'Rubber highways' on old railway lines. Oh dear.

[Roadkill]

Including in the short sighted closures of the time were lines like the Wye Valley branch, which could have boosted tourism and removed the choking congestion in the summer months, and the Brecon-Hay line.

Precisely. That was another problem with Beeching's calculations: he made no allowance for seasonal business. I grew up in a seaside town that used to have a railway. Beeching deemed it unprofitable because his traffic survey, conducted in April, showed minimal traffic: it was packed in the summer, and although people rarely actually bought tickets there, they bought through tickets from inland stations. When the railway closed, pretty much all of that revenue - from the main and the branch line alike - was lost. Nowadays, it takes a good hour to cover the last few miles into town on a summer weekend...

 

[PacificOcean]

While no doubt Beeching shut some line that he shouldn't of, the vast majority of closed branch lines served sparsely populated areas and were underused, with a steam engine pulling an empty one carriage train back and forth.

An example is the closed Brill-Verney Junction branch line which served tiny hamlets and indeed one station - Church Sliding, was in the middle of a field with no houses around it for miles.

 

[Roadkill]

While no doubt Beeching shut some line that he shouldn't of, the vast majority of closed branch lines served sparsely populated areas and were underused, with a steam engine pulling an empty one carriage train back and forth.

It's often said that the first round of closures, which were largely of lines of the kind you describe, were justified; the second round all too often involved taking more major lines out of the system, which seriously damaged its coherence and left it serving a smaller proportion of towns than other railway systems in Europe do.

But even some of the first round closures shouldn't have happened. I explained above how Beeching's methodology completely ignored contributory revenue and seasonally busy lines, and it paid no attention to operational economies either. If the steam engine and its carriage were to replaced by a railbus, the cost of operating the line would fall by a third or more, meaning that it had to carry less traffic to break even.

Travel around on some of the commuter lines in the south east, and look at the number of stations that have surplus platforms serving lines that no longer exist, and then look at the crowding on the lines that still run. IMO there's no better illustration of how short-sighted the whole process was.

 

[PacificOcean]

It's often said that the first round of closures, which were largely of lines of the kind you describe, were justified; the second round all too often involved taking more major lines out of the system, which seriously damaged its coherence and left it serving a smaller proportion of towns than other railway systems in Europe do.

But even some of the first round closures shouldn't have happened. I explained above how Beeching's methodology completely ignored contributory revenue and seasonally busy lines, and it paid no attention to operational economies either. If the steam engine and its carriage were to replaced by a railbus, the cost of operating the line would fall by a third or more, meaning that it had to carry less traffic to break even.

Travel around on some of the commuter lines in the south east, and look at the number of stations that have surplus platforms serving lines that no longer exist, and then look at the crowding on the lines that still run. IMO there's no better illustration of how short-sighted the whole process was.

But if it wasn't for Beeching, there would be no disused lines for me to be anaroaky over

Seriously though, can you give me an example of a closed branch line in the South East that should be brought back? The only way to stop overcrowding is to increase capacity, I can't see how a branch line running through tiny villages would help ease overcrowding? Those branch lines would feed onto the overcrowded mainlines anyway adding to the problem if anything.

 

[editor]

Seriously though, can you give me an example of a closed branch line in the South East that should be brought back?

Oxford - Cambridge or some of the branches to seaside towns.

 

[PacificOcean]

or some of the branches to seaside towns.

What, like the fantastically desolate Camber Sands?

 

[Roadkill]

Seriously though, can you give me an example of a closed branch line in the South East that should be brought back? The only way to stop overcrowding is to increase capacity, I can't see how a branch line running through tiny villages would help ease overcrowding? Those branch lines would feed onto the overcrowded mainlines anyway adding to the problem if anything.

Point is, it wasn't just branch lines: some pretty major lines were either shortened or closed entirely.

The line from London to Lewes was cut just south of Uckfield, leaving the latter town at the end of a shit branch line - which these days is absolutely heaving in the rush hour. There's been serious talk of reinstating the Uckfield-Lewes line already, although part of the track bed has been built over now... On the same line, Eridge station has an old platform for trains to Tunbridge Wells: that would be a valuable feeder line these days. There you are: two examples on one line off the top of my head.

