On Apr 2, 1:06*pm, Robert Cox wrote:
On 2011-04-02 19:34:57 +0100, Bruce said:





Bruce wrote:

I don't see the logic of your argument, Robert. *Whether it is a
branch line that joins the main line network at one place, or a line
of equal importance (or lack of it) that connects at both ends is
surely immaterial?

I simply meant that the train loadings on dead-end branch lines
connecting at one end to a main-ish line will be higher at the junction
end and tail off the further the train gets from the junction. This
assumes that the level of traffic /between/ stations on the branch is
low. In this case as the distances are short the income will also be
low, so I suspect the branch can only survive if people make longer
distance connections at the junction.

A thru route almost always has greater potential for development than
a branch. There is greater potential for running trains to
destenations beyoned the end of said branch.

Now if /both/ ends of the line connect to other points in general it
ought to be possible to achieve more balanced loadings, as passengers
who boarded at one junction get off, they are balanced by others
boarding who wish to travel to the other junction. This ought to
improve the economics.

Exactly.


Returning to my example of Evesham which lies in Birmingham's sphere of
influence. The Evesham end of either of my suggested 'branches' gives
connections to Worcester (for Bristol and onwards), Oxford, Reading
(with connections to points South) and London and the other end serves
Birmingham. We are also talking of a much shorter length of railway as
both Redditch to Birmingham and Stratford to Birmingham survive[1].
There is also not the social/political divide as is the case with the
Waverley route. So I suggest that this sort of topography and with the
right commercial mix and low cost of operation, some of these closed
routes could have survived.

[1] In the latter case connections to the south and east might better
be made at Honeybourne.

There has been considerable development in Urban areas where control
has been regionalised. Manchester Metrolink is a case in point.
Although in that case nothing was actually re-opened. OTOH, Croydon
Tramlink has utilized closed RoWs.

The development of London Overground is particularly encouraging. It
makes good use of the old RoW to Broad Street.

Whilst you mount a good defence of Beeching, I think anyone would have
a hard time defending Marples. Although not tainted with the same
corruption, Castle was hardly good for railways either.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 00:45:43 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

There has been considerable development in Urban areas where control
has been regionalised. Manchester Metrolink is a case in point.
Although in that case nothing was actually re-opened.

That is happening in the extension opening this summer with the line
through Chorlton (although it will ultimately divert towards
Wythenshawe and Manchester Airport).

On Apr 3, 3:24*am, Robert Cox wrote:
On 2011-04-03 08:45:43 +0100, 1506 said:

The question really should be, does running trains off the end of a
branch improve the finances or not? It's horses for courses - running a
two coach train up a busy main line to the next centre of population
may cost more than one thinks if it occupies a path that a fully loaded
intercity train could be using.

Point well made.


Regardless of one's personal opinion of Marples, I rather suspect that
due to the signal lack of success in the implementation of the
Modernisation Plan in returning BR's finances to an even keel, an
analysis of the railways' finances, such as Beeching carried out, would
have happened within a year or two anyway.

Again, you are probably right. Shame on the managers who handled
"Modernization".

The names may have been different, but the effect would have been the
same. Maybe even more drastic due to the delay.

Sadly so, but today we live in a different world and have to deal with
the resulting lack of capacity.

It's not that the politicians who came /after/ Beeching were bad for
the railway, the grevious fault lays with the politicians of the 1930s
and 1950s (the 1940s were a special case) in that the Common Carrier
obligation was kept long after its 'sell-by' date (so the railways had
no need or interest in setting up sales organisations or in identifying
the costs of the different activities) and rail fares and freight rates
were held down (in the 50s) to try to reduce the rate of inflation. Of
course all that did was increase the deficit, for which the railway was
blamed.

IMHO, there was still a lack of foresight in not mothballing the long
thin strips of land for future use. There were a unique asset.