Reversing Beeching

[rodent279]

A) The fact is, a lot of those closed railways should never have been built, let alone closed. Many of them barely paid their way for a decade, let alone form the start. Beeching is much maligned, but if he hadn't done it, someone else would have. He was blunt, too blunt, but many of those lines & stations had to go.

 

B) This is a distraction from the b@lls up the gov't is making of the B-word, and everything else at the moment.

[chriswright03]

I am sure that is true to a large degree at the time but is it today?

 

As an example I will look at Louth to Grimsby as it is what I know.  I live in Louth and not only occasionally travel along the A16 to Grimsby but in recent years have driven the buses on that route.  So the line to Grimsby closed much later to traffic but remained open for freight to ABM malt kilns (also now gone) sometime later.

 

In the 70's and for that matter the 80's not many of us commuted to work let alone the distances that people now do on a daily basis.  For instance in the Police in the 70's I was not 'allowed' to live further than 12 miles from my station.  That has changed and now there is no restriction.  I am sure it was the same for many people during in that period where they may have found themselves having to travel to work.

 

In fact in the Beeching period nowhere near as many would have even owned cars let alone used them to travel the 15 miles to Grimsby.  Now the A16 is packed with traffic dawdling along with the usual combination of traffic including those who cannot get above 40mph unless going through a 30!  HGVs, farm traffic and of course buses.  All of which make it a very slow painful journey.

 

In Grimsby Peakes Parkway now occupies the land where the track once was and in Louth itself a small industrial estate and houses occupy the station area.  So without massive expense and havoc being created the link between them by rail is unlikely to be replaced.  Except the Lincolnshire Wolds Railway have plans to extend towards Louth in time.

 

https://lincolnshirewoldsrailway.co.uk/making-tracks-louth/

 

Had someone had the same vision of the future as NYMR then the link to Grimsby now could be very profitable as it would make the journey quicker, easier for those who do not have cars and as Louth is a very popular Market Town for visitors provided improved income for many.

 

As it stands the journey by car is torturous due to the poor standard of driving on it (many accidents weekly).  On a bus as it goes through most of the villages on the way and the journey takes a full hour which isn't a lot of fun in the cold or even on a hot summers day (we do have them) it isn't the nicest way to travel and certainly not many would want to do it daily.

 

So given the above and the fact that you have to find somewhere to park your car when you get there and most likely have to pay a fair amount to do it I believe a rail link would now be profitable even with reasonable fares.  Given that there is now an increased desire to rid the streets of traffic in our towns and cities I believe that many of the lines closed in those years even right at that time would now make sense. 

 

I cannot find it at the moment but the price quoted for one mile of track on the Wolds railway is astronomical.  That isn't to say that it would be cheaper for many other tracks to be reinstated anywhere else but is that cost compared to the continued problems we have created by driving our tin boxes everywhere a game changer?

[cheesysmith]

I keep thinking for a line like what you are talking about (the Louth lines) would the tram trains be a good ides? Laid to light rail standards and without the need for signalling, and the ability to divert from the original route where it has been lost. Also capable of running at 50mph when in the open and sharing heavy rail bits.

[John_Hughes]

I keep thinking for a line like what you are talking about (the Louth lines) would the tram trains be a good ides? Laid to light rail standards and without the need for signalling, and the ability to divert from the original route where it has been lost. Also capable of running at 50mph when in the open and sharing heavy rail bits.

 

Which is, I think, effectively what was done with the Midland Metro between Snow Hill and Wolves.

 

While it's certainly true that many little branch lines were never going to turn a profit, that rather misses the point. They were often built by local promoters who put up their own cash knowing that the chance of a decent return was probably around zero. They did it because the area in general would benefit; and such lines were usually operated by a mainline company on a proportion of receipts basis.

 

In due course the big companies found it simpler to just take them over, and so the local shareholding became a tiny stake in a much larger organisation; and finally the whole shebang was nationalised and then closed, so that effectively the resources of the socially-minded individuals who had promoted the line for the benefit of their own community were subsumed into a benefit for the very people who didn't live there. So now the local area has neither the line nor the resources that had been ploughed into it.

