used by at least 1 freight train post closure ( 1968) as they hadn't got round to it yet - although they had removed all signalling, telephones and control equipment which was interesting! Ilfracombe was left in place for a while before lifting due to a proposed reopening society.
 

vidal

Member
Joined
23 Feb 2017
Messages
90
Location
Bolton
On a similar note (Mods please feel free to split this if you think it's worth a separate topic), were any closed lines used on an ad hoc basis following closure if there was a blockage on another line. For example, was Woodhead used as a diversion post 1981 if the Hope Valley was shut?

What did drivers do for route knowledge if this did occur?

James
 

busesrusuk

Member
Joined
19 May 2020
Messages
349
Location
London
Single track was left in place because of an Union agreement otherwise it would have been lifted a lot sooner.
Always wondered why the "union" had such a significant say in keeping track in place once the decision to close had taken place...
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,290
Location
Up the creek
One possible source of information might be the Cumbrian Railways Association. Although it is out of its home area, Garstang being about the southern limit, there are probably members who know the line. Either a polite request for information or by joining the CRChat forum, although I do not know if this possible for non-members.
 

unslet

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2013
Messages
57
Location
Leeds
On a similar note (Mods please feel free to split this if you think it's worth a separate topic), were any closed lines used on an ad hoc basis following closure if there was a blockage on another line. For example, was Woodhead used as a diversion post 1981 if the Hope Valley was shut?

What did drivers do for route knowledge if this did occur?

James
One that springs to mind is the route through Ripon which was used for a short while when the ECML was blocked by the accident involving DP2. Hand signalling had to be used as the fixed signalling had been removed. The southern end of the line was also used after closure to transport the Duke of Edinburgh to Nidd Bridge.
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
11,650
For example, was Woodhead used as a diversion post 1981 if the Hope Valley was shut?
Don't believe this was ever the case although there were diversions via Woodhead as late as Spring 1981. Understand that the last train to use the Woodhead tunnel (apart from the one used for subsequent track lifting in c. 1986) was a Harwich->Trafford Park freight working on 18th July 1981. Can anyone confirm?
 

D6130

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2021
Messages
5,652
Location
West Yorkshire/Tuscany
The southern end of the line was also used after closure to transport the Duke of Edinburgh to Nidd Bridge.
That royal train was hauled by Holbeck Jubilee 4-6-0 no. 45562 "Alberta". The line actually remained in use as a long single track 'one engine in steam' siding - serving the coal yard at Ripon and the MOD depot at Melmerby - until 05/09/1969. IIRC, the last freight service was worked by one of York depot's almost new class 20s in the D8300 series.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,121
Location
Cambridge, UK
It's also the case in at least one Australian state - New South Wales - which is even more notable given that Australian procedures were for the most part directly copied from those in use in Britain. Specifically, an Act of Parliament is required to formally close a line or part thereof - so many are simply left "disused". The Main North Line is one such line - over 200 km of it north of Armidale hasn't seen traffic since the early '90s but the formation is almost entirely still intact; rails, sleepers, bridges, viaducts, pretty much everything bar signals (which I understand were recovered for spare parts). And, as in Germany, the level crossing signage is still legally enforceable :p

Of course if it were to be reopened now I expect you'd probably re-sleeper and re-rail a lot of it (the existing stuff is mostly lightweight jointed rail from the late '50s on timber or steel sleepers) and the bridges are most definitely knackered - but crucially the corridor has been protected.
Railroads in the US also have to apply to the Federal regulator (the FRA) for permission to abandon a route, which allows objections to be considered and other ways of saving it to be explored. Same situation used to apply to complete withdrawal of passenger services over a route - at least those operated by the owning railroad (not that there are any of those left, AFAIK).
 

Pinza-C55

Member
Joined
23 May 2015
Messages
1,028
That sounds about right to me. Similarly Clayton West closed in 1983, but Huddersfield to Stocksmoor kept double track until around 1987/88 despite not being required to operate the remaining hourly-at-best passenger service to Sheffield.

Reducing a double track railway to single track requires considerable investment so it was probably delayed to tie in with signalling alterations at Huddersfield. I once read one of the LNER Minute Books in the PRO at Kew and in 1937 they looked into singling the Wellfield - Stockton line but concluded that the cost of the signalling alterations,recovering the redundant track plus needing to man the signalboxes which were normally switched out, outweighed the cost of leaving it as it was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top