Reversing Beeching

[Mike Storey]

Wikipedia says line B is owned by RATP at one end and SNCF at the other.

 

This accords with my memory.

 

It says that they each own some of the trains, and provide drivers for their own trains. (Also that one side is 25 kV AC and one 1.5 kV DC which I hadn't been aware of).

 

Ok! Didn't know that bit! That is even more complicated!

[Coryton]

A lot of light rail is just laid on heavy rail routes that were otherwise perfectly viable such as Manchester trams which reqiuired the closure of Bury and 

 

What was said at the time was that the trains on the Bury line were life-expired and therefore an investment would have been required anyway for new trains. (Either ones using their unusual "high voltage" side-contact 3d rail or ripping it out and replacing with overhead wires or going over to diesels).

 

Moreover, the trams were supposed to be running without subsidy, unlike the previous trains. (Whether that is just day-to-day costs or also covered the conversion of the line and acquisition of trams etc., I don't know, or indeed if this is really true).

 

On the other hand, people living on the route lost through fares to anywhere outside Greater Manchester by rail (and a very crude zonal system for journeys within) and also lost railcard discounts.

 

(And - unlike rail - there were no day tickets to ride up and down on the system apart from on the first day each bit opened).

[Mike Storey]

Yes, you're quite right - I was looking at the population of the UK, not England.

 

I fully realise that light rail can be a good (& cheaper) option in urban areas. Heavy rail is better where longer journeys are needed. Longer journeys usually means that local government boundaries are crossed, which is, I suspect, where part of the problem in England arises. Who would want to go on HS2 to Birmingham, and then sit on the Midlands Metro for ages to get to (say) Wednesbury, or any future extension to Brierley Hill?

 

There is no "nostalgia" about heavy rail - it is the right engineering solution outside urban centres.

 

I can't take your continued state of denial about the difference between England and Scotland and Wales seriously. To say they're evaluated equally makes explaining the difference in outcomes impossible.

 

Maybe so, but that is, and has been, the situation. Denial I think is very much your speciality.

 

There are NO entirely new lines in Scotland (bar a very short stretch of the Airdrie-Bathgate line, a scheme in which I was initially involved), but there are at least two, with two more coming, in England.

 

You suggested I had misread you earlier, because you were citing entirely new lines as your base comparison. Given that does not exist in Scotland, other than the usual aspirations, what comparison are you now trying to make?

[Edwin_m]

Line B uses the Gare du Nord suburban network (SNCF and 25kV) and connects to the DC-electrified Sceaux line to the south, which was (according to Wikipedia) taken over by one of the Metro companies that eventually became RATP. 

[rodent279]

Getting back to the topic title-Reversing Beeching-we couldn't reverse Beeching if we tried, and anyway, why would we want to?

 

As I said earlier, some lines & stations probably shoudn't have closed, and some that have may well be worth reopening, but you have to consider the modern railway in the context of serving the needs of the modern day Britain.

 

Britain today is a totally different country to Britain in 1948, so why should a railway network that arguably wasn't really that well suited to the Britain of 1948 be suited to the modern day?

[Northmoor]

A lot of light rail is just laid on heavy rail routes that were otherwise perfectly viable such as Manchester trams which reqiuired the closure of Bury and Oldham lines and Croydon trams which required the closure of Wimbledon to Croydon. Even DLR has been built on heavy rail routes that would probably work better nowadays as heavy rail given the passenger volumes.

 

Light rail in most cases is just a way of saving money in the short term rather than something that meets a long term need. Many of the pre-Beeching closures were of lightly laid lines that might have survived had they been built to a higher standard (in most cases with a few less driver-operated level crossings).

 

I am sure that the resurgence of Marylebone could have been achieved just as well and have been more useful had it been done at Paddington instead with handy connections to Crossrail. The reason it has been done this way is to allow different operators to not get in one another's way - but better co-operation would have resulted in a better solution. Marylebone was really redundant - the Aylesbury trains and Wembley specials would probably be accommodated OK in Baker Street - it is not like the GC has been rebuilt or anything. 

 

I think you are looking at those lines in their BR lives through the eyes of an enthusiast rather than as a normal traveller.  They would never in a hundred years have been as successful as part of the national network.

 

Enthusiasts would quite happily travel Bury - Victoria and change to travel across town to Piccadilly, or get the bus.  The general public HATE changing trains, so a tram that took them to the centre of Manchester or across it, was a massive improvement.  