 

This persistent robbing of rural areas for the benefit of the big cities - and particularly the south-east of England - has been going on for generations; we've seen it with transport, with medical care, with museums, with industry and a whole lot more.

[Nearholmer]

Without figures, I’m utterly sceptical about the “robbing” argument.

 

People moved into cities as agriculture and industry mechanised, leaving rural populations that are very dispersed, which makes it very costly, on a per capita basis, to provide any services, public or private, making the services potentially less good.

 

Unless it is clear that rural areas receive less per capita, then no “robbing” is taking place.

 

In practice, there is a lot of the luck of the draw in this, of course: there are rubbish schools and doctors, and excellent ones, in cities, and in villages.

[caradoc]

When considering what railways could usefully be re-opened, we have to consider what railways are actually best at, in the 21st century age of mass car ownership (I am referring to passenger operations only here). They are good at moving large numbers of passengers into major conurbations, and they are good at linking those major conurbations together. They are not so good at serving dispersed, smaller communities; If you have to use a car, or other means, to get to your local station, and possibly another form of transport if your end station is not near your actual final destination, you may as well use the car for the whole journey, or possibly the bus.

 

An example of a railway which could not hope to survive to the present day is the Abingdon branch in Oxfordshire; Trains normally only ran to Radley, meaning a change to get to the local main centre (Oxford), or to get to London, plus, if an interminably slow trip to London was to be avoided, another change at Didcot. Whereas today there are several buses an hour to Oxford, which serve various parts of Abingdon on their routes, and some of which run through to the major local hospital, the JR in Headington. London passengers can drive to Didcot for the excellent service there. While it would be lovely for us as enthusiasts to have a 14xx and autocoach, or a railcar, to get to Abingdon, it would not be the most effective way of providing useful public transport. 

 

Where resources should be concentrated is in providing useful commuter services, and/or re-integrating routes into the national network, where genuine traffic potential exists. I would suggest the Portishead branch, as previously mentioned, would achieve both aims, as would the Blyth & Tyne route. For lines completely closed and dismantled, I would suggest routes such as Callander/Dunblane, Leuchars/St Andrews, and perhaps Penrith/Keswick, all of which should never have been closed in the first place.

 

Whatever happens, it is good to see the re-opening of railways being promoted, however time will tell whether actions match words. 

[Mike Storey]

Without figures, I’m utterly sceptical about the “robbing” argument.

 

People moved into cities as agriculture and industry mechanised, leaving rural populations that are very dispersed, which makes it very costly, on a per capita basis, to provide any services, public or private, making the services potentially less good.

 

Unless it is clear that rural areas receive less per capita, then no “robbing” is taking place.

 

In practice, there is a lot of the luck of the draw in this, of course: there are rubbish schools and doctors, and excellent ones, in cities, and in villages.

 

I believe it is clear that spend per capita is much higher in the SE than in the rest of England and Wales (not sure there has been direct comparison with Scotland recently). However, a big part of that is justified across two reasons:

 

1. The cost of doing anything in the SE is so much higher than doing the same thing elsewhere

2. The need in terms of number of people affected, and in terms of economic impact, is that much greater in any calculation between the SE and elsewhere.

 

Whether that is "fair" is the continuing debate, and that is why there is at least some attempt to move towards greater localised decision making in the North of England and in Wales. Whether that proves adequate remains for time to tell.

 

What we should keep reminding ourselves is that, unlike in Wales or Scotland (and already extant in NI), a proposal to move towards regional government was thoroughly rejected by the local electorates in the 2000's. Hence the quasi-Quango attempt to partially replicate that with the Northern Powerhouse, TFN and whatever other acronyms have been created lately for trying to find a single voice in "The North". 

