[yorksrob]

Originally Posted by A0wen

True, but many in BR management weren't commercially minded, consequently many actions which might have reduced costs, thereby ensuring more lines remained viable, weren't pursued.

Example - how many lightly used branch lines retained their fully staffed stations rather than move to fare collection on the train ?

Indeed – but then again if Beeching had explored some of these possibilities on even a few of the threatened routes, he might not have been such a failure. The fact remains that it was left to future generations of BR management to develop concepts such as the basic railway which were to save many of the routes that remain today. The recognition by Government of the need for a “social railway” and the advances in marketing brought about through sectorisation were also major improvements in the outlook of the railway. However Beeching was back making washing powder by this time.

Originally Posted by A0wen

How many "spanish practises" existed in BR of the 1960s and 70s ?

Again since Beeching left the railway in 1964 he can't have been that good at removing them.

Originally Posted by Ivo

But what of one David Serpell, who came to prominence twenty years after Beeching? What if his proposals had been passed, especially his idea of having a "commercial" railway?

Serpell was another “clear sky thinking” clown with no idea of how to run a railway. Fortunately on this occasion it was decided to leave it to the professionals to sort out the nitty – gritty.

[Drsatan]

Originally Posted by yorksrob

Serpell was another “clear sky thinking” clown with no idea of how to run a railway. Fortunately on this occasion it was decided to leave it to the professionals to sort out the nitty – gritty.

The Serpell Report was commissioned by Maggie Thatcher to investigate ways of saving even more money. Of course, in those days cars and plane travel were seen as the way forward by Thatcher's government, while the railways could be left to rot (although even Thatcher believed the railways should still be state-owned). It was only because the General Election was imminent that the report was shelved.

The proposals in the Serpell Report would have been unworkable anyway. If the report's proposal to run the railways as a 'Commercial' network (i.e. nearly all railway lines except the WCML, ECML, GWML, and a few commuter lines around London), then Britain would have been a lot worse off socially and economically.

[jonmorris0844]

I think the biggest problem was not just closing lines, but the mass sell off of land that has resulted in it being so costly to re-instate lines (or expand existing ones where the land to the sides was sold).

Near me, the Alban Way runs along the former St Albans Abbey > Welwyn Garden City. There's also an old disused railway line from WGC to Herford.

Imagine how useful these lines could be to connect up a number of different 'vertical' routes. It would be incredibly costly, if not impossible, to re-instate the lines now because things have been built on parts of them.

By all means close routes if there's no demand today, but at least ensure that they remain an option for demand tomorrow.

[yorksrob]

Originally Posted by Drsatan

The Serpell Report was commissioned by Maggie Thatcher to investigate ways of saving even more money. Of course, in those days cars and plane travel were seen as the way forward by Thatcher's government, while the railways could be left to rot (although even Thatcher believed the railways should still be state-owned). It was only because the General Election was imminent that the report was shelved.

The proposals in the Serpell Report would have been unworkable anyway. If the report's proposal to run the railways as a 'Commercial' network (i.e. nearly all railway lines except the WCML, ECML, GWML, and a few commuter lines around London), then Britain would have been a lot worse off socially and economically.

I notice that Serpell was a civil servant so perhaps like Sir Humphrey he deliberately set out to save the railways by making a proposal that was so politically toxic even Maggie couldn't touch it

[j0hn0]

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

I think the biggest problem was not just closing lines, but the mass sell off of land that has resulted in it being so costly to re-instate lines (or expand existing ones where the land to the sides was sold).

Near me, the Alban Way runs along the former St Albans Abbey > Welwyn Garden City. There's also an old disused railway line from WGC to Herford.

Imagine how useful these lines could be to connect up a number of different 'vertical' routes. It would be incredibly costly, if not impossible, to re-instate the lines now because things have been built on parts of them.

By all means close routes if there's no demand today, but at least ensure that they remain an option for demand tomorrow.

If the track were to be reinstated by means of a heritage railway, then the job wouldn't by law have to be carried out by Network Rail.

Yes, many routes have been built on but there are many that haven't. If the councils want someone to rebuild the route, but don't want to pay Network Rail, perhaps they could start a clandestine operation to fund the building of a "heritage" railway.

All the work can be done by volunteers and contractors with "private donations" funding it.

The line would be reinstated to a decent standard and to eventually run commuter trains on it. Usually, heritage railways take years of love and care and time from local volunteers with funds dribbling in occasionally, but if somehow, the council got more involved and changed the marketing a little bit, it could be a success.

Just a thought

[A0wen]

Originally Posted by jonmorris0844

I think the biggest problem was not just closing lines, but the mass sell off of land that has resulted in it being so costly to re-instate lines (or expand existing ones where the land to the sides was sold).

Near me, the Alban Way runs along the former St Albans Abbey > Welwyn Garden City. There's also an old disused railway line from WGC to Herford.

Imagine how useful these lines could be to connect up a number of different 'vertical' routes. It would be incredibly costly, if not impossible, to re-instate the lines now because things have been built on parts of them.

By all means close routes if there's no demand today, but at least ensure that they remain an option for demand tomorrow.

Neither of those routes were Beeching closures - both were closed pre-Beeching owing to lack of use. And it's difficult to see that has changed much on those. The problems include, Hertford isn't a major destination, Hatfield and St Albans stations are outside the town centres so are unattractive to visitors - whereas the bus / coach drops you off in the centre.

In the case of the Hatfield - St Albans line, there's no way that can be reconstructed now, the works where the Galleria are including the A1M tunnel have seen to that.

The Beeching closures in that area were Welwyn - Dunstable and the Buntingford branch. Even now, neither probably could make a case for re-opening. Between Welwyn & Dunstable the 366 (which was introduced to replace the rail line) seems to cope admirably with the passenger demands.

Buntingford might have stood a better chance if it had been extended to Royston at its inception, but that never happened, and as with so many branches, it ran from nowhere in particular to nowhere in particular and didn't carry many passengers.