 

The DLR took over some redundant heavy rail routes which could never provide what DLR does, trains every few minutes which can accelerate and brake very quickly to stops sometimes less than 500m apart. It also allowed the routes to be diverted to where people actually wanted to go NOW, rather than where not enough people wanted to go even 80 years earlier (Blackwall branch). Do you really think a 2-EPB every 20 minutes would have attracted the same sort of passenger numbers to Canary Wharf*?  

 

Likewise, Croydon Tramlink takeover of the "Winkle" and Addiscombe branches were services with very little traffic and showed no sign of ever developing much.  However, linking those services together through the middle of Croydon and a massive number of potential journey opportunities were opened up for people.

 

*Speaking as an exiled Northerner, I have some sympathy for other areas of the country resentful at not getting the same infrastructure investment as London.  However, when people use the example of routes like Blackburn - Manchester, stating that the frequency is a fraction of say, Woking - Waterloo (which is a similar distance), they forget that a comparable service could completely empty Blackburn of every man, woman and child in about 30 minutes.  I commute through Canary Wharf every day and in the morning rush hour, about 1000 people get off every minute.  That is just one station in London and there is nowhere else in the UK (outside London) that generates the same quantity of traffic.  That is why the capital gets the transport links that it does.

[locoholic]

Maybe so, but that is, and has been, the situation.

A statement so inscrutable Confucious might have said it: simultaneously confirming my argument and denying the need for an answer!

 

With logic like that at work in the process, no wonder we've had so few route reopenings in England.

[chriswright03]

Getting back to the topic title-Reversing Beeching-we couldn't reverse Beeching if we tried, and anyway, why would we want to?

 

As I said earlier, some lines & stations probably shoudn't have closed, and some that have may well be worth reopening, but you have to consider the modern railway in the context of serving the needs of the modern day Britain.

 

Britain today is a totally different country to Britain in 1948, so why should a railway network that arguably wasn't really that well suited to the Britain of 1948 be suited to the modern day?

I chose that title because basically that was the theme of the headlines that day.  In reality it is not just about opening stations where they can but more about what opportunities are there for a modern rail system to alleviate the issues with car travel in the forseeable future.  Be it tram or train as has been discussed surely it is time to look forward and produce a alternative to the ever increasing congestion and polution in the built up area.

 

So we should be looking forward and not looking back through rose tinted eyewear.

 

It would seem some in the thread are more intent on argument than discussion sadly.  So maybe a good time to move away from nit picking and discuss what the future of rail could be.

[Edwin_m]

A statement so inscrutable Confucious might have said it: simultaneously confirming my argument and denying the need for an answer!

 

With logic like that at work in the process, no wonder we've had so few route reopenings in England.

Please explain how you'd justify spending taxpayers' money on re-openings when every indication, based on sound research techniques, is that they would deliver no benefit financially or environmentally. 

 

The problem is not with the analysis, which generally does a pretty good job of sifting out the schemes that are or aren't worth doing.  The problem is that after that happens there remain quite a numbr that are worth doing by the government's criteria, but there is no money for them as the government, rightly or wrongly, chooses to tax a certain amount and spend it in a certain way. 

[Mike Storey]

A statement so inscrutable Confucious might have said it: simultaneously confirming my argument and denying the need for an answer!

 

With logic like that at work in the process, no wonder we've had so few route reopenings in England.

 

Despite your determination to prove your opinion, devoid of fact, as rightly suggested by the OP, we need to identify what methodology might produce more successful application of re-opened or new lines to serve modern conurbations. I can only offer what has been developed since ww2 into the present, professional.project evaluation system (not just for transport) and the subsequent democratic decision-making process to act or otherwise on the results of those evaluations.

 

I, in my allegedly blinkered fashion, cannot see much improvement possible in the current feasibility process, unless lengthened even further to ensure every possible key risk is investigated in the utmost detail so as not to cause some of the problems seen recently in project delivery. But that would put decisions off for many further years.

 

I can only suggest that a major change in prospects for re-opened/new rail lines requires major changes in the rules laid down by the Treasury, which such business cases must follow. One big change has recently occurred, which is not to have to take into account the loss of fuel duty caused by modal transfer. Any other offers?

[ejstubbs]

when people use the example of routes like Blackburn - Manchester, stating that the frequency is a fraction of say, Woking - Waterloo (which is a similar distance), they forget that a comparable service could completely empty Blackburn of every man, woman and child in about 30 minutes

 

Why do I find this tune drifting through my head?