 

Another recent report (I can't remember whether it was an EU or a UN one) highlighted that, since the 1980's, the economic, social and opportunity disparity between the North and the South (or London & SE v the rest of England) is greater than in any other country in Europe, including Italy (where a populist, right wing movement wants to separate from the South, whom they believe are dragging them down). The attempts by governments of all hues since then, to start to rectify that, have had very limited impact, and often (such as Media City) had severe negative effects outside the immediate area.

[Nearholmer]

I get confused about which things I've said/posted in which debates, but I know I've posted a differently coloured version of the map below before.

 

It makes the point that things are slightly more complex than a north vs south divide, although it is crystal-clear that there is a serious set of difficulties in the ex-industrial north.

 

Incidentally, there was some work published last week look at social mobility, and that identified the same areas as the map: ex-industrial and forgotten-coastal, as being where mobility is least, and schools worst. I think it nailed what might be called the 'far-east-midlands' as the place where children grow up with fewest 'life chances'.

 

But, that wasn't the point being discussed. It was City vs Urban that was under discussion, with JH asserting that rural areas were being 'robbed' by urban areas. Which I'm still not convinced is true.

 

The 'north vs London' divide in per capita spend on public transport I do, by the way, agree exists. There seem to be lots of different figures about, but all of them show a big disparity.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Coryton]

What we should keep reminding ourselves is that, unlike in Wales or Scotland (and already extant in NI), a proposal to move towards regional government was thoroughly rejected by the local electorates in the 2000's. Hence the quasi-Quango attempt to partially replicate that with the Northern Powerhouse, TFN and whatever other acronyms have been created lately for trying to find a single voice in "The North". 

 

Well yes....but weren't they given the choice of the status-quo or a form of regional government that nobody really wanted?

[Coryton]

When considering what railways could usefully be re-opened, we have to consider what railways are actually best at, in the 21st century age of mass car ownership (I am referring to passenger operations only here). They are good at moving large numbers of passengers into major conurbations, and they are good at linking those major conurbations together. They are not so good at serving dispersed, smaller communities; If you have to use a car, or other means, to get to your local station, and possibly another form of transport if your end station is not near your actual final destination, you may as well use the car for the whole journey, or possibly the bus.

 

There are plenty of places where (National) rail does a good job at moving people within major conurbations. 

 

And if often does make sense to drive to a station and then get the train, if the journey is a long one, or parking is difficult at the other end.

[Fenman]

...

The 'north vs London' divide in per capita spend on public transport I do, by the way, agree exists. There seem to be lots of different figures about, but all of them show a big disparity.

 

I agree, but I'm not sure it's a comparison of like and like. If you strip out the construction of new railways (needed in London because of a massive increase in population), isn't the highest subsidy-per-head or per-mile (choose your statistical basis) actually in the North?

 

I don't live in London, and my part of England has had one of the worst transport deals for a long time (the regional city was the last big-ish English city to be connected to the rest of the national road network by dual carriageway; there isn't a single mile of motorway in my county; my local railway line was the last BR InterCity line to get airconditioned trains - finally introduced earlier this year, using second-hand stock cascaded from elsewhere; the "essential" railway capital spending that was supposed to have been completed by now was all shunted into the next CP in the Hendy Review, despite us having some of the most severe peak over-crowding anywhere - who knows if that work will now ever get done as GWML takes all the cash...). But I don't begrudge them either Thameslink (which should have been completed 17 years ago), or Crossrail, or Crossrail 2 - public transport in London is currently so overcrowded that frankly I think it is a safety risk. That money has to be spent.

 

Which is not to say that more cash should not be spent elsewhere. In a couple of your posts you have suggested that as a country we don't have any money. I find this perplexing: England is richer now than we have ever been at any time in human history. Apparently we can easily contemplate spending over £10bn on Olympics, £50bn on Brexit, and God knows how many billions on a new nuclear deterrent. Now all of those may be great and necessary things. But the sheer numbers of billions tossed around in our society suggests to me that there is not, in fact, any shortage of money - it's just a matter of choice where we are spending it.

