Reversing Beeching ???

[Markwj]

36 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

From Google Maps I'm guessing the line would run on the East side of the A585 and terminate in the wasteland South of the Three Lights Roundabout.  Not right next to the town but actually quite convenient walking distance from the residential area.  This is important because the branch would likely be a source of traffic rather than a destination.  However I'm not convinced a town the size of Fleetwood will justify its own train service.

Yes that is my understanding it would be fairly close to the tram line as well but having lived and worked in Fleetwood I can tell you the people of Fleetwood don't like to leave Fleetwood! Would love to see the railway back and if it could be extended further down towards the outlet village this could generate a bit more traffic and be closer to the Main Street.

[woodenhead]

I was amazed to watch a video on Fleetwood once and how important it was to people travelling between England and Scotland by rail.

 

Trains would arrive from London, passengers alight, spend a night in a wonderful hotel and then the next morning take a steamer to Ardrossan where they would pick up another train to Glasgow.

 

This was the pattern from 1840-1847 when the route north of Preston got over Shap and Fleetwood fell into obscurity until the fishing fleets arrived.

[whart57]

12 hours ago, The Evil Bus Driver said:

The bridge is still there (complete with road on it)  Or rather it was when I was last there.

 

It is but traffic no longer goes over it. The roundabout and lights are to serve the road going to Southwater Centre, something that reflects the fact that Southwater is a much larger place now than it was in 1964. I've always thought that were rails restored as far as Southwater and trains currently terminating at Horsham (currently the Thameslink trains to Peterborough) extended that far then the traffic would be there to justify it. I doubt it would justify the cost of rebuilding the line though.

[stewartingram]

Last time I was in Fleetwood I noticed the wonderful collection of "objects" around the land in front of the Euston Hotel. Mileposts etc. Worth a look if you are there.

 

Stewart

[The Evil Bus Driver]

On 30/01/2020 at 09:51, whart57 said:

 

It is but traffic no longer goes over it. The roundabout and lights are to serve the road going to Southwater Centre, something that reflects the fact that Southwater is a much larger place now than it was in 1964. I've always thought that were rails restored as far as Southwater and trains currently terminating at Horsham (currently the Thameslink trains to Peterborough) extended that far then the traffic would be there to justify it. I doubt it would justify the cost of rebuilding the line though.

Yes I saw that briefly. I was driving a (heritage) bus at the time though

[Flittersnoop]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-51852821

 

I believe The Doctor was responsible for this closure. 

[Northmoor]

43 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-51852821

 

I believe The Doctor was responsible for this closure. 

Sometimes politicians find the easiest way to avoid upsetting small groups is by commissioning a feasibility study which will show the nonsense of their reopening proposal; I can understand why this happens in some cases, where the economics would be nonsense and everyone except the pressure group can see that.

 

This is NOT one of those cases.  The feasibility study should cost about £20k, not £100k, by quickly revisiting the financial model in the last one and updating the figures.  Everyone knows that this branch would be successful - road traffic in the area is awful - but some ridiculous costs pushed it into the unaffordable bracket and an increase in predicted traffic might also pull it back below the threshold.

[Foulounoux]

So from the Reversing Beeching story

 

Iow proposal

 

 

The bid, submitted by the Isle of Wight Council and sponsored by Island MP Bob Seely, proposes two potential schemes:

extension of the existing Island Line service (Ryde-Shanklin) south of Shanklin to reach Ventnor, calling at Wroxall;

integration with, and extension of, the existing Isle of Wight Steam Railway route to provide passenger services through Smallbrook from Ryde to Newport.

[jonny777]

On 18/03/2020 at 17:39, Flittersnoop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-51852821

 

I believe The Doctor was responsible for this closure. 

 

 

Good luck with that. The proposal to re-introduce passenger services to Portishead was first put forward at least 35 years ago. 

 

 

[Fat Controller]

4 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

 

 

Good luck with that. The proposal to re-introduce passenger services to Portishead was first put forward at least 35 years ago. 

 

 

And the rest..