 

 

Edit: hmm..that was supposed to start at 3:18.  It rather spoils the joke otherwise.

Edited December 14, 2017 by ejstubbs

[Edwin_m]

I can only suggest that a major change in prospects for re-opened/new rail lines requires major changes in the rules laid down by the Treasury, which such business cases must follow. One big change has recently occurred, which is not to have to take into account the loss of fuel duty caused by modal transfer. Any other offers?

There was actually something in the announcement about changing the appraisal methodology, but it didn't sound as if it would have much impact.  And returning again to my previous point, if there's no new money then there won't be many new re-openings.  Getting the private sector to pay is all well and good and has some benefits if they manage projects better, but unless the contract is very carefully written and managed it risks becoming like some of the PFIs in recent years - borrowing at credit card rates of interest for future generations to pay back. 

 

All in all, this announcement seems to be a classic of pulling the wool over the eyes and appealing to that section of the electorate who would like to be back in the 1950s.  Or those that think we still are. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Edwin_m

[locoholic]

Please explain how you'd justify spending taxpayers' money on re-openings when every indication, based on sound research techniques, is that they would deliver no benefit financially or environmentally. 

 

The problem is not with the analysis, which generally does a pretty good job of sifting out the schemes that are or aren't worth doing.  The problem is that after that happens there remain quite a numbr that are worth doing by the government's criteria, but there is no money for them as the government, rightly or wrongly, chooses to tax a certain amount and spend it in a certain way.

 

I keep saying the same thing over and over again - why, when the analysis is allegedly the same, do projects in Scotland and Wales proceed, whilst those in England almost always do not? No-one has explained this, and I am instead criticised for pointing out the conundrum.

 

England should be more fertile territory for such schemes as more people live there, and people are a prerequisite, aren't they?

 

I live in an area that Dr Beeching made rail-free and which now suffers from serious road congestion in places, but I am under no illusion that anything at all will be done - many of the previous posts certainly help to explain why that will be the case.

[rodent279]

There was actually something in the announcement about changing the appraisal methodology, but it didn't sound as if it would have much impact.  And returning again to my previous point, if there's no new money then there won't be many new re-openings.  Getting the private sector to pay is all well and good and has some benefits if they manage projects better, but unless the contract is very carefully written and managed it risks becoming like some of the PFIs in recent years - borrowing at credit card rates of interest for future generations to pay back. 

 

All in all, this announcement seems to be a classic of pulling the wool over the eyes and appealing to that section of the electorate who would like to be back in the 1950s.  Or those that think we still are. 

Yep, agree entirely. Distraction politics, tugging at the heartstrings. Appealing to those who hanker after a long lost "golden era", that probably didn't really exist.

 

Edit:and I don't mean that to be disrespectful to those who were conscious in the 1950's. I'm sure there were many good things, and many happy memories. I grew up in the 70's & 80's. I've got many happy memories, but I don't want to go back & live there. Feck no, the world was not a better place then. It maybe felt better, because as a child & teenager I had the comforts & security of home.

Edited December 14, 2017 by rodent279

[rodent279]

I keep saying the same thing over and over again - why, when the analysis is allegedly the same, do projects in Scotland and Wales proceed, whilst those in England almost always do not? No-one has explained this, and I am instead criticised for pointing out the conundrum.

 

England should be more fertile territory for such schemes as more people live there, and people are a prerequisite, aren't they?

 

I live in an area that Dr Beeching made rail-free and which now suffers from serious road congestion in places, but I am under no illusion that anything at all will be done - many of the previous posts certainly help to explain why that will be the case.

Not in any way being an expert in the processes involved, the only explanation I can give is political will, or lack thereof.

Whatever the reasons, they are worth investigationg & understanding.

[Coryton]

Yep, agree entirely. Distraction politics, tugging at the heartstrings. Appealing to those who hanker after a long lost "golden era", that probably didn't really exist.

 

Edit:and I don't mean that to be disrespectful to those who were conscious in the 1950's. I'm sure there were many good things, and many happy memories. I grew up in the 70's & 80's. I've got many happy memories, but I don't want to go back & live there. Feck no, the world was not a better place then. It maybe felt better, because as a child & teenager I had the comforts & security of home.

 

I suspect that most people who think that life was a lot better a few decades ago are white, male, able bodied and straight. We've come quite a long way in improving the lot of people who don't fit into that category.

[chriswright03]

I keep saying the same thing over and over again - why, when the analysis is allegedly the same, do projects in Scotland and Wales proceed, whilst those in England almost always do not? No-one has explained this, and I am instead criticised for pointing out the conundrum.

 

England should be more fertile territory for such schemes as more people live there, and people are a prerequisite, aren't they?

 

I live in an area that Dr Beeching made rail-free and which now suffers from serious road congestion in places, but I am under no illusion that anything at all will be done - many of the previous posts certainly help to explain why that will be the case.

Politics is the simple answer which I have little doubt you well know.

 

As for being criticised for pointing out the conundrum all I see is you constantly attacking a member who has posted (with knowledge) what has actually been done.  You may well have a point but as I was often told years ago it isn't what you say it is the way you say it.  Work has been done and maybe not enough for your liking but there is no point in constantly bickering with a poster who tells you what involvement he has had and what has been done.

 

If not enough has been done (and it hasn't) it is down to politics which a) is banned on here and b) I have asked that we keep away from it and discus what could be done.

[Edwin_m]

I keep saying the same thing over and over again - why, when the analysis is allegedly the same, do projects in Scotland and Wales proceed, whilst those in England almost always do not? No-one has explained this, and I am instead criticised for pointing out the conundrum.

 

England should be more fertile territory for such schemes as more people live there, and people are a prerequisite, aren't they?

 

I live in an area that Dr Beeching made rail-free and which now suffers from serious road congestion in places, but I am under no illusion that anything at all will be done - many of the previous posts certainly help to explain why that will be the case.

I effectively answered that in the post you quoted. 

 

The analysis is virtually the same and pretty good at sorting out which schemes are viable regardless of what part of the UK they are in.  But Scotland chooses to allocate money to build more of the viable ones.  The fact taxes have just gone up in Scotland may not be entirely unrelated to their more liberal attitude to spending on this and other things. 

[The Stationmaster]

Yep, agree entirely. Distraction politics, tugging at the heartstrings. Appealing to those who hanker after a long lost "golden era", that probably didn't really exist.

 

Edit:and I don't mean that to be disrespectful to those who were conscious in the 1950's. I'm sure there were many good things, and many happy memories. I grew up in the 70's & 80's. I've got many happy memories, but I don't want to go back & live there. Feck no, the world was not a better place then. It maybe felt better, because as a child & teenager I had the comforts & security of home.

 

I thought I'd already answered that (as have Edwin, and Mike Storey in a slightly different way but just as pertinently).  So to repeat - it is all about the will to actually do something and the money to pay for it and it really boils down to that.  And if the will is there that will be a major step towards finding the money or a means of raising the money.

 

Again - sorry to bore - I will mention Bere Alston - Tavistock where the idea has been around for some 30 years, and various studies of how to do it and is it worth doing have been carried out during that time.  Talking only a short while ago this morning to friend in the north east he mentioned the Blyth & Tyne where yet again we might see a study but that will probably be as far as the money stretches.  As Mike Storey has explained, several times, there has been considerable investment in some heavy rail anda number of light rail schemes in England - they are the ones where sufficient clout developed to secure the money to turn the ideas and aspirations into some sort of reality.

 

In the end it will all come down to money and the will to spend it if it can be found

[Northmoor]

I keep saying the same thing over and over again - why, when the analysis is allegedly the same, do projects in Scotland and Wales proceed, whilst those in England almost always do not? No-one has explained this, and I am instead criticised for pointing out the conundrum.

 

England should be more fertile territory for such schemes as more people live there, and people are a prerequisite, aren't they?

 

I live in an area that Dr Beeching made rail-free and which now suffers from serious road congestion in places, but I am under no illusion that anything at all will be done - many of the previous posts certainly help to explain why that will be the case.

To give my attempted answers to each of your points:

 

1. Perhaps politicians have battled harder for these re-openings in Scotland and Wales?  I suspect the real reason is less welcome - the English schemes just don't meet the same criteria.  Perhaps the railway closures in England had better justification.

 

2. Much more people in England, but divided over a much bigger area and most of them already have reasonable access to a railway.  I can't think of too many (only a few) places with large populations NOT served by rail. However, just because there is a population does not mean the re-opened railway will go in the right direction for modern traffic flows.  Consider the Trent Valley stations on the WCML.  These serve some decent sized towns but have little or no service; why?  Because, I suspect, most of the population commutes towards Birmingham and the West Midlands conurbation, which is at right angles to the railway.