 

Paul

[Mike Storey]

Well yes....but weren't they given the choice of the status-quo or a form of regional government that nobody really wanted?

 

That was the reason given, except that no-one then, or since, has been able to agree a form that most people did want. Hence the Quangos - a voice but without any cohesive democratic clout or accountability, let alone money (apart from the £300m just announced).

[Nearholmer]

Paul

 

It's really hard to find figures for per capita operating subsidy, as opposed to capital spend. The one set I did find (London vs NE) still seemed to show London as getting more, but if that was translated into subsidy per journey, it might reverse.

 

Regarding money: what I've suggested is that we as a country seem to lack free capital. I still don't know if this is correct, but it certainly feels that way - I don't see huge private sector investment in productive capability going on in the way that it did in Victorian times. I've also said that we seem to have decided not to spend money through the public sector, which is definitely true: we have elected (well, sort of, by way of the DUP) a government that is actively tightening the public purse strings.

 

But, I've been careful not to say that we are, as a nation overall, short of money. My gut feel is, like yours, that we probably aren't.

 

There are the choices being made about public spending that you mention, and I would also observe that there is 'money about' in some pockets of the economy. Those in highly-skilled and in-demand trades and professions, for instance, seem to be doing OK. A select band of retirees ditto. There is a lot of (perhaps only theoretical) capital locked-up in 'real estate'. And, collectively, we have a genius for spending money on 'nice to have' imported consumer goods, and optional services, from toy trains to hair-dos, and plastic Christmas trees to spa-days.

 

What we probably are as a nation is unbalanced. And you can read that a number of ways!

 

Kevin

[Mike Storey]

Paul

 

It's really hard to find figures for per capita operating subsidy, as opposed to capital spend. The one set I did find (London vs NE) still seemed to show London as getting more, but if that was translated into subsidy per journey, it might reverse.

 

Regarding money: what I've suggested is that we as a country seem to lack free capital. I still don't know if this is correct, but it certainly feels that way - I don't see huge private sector investment in productive capability going on in the way that it did in Victorian times. I've also said that we seem to have decided not to spend money through the public sector, which is definitely true: we have elected (well, sort of, by way of the DUP) a government that is actively tightening the public purse strings.

 

But, I've been careful not to say that we are, as a nation overall, short of money. My gut feel is, like yours, that we probably aren't.

 

There are the choices being made about public spending that you mention, and I would also observe that there is 'money about' in some pockets of the economy. Those in highly-skilled and in-demand trades and professions, for instance, seem to be doing OK. A select band of retirees ditto. There is a lot of (perhaps only theoretical) capital locked-up in 'real estate'. And, collectively, we have a genius for spending money on 'nice to have' imported consumer goods, and optional services, from toy trains to hair-dos, and plastic Christmas trees to spa-days.

 

What we probably are as a nation is unbalanced. And you can read that a number of ways!

 

Kevin

 

Not sure I agree with a lot of that Kevin, apart from the sentiment.

 

I read on something recently that there has been an estimated £300 billion in UK capital looking for a home, which economists state is illogical given the low rates of returns on traditional investments. Much of it disappears into foreign investments (the UK is apparently still the largest investor in US companies, including takeovers and mergers) and this is likely to have increased given the drop in the Pound. The FTSE 100 has risen exactly because of that.

 

Capital hates high risk, unless there is a reasonable possibility of very high return. Not likely in franchises, or in infrastructure investment unless couched in highly lucrative PPI or PFI, government-secured and underwritten contracts. Those are now out of fashion.

 

The Victorians invested in railways because they were a monopoly, relatively unregulated (at least initially) and had supportive functions to their other capital interests in factories, mills and so on. Quite where an investor could associate their other investments with railways these days, beyond Section 54 requirements and the odd logistics, inland or portside freight depot, remains the big gap. So for the government to publish a strategy in which c.25% of their planned spend relies on private investment, without associated, significant modal transfer incentives, is either a giant con, or totally naive. They are prepared to direct private investment on road transport through diesel restrictions and a strategy to enforce low pollution vehicles over a fixed period, but in isolation, significant modal shift will not result.

 

The governments of other countries are proving no more adept at this sleight of hand.

[rodent279]

I don't really buy the idea that loads of Victorian railways were local concerns funded by socially minded promoters, who put up the cash knowing that they had little chance of seeing a return. I think they were either heard-headed businessmen out to make a profit from what they saw as a natural monopoly, or somewhat misguided investors, who jumped on the era's popular bandwagon-which eventually turned sour for them, much the same as the dotcom crash in the late 90's.

 

I think there were definitely lines that either shouldn't have closed, or that would have a place in today's railway if they were still open. The GC is one, Woodhead, Waverley, the Lowlands route to Stranraer, S & D, D, N & S, MSWJ, these definitely should have been retained in some form, if not as full-blown main lines. Woodhead closed mainly because the traffic for which it was built, and later electrified, simply disappeared. That said, I think if it had survived even another 5 yrs, it would not have closed, and there would be a place for it now. I'm not advocating reopening it though, it's too far gone now. Maybe in 1990 it would have been possible, but not now. The S&D is another, had it been retained it would have had a worthwhile place, but it's too far gone now.

 

But many Beeching victims simply had little purpose once motor buses became widespread, and I believe would have been closed anyway, Beeching or no Beeching. I don't see any value in re-opening chocolate box lines like Brixham, Ilfracombe etc.

 

The ongoing Portishead & East-West Rail Link sagas have been mentioned already. I remember not so long ago there was serious talk of re-opening to Chinnor, & to Thame, from P.Ris. If something like that can't be pulled off, connection to a busy commuter line in SE England, with all the commuter potential it must have, I don't see much hope for towns like Buckingham, Brackley etc.

 

I still think it's distraction politics.

Edited December 2, 2017 by rodent279

[paulbb]

I think that there is a distinction between the branch lines-some of which were no hopers- and duplicate routes. It was the latter that people (with hindsight of course) regret the most, in terms of capacity and markets. The obvious ones being the Waverley, the Midland route through the Peak , and possibly all of the GC main line, the last one saving the taxpayer billions by providing HS2 of course...

[Oldddudders]

NR probably doesn't have the optimum number of qualified senior engineers it would like or certainly needs, but is awash with contract preparers and managers. And now those few engineers will be distributed among multiple TOCs? So the Big Boys will pay the best salaries and get the best engineers and the minnows will get lesser people. 

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

While I can see the attraction of the re-opening aspect of this announcement, my original remarks about engineering maintenance standards seem to have been less interesting. Perhaps Hatfield and Potter Bar are too long ago. Lemme tell you a story.

 

Exactly 37 years ago I had been summoned to higher duty at the Division, and subsequently was appointed to the vacancy. A few days in, as I was feeling my way in the new role, a rather tiresome freight train derailment caused me to be sent out on site to observe and liaise as necessary. There I fell in with a senior civil engineer, concerned for the rather odd bridge involved, who for reasons I may explain, took a shine to me, and we remained on cordial terms throughout the rest of my career. Since the chap concerned went on to be Regional Civil Engineer, and then Infrastructure Director for a sector, as well as having a cousin who is a prominent actress, I felt privileged. Smashing bloke. His reason for 'adopting' me as a colleague - never an employee of his - was that I had latterly worked as mere SM in the patch where he had been Area Civil Engineer. Less than a decade later, he made a formal inspection of the same patch - and found track inspection standards on one route so adrift he immediately slapped on a speed restriction over several track miles. So the then incumbent engineer found himself on other duties. In my Waterloo days I worked for a similarly rusticated civil engineer - now a respected railway author - and his boss was a failed bridge engineer from Scotland. 

 

My message in all this is that engineering standards are absolute. While I believe maintenance is now back in-house, unlike the outsourcing days of Railtrack, the need to keep everything tickety-boo is, if these proposals proceed, going to become the responsibility of a TOC engineer. He had better be up to snuff, or lives will be at risk. 

