[Tiny Tim]

Richard Beeching retired from BR in June 1965 after just four years as Chairman. He died in March 1985. He was not, by most definitions, a 'railwayman' yet today, on this forum, his must be the most commonly mentioned name. Cast both as hero and villain, we can't forget this man, or what he did. Will he ever be just another historical character, or is he destined to be a 20th century bogeyman? Opinions of that other great railway anti-hero, George Hudson, have mellowed in recent times, will Beeching ever be rehabilitated?

I'm sure that Richard Beeching would be amazed to find his name in such currency today, and bemused at the multiplicity of differing views of him.

This isn't intended as another thread about the Beeching cuts, but how his reputation has continued and varied.

[RPM]

Anti-Beeching sentiments are very much a red herring. The real villain was Earnest Marples. I think Beeching was misguided and has analysis was deeply flawed but I also think he had the best interests of the railway at heart. Marples however did want to see the railway wither and die.

The railway system did need pruning but the cuts went too far and were often badly targeted. The revenue figures were clearly manipulated and there was a fundamental misunderstanding of how branch lines provided contributionary revenue to secondary lines and main lines. I say misunderstanding because I think Beeching did misundestand this. Marples however probably did understand it but he was more than happy to go along with Beeching's flawed thinking as long as it benefitted his vested interests in the road industry.

Beeching was nevertheless the front man so it is inevitable his name is associated with the cuts.

[Welshman]

Originally Posted by RPM

Anti-Beeching sentiments are very much a red herring. The real villain was Earnest Marples. I think Beeching was misguided and has analysis was deeply flawed but I also think he had the best interests of the railway at heart. Marples however did want to see the railway wither and die.

The railway system did need pruning but the cuts went too far and were often badly targeted. The revenue figures were clearly manipulated and there was a fundamental misunderstanding of how branch lines provided contributionary revenue to secondary lines and main lines. I say misunderstanding because I think Beeching did misundestand this. Marples however probably did understand it but he was more than happy to go along with Beeching's flawed thinking as long as it benefitted his vested interