Pre-Beeching golden age (or not)

[Roland Perry]

More from the local archives: Regarding Bottisham-Lode station six miles
outside Cambridge on the Mildenhall line).

"James Beard, who has worked as porter for 45 years, remembers when
there was also a station master, three clerks, two signalmen and an
assistant porter. Now only he remains.

The once gleaming rails are becoming rusty and the British Railways sign
creaks on ancient hinges. Three times a week freight trains pass through
but these will stop on July 13th [1964]"

In 1922 [the year after the Stationmaster was let go] there were three
passenger trains a day in each direction, weekdays only.

Other fun facts: The 19 mile route from Cambridge to Mildenhall had 70
level crossings (only seven on public roads).

[Marland]

Post by Roland Perry
More from the local archives: Regarding Bottisham-Lode station six miles
outside Cambridge on the Mildenhall line).
"James Beard, who has worked as porter for 45 years, remembers when
there was also a station master, three clerks, two signalmen and an
assistant porter. Now only he remains.
The once gleaming rails are becoming rusty and the British Railways sign
creaks on ancient hinges. Three times a week freight trains pass through
but these will stop on July 13th [1964]"

Some nice photos of the station on the disused stations website which I
took a look at to see when the passenger service was closed, 1962 so a
couple of years before the article you mentioned.
What surprised me was how long the station buildings remained empty and
boarded up.
Normally stations were inhabited straight away some times by former rail
staff , others found new occupiers but those that remained empty tended to
be demolished after awhile.
Bottisham seems to have survived in good enough condition for renovations
to start around 10years ago looking at pictures on geograph
<https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6770362>

I think what we tend to forget is the “Homes in the Country” effect is
fairly recent and only since the 1990’s has it really got going. There
are people in this village who bought properties that were derelict around
then and gradually made them habitable. Now they are worth many thousands
and have estate agents constantly mail dropping saying they have clients
waiting if they want to sell.
Not surprising when you see what social change has done to our towns and
cities.
But go back to the 1950’s ,60’s and 70’s country populations were often
dropping as farm mechanisation displaced workers , a factor that those who
argued against branch line closures often did not consider . There were
fewer peasants to carry anyway and the landowners had been using cars
since the 1930’s.

GH

[Roland Perry]

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry
More from the local archives: Regarding Bottisham-Lode station six miles
outside Cambridge on the Mildenhall line).
"James Beard, who has worked as porter for 45 years, remembers when
there was also a station master, three clerks, two signalmen and an
assistant porter. Now only he remains.
The once gleaming rails are becoming rusty and the British Railways sign
creaks on ancient hinges. Three times a week freight trains pass through
but these will stop on July 13th [1964]"

Some nice photos of the station on the disused stations website which I
took a look at to see when the passenger service was closed, 1962 so a
couple of years before the article you mentioned.

Yes, and interesting they retained the services of a porter for two
years after passenger trains stopped. Maybe, just maybe, Beeching was
right?

Post by Marland
What surprised me was how long the station buildings remained empty and
boarded up.

The article I quoted said they were to be converted to offices, but no
hint of "for whom".

Post by Marland
Normally stations were inhabited straight away some times by former rail
staff , others found new occupiers but those that remained empty tended to
be demolished after awhile.

There were at least two staff cottages, and the Stationmaster's house,
on site too, iirc.

Post by Marland
Bottisham seems to have survived in good enough condition for renovations
to start around 10years ago looking at pictures on geograph
<https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6770362>
I think what we tend to forget is the “Homes in the Country” effect is
fairly recent and only since the 1990’s has it really got going. There
are people in this village who bought properties that were derelict around
then and gradually made them habitable. Now they are worth many thousands
and have estate agents constantly mail dropping saying they have clients
waiting if they want to sell.

I spent a year renting an ex-pub on the market square in a village near
Frome, not far from where the stone trains originate. At the time it was
one of only two family-sized properties on the market. The other was
near the station at Castle Carey. Both quite handy for the Glastonbury
festival (which isn't held anywhere near the Tor).

Sometimes we went to have lunch at the pub on the East Somerset Railway
at Cranmore.

Post by Marland
Not surprising when you see what social change has done to our towns and
cities.

Also a few converted to restaurants (eg Plumtree at the north end of the
Old Dalby line) and holiday homes (eg Alton, not far from the eponymous
Towers - I stayed there in the early 80's).

Post by Marland
But go back to the 1950’s ,60’s and 70’s country populations were often
dropping as farm mechanisation displaced workers , a factor that those who
argued against branch line closures often did not consider . There were
fewer peasants to carry anyway and the landowners had been using cars
since the 1930’s.

I think Bottisham's population had roughly halved by the time the
station closed. Today I have an ex-Acorn friend who lives in a barn
conversion in the village, probably worth a couple of million.

[Trolleybus]

Post by Roland Perry
Yes, and interesting they retained the services of a porter for two
years after passenger trains stopped. Maybe, just maybe, Beeching was
right?

As somebody who has studied the railways academically and discussed
Beeching with many people who know the railways, their history and
their finances well (including Terry Gourvish, David Turner, Mike
Esbester) I can say that I've never met anybody in that group who
doesn't think Beeching was necessary. There's much to discuss over the
detail but a cull had to happen.

[Clive Page]

Post by Trolleybus
As somebody who has studied the railways academically and discussed
Beeching with many people who know the railways, their history and
their finances well (including Terry Gourvish, David Turner, Mike
Esbester) I can say that I've never met anybody in that group who
doesn't think Beeching was necessary. There's much to discuss over the
detail but a cull had to happen.

I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology. I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s. It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt. I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close. Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.

Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again. Such a pity.

[Theo]

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology. I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s. It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt. I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close. Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.
Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again. Such a pity.

I think the scale of the problem was too big. Sure you could resignal
everything using automation which would save money in the long term, but how
much would that cost in the short term? Meanwhile costs were out of control
and wages were rising fast.

I agree that destaffing stations would have been an easy win. Although I do
wonder what the unions would have made of it (the medicine they did receive
was much worse, of course).

But I think you're right since Beeching was doing his report in the early
sixties, when what we'd now call IT was just getting going. You'd have to
be fairly clued up on current developments in computing to join the dots.

(also, how much would radio signalling have cost using early 1960s tech? I
think it was only major routes like the WCML that received electronic
signalling upgrades in that period)

Theo

[Ulf_Kutzner]

Post by Theo

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology. I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s. It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt. I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close. Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.
Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again. Such a pity.

I think the scale of the problem was too big. Sure you could resignal
everything using automation which would save money in the long term, but how
much would that cost in the short term? Meanwhile costs were out of control
and wages were rising fast.
I agree that destaffing stations would have been an easy win. Although I do
wonder what the unions would have made of it (the medicine they did receive
was much worse, of course).
But I think you're right since Beeching was doing his report in the early
sixties, when what we'd now call IT was just getting going. You'd have to
be fairly clued up on current developments in computing to join the dots.

A non-Beeching simplification, followed by closure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunstanton_railway_station#History

"At Hunstanton, the removal of most of the sidings and stabling
facilities
meant that through-locomotive excursion trains could no longer be run."

Post by Theo
(also, how much would radio signalling have cost using early 1960s tech?
I
think it was only major routes like the WCML that received electronic
signalling upgrades in that period)

Electronic, already?

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:59:53 +0000

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Theo
(also, how much would radio signalling have cost using early 1960s tech?
I
think it was only major routes like the WCML that received electronic
signalling upgrades in that period)

Electronic, already?

The Victoria line on the london underground had electronic ATO in 1967.

[Marland]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:59:53 +0000

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Theo
(also, how much would radio signalling have cost using early 1960s tech?
I
think it was only major routes like the WCML that received electronic
signalling upgrades in that period)

Electronic, already?

The Victoria line on the london underground had electronic ATO in 1967.

Being a new build and an enclosed underground system with just one class of
stock would have helped with that,equipping every Loco or DMU that may have
ran through cow country to little snoring on sea would have been
difficult.

GH

[Sam Wilson]

Post by Marland

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:59:53 +0000

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Theo
(also, how much would radio signalling have cost using early 1960s tech?
I
think it was only major routes like the WCML that received electronic
signalling upgrades in that period)

Electronic, already?

The Victoria line on the london underground had electronic ATO in 1967.

Being a new build and an enclosed underground system with just one class of
stock would have helped with that,equipping every Loco or DMU that may have
ran through cow country to little snoring on sea would have been
difficult.

Actually Little Snoring is about 8 or 9 miles from the sea, but it’s quite
close to the North Norfolk Railway.

Sam

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On 6 Mar 2025 12:50:07 GMT

Post by Marland

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:59:53 +0000

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Theo
(also, how much would radio signalling have cost using early 1960s tech?
I
think it was only major routes like the WCML that received electronic
signalling upgrades in that period)

Electronic, already?

The Victoria line on the london underground had electronic ATO in 1967.

Being a new build and an enclosed underground system with just one class of
stock would have helped with that,equipping every Loco or DMU that may have
ran through cow country to little snoring on sea would have been
difficult.

Sure, but I was really just making a point that electronics in the 60s wasn't
as basic as some people seem to think - you just had to pay for it. We had
digital computers in the 40s to crack enigma after all and satellites in the
late 50s and the moon landings used a programmable computer.

[Roland Perry]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On 6 Mar 2025 12:50:07 GMT

Post by Marland

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:59:53 +0000

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Theo
(also, how much would radio signalling have cost using early 1960s tech?
I
think it was only major routes like the WCML that received electronic
signalling upgrades in that period)

Electronic, already?

The Victoria line on the london underground had electronic ATO in 1967.

Almost electronic, more electrical. In the same sense that a Strowger
isn't an electronic telephone exchange.

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org

Post by Marland
Being a new build and an enclosed underground system with just one class of
stock would have helped with that,equipping every Loco or DMU that may have
ran through cow country to little snoring on sea would have been
difficult.

Sure, but I was really just making a point that electronics in the 60s wasn't
as basic as some people seem to think - you just had to pay for it. We had
digital computers in the 40s to crack enigma after all

The jury is out on whether Colossus was a programmable computer or not.
I saw the replica working a few months ago (a FOAF is the project
manager) and every expert I've spoken to since says "of course it's
not". Doesn't stop Bletchley mis-describing it!

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
and

analogue

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
satellites in the
late 50s and the moon landings used a programmable computer.

Well, if you have NASA's budget, and some very talented programmers.

[ColinR]

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology.   I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s.  It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt.   I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close.  Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.
Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again.  Such a pity.

I think the scale of the problem was too big.  Sure you could resignal
everything using automation which would save money in the long term, but how
much would that cost in the short term?  Meanwhile costs were out of
control
and wages were rising fast.
I agree that destaffing stations would have been an easy win.  Although
I do
wonder what the unions would have made of it (the medicine they did receive
was much worse, of course).
But I think you're right since Beeching was doing his report in the early
sixties, when what we'd now call IT was just getting going.  You'd have
to
be fairly clued up on current developments in computing to join the dots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunstanton_railway_station#History
"At Hunstanton, the removal of most of the sidings and stabling
facilities
meant that through-locomotive excursion trains could no longer be run."

(also, how much would radio signalling have cost using early 1960s tech?
 I
think it was only major routes like the WCML that received electronic
signalling upgrades in that period)

Electronic, already?

Electronic in the sixties? Yes. I controlled my model railway using
thyrister control instead of the old variable resistor control.

[Marland]

Post by Theo

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology. I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s. It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt. I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close. Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.
Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again. Such a pity.

I think the scale of the problem was too big. Sure you could resignal
everything using automation which would save money in the long term, but how
much would that cost in the short term? Meanwhile costs were out of control
and wages were rising fast.

Investing in lines that were losing traffic would have been a big gamble
and automation in that era was still fairly basic, heck people were still
impressed by the self opening door in the science museum.
Just converting the gated level crossings on minor routes would have been a
challenge, many were
still operated by staff walking them open and shut and had never reached
the stage of being worked by a wheel in a nearby box.

GH

[Roland Perry]

Post by Marland

Post by Theo

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology. I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s. It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt. I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close. Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.
Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again. Such a pity.

I think the scale of the problem was too big. Sure you could resignal
everything using automation which would save money in the long term, but how
much would that cost in the short term? Meanwhile costs were out of control
and wages were rising fast.

Investing in lines that were losing traffic would have been a big
gamble and automation in that era was still fairly basic, heck people
were still impressed by the self opening door in the science museum.
Just converting the gated level crossings on minor routes would have
been a challenge, many were still operated by staff walking them open
and shut and had never reached the stage of being worked by a wheel in
a nearby box.

The level crossing at Littleport still has wooden gates, and the
signalman from the adjacent box walks the gates open and closed. It's
possible the actual signalling has now been subsumed into the Cambridge
box, so that's all he has to do. (1tph each way, most of the day).

[Marland]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland

Post by Theo

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology. I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s. It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt. I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close. Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.
Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again. Such a pity.

I think the scale of the problem was too big. Sure you could resignal
everything using automation which would save money in the long term, but how
much would that cost in the short term? Meanwhile costs were out of control
and wages were rising fast.

Investing in lines that were losing traffic would have been a big
gamble and automation in that era was still fairly basic, heck people
were still impressed by the self opening door in the science museum.
Just converting the gated level crossings on minor routes would have
been a challenge, many were still operated by staff walking them open
and shut and had never reached the stage of being worked by a wheel in
a nearby box.

The level crossing at Littleport still has wooden gates, and the
signalman from the adjacent box walks the gates open and closed. It's
possible the actual signalling has now been subsumed into the Cambridge
box, so that's all he has to do. (1tph each way, most of the day).

There cannot be too many left , the nearest I can think of to here are at
Marchwood on the Fawley branch line though they have been metal rather than
wooden for awhile now.
And a rare set of semaphores in Southern England as well.
All would have been swept away if the plans to reopen as far as Hythe had
materialised but was cancelled when the reopen your railway programme was
abandoned. Another scheme to reopen it as part of an open access operators
scheme to run a service from Waterloo has emerged since but that operator
has had many schemes before non of which have materialised so those gates
and semaphores may be around for awhile yet.

GH

[Ulf_Kutzner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland

Post by Theo

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology. I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s. It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt. I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close. Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.
Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again. Such a pity.

I think the scale of the problem was too big. Sure you could resignal
everything using automation which would save money in the long term, but how
much would that cost in the short term? Meanwhile costs were out of control
and wages were rising fast.

Investing in lines that were losing traffic would have been a big
gamble and automation in that era was still fairly basic, heck people
were still impressed by the self opening door in the science museum.
Just converting the gated level crossings on minor routes would have
been a challenge, many were still operated by staff walking them open
and shut and had never reached the stage of being worked by a wheel in
a nearby box.

The level crossing at Littleport still has wooden gates, and the
signalman from the adjacent box walks the gates open and closed. It's
possible the actual signalling has now been subsumed into the Cambridge
box, so that's all he has to do. (1tph each way, most of the day).