Thing is, no-one is suggesting that there was no need for closures: the rail network was too big and did have some bits that either duplicated other routes or went from nowhere-in-particular to nowhere-at-all and could never be made viable. But the closures went way too far and a lot of lines were closed that shouldn't have been. it's as simple as that.

Besides, the whole idea behind the closures - that if you trimmed bits of the network back you'd end up with a profitable 'core' that could earn money - was false. The railways lost more money after Beeching than before, and the closures often worsened their position because of the loss of contributory revenue on the main lines.

 

[Roadkill]

Oxford - Cambridge or some of the branches to seaside towns.

Taking that out was a staggeringly shit piece of planning, given that the route goes right near Milton Keynes, which was the fastest growing town in the UK just when the decision was taken to close the railway...

 

[editor]

What, like the fantastically desolate Camber Sands?

Actually, that was a private line built to serve a golf course.

 

[exosculate]

Its a bloody disgrace, this is. There are some wonderful lines in the south that could be reopened to trains.

 

[PacificOcean]

Its a bloody disgrace, this is. There are some wonderful lines in the south that could be reopened to trains.

But then they would no longer be disused and I would have no interest in them.

 

[nino_savatte]

Its a bloody disgrace, this is. There are some wonderful lines in the south that could be reopened to trains.

Or some form of light railway perhaps.

 

[PacificOcean]

Or some form of light railway perhaps.

I have never understood what makes a railway "light". The DLR looks pretty heavy to me.

 

[Roadkill]

I have never understood what makes a railway "light". The DLR looks pretty heavy to me.

It's a technical term, coming from the Light Railways Act of (I think) 1896.

Light railways are exempt from a lot of legislation that affects main line railways, but are subject to tight restrictions on the speed (25mph average maximum speed, I think) and loading. Preserved railways, for example, are all run under Light Railway Orders.

 

[nino_savatte]

I have never understood what makes a railway "light". The DLR looks pretty heavy to me.

It is if it runs over your feet.

I assume it has something to do with the train's wheel base...i could be wrong however.

 

[Pingu]

Call me old fashioned if you like, but I prefer country walks along disused railway lines to look like this:
[/IMG]

you would love the wirral way then the Wirral Way is based on the former Hooton to West Kirby Branch Line Railway.


goes from beach to wooded to bit more open

with a pub at each end (ok the one in west kirby is a weatherspoons) and a functioning railway station at each end too.

from looking at the walks web site they could do with some more photos. Think I just found myself a project


http://www.wirral-way.supanet.com/index.html

 

[djbombscare]

I soo thought I had put a good argument for the rubber roads. But it appears no-one wants to know : )

 

[cybertect]

Of course it is. The argument that "if you build more roads, there'll only be more cars" is utter tosh. There's a (relatively) finite number of cars that can be afforded by the population and expostulating that new roads will magically increase the number of cars is a totally untested theory.

The principle is that if you build more roads there will be more use (key word) of cars. i.e. people will choose to use their cars in preference to other modes of transport.

It's very basic economics and the same theory that government uses in its Cost-Benefit analyses when planning new roads. They balance the capital costs of building new highway against the savings that will be made by motorists using the new road. The new road is supposed to reduce the cost of journeys between its various waypoints, thus stimulating economic activity.

There's a well-established correlation between price, supply and demand. Increase the supply of something, while reducing its cost, and demand goes up. Road space is a scarce and finite resource. Building new roads reduces the marginal cost of journeys by car, thus encouraging the use of cars, particularly in relation to public transport.

The phenomenon was first taken seriously after the building of the Westway in 1970 when a GLC impact study found the number of cars travelling on it rose much more steeply than planners had expected and out of line with growth in traffic elsewhere (14% up between May and October 1970 compared with a 2% growth in traffic in a similar 'control' corridor).

The flip side of the same principle is the basis of road pricing schemes.

P.S. as an aside, one of the difficulties that rail transport faced in the run up to privatisation in the 1980s was that while central government decided whether new roads were going to be built on the basis Cost-Benefit analysis, new rail routes were required to make a 3% revenue return on investment without any of the wider benefits such as reduced traffic congestion or pollution being taken into account. This put BR at a considerable disadvantage when bidding for Treasury funds. The privatisation of rail (and some EU competition law) only exacerbated this problem as it was now shareholders who were insisting on purely direct financial returns on investment.