It was being discussed when I was living in Bristol, from 1973 to 1977; at that point, there was still freight (cement, coal, wood-pulp and phosphorus) to Portishead.

[jonny777]

5 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

And the rest..

It was being discussed when I was living in Bristol, from 1973 to 1977; at that point, there was still freight (cement, coal, wood-pulp and phosphorus) to Portishead.

 

 

Was it really?   Goodness me, I had no idea it goes back into the 70s. 

 

I wonder what the projected cost would have been then?  I believe the price is now circa £120 million. 

[johnofwessex]

On 30/11/2019 at 09:29, Fenman said:

There’s a fascinating book from Oxford University Press (if you’re into the economics of infrastructure) which looks at the capital invested in developing the railway system through fragmented private enterprise/ competition. It demonstrates that more than a third of the capital was wasted — in that you could have achieved the same total network capacity with that much less money. 
 

Conversely, to achieve maximum theoretical efficiency in the 1950s & 60s I suppose that, as well as taking some lines out, you would need to build some new ones. That bit was politically always unlikely. 
 

Paul

 

 

In effect it was the way that the UK decided to develop its network that lay the foundations for Beeching, not helped of course by the absence of capital for modernisation and rationalisation in the post WW1 period.

[whart57]

The Transport Minister re-iterated on Friday that the plan to reverse Beeching was going ahead.

 

Mind you he was trying to avoid talking about another issue, one the press were - are - much more interested in, so maybe a soupcon of salt is advisable

[Northmoor]

59 minutes ago, whart57 said:

The Transport Minister re-iterated on Friday that the plan to reverse Beeching was going ahead.

 

I think a lot of people who think their little local railway - which overwhelmingly, was what the Beeching report proposed for closure - are destined to be disappointed.   Almost nothing closed before 1965 has a serious campaign for re-opening as part of the national network.  All the serious plans are for services withdrawn at least as late as 1968; these were either the ones listed in the report which took years to put in alternatives (against determined opposition) or were never listed in the 1963 report in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, johnofwessex said:

In effect it was the way that the UK decided to develop its network that lay the foundations for Beeching, not helped of course by the absence of capital for modernisation and rationalisation in the post WW1 period.

Re: the repeated quote from Fenman about 1/3rd wastage is not unique to infrastructure.  It is a known and accepted financial model that when spending money on things like international aid, one third will be embezzled, one third wasted on things which have no net beneficial effect and one third has a lasting benefit.  It is almost impossible to alter these proportions and any politician who tells you they can do otherwise, is lying.  The only way to guarantee achieving a greater net output, is to accept you will have to spend more.

 

[62613]

9 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I think a lot of people who think their little local railway - which overwhelmingly, was what the Beeching report proposed for closure - are destined to be disappointed.   Almost nothing closed before 1965 has a serious campaign for re-opening as part of the national network.  All the serious plans are for services withdrawn at least as late as 1968; these were either the ones listed in the report which took years to put in alternatives (against determined opposition) or were never listed in the 1963 report in the first place.

 

Re: the repeated quote from Fenman about 1/3rd wastage is not unique to infrastructure.  It is a known and accepted financial model that when spending money on things like international aid, one third will be embezzled, one third wasted on things which have no net beneficial effect and one third has a lasting benefit.  It is almost impossible to alter these proportions and any politician who tells you they can do otherwise, is lying.  The only way to guarantee achieving a greater net output, is to accept you will have to spend more.

 

I think JohnofWessex was more referring to competing routes, and the sheer number of stations in certain towns, when he was talking about wasted money. Why, for instance, did a town the size of Oldham get three stations more or less in its town centre, and another two not far outside; especially when two of the three companies operating into a town not far away (Stalybridge) agreed to jointly build a new station in 1885?

 

[johnofwessex]

34 minutes ago, 62613 said:

I think JohnofWessex was more referring to competing routes, and the sheer number of stations in certain towns, when he was talking about wasted money. Why, for instance, did a town the size of Oldham get three stations more or less in its town centre, and another two not far outside; especially when two of the three companies operating into a town not far away (Stalybridge) agreed to jointly build a new station in 1885?