But in peak:


ID TOC Arr From Pfm To Dep
1T11 GN 0733 Kings Lynn 1 London Kings Cross 0734
1T94 GN 0737 London Kings Cross 2 Kings Lynn 0738
1T13 GN 0805 Kings Lynn 1 London Kings Cross 0806
1T06 GN 0805 London Kings Cross 2 Kings Lynn 0806
1T15 GN 0835 Kings Lynn 1 London Kings Cross 0836
4H98 PASS March Up Yard GBRF 2 Middleton Towers GBRF 0841

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland

Post by Theo

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology. I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s. It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt. I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close. Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.
Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again. Such a pity.

I think the scale of the problem was too big. Sure you could resignal
everything using automation which would save money in the long term, but how
much would that cost in the short term? Meanwhile costs were out of control
and wages were rising fast.

Investing in lines that were losing traffic would have been a big
gamble and automation in that era was still fairly basic, heck people
were still impressed by the self opening door in the science museum.
Just converting the gated level crossings on minor routes would have
been a challenge, many were still operated by staff walking them open
and shut and had never reached the stage of being worked by a wheel in
a nearby box.

The level crossing at Littleport still has wooden gates, and the
signalman from the adjacent box walks the gates open and closed. It's
possible the actual signalling has now been subsumed into the Cambridge
box, so that's all he has to do. (1tph each way, most of the day).

Last time I looked "Peak" wasn't "most of the day". YMMV.

ID TOC Arr From Pfm To Dep
1T11 GN 0733 Kings Lynn 1 London Kings Cross 0734
1T94 GN 0737 London Kings Cross 2 Kings Lynn 0738

They leave the gates closed.

1T13 GN 0805 Kings Lynn 1 London Kings Cross 0806
1T06 GN 0805 London Kings Cross 2 Kings Lynn 0806

Ditto.

1T15 GN 0835 Kings Lynn 1 London Kings Cross 0836
4H98 PASS March Up Yard GBRF 2 Middleton Towers GBRF 0841

Depending on whether the trains are running to time and/or the queue of
cars, they might open the gates for a minute or two.

And aren't the Middleton Towers trains only once a week?

[Ulf_Kutzner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
The level crossing at Littleport still has wooden gates, and the
signalman from the adjacent box walks the gates open and closed. It's
possible the actual signalling has now been subsumed into the Cambridge
box, so that's all he has to do. (1tph each way, most of the day).

Last time I looked "Peak" wasn't "most of the day".

And last time I looked morning wasn't evening. So what?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
The level crossing at Littleport still has wooden gates, and the
signalman from the adjacent box walks the gates open and closed. It's
possible the actual signalling has now been subsumed into the Cambridge
box, so that's all he has to do. (1tph each way, most of the day).

Last time I looked "Peak" wasn't "most of the day".

And last time I looked morning wasn't evening. So what?

Just pointing out your continuing random non-sequitur comments.

[Ulf_Kutzner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
The level crossing at Littleport still has wooden gates, and the
signalman from the adjacent box walks the gates open and closed. It's
possible the actual signalling has now been subsumed into the Cambridge
box, so that's all he has to do. (1tph each way, most of the day).

Last time I looked "Peak" wasn't "most of the day".

And last time I looked morning wasn't evening. So what?

Just pointing out your continuing random non-sequitur

I do indeed appreciate your overwhelming fantasy.
You are the leader in this discipline. Unfortunately,
all of it is off-topic.

[Marland]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
The level crossing at Littleport still has wooden gates, and the
signalman from the adjacent box walks the gates open and closed. It's
possible the actual signalling has now been subsumed into the Cambridge
box, so that's all he has to do. (1tph each way, most of the day).

Last time I looked "Peak" wasn't "most of the day".

And last time I looked morning wasn't evening. So what?

Just pointing out your continuing random non-sequitur comments.

I wonder what section boring came under in a German yellow pages.

GH

[Ulf_Kutzner]

Post by Marland
I wonder

Great!

[Trolleybus]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland
Investing in lines that were losing traffic would have been a big
gamble and automation in that era was still fairly basic, heck people
were still impressed by the self opening door in the science museum.
Just converting the gated level crossings on minor routes would have
been a challenge, many were still operated by staff walking them open
and shut and had never reached the stage of being worked by a wheel in
a nearby box.

The level crossing at Littleport still has wooden gates, and the
signalman from the adjacent box walks the gates open and closed. It's
possible the actual signalling has now been subsumed into the Cambridge
box, so that's all he has to do. (1tph each way, most of the day).

Elsenham has manual gates but they're used about eight times per hour.

[Trolleybus]

Post by Clive Page

Post by Trolleybus
As somebody who has studied the railways academically and discussed
Beeching with many people who know the railways, their history and
their finances well (including Terry Gourvish, David Turner, Mike
Esbester) I can say that I've never met anybody in that group who
doesn't think Beeching was necessary. There's much to discuss over the
detail but a cull had to happen.

I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology. I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s. It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt. I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close. Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.

Gerald Fiennes made some of the same points, and he was a senior
insider. But with radio signalling you're talking about massive
investment that would not have been available and would have taken
years to implement, the line meanwhile bleeding cash. And many of
these lines carried well under a hundred people a day.

Some things could have been done, such as introducing Paytrains and
automating level crossings, but it was all too late.

I'm interested in how radio signalling would have worked back then. I
read an article recently about the resignalling on the West Anglia
line in Great Eastern News. I don't have it hand at the moment but one
of the mechanical boxes couldn't be abolished immediately with the
area controlled from Brimsdown as there was no safety-certified way of
sending data to it reliably over the required distance. They had to
duplicate part of the locking and control mechanisms so that messages
from Brimsdown were sent to this box telling it which route to set
which then used local logic to swing points, prove the route and set
signals. Was there was a radio method to communicate safely back then?

Post by Clive Page
Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again. Such a pity.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Clive Page

Post by Trolleybus
As somebody who has studied the railways academically and discussed
Beeching with many people who know the railways, their history and
their finances well (including Terry Gourvish, David Turner, Mike
Esbester) I can say that I've never met anybody in that group who
doesn't think Beeching was necessary. There's much to discuss over the
detail but a cull had to happen.

I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology.   I was able to put that
point to Dr Beeching himself during questions after a talk he gave in
the late 60s.  It was clearly madness to have signal boxes every mile or
two along each track, mostly staffed 18 to 24 hours a day, and ticket
offices open at each station or rural halt.   I suggested that modern
digital electronics would allow central signal boxes with trains
controlled perhaps by radio signals, and tickets issued on trains
allowing ticket offices to close.  Of course Paytrains did come in
eventually, but digital electronics on the railways had to wait.
Even though Beeching was a physicist by training he was clearly from an
earlier era and did not understand modern technology at all, so he
simply dismissed any suggestion that modern electronics could make rural
lines viable again.  Such a pity.

And how long after his report was digital and radio signalling a viable
proposition? Barely in his lifetime I suspect. He wasn't paid to have a
crystal ball but to sort out the mess that existed at the time.

The first use of a form of digital signalling was the Victoria Line and
that was 10 years after his report and very crude by modern standards.

[JMB99]

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology.

But was that modern technology available at that time?

[Recliner]

Post by JMB99

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology.

But was that modern technology available at that time?

No, but I think the argument is that the marginal cases could have been
mothballed, rather than permanently closed and the land sold. That’s what
tends to happen in other countries. Then, if demands change (eg, new
housing or business parks built nearby), the line might have been worth
reopening.