[Nearholmer]

Mike

 

I keep looking for sources that estimate how much free capital there is in this country, and I still fail to find them, so your £300billion figure genuinely interests me; where did you find it?

 

And, have you ever seen anything that gives a breakdown of private sector investment 'UK investing in UK', 'UK Investing outwards' and 'inwards to UK', ideally showing splits by sector (manufacturing, financial services etc), and even more ideally showing changes over time? [ there are ONS tables that would probably tell me this, if I could get my head round them]

 

What is at the root of my obsession with all this is the gut-feeling that GB/UK has under-invested in domestic productive capacity for perhaps as long as 150 years. [ and, much to my delight, here I find a bunch of Cambridge academics who seem to be saying the same thing, and dating britain's industrial peak to 1870, which is what I've come to believe https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp459.pdf ]

 

I'm not, by the way, for one minute, expecting to see significant private sector investment in rail infrastructure, for the reasons much discussed above, but it would be rather nice to see decent levels of investment n some sort of productive capacity, because without it we are rather ......... in difficulty.

 

Kevin

 

PS: is OD talking about some time B-C I wonder?

PPS: conference about "third party" investment in rail, if RMweb isn't enough! https://www.waterfrontconferencecompany.com/conferences/attracting-third-party-investment-into-the-uk-rail-sector

Edited December 2, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Coryton]

I think that there is a distinction between the branch lines-some of which were no hopers- and duplicate routes. It was the latter that people (with hindsight of course) regret the most, in terms of capacity and markets. The obvious ones being the Waverley, the Midland route through the Peak , and possibly all of the GC main line, the last one saving the taxpayer billions by providing HS2 of course...

 

Indeed.

 

With hindsight it's pretty clear that it would be better now if some of these had remained open, or at least the routes protected.

 

Should some of this have been obvious at the time? I don't know.

[rodent279]

While I can see the attraction of the re-opening aspect of this announcement, my original remarks about engineering maintenance standards seem to have been less interesting. Perhaps Hatfield and Potter Bar are too long ago. Lemme tell you a story.

 

Exactly 37 years ago I had been summoned to higher duty at the Division, and subsequently was appointed to the vacancy. A few days in, as I was feeling my way in the new role, a rather tiresome freight train derailment caused me to be sent out on site to observe and liaise as necessary. There I fell in with a senior civil engineer, concerned for the rather odd bridge involved, who for reasons I may explain, took a shine to me, and we remained on cordial terms throughout the rest of my career. Since the chap concerned went on to be Regional Civil Engineer, and then Infrastructure Director for a sector, as well as having a cousin who is a prominent actress, I felt privileged. Smashing bloke. His reason for 'adopting' me as a colleague - never an employee of his - was that I had latterly worked as mere SM in the patch where he had been Area Civil Engineer. Less than a decade later, he made a formal inspection of the same patch - and found track inspection standards on one route so adrift he immediately slapped on a speed restriction over several track miles. So the then incumbent engineer found himself on other duties. In my Waterloo days I worked for a similarly rusticated civil engineer - now a respected railway author - and his boss was a failed bridge engineer from Scotland. 

 

My message in all this is that engineering standards are absolute. While I believe maintenance is now back in-house, unlike the outsourcing days of Railtrack, the need to keep everything tickety-boo is, if these proposals proceed, going to become the responsibility of a TOC engineer. He had better be up to snuff, or lives will be at risk. 

For me, engineering standards should be at the foremost. Be the best you can be. When you do things for money, you tend to lose sight of quality, and focus on costs & revenue.

 

Mike

 

I keep looking for sources that estimate how much free capital there is in this country, and I still fail to find them, so your £300billion figure genuinely interests me; where did you find it?