 

 

Stand on Dunster Station, which had its own goods yard, goods shed etc & you can just about see Minehead station that was similarly equipped.

 

Even in the Victorian Era when it as built surely handling the 'less than wagonload' traffic at both stations never made sense, let alone by the 1920's.

 

Similarly in Midsomer Norton/Radstock where if you include Chilcompton there were five stations, all with full goods facilities within a few miles of each other.

 

The interesting 'What if' is what might the network have looked like if we had had the sort of planning that The Europeans had.

[Fenman]

12 hours ago, Northmoor said:

...

Re: the repeated quote from Fenman about 1/3rd wastage is not unique to infrastructure.  It is a known and accepted financial model that when spending money on things like international aid, one third will be embezzled, one third wasted on things which have no net beneficial effect and one third has a lasting benefit.  It is almost impossible to alter these proportions and any politician who tells you they can do otherwise, is lying.  The only way to guarantee achieving a greater net output, is to accept you will have to spend more.

 

 

I think you are forgetting that the railway system was originally built by the dynamic and, allegedly, hugely efficient private sector.

 

This was not public investment in aid to people in either bankrupt or failed states (with all the difficulties that implies of getting aid where it is needed): these were private companies operating at the height of 19th century entrepreneurial industrialisation. They were meant to be models of the efficient allocation of scarce capital. But it turned out that a combination of the egos of the company leaders and an overwhelming desire to create monopolies (that could then be exploited with high rents) were the main driving forces.

 

Jack Simmons has written how the celebrations when the first railway company reached a particular town were usually dwarfed by the celebrations when a second company arrived: local people were usually fed up of the exploitation and welcomed the competition that would drive down prices.

 

So, two crude forces at play: the (in)efficient allocation of capital to try create monopolies or to boost egos (look at the Forth Bridge, or stand inside the trainshed at St Pancras); and the power of competition.

 

Paul

 

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Fenman said:

 

I think you are forgetting that the railway system was originally built by the dynamic and, allegedly, hugely efficient private sector.

 

This was not public investment in aid to people in either bankrupt or failed states (with all the difficulties that implies of getting aid where it is needed): these were private companies operating at the height of 19th century entrepreneurial industrialisation. They were meant to be models of the efficient allocation of scarce capital. But it turned out that a combination of the egos of the company leaders and an overwhelming desire to create monopolies (that could then be exploited with high rents) were the main driving forces.

 

Jack Simmons has written how the celebrations when the first railway company reached a particular town were usually dwarfed by the celebrations when a second company arrived: local people were usually fed up of the exploitation and welcomed the competition that would drive down prices.

 

So, two crude forces at play: the (in)efficient allocation of capital to try create monopolies or to boost egos (look at the Forth Bridge, or stand inside the trainshed at St Pancras); and the power of competition.

 

Paul

 

I don't disagree with any of this and the history of railway building is an important one.  All those enthusiasts of re-nationalisation (and I've never been keen on how 1990s privatisation was done either) should remember both what/who built the railways and overwhelmingly, who/what closed so many of them.  It may be not far off to suggest that one third of UK railways were built and operated successfully, one third were built and never achieved their investors expectations, while one third of invested capital was lost/embezzled by incompetent construction teams or effectively fraudsters selling the shares in the schemes with outrageously inflated rates of return.

 

The same "rule of thirds" financial model frequently applies in all sorts of private sector products and services.  Just as an example, we don't see the numerous foodstuffs that are either withdrawn before launch or forget those which are only available for a few years or even months after.  Some are a 100% loss to the manufacturer and some just about cover their costs.  

[MarkC]

On 30/01/2020 at 09:01, woodenhead said:

I was amazed to watch a video on Fleetwood once and how important it was to people travelling between England and Scotland by rail.

 

Trains would arrive from London, passengers alight, spend a night in a wonderful hotel and then the next morning take a steamer to Ardrossan where they would pick up another train to Glasgow.

 

This was the pattern from 1840-1847 when the route north of Preston got over Shap and Fleetwood fell into obscurity until the fishing fleets arrived.

Bit late replying - but yes, the hotel was the North Euston Hotel, which is still there, and has some very interesting photographs on display. I haven't stayed there - yet -  but have enjoyed a couple of excellent meals in its Dining Room when on business in the area. (Was attending the local College for a refresher training course abut 2 years ago).

 

Mark

[stewartingram]

The public garden in front of the North Euston at Fleetword is worth a visit. Lots of railway stonework - mileposts and similar - have found a home there.

 

Stewart

[whart57]

5 hours ago, Fenman said:

 

I think you are forgetting that the railway system was originally built by the dynamic and, allegedly, hugely efficient private sector.

 

This was not public investment in aid to people in either bankrupt or failed states (with all the difficulties that implies of getting aid where it is needed): these were private companies operating at the height of 19th century entrepreneurial industrialisation. They were meant to be models of the efficient allocation of scarce capital. But it turned out that a combination of the egos of the company leaders and an overwhelming desire to create monopolies (that could then be exploited with high rents) were the main driving forces.

 

Jack Simmons has written how the celebrations when the first railway company reached a particular town were usually dwarfed by the celebrations when a second company arrived: local people were usually fed up of the exploitation and welcomed the competition that would drive down prices.

 

 

Nevertheless there was plenty of opportunity to make easy money from railway investors. First off there was the uniquely British practice of requiring every railway, no matter how short, to apply for an Act of Parliament, which had to be passed by both houses. That meant lawyers and lobbyists dipping in. It also meant finding an MP or peer or two to propose and sponsor the Bill as well as making sure that competitors didn't make use of the parliamentary procedure of a single MP shouting "object" at Second Reading to scupper the bill before it got started.

 

Once the railway had its Act it could then start acquiring the land. Often they would find that the sweeteners given to landowners to buy off their opposition at the parliamentary stage were not enough to prevent further demands. Yes, the railway now had powers for compulsory purchase but the legal process would be expensive and take forever. A promise of a bridge or occupation crossing might be enough.

 

Then some months later the landowner would be back. That bridge is not actually needed you know, but you Mr Railway are obliged to build it. Maybe we could come to some arrangement?

[Northmoor]

Oh yes, never underestimate the ability of the land-owning gentry to enrich themselves at the expense of the nasty "new money" who were trying to create wealth.

Likewise costs of rail in the UK have always been hampered by the obligation for the railway and not the landowner to maintain fences, even on closed lines, which (perhaps with the exception of high speed lines) doesn't seem to apply to most of the rest of Europe.  A fairer system would see that the landowner, after being compensated for the initial construction, should have to maintain the fences on the simple basis that a train colliding with the farmer's animals will probably only make a small dent in the train but almost definitely turn the animals into soup ingredients.

[johnofwessex]

5 hours ago, Northmoor said:

...................... Just as an example, we don't see the numerous foodstuffs that are either withdrawn before launch or forget those which are only available for a few years or even months after.  Some are a 100% loss to the manufacturer and some just about cover their costs.  

 

Birds Eye 'Cod Pieces' anyone?

[johnofwessex]

On 30/01/2020 at 09:01, woodenhead said:

I was amazed to watch a video on Fleetwood once and how important it was to people travelling between England and Scotland by rail.

 

Trains would arrive from London, passengers alight, spend a night in a wonderful hotel and then the next morning take a steamer to Ardrossan where they would pick up another train to Glasgow.

 

This was the pattern from 1840-1847 when the route north of Preston got over Shap and Fleetwood fell into obscurity until the fishing fleets arrived.

 

Funnily enough back in (1984?) I did just that only from Liverpool - although in those days you could have done it from Fleetwood, although it involved a change at Douglas.  In my case it was the Ben My Chree (The proper 1966 turbine steamer) overnight to Douglas then the afternoon run to Ardrossan & back before the Sunday Morning sail back to Liverpool.

 

The proceedings were enlivened by a 'Man Overboard' off the Galloway Coast when we were in the engine room - the casualty was safely recovered

[ess1uk]

how many of theses schemes have been approved?