That’s effectively what happened with the EWR line west of Bletchley. It
was mothballed as far as Bicester, and had a minimal service from there to
Oxford. This year, it will reopen, with regular 100mph trains between
Bletchley and Oxford. The Bicester-Oxford section had already been
rejuvenated a few years earlier, becoming part of a popular new route
between Oxford and London. But, west of Bedford, it was permanently closed,
and has proved to be far more difficult to reopen.

[Recliner]

Post by Recliner

Post by JMB99

Post by Clive Page
I agree that a serious cull was needed but I think that many more lines
could have been saved using modern technology.

But was that modern technology available at that time?

No, but I think the argument is that the marginal cases could have been
mothballed, rather than permanently closed and the land sold. That’s what
tends to happen in other countries. Then, if demands change (eg, new
housing or business parks built nearby), the line might have been worth
reopening.
That’s effectively what happened with the EWR line west of Bletchley. It
was mothballed as far as Bicester, and had a minimal service from there to
Oxford. This year, it will reopen, with regular 100mph trains between
Bletchley and Oxford. The Bicester-Oxford section had already been
rejuvenated a few years earlier, becoming part of a popular new route
between Oxford and London. But, west

Er, *east*!

Post by Recliner
of Bedford, it was permanently closed,
and has proved to be far more difficult to reopen.

[Clive Page]

Post by Recliner
That’s effectively what happened with the EWR line west of Bletchley. It
was mothballed as far as Bicester, and had a minimal service from there to
Oxford. This year, it will reopen, with regular 100mph trains between
Bletchley and Oxford. The Bicester-Oxford section had already been
rejuvenated a few years earlier, becoming part of a popular new route
between Oxford and London. But, west of Bedford, it was permanently closed,
and has proved to be far more difficult to reopen.

Partly because one stretch is occupied by radio telescopes. Some of
them are on rails, but unfortunately not Standard Gauge.

[Alan Jones]

Post by Recliner
That’s effectively what happened with the EWR line west of Bletchley. It
was mothballed as far as Bicester, and had a minimal service from there to
Oxford. This year, it will reopen, with regular 100mph trains between
Bletchley and Oxford. The Bicester-Oxford section had already been
rejuvenated a few years earlier, becoming part of a popular new route
between Oxford and London. But, west of Bedford, it was permanently closed,
and has proved to be far more difficult to reopen.

Partly because one stretch is occupied by radio telescopes.  Some of them are on rails, but unfortunately not Standard Gauge.

Shurely not still in use?

Is it these ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryle_Telescope

And there wouldn't be too much e/m interference if we build an oil-fired line.

It looks as though most of the original trackbed is across farmland.

But it seems much more important for the new line to wibble South to Cambridge South, then wobble North to Cambourne North, as a commuter line in competition with local bus services.

Is it true that the benefit-cost ratio for EWR did not take into account the new Cambourne to Cambridge segregated bus link?

Oops!

[Alan Jones]

Post by Alan Jones

Post by Recliner
That’s effectively what happened with the EWR line west of Bletchley. It
was mothballed as far as Bicester, and had a minimal service from there to
Oxford. This year, it will reopen, with regular 100mph trains between
Bletchley and Oxford. The Bicester-Oxford section had already been
rejuvenated a few years earlier, becoming part of a popular new route
between Oxford and London. But, west of Bedford, it was permanently closed,
and has proved to be far more difficult to reopen.

Partly because one stretch is occupied by radio telescopes.  Some of them are on rails, but unfortunately not Standard Gauge.

Shurely not still in use?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryle_Telescope

I see that they were re-purposed and are still in use, although maybe not needing to be along the line any more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcminute_Microkelvin_Imager

Post by Alan Jones
And there wouldn't be too much e/m interference if we build an oil-fired line.
It looks as though most of the original trackbed is across farmland.
But it seems much more important for the new line to wibble South to Cambridge South, then wobble North to Cambourne North, as a commuter line in competition with local bus services.
Is it true that the benefit-cost ratio for EWR did not take into account the new Cambourne to Cambridge segregated bus link?
Oops!

[Bob]

Post by Trolleybus

Post by Roland Perry
Yes, and interesting they retained the services of a porter for two
years after passenger trains stopped. Maybe, just maybe, Beeching was
right?

As somebody who has studied the railways academically and discussed
Beeching with many people who know the railways, their history and
their finances well (including Terry Gourvish, David Turner, Mike
Esbester) I can say that I've never met anybody in that group who
doesn't think Beeching was necessary. There's much to discuss over the
detail but a cull had to happen.

To my mind, the problem was the political will to enable the railways to
make the changes needed to be fit for the post war reality did not come
about until far too late. In retrospect what really should have happened
was for an investigation along the lines of Beeching leading to
"reshaping of Britain's Railways" being made starting in 1950, and done
in coordination with a similar high level investigation for other modes
of transport. That would have allowed the modernisation plan to have
actually invested money into things that were important for the future,
rather than building a "1930s railway but diesel".

Without serious consideration to things like "wagon load freight will
never be profitable in an era of motor lorries" and "not all the lines
we have are really needed", as well as "If the railways need to make
money they have to have commercial independence", modernisation was
never going to succeed.

Robin

[Theo]

Post by Bob
To my mind, the problem was the political will to enable the railways to
make the changes needed to be fit for the post war reality did not come
about until far too late. In retrospect what really should have happened
was for an investigation along the lines of Beeching leading to
"reshaping of Britain's Railways" being made starting in 1950, and done
in coordination with a similar high level investigation for other modes
of transport. That would have allowed the modernisation plan to have
actually invested money into things that were important for the future,
rather than building a "1930s railway but diesel".
Without serious consideration to things like "wagon load freight will
never be profitable in an era of motor lorries" and "not all the lines
we have are really needed", as well as "If the railways need to make
money they have to have commercial independence", modernisation was
never going to succeed.

It's interesting that planning for the post-war reality did start in some
cases during the war - eg the County of London Plan of 1943 and the Brabazon
Committee of 1942. Much of that didn't pan out for reasons of either being
too early (and not actually fitting the reality) or the money not being
there.

But arguably the post-war reconstruction should have been the point at which
certain lines were chosen not to be renewed and resources focused on the
rest. Rather than largely restoring a 1930s network and then closing it
15 years later.

(some rural lines did close in 1950s, of course, and I'm unclear how much
renewal happened to them after 1945)

Theo

[Ulf_Kutzner]

Post by Theo

Post by Bob
To my mind, the problem was the political will to enable the railways to
make the changes needed to be fit for the post war reality did not come
about until far too late. In retrospect what really should have happened
was for an investigation along the lines of Beeching leading to
"reshaping of Britain's Railways" being made starting in 1950, and done
in coordination with a similar high level investigation for other modes
of transport. That would have allowed the modernisation plan to have
actually invested money into things that were important for the future,
rather than building a "1930s railway but diesel".
Without serious consideration to things like "wagon load freight will
never be profitable in an era of motor lorries" and "not all the lines
we have are really needed", as well as "If the railways need to make
money they have to have commercial independence", modernisation was
never going to succeed.

It's interesting that planning for the post-war reality did start in some
cases during the war - eg the County of London Plan of 1943 and the Brabazon
Committee of 1942. Much of that didn't pan out for reasons of either being
too early (and not actually fitting the reality) or the money not being
there.