 

[scathed]

I soo thought I had put a good argument for the rubber roads. But it appears no-one wants to know : )

Don't worry djbombscare, I agreed with your points. Seems that on this forum if your points of view aren't completely left winged you'll be ignored and your views will be treated with contempt.

 

[djbombscare]

Scathed cheers for the support

But I think you could find your on very thin ice saying that.

Run and hide while you still can

 

[editor]

Seems that on this forum if your points of view aren't completely left winged you'll be ignored and your views will be treated with contempt.

There's nothing 'left winged' about being against a half-baked, environmentally-disastrous scheme that would put rows of polluting cars into sleepy, disused railway lines currently used for community friendly activities like walking and biking.

 

[Roadkill]

Don't worry djbombscare, I agreed with your points. Seems that on this forum if your points of view aren't completely left winged you'll be ignored and your views will be treated with contempt.

So thinking that it's better to (re)develop the rail system than build loads of new roads, using untested technology, which will soon become just as congested as the ones we already have is 'completely left winged,' and by implication barking mad?

Get a life.

FWIW, I didn't particularly agree with djbombscare's idea, but since I was already responding to two other posters on the thread I couldn't really be bothered getting into a third discussion.

 

[djbombscare]

No worries Roadkill.

I was just after some feedback on how the way I percieved it could be wrong



You were all off talking about beeching so I was trying to butt in.

 

[scathed]

...something something about contempt

...with a side-order of being greeted with hostility for not agreeing when presented the same facts.

I have a life and I call it Bernie, he is being saved for special occasions.

 

[Cobbles]

Building new roads reduces the marginal cost of journeys by car, thus encouraging the use of cars, particularly in relation to public transport.

How exactly does a new road reduce the marginal cost of a journey? - if you built a new M8 in Scotland (a proper 3 lane motorway as opposed to the narrow dual carriageway that presently exists) then the cost of getting from Edinburgh to Glasgow will stay exactly the same (maybe a bit more expensive as average speeds will go up).

Road space isn't a commodity like land for housing, it's a bandwidth. That's why a new bypass will attract loads of traffic from folk glad to get away from all the artifically induced congestion (e.g. bus lanes) that clogs our urban landscape.

Why should people be forced onto public transport by making the roads unpleasant to use through congestion when it's frequently more expensive?

If it can't compete (even with massive subsidy), then that's tough.

 

[Roadkill]

...something something about contempt

...with a side-order of being greeted with hostility for not agreeing when presented the same facts.

It was you who started with the stupid generalisations about 'completely left winged' [sic] ideas. What reaction did you expect? That people would suddenly have some sort of road to Damascus conversion to the one true way of thiniking - i.e. yours?

 

[Roadkill]

If it can't compete (even with massive subsidy), then that's tough.

The roads are massively subsidised. The only difference is, no-one expects them to repay any of it.

As I once heard someone say on the radio back in the '80s, 'When they spend money on roads they call it investment: when they spend it on the railways, they call it subsidy.'

 

[Cobbles]

The roads are massively subsidised. The only difference is, no-one expects them to repay any of it.

As I once heard someone say on the radio back in the '80s, 'When they spend money on roads they call it investment: when they spend it on the railways, they call it subsidy.'

The difference is that once the infrastructure has been built, (and yes - both roads and the rail network require ongoing future maintenance), the taxpayer doesn't have to pay every road user some money each time they use the road. Quite the reverse applies.

 

[djbombscare]

I'm going back over to the corner and leave you guys in peace.

 

[Roadkill]

The difference is that once the infrastructure has been built, (and yes - both roads and the rail network require ongoing future maintenance), the taxpayer doesn't have to pay every road user some money each time they use the road. Quite the reverse applies.

Again, not true. Road tax doesn't AFAIK cover the bill for maintaining the road infrastructure, and it certainly doesn't pay for major capital projects. In effect, the roads are subsidised by the taxpayer.

Besides, what does it matter if one or other receives a subsidy? You can't seriously believe in leaving all of this to the market, can you?