 

And, have you ever seen anything that gives a breakdown of private sector investment 'UK investing in UK', 'UK Investing outwards' and 'inwards to UK', ideally showing splits by sector (manufacturing, financial services etc), and even more ideally showing changes over time? [ there are ONS tables that would probably tell me this, if I could get my head round them]

 

What is at the root of my obsession with all this is the gut-feeling that GB/UK has under-invested in domestic productive capacity for perhaps as long as 150 years. [ and, much to my delight, here I find a bunch of Cambridge academics who seem to be saying the same thing, and dating britain's industrial peak to 1870, which is what I've come to believe https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp459.pdf ]

 

I'm not, by the way, for one minute, expecting to see significant private sector investment in rail infrastructure, for the reasons much discussed above, but it would be rather nice to see decent levels of investment n some sort of productive capacity, because without it we are rather ......... in difficulty.

 

Kevin

 

PS: is OD talking about some time B-C I wonder?

PPS: conference about "third party" investment in rail, if RMweb isn't enough! https://www.waterfrontconferencecompany.com/conferences/attracting-third-party-investment-into-the-uk-rail-sector

We led the world when there was little or no serious competition. We led it, then sat back, watched the moeny roll in from far-flung parts which we ruled down the barrel of a gun, then when those far-flung parts went their own ways, we had to compete in what were closed markets-and we couldn't. GB plc is still coming to terms with the loss of empire, never mind Thatcherism.

 

Indeed.

 

With hindsight it's pretty clear that it would be better now if some of these had remained open, or at least the routes protected.

 

Should some of this have been obvious at the time? I don't know.

And I have thought for a long time that the real mistake was not so much in closing lines, as in abandoning them, letting the infrastructure go, literally dis-integrating them, as in the reverse of integrating. Building bridges is one thing, but once you are in the game of re-claiming long lost rights of way, that's a different ball game. You might as well start from scratch.

Edited December 2, 2017 by rodent279

[Oldddudders]

PS: is OD talking about some time B-C I wonder?

Indeed, Kevin, RB-C himself.

[Coryton]

And I have thought for a long time that the real mistake was not so much in closing lines, as in abandoning them, letting the infrastructure go, literally dis-integrating them, as in the reverse of integrating. Building bridges is one thing, but once you are in the game of re-claiming long lost rights of way, that's a different ball game. You might as well start from scratch.

 

I'd agree, and I've seen suggestions that some of this was (for some perverse reason) deliberate.

 

But given the pressure for land to build on in towns and cities I suspect it would have been very difficult to protect lines just in case they were wanted in 40 years time, no matter how good the intentions were.

[The Johnster]

The sale of land for redevelopment was a very profitable business for BR in those days, but it is true that some lines, especially those which had been the subject of vociferous but unsuccessful closure campaigns, were ripped out, cuttings filled, bridges destroyed, and land sold with what seemed like undue speed, especially if you'd been involved in the campaign.  This often took place in rural locations as well, and was by no means restricted to high value urban land.

[Coryton]

The sale of land for redevelopment was a very profitable business for BR in those days, but it is true that some lines, especially those which had been the subject of vociferous but unsuccessful closure campaigns, were ripped out, cuttings filled, bridges destroyed, and land sold with what seemed like undue speed, especially if you'd been involved in the campaign.  This often took place in rural locations as well, and was by no means restricted to high value urban land.

 

On the other hand, plenty of lines survived this sort of thing in order to become preserved lines...

[The Stationmaster]

The sale of land for redevelopment was a very profitable business for BR in those days, but it is true that some lines, especially those which had been the subject of vociferous but unsuccessful closure campaigns, were ripped out, cuttings filled, bridges destroyed, and land sold with what seemed like undue speed, especially if you'd been involved in the campaign.  This often took place in rural locations as well, and was by no means restricted to high value urban land.

 

The sale of the land was actually what paid for a lot of modernisation - it simply wouldn't have happened if money had not been available from such sales.   Don't forget too that at one period there was a moratorium on selling land for a year after a line had closed and in any case the land released by many of the Beeching era closures remained in railway ownership for years after the line had gone.