Due process:
Welcome to the first issue of Volume 35 of Backtrack and let's hope that 2021 proves to be a much better year for all of us in every possible way! To mark the start of the year we are backto our standard 64 pages if only for this issue just for the moment; the reduced 48-page version was never intended to be a 'new normal' and just as soon as things settle down as we move into 2021 I hope to reinstate 64 pages at the earliest opportunity. Railway closures became a controversial issue in the 1960s and subsequently, as well we know, but closures had been happening long before then. However, earlier withdrawals tended to happen without a great deal of fuss as local opinion had often come to accept that their branch trains had largely ceased to serve any useful purpose and wouldn't be much missed.
In 1955 the rural Sussex branch between East Grinstead and Lewes, known as the 'Bluebell Line', was closed due to lack of patronage, but it went on to play an unlikely role in the unfolding of what took place over the following decade, never mind in the nascent heritage movement. The formidable Miss Margery Bessemer discovered that the Parliamentary Act originally authorising the railway had provided that the train service should operate in perpetuity and so consequently any cessation of it was therefore illegal, notwithstanding that there had been no great outcry over its ending. British Railways was therefore obliged to reinstate a minimum service which it did grudgingly (the 'Sulky' as the train was known!) for another three years until such time as the legislation could be overturned to enable the desired closure to be effected. By the time the axe was being furiously wielded in the aftermath of the Beeching Report the mechanism for opposing closure proposals had been set to restrict the grounds on which objections could be considered almost entirely to the question of whether hardship would be caused by the withdrawal of a service from a particular route or station. Whilst objectors could argue as best they could, BR could not be challenged on the figures it presented in support of its case nor on diffferent ways of operating a line as an alternative to closure.

No-one needs reminding that the majority of line and station closures put forward in the 'Reshaping' plans of the 1960s and 70s were approved by the Minister of Transport of the moment (they changed with wearisome frequency) and many have argued that the dice were loaded in favour of the closure proposals and against the protestors by the nature of the process and the conduct of the public inquiries into them. An author in this magazine a few years ago commented on the apparently chummy relationship at the hearings between the railway representative, the replacement bus company representative and the inquiry chairman. Some branch lines put forward for closure were undeniably lost causes whose time was up but by then practically everything drew objections and inquiries into them. The lines which were saved from closure were more remarkable cases, the result of exceptionally well-conducted campaigns; the North Warwickshire line was one such example, described in BT last month, and Stockport-Buxton was another. On the odd occasion the shady world of politics came into play. It is reckoned that the lengthy Central Wales line from Craven Arms to Llanelli survived because it traversed several marginal constituencies, sparsely populated though they were, at a time when a succession of general elections was in the offing, while political considerations also had a bearing on the eventual retention of the 'Far North' line beyond Inverness. It's worth noting in passing that a good number of those lines pulled back from the edge have actually been doing quite well!

Given the total mileage and number of stations nominated for closing it is perhaps not surprising that several instances were exposed of the correct procedures not being followed, either during the process or after closure had actually taken place. Sometimes there were short sections of track inadvertantly omitted from a wider-ranging plan or they could be instances where not all the relevant authorities were given notice during the consultation period. In recent times the most notable example was that of the Settle-Carlisle line where BR's long-running intention of being rid of it was faced by a great alliance of pressure groups mounting a skilled and highly organised battle to oppose it. After several closure notices failed for one reason or another, the ultimate one was found to be out of order when it was pointed outthat a small section of the railway passed through the territory of the North East Area of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee which, unlike others, had not been invited to become invoved, meaning that the notice was invalid and that the rigmarole would have to be started again... again. As we now know, the powers that be eventually capitulated and the Minister reprieved this iconic railway against what had seemed daunting odds. After a massive programme of refurbishment it too is now thriving! One curious consequence of rail closure requirements has become the operation of the 'ghost service'. These have come about because of the wish to avoid the unwanted rows over a proposed closure by providing an absolutely minimal and largely useless 'service' - sometimes only one train a day in one direction - which is nevertheless sufficient to maintain the illusion that a station or line remains open. Using these 'ghost' services has become a mission for some determined enthusiasts!

An article this month looks at a few of these 'awkward' cases and their outcomes.