 

3. You don't say where you live, but of the areas "decimated" by Beeching I suspect you are in Lincolnshire (much of East Anglia's closures pre-date Beeching's tenure, although he still gets the blame)?  I have spent very little time in Lincs, but I know of plenty of other rural towns where people complain of "serious road congestion".  What they mean is that they have to wait for a couple of phases of traffic lights every morning.  This is NOT enough to justify a rail service, especially when for the rest of the day there is no-one on the road.  You could probably solve 90% of the issue with a re-modelled roundabout and altering some traffic light phases, for about 0.5% of the cost of the railway.  Portishead will (eventually and long overdue) get a passenger service because about half the population - about 50,000 and rising - commutes into Bristol every day, blocking the M5 over the Avon bridge and taking twice as long as the rail service will take.

 

I know we all love railways - that's why we are on this forum - but we cannot as a country fall into the trap of believing that railways are the solution to all transport needs.  It is the same mistake made in the 1960s when it was believed that everything could go by road and the railways' days were numbered.  If we want to achieve modal transfer we need to use the planning system to only allow large-scale development where there are multiple options for travel, not ONLY the car.  This has been applied in several Western European countries and it is very effective.

[Coryton]

To give my attempted answers to each of your points:

 

1. Perhaps politicians have battled harder for these re-openings in Scotland and Wales?  I suspect the real reason is less welcome - the English schemes just don't meet the same criteria.  Perhaps the railway closures in England had better justification.

 

I'm not sure about battling harder, but it seems to me (both in the UK and the US) that the more localised government gets, the more it sees investment in public transport as a priority.

 

So devolution may be a significant factor here (although I must admit I haven't looked at whether the various re-openings discussed above took place before or after devolution).

[rodent279]

I'm not sure about battling harder, but it seems to me (both in the UK and the US) that the more localised government gets, the more it sees investment in public transport as a priority.

 

So devolution may be a significant factor here (although I must admit I haven't looked at whether the various re-openings discussed above took place before or after devolution).

What is the extent of devolved government in the two countries quoted as being allegedly the most successful in reviving railways in the UK, ie Scotland and Wales, compared to England? I wonder if there is a clue there?

[Zomboid]

Probably because transport actually gets devolved, so the Scottish parliament/ Welsh Assembly can actually do something on the subject, whilst they don't get any power over foreign policy etc.

Therefore it gets a much higher priority in devolved government than it does at the top levels.

Probably why the borders route will never reach Carlisle though; aside from the fact that south of Hawick there's no one for it to serve, Carlisle is in England, beyond the boundaries of where the Scottish parliament has any sway/ interest.

[Coryton]

Probably because transport actually gets devolved, so the Scottish parliament/ Welsh Assembly can actually do something on the subject, whilst they don't get any power over foreign policy etc.

Therefore it gets a much higher priority in devolved government than it does at the top levels.

Probably why the borders route will never reach Carlisle though; aside from the fact that south of Hawick there's no one for it to serve, Carlisle is in England, beyond the boundaries of where the Scottish parliament has any sway/ interest.

 

Didn't the M6 used to finish at Carlisle, with just dual carriageway up to the Scottish border when it became motorway again?

 

I assume that was because Scotland saw their links to England and London as more important than the reverse.

[jjb1970]

Probably because transport actually gets devolved, so the Scottish parliament/ Welsh Assembly can actually do something on the subject, whilst they don't get any power over foreign policy etc.

Therefore it gets a much higher priority in devolved government than it does at the top levels.

Probably why the borders route will never reach Carlisle though; aside from the fact that south of Hawick there's no one for it to serve, Carlisle is in England, beyond the boundaries of where the Scottish parliament has any sway/ interest.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. Carlisle is more relevant to people in the SW part of Scotland than Glasgow or Edinburgh in many ways as it is the only city in the area and the regional economic and entertainment centre. The border is in some ways less important than economic and social links for people who live and work in the border area. And it would add further connectivity between Scotland and England. So I think that the Scottish government has perfectly valid interests in extending the route to join the WCML North of Carlisle both in terms of improving the lot of Scottish people in the Borders and as a piece of strategic infrastructure. Very little of the line would be in England anyway. And there would be benefit to England too, the flow of life is much more Borders to Carlisle than the other way around but there would still be benefit to people in Cumbria.

 

I recommend putting that jolly chap who used to run the friends of Rickerton Jct in charge of the reconstruction, he was such an inspiration.