But still:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line#Planning

[Coffee]

Post by Theo

Post by Bob
To my mind, the problem was the political will to enable the railways to
make the changes needed to be fit for the post war reality did not come
about until far too late. In retrospect what really should have happened
was for an investigation along the lines of Beeching leading to
"reshaping of Britain's Railways" being made starting in 1950, and done
in coordination with a similar high level investigation for other modes
of transport. That would have allowed the modernisation plan to have
actually invested money into things that were important for the future,
rather than building a "1930s railway but diesel".
Without serious consideration to things like "wagon load freight will
never be profitable in an era of motor lorries" and "not all the lines
we have are really needed", as well as "If the railways need to make
money they have to have commercial independence", modernisation was
never going to succeed.

It's interesting that planning for the post-war reality did start in some
cases during the war - eg the County of London Plan of 1943 and the Brabazon
Committee of 1942. Much of that didn't pan out for reasons of either being
too early (and not actually fitting the reality) or the money not being
there.
But arguably the post-war reconstruction should have been the point at which
certain lines were chosen not to be renewed and resources focused on the
rest. Rather than largely restoring a 1930s network and then closing it
15 years later.
(some rural lines did close in 1950s, of course, and I'm unclear how much
renewal happened to them after 1945)

I find it interesting that ring mains with 13am sockets were developed
during WWII to save copper during the post was reconstruction.

[Theo]

Post by Theo
But arguably the post-war reconstruction should have been the point at which
certain lines were chosen not to be renewed and resources focused on the
rest. Rather than largely restoring a 1930s network and then closing it
15 years later.

Thinking about it some more, I suppose one difference between 1945 and 1963
was the rapid growth of road transport. In 1945 you needed a railfreight
network that reached everywhere, because lorries didn't. By 1960s the roads
had improved and diesel lorries had too, meaning they were an increasingly
plausible replacement for railfreight.

That meant you couldn't just turn off parts of the network in 1940s because
they were still needed for freight (especially coal) until road haulage had
improved, which was at least a decade later. At that point (and especially
post Clean Air Act) the writing was on the wall.

Theo

[Bob]

Post by Theo

Post by Theo
But arguably the post-war reconstruction should have been the point at which
certain lines were chosen not to be renewed and resources focused on the
rest. Rather than largely restoring a 1930s network and then closing it
15 years later.

Thinking about it some more, I suppose one difference between 1945 and 1963
was the rapid growth of road transport. In 1945 you needed a railfreight
network that reached everywhere, because lorries didn't. By 1960s the roads
had improved and diesel lorries had too, meaning they were an increasingly
plausible replacement for railfreight.
That meant you couldn't just turn off parts of the network in 1940s because
they were still needed for freight (especially coal) until road haulage had
improved, which was at least a decade later. At that point (and especially
post Clean Air Act) the writing was on the wall.

Had someone (or a group of people) really looked into things in, say,
1950, it would be fairly evident that road freight transport was in a
position to capture a significant share of the wagon load frieght
market. The experience of wartime truck based logistics clearly
demonstrated what it was capable of, and it was fairly inevitable that
would translate to the civilian commercial sector.

Fundamentally what could have happened, but didn't, would have been to
create an actually integrated transport system for Britain. From the mid
19th century railways were relatively tightly regulated because at that
time railways were transportation. What was missed in the 1950s was the
recognition that this was no longer the case. While a regulated and
affordable network with concepts like minimum service and common carrier
was beneficial to the country, making that service rail-only was a mistake.

There is a decision that needed to be made, at a political level, as to
whether transportation of passengers and goods should be regarded as a
public service, to be provided universally at defined rates, or whether
it should be commercially driven, based on pure economics. We have
largely settled on the notion that passenger transportation should be a
universal public service (even if we fall short of that goal) and that
freight should be commercially driven today. A case, in the 1950s could
be made either way, but whichever choice was made, it should have been
made on the basis of transportation as a whole, not on the basis of mode
by mode.

Because the planning and the legal obligations were made for the
railways, not for transportation as a whole, the railway was forced to
provide services that were not relevant. Because the road based service
was separated from the railway, the ability to provide a railway level
of quality and integration across multiple modes was not made. Because
the railway was required to do everything, it ended up spending money on
things that were not appropriate. Trains with passenger numbers that
would struggle to fill a large taxi. Locomotives to collect and deliver
non-existent wagon load freight to and from idle goods yards.

Robin

[Ulf_Kutzner]

Post by Bob

Post by Theo

Post by Theo
But arguably the post-war reconstruction should have been the point at which
certain lines were chosen not to be renewed and resources focused on the
rest. Rather than largely restoring a 1930s network and then closing it
15 years later.

Thinking about it some more, I suppose one difference between 1945 and 1963
was the rapid growth of road transport. In 1945 you needed a
railfreight
network that reached everywhere, because lorries didn't. By 1960s the roads
had improved and diesel lorries had too, meaning they were an
increasingly
plausible replacement for railfreight.
That meant you couldn't just turn off parts of the network in 1940s because
they were still needed for freight (especially coal) until road haulage had
improved, which was at least a decade later. At that point (and especially
post Clean Air Act) the writing was on the wall.

Had someone (or a group of people) really looked into things in, say,
1950, it would be fairly evident that road freight transport was in a
position to capture a significant share of the wagon load frieght
market. The experience of wartime truck based logistics clearly
demonstrated what it was capable of, and it was fairly inevitable that
would translate to the civilian commercial sector.
Fundamentally what could have happened, but didn't, would have been to
create an actually integrated transport system for Britain. From the mid
19th century railways were relatively tightly regulated because at that
time railways were transportation. What was missed in the 1950s was the
recognition that this was no longer the case. While a regulated and
affordable network with concepts like minimum service and common carrier
was beneficial to the country, making that service rail-only was a mistake.

No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Culemeyer
solutions in the UK?

[Theo]

Post by Bob

Post by Theo

Post by Theo
But arguably the post-war reconstruction should have been the point at which
certain lines were chosen not to be renewed and resources focused on the
rest. Rather than largely restoring a 1930s network and then closing it
15 years later.

Thinking about it some more, I suppose one difference between 1945 and 1963
was the rapid growth of road transport. In 1945 you needed a railfreight
network that reached everywhere, because lorries didn't. By 1960s the roads
had improved and diesel lorries had too, meaning they were an increasingly
plausible replacement for railfreight.
That meant you couldn't just turn off parts of the network in 1940s because
they were still needed for freight (especially coal) until road haulage had
improved, which was at least a decade later. At that point (and especially
post Clean Air Act) the writing was on the wall.

Had someone (or a group of people) really looked into things in, say,
1950, it would be fairly evident that road freight transport was in a
position to capture a significant share of the wagon load frieght
market. The experience of wartime truck based logistics clearly
demonstrated what it was capable of, and it was fairly inevitable that
would translate to the civilian commercial sector.

I think there's a case to be made that one of the downfalls was natural gas.
Prior to that the economy ran on coal, either directly for home heating or
indirectly via town gas. Coal is heavy and needed bulk transport to get it
around. It's possible that nascent road freight could handle coal
distribution from a railhead in rural areas but I don't think it would have
been feasible to do coal distribution on the scale needed in 1950s using
trucking alone.

Take away coal, and what's left to many places was wagonload freight. Maybe
the wagonload wasn't profitable as a standalone service, but if you had to
run the depots for coal distribution anyway then perhaps wagonload wasn't
such basket case.

