Dr
Beeching With work having
just started on the modernisation of the line one can imagine the shock to local
people when newly appointed BR chairman Dr. Beeching produced his infamous report
"The Reshaping of British Railways" in 1962. The Beeching Report singled
out the York-Hull line as one of its prime candidates for closure. It described
passenger services as mainly rural with an element of commuter traffic at each
end and stated that 260,000 train miles were run on the line each year, each train
carrying an average of 57 passengers. Not that bad one would have thought. Passenger
revenue totaled £90,400 a year against operating costs of £84,400 so there was
an operating profit of £5,600. But terminal expenses, said the report, brought
total costs to £107,500, making a revenue shortfall of £17,100. Closure, it concluded,
would save £43,300 in track and signaling costs. The
report estimated that £25,600 worth of revenue would be retained by services remaining
after closure, i.e. between Beverley and Hull, and that £37,700 came from passengers
using the line over its whole distance, only £4,900 of which would be lost if
they were made to travel via Selby. Beeching
made his case by stating that total savings of £81 ,000 would more than offset
a £32,000 revenue loss but when the figures are fully examined it becomes clear
that a line with huge potential for traffic development and economic operation
was being closed to save peanuts. For example the £43,000 track and signaling
costs would have been saved through the CTC scheme anyway. Actual
figures from the report:-
| | | |
£ |
| York to Hull
Revenue | | 90,400 |
| Less | Movement
expenses | 84,400 |
| | | Terminal
expenses | 23,100 |
| | | Track
& signalling expenses | 43,300 |
150,800 |
| Operating Loss |
| 60,400 |
| Less | Contributory
revenue to other parts of BR |
| 37,700 |
| Loss after Contributory
Revenue | |
£ 22,700 |
| Savings from
Closure | |
| | | as
above | |
22,700 |
| Add | Revenue
which would be retained after closure
(28.3% x 90,400) |
| 25,600 |
| Add | Contributory
revenue which would be retained
(87% x 37,700) |
| 32,800 |
| | |
|
£ 81,100 |
| Extracts from
Butcher Beeching's
The Reshaping of British Railways - Part 1 - Report
(London, Her Majesty's Stationary Office 1963) Examples
of the assessments made of the annual revenue and expenses, associated with a
variety of passenger services, are given in Table No. 1, and in the following
paragraphs particular services, and their contribution, have been described in
some detail. Hull
- York via Beverley This
is a stopping service over a distance of 42 miles, serving a rural area between
the cities of Hull and York, and with an element of commuter traffic at each end.
The stations served are:-
| Hull | Londesborough |
| Cottingham | Pocklington |
| Beverley | Stamford
Bridge | | Kipling
Cotes | Earswick |
| Market Weighton | York |
All intermediate
stations except Cottingham and Beverley would be closed.
Nine trains run
in each direction on weekdays and most of them are composed of diesel multiple
units.
In a year the service involves 260,000 train miles. On average, there
are 57 passengers on a train. The earnings of the service are £90,400, and
cover the movement expenses of £84,400. Terminal expenses bring the total
of movement and terminal expenses to £107,500, so that earnings show a shortfall
of £17,100. It is estimated that withdrawal of the service would reduce
track and signalling expenses by £43,300. Thus, on total direct expenses
of £150,800, earnings show a shortfall of £60,400, equivalent to two-fifths
of total direct expenses.
Because alternative services would be available
after withdrawal of the service, £25,600 of the present earnings would be
retained. It is estimated that passengers using the service as part of their rail
journey contribute £37,700 to the revenue of other services. Because of
the existence of services between Hull and York via other routes, only 9,900 of
this amount is expected to be lost.
The total loss in gross revenue resulting
from withdrawal of the service is estimated at £69,700, but the overall
net financial improvement is expected to be £81,000, equivalent to over
half of the total direct expenses.
Table No. 1
| Examples of Assessments
Made of the Annual Financial Effect of Withdrawing Typical Passenger Services |
| Region |
Service |
Traction |
Type of service |
Route miles |
Train miles '000 |
Earnings £ |
Contributory gross
revenue £ |
Expected loss in total
gross revenue £ |
| Total |
Excepted to be lost |
Total | Expected
to be lost | | North-Eastern | Hull-York
(via Beverley) | Diesel
/ DMU | Rural
/ Commuter | 42 | 259.7 | 90,400 | 64,790 | 37,680 | 4,900 | 69,690 |
| Examples of Assessments
Made of the Annual Financial Effect of Withdrawing Typical Passenger Services |
| Movement
expenses | Net
financial effect based on movement expenses £ |
Terminal expenses £ |
Total movement and
terminal expenses £ |
Net financial effect
based on total movement and terminal expenses £ |
Direct track and signalling
expenses £ |
Net financial effect
based on total direct expenses £ |
| total £ |
Per train mile
s. d. | | 84,400 | 6
6 | +14,710 | 23,100 | 107,500 | +37,810 | +43,300 | +81,110 |
|
It is now agreed that some
of the figures in this report were far from convincing and many were rough and
ready in the interests of what was taken to be the party line. It is possible
that movement expenses included more steam working than was the case in a situation
where steam use was practically eliminated. Terminal expenses very probably included
costs at York, Beverley and Hull stations which would have continued regardless
of the fate of this line. |