(North Sea gas only ramped up in the mid 60s so slightly after Beeching, but
its rise would have impacted freight volumes as Beeching closures were going
through)

Post by Bob
There is a decision that needed to be made, at a political level, as to
whether transportation of passengers and goods should be regarded as a
public service, to be provided universally at defined rates, or whether
it should be commercially driven, based on pure economics. We have
largely settled on the notion that passenger transportation should be a
universal public service (even if we fall short of that goal) and that
freight should be commercially driven today. A case, in the 1950s could
be made either way, but whichever choice was made, it should have been
made on the basis of transportation as a whole, not on the basis of mode
by mode.

I think that depends on your use cases. If you have alternatives
(road/rail/water), you can weigh up which alternative is most suitable. If
you don't have alternatives then you have to either keep going, or decide to
stop altogether. In the case of coal stopping home heating wasn't an option
and, before heavy road freight was feasible, there were no other practical
ways to distribute it.

Theo

[Marland]

Post by Theo

Post by Bob

Post by Theo

Post by Theo
But arguably the post-war reconstruction should have been the point at which
certain lines were chosen not to be renewed and resources focused on the
rest. Rather than largely restoring a 1930s network and then closing it
15 years later.

Thinking about it some more, I suppose one difference between 1945 and 1963
was the rapid growth of road transport. In 1945 you needed a railfreight
network that reached everywhere, because lorries didn't. By 1960s the roads
had improved and diesel lorries had too, meaning they were an increasingly
plausible replacement for railfreight.
That meant you couldn't just turn off parts of the network in 1940s because
they were still needed for freight (especially coal) until road haulage had
improved, which was at least a decade later. At that point (and especially
post Clean Air Act) the writing was on the wall.

Had someone (or a group of people) really looked into things in, say,
1950, it would be fairly evident that road freight transport was in a
position to capture a significant share of the wagon load frieght
market. The experience of wartime truck based logistics clearly
demonstrated what it was capable of, and it was fairly inevitable that
would translate to the civilian commercial sector.

I think there's a case to be made that one of the downfalls was natural gas.
Prior to that the economy ran on coal, either directly for home heating or
indirectly via town gas. Coal is heavy and needed bulk transport to get it
around. It's possible that nascent road freight could handle coal
distribution from a railhead in rural areas but I don't think it would have
been feasible to do coal distribution on the scale needed in 1950s using
trucking alone.
Take away coal, and what's left to many places was wagonload freight. Maybe
the wagonload wasn't profitable as a standalone service, but if you had to
run the depots for coal distribution anyway then perhaps wagonload wasn't
such basket case.
(North Sea gas only ramped up in the mid 60s so slightly after Beeching, but
its rise would have impacted freight volumes as Beeching closures were going
through)

Post by Bob
There is a decision that needed to be made, at a political level, as to
whether transportation of passengers and goods should be regarded as a
public service, to be provided universally at defined rates, or whether
it should be commercially driven, based on pure economics. We have
largely settled on the notion that passenger transportation should be a
universal public service (even if we fall short of that goal) and that
freight should be commercially driven today. A case, in the 1950s could
be made either way, but whichever choice was made, it should have been
made on the basis of transportation as a whole, not on the basis of mode
by mode.

I think that depends on your use cases. If you have alternatives
(road/rail/water), you can weigh up which alternative is most suitable. If
you don't have alternatives then you have to either keep going, or decide to
stop altogether. In the case of coal stopping home heating wasn't an option
and, before heavy road freight was feasible, there were no other practical
ways to distribute it.
Theo

I would think the change to electric heating and appliances may have had
the same or a bigger effect.
Vast parts of the nation have never had any mains gas and it is those parts
that would likely have seen their lines closed due to having a low
population anyway, in comparison the rural electrification programme was
largely complete by the mid 1960’s .
A lot of of people feel the closure of the Woodhead route was mistaken but
its main traffic was coal.
Energy is still passing through Woodhead Tunnel but in the HV cables of the
National Grid.

GH

[Bevan Price]

Post by Marland

Post by Theo

Post by Bob

Post by Theo

Post by Theo
But arguably the post-war reconstruction should have been the point at which
certain lines were chosen not to be renewed and resources focused on the
rest. Rather than largely restoring a 1930s network and then closing it
15 years later.

Thinking about it some more, I suppose one difference between 1945 and 1963
was the rapid growth of road transport. In 1945 you needed a railfreight
network that reached everywhere, because lorries didn't. By 1960s the roads
had improved and diesel lorries had too, meaning they were an increasingly
plausible replacement for railfreight.
That meant you couldn't just turn off parts of the network in 1940s because
they were still needed for freight (especially coal) until road haulage had
improved, which was at least a decade later. At that point (and especially
post Clean Air Act) the writing was on the wall.

Had someone (or a group of people) really looked into things in, say,
1950, it would be fairly evident that road freight transport was in a
position to capture a significant share of the wagon load frieght
market. The experience of wartime truck based logistics clearly
demonstrated what it was capable of, and it was fairly inevitable that
would translate to the civilian commercial sector.

I think there's a case to be made that one of the downfalls was natural gas.
Prior to that the economy ran on coal, either directly for home heating or
indirectly via town gas. Coal is heavy and needed bulk transport to get it
around. It's possible that nascent road freight could handle coal
distribution from a railhead in rural areas but I don't think it would have
been feasible to do coal distribution on the scale needed in 1950s using
trucking alone.
Take away coal, and what's left to many places was wagonload freight. Maybe
the wagonload wasn't profitable as a standalone service, but if you had to
run the depots for coal distribution anyway then perhaps wagonload wasn't
such basket case.
(North Sea gas only ramped up in the mid 60s so slightly after Beeching, but
its rise would have impacted freight volumes as Beeching closures were going
through)

Post by Bob
There is a decision that needed to be made, at a political level, as to
whether transportation of passengers and goods should be regarded as a
public service, to be provided universally at defined rates, or whether
it should be commercially driven, based on pure economics. We have
largely settled on the notion that passenger transportation should be a
universal public service (even if we fall short of that goal) and that
freight should be commercially driven today. A case, in the 1950s could
be made either way, but whichever choice was made, it should have been
made on the basis of transportation as a whole, not on the basis of mode
by mode.

I think that depends on your use cases. If you have alternatives
(road/rail/water), you can weigh up which alternative is most suitable. If
you don't have alternatives then you have to either keep going, or decide to
stop altogether. In the case of coal stopping home heating wasn't an option
and, before heavy road freight was feasible, there were no other practical
ways to distribute it.
Theo

I would think the change to electric heating and appliances may have had
the same or a bigger effect.
Vast parts of the nation have never had any mains gas and it is those parts
that would likely have seen their lines closed due to having a low
population anyway, in comparison the rural electrification programme was
largely complete by the mid 1960’s .
A lot of of people feel the closure of the Woodhead route was mistaken but
its main traffic was coal.
Energy is still passing through Woodhead Tunnel but in the HV cables of the
National Grid.
GH

Another cause of freight loss was the ASLEF strike in 1955. A lot of
industries discovered that they could manage without rail transport, and
permanently changed to road transport.

[Ulf_Kutzner]

Post by Bob

Post by Theo

Post by Theo
But arguably the post-war reconstruction should have been the point at which
certain lines were chosen not to be renewed and resources focused on the
rest. Rather than largely restoring a 1930s network and then closing it
15 years later.

Thinking about it some more, I suppose one difference between 1945 and 1963
was the rapid growth of road transport. In 1945 you needed a
railfreight
network that reached everywhere, because lorries didn't. By 1960s the roads
had improved and diesel lorries had too, meaning they were an
increasingly
plausible replacement for railfreight.
That meant you couldn't just turn off parts of the network in 1940s because
they were still needed for freight (especially coal) until road haulage had
improved, which was at least a decade later. At that point (and especially
post Clean Air Act) the writing was on the wall.

Had someone (or a group of people) really looked into things in, say,
1950, it would be fairly evident that road freight transport was in a
position to capture a significant share of the wagon load frieght
market. The experience of wartime truck based logistics clearly
demonstrated what it was capable of, and it was fairly inevitable that
would translate to the civilian commercial sector.

Well,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ball_Express
used one-way systems on what was built as two-way
roasds...

Post by Bob
Fundamentally what could have happened, but didn't, would have been to
create an actually integrated transport system for Britain. From the mid
19th century railways were relatively tightly regulated because at that
time railways were transportation. What was missed in the 1950s was the
recognition that this was no longer the case. While a regulated and
affordable network with concepts like minimum service and common carrier
was beneficial to the country, making that service rail-only was a mistake.
There is a decision that needed to be made, at a political level, as to
whether transportation of passengers and goods should be regarded as a
public service, to be provided universally at defined rates, or whether
it should be commercially driven, based on pure economics. We have
largely settled on the notion that passenger transportation should be a
universal public service (even if we fall short of that goal) and that
freight should be commercially driven today. A case, in the 1950s could
be made either way, but whichever choice was made, it should have been
made on the basis of transportation as a whole, not on the basis of mode
by mode.

But still there isn't a nationwide through-ticketing.

[JMB99]

Post by Roland Perry
Yes, and interesting they retained the services of a porter for two
years after passenger trains stopped. Maybe, just maybe, Beeching was
right?

Was there an appeal against closure?

Having someone there reduced the chance of the site being vandalised and
so losing value?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by JMB99

Post by Roland Perry
Yes, and interesting they retained the services of a porter for two
years after passenger trains stopped. Maybe, just maybe, Beeching was
right?

Was there an appeal against closure?
Having someone there reduced the chance of the site being vandalised and
so losing value?

He probably had other duties, porter's tended to be jack-of-all-trades.
ie lumbered with all the jobs nobody else wanted.

[Roland Perry]

Post by JMB99

Post by Roland Perry
Yes, and interesting they retained the services of a porter for two
years after passenger trains stopped. Maybe, just maybe, Beeching was
right?

Was there an appeal against closure?

Who would have appealed? Not the passengers because there were hardly
any.

Post by JMB99
Having someone there reduced the chance of the site being vandalised
and so losing value?

To some extent, yes, but perhaps with a different job title. You don't
need a 'porter' if there are no passenger trains, and the handful of
goods trains a week don't need porters either. Something closer to
'night-watchman' perhaps.

[Mike Humphrey]

Post by Roland Perry
To some extent, yes, but perhaps with a different job title. You don't
need a 'porter' if there are no passenger trains, and the handful of
goods trains a week don't need porters either. Something closer to
'night-watchman' perhaps.

Assuming we're not talking about bulk freight, someone needs to load and
unload the goods from the train and store them before/after the train
calls. And deal with the people delivering/collecting the goods, and
complete the paperwork. The railways tended to have grades more than job
titles, so it's not unlikely that the role of "parcels office attendant"
would be classed as "porter".

Mike

[Roland Perry]

Post by Mike Humphrey

Post by Roland Perry
To some extent, yes, but perhaps with a different job title. You don't
need a 'porter' if there are no passenger trains, and the handful of
goods trains a week don't need porters either. Something closer to
'night-watchman' perhaps.

Assuming we're not talking about bulk freight, someone needs to load and
unload the goods from the train and store them before/after the train
calls. And deal with the people delivering/collecting the goods, and
complete the paperwork.

The impression I got from the article I quoted was although the station
had three freight trains a week, they might not have actually stopped
there. But yes, the freight would have been the kind of thing that today
we call up UPS/DHL etc to send.

Post by Mike Humphrey
The railways tended to have grades more than job titles, so it's not
unlikely that the role of "parcels office attendant" would be classed
as "porter".

See: "James Beard, who has worked as porter for 45 years, remembers when
there was also a station master, three clerks, two signalmen and an
assistant porter. Now only he remains."

[Marland]

Post by Roland Perry
The impression I got from the article I quoted was although the station
had three freight trains a week, they might not have actually stopped
there. But yes, the freight would have been the kind of thing that today
we call up UPS/DHL etc to send.

Post by Mike Humphrey
The railways tended to have grades more than job titles, so it's not
unlikely that the role of "parcels office attendant" would be classed
as "porter".

See: "James Beard, who has worked as porter for 45 years, remembers when
there was also a station master, three clerks, two signalmen and an
assistant porter. Now only he remains."

I’m intrigued now to what the staff at Barnstaple Victoria Road Station
would have been called in the early 1970’s.
By then it was only served by the road vehicles of the National Freight
Corporation but I wonder if some staff had been transferred over when
freight trains via Barnstaple Junction finally stopped serving it 1970 ,
it had lost its passenger service in 1960 and the line it was built for the
GWR route from Taunton had closed to all traffic in 1966. Despite the
withdrawal of freight trains the parcels traffic still handled by the NFC
meant the Station was retained in its freight role for a little longer
and was enough that extra storage was needed in the form of a train of Box
Vans shunted into position next to the goods shed and left isolated when
the track was lifted.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-pelican-railways/22795841076>

They left for another location a few years later and the vans were
scrapped or sold for use as sheds etc. The whole area is now built over by
supermarkets, new road etc but the goods shed still stands now in use as a
non conformist church.
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/euSvSyBgb2otErQn9>


GH

[Marland]

Post by Mike Humphrey

Post by Roland Perry
To some extent, yes, but perhaps with a different job title. You don't
need a 'porter' if there are no passenger trains, and the handful of
goods trains a week don't need porters either. Something closer to
'night-watchman' perhaps.

Assuming we're not talking about bulk freight, someone needs to load and
unload the goods from the train and store them before/after the train
calls. And deal with the people delivering/collecting the goods, and
complete the paperwork. The railways tended to have grades more than job
titles, so it's not unlikely that the role of "parcels office attendant"
would be classed as "porter".
Mike

The term isn’t confined to Railway use, A lot of staff at the traditional
produce Markets
like Billingsgate, Smithfield , Covent Garden were Porters.
So many of them that their preferred style of Beer a dark brew was called
Porter that gradually fell out of popularity with the exception of Guinness
which started as Porter after the family started to brew the style in
Ireland but over the years has been more widely called stout .

GH

[Bob]

Post by Marland

Post by Mike Humphrey

Post by Roland Perry
To some extent, yes, but perhaps with a different job title. You don't
need a 'porter' if there are no passenger trains, and the handful of
goods trains a week don't need porters either. Something closer to
'night-watchman' perhaps.

Assuming we're not talking about bulk freight, someone needs to load and
unload the goods from the train and store them before/after the train
calls. And deal with the people delivering/collecting the goods, and
complete the paperwork. The railways tended to have grades more than job
titles, so it's not unlikely that the role of "parcels office attendant"
would be classed as "porter".
Mike

The term isn’t confined to Railway use, A lot of staff at the traditional
produce Markets
like Billingsgate, Smithfield , Covent Garden were Porters.
So many of them that their preferred style of Beer a dark brew was called
Porter that gradually fell out of popularity with the exception of Guinness
which started as Porter after the family started to brew the style in
Ireland but over the years has been more widely called stout .

There is also the etymologically distinct term for the people who man
the "front desk" at places like Oxford and Cambridge colleges.

Robin

[Roland Perry]

Post by Bob

Post by Marland

Post by Mike Humphrey

Post by Roland Perry
To some extent, yes, but perhaps with a different job title. You don't
need a 'porter' if there are no passenger trains, and the handful of
goods trains a week don't need porters either. Something closer to
'night-watchman' perhaps.

Assuming we're not talking about bulk freight, someone needs to load and
unload the goods from the train and store them before/after the train
calls. And deal with the people delivering/collecting the goods, and
complete the paperwork. The railways tended to have grades more than job
titles, so it's not unlikely that the role of "parcels office attendant"
would be classed as "porter".
Mike

The term isn’t confined to Railway use, A lot of staff at the traditional
produce Markets
like Billingsgate, Smithfield , Covent Garden were Porters.
So many of them that their preferred style of Beer a dark brew was called
Porter that gradually fell out of popularity with the exception of Guinness
which started as Porter after the family started to brew the style in
Ireland but over the years has been more widely called stout .

There is also the etymologically distinct term for the people who man
the "front desk" at places like Oxford and Cambridge colleges.

In ye olden days they'd have carried the students' bags to their room.
The person on the desk [or "Porters Lodge"] is usually the Head Porter,
and there will be a few helpers for shift work, if nothing else.

For example my old (fairly small) college has a HP, and assistant HP and
a Duty Porter.

I was at Newnham College last year (visiting an exhibition about their
girls who formed a significant group at Bletchley) and they've got a new
Porters Lodge which has most of the College's admin staff sitting in an
open plan office behind the desk.

cont'd Porterhouse Blue by Tom Sharpe.

[Bob]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Bob

Post by Mike Humphrey

Post by Roland Perry
To some extent, yes, but perhaps with a different job title. You don't
need a 'porter' if there are no passenger trains, and the handful of
goods trains a week don't need porters either. Something closer to
'night-watchman' perhaps.

Assuming we're not talking about bulk freight, someone needs to load and
unload the goods from the train and store them before/after the train
calls. And deal with the people delivering/collecting the goods, and
complete the paperwork. The railways tended to have grades more than job
titles, so it's not unlikely that the role of "parcels office attendant"
would be classed as "porter".
Mike

 The term isn’t confined to Railway use, A lot of staff at the
traditional
produce Markets
like Billingsgate, Smithfield , Covent Garden were Porters.
So many of them that their preferred style of Beer a dark brew was called
Porter that gradually fell out of popularity with the exception of Guinness
which started as Porter after the family started to brew the style in
Ireland but over the years has been more widely called stout .

There is also the etymologically distinct term for the people who man
the "front desk" at places like Oxford and Cambridge colleges.

In ye olden days they'd have carried the students' bags to their room.
The person on the desk [or "Porters Lodge"] is usually the Head Porter,
and there will be a few helpers for shift work, if nothing else.

In ye olden days they definitely did not carry students bags. The name
"porter" comes from the fact that they are in charge of the gate or
door, the "porta" in Latin. This is distinct from the railway or market
worker, whose name derives from the latin verb "portare", via Norman
French, the verb meaning to carry.

Robin

[Ulf_Kutzner]

Post by Bob

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Bob

Post by Mike Humphrey

Post by Roland Perry
To some extent, yes, but perhaps with a different job title. You don't
need a 'porter' if there are no passenger trains, and the handful of
goods trains a week don't need porters either. Something closer to
'night-watchman' perhaps.

Assuming we're not talking about bulk freight, someone needs to load and
unload the goods from the train and store them before/after the train
calls. And deal with the people delivering/collecting the goods, and
complete the paperwork. The railways tended to have grades more than job
titles, so it's not unlikely that the role of "parcels office attendant"
would be classed as "porter".
Mike

 The term isn’t confined to Railway use, A lot of staff at the
traditional
produce Markets
like Billingsgate, Smithfield , Covent Garden were Porters.
So many of them that their preferred style of Beer a dark brew was called
Porter that gradually fell out of popularity with the exception of Guinness
which started as Porter after the family started to brew the style in
Ireland but over the years has been more widely called stout .

There is also the etymologically distinct term for the people who man
the "front desk" at places like Oxford and Cambridge colleges.

In ye olden days they'd have carried the students' bags to their room.
The person on the desk [or "Porters Lodge"] is usually the Head Porter,
and there will be a few helpers for shift work, if nothing else.

In ye olden days they definitely did not carry students bags. The name
"porter" comes from the fact that they are in charge of the gate

Norman: portour.

Post by Bob
or
door, the "porta" in Latin.

But have to carry luggage in some cases.
https://stclares.ac.uk/app/uploads/JD-College-Porter-July-24.pdf

Post by Bob
This is distinct from the railway or market
worker, whose name derives from the latin verb "portare", via Norman
French,

Again: portour.

Post by Bob
the verb meaning to carry.

With both of them having the same roots.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Bob

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Bob

Post by Mike Humphrey

Post by Roland Perry
To some extent, yes, but perhaps with a different job title. You don't
need a 'porter' if there are no passenger trains, and the handful of
goods trains a week don't need porters either. Something closer to
'night-watchman' perhaps.

Assuming we're not talking about bulk freight, someone needs to
and unload the goods from the train and store them before/after
the train calls. And deal with the people delivering/collecting
the goods, and complete the paperwork. The railways tended to
have grades more than job titles, so it's not unlikely that the
attendant" would be classed as "porter".
Mike

 The term isn’t confined to Railway use, A lot of staff at the
traditional produce Markets like Billingsgate, Smithfield ,
Covent Garden were Porters. So many of them that their preferred
style of Beer a dark brew was called Porter that gradually fell
out of popularity with the exception of Guinness which started as
Porter after the family started to brew the style in Ireland but
over the years has been more widely called stout .

There is also the etymologically distinct term for the people who man
the "front desk" at places like Oxford and Cambridge colleges.

In ye olden days they'd have carried the students' bags to their room.
The person on the desk [or "Porters Lodge"] is usually the Head Porter,
and there will be a few helpers for shift work, if nothing else.

In ye olden days they definitely did not carry students bags. The name
"porter" comes from the fact that they are in charge of the gate

Norman: portour.

Post by Bob
or
door, the "porta" in Latin.

But have to carry luggage in some cases.
https://stclares.ac.uk/app/uploads/JD-College-Porter-July-24.pdf

Back in ye olden days, many students would have sent "luggage in
advance" on the train, and it would be the Porter's job to accept
delivery and either store it or take it to the relevant room (possibly
by instructing one of the junior Porters).

Post by Ulf_Kutzner

Post by Bob
This is distinct from the railway or market worker, whose name
derives from the latin verb "portare", via Norman French,

Again: portour.

Post by Bob
the verb meaning to carry.

With both of them having the same roots.

[Roland Perry]

Here's another one:

Passenger services on the Ely to Newmarket line are to be withdrawn on
January 4th and Soham and Fordham stations will be closed. Alternative
bus services will be provided, though the stationmaster says that the
present system is quite adequate to cope with the two or three
passengers who use the stations.

The line is uneconomic: six trains stop a day during summer but none run
at time when a heavy load of passengers could be expected. The staff of
12 at each station will be retained to deal with freight traffic such as
scrap iron from Middlesbrough and flowers from local nurseries.

A journey on the fated Ely-Newmarket railway line shows why it has
become the victim of Beeching's axe. The only regular traveller is a
British Railway employee who uses it to get home to Fordham.
Two people got on at Ely - both BR staff - and the only other passengers
were an American couple touring Britain. There was nobody waiting at
Soham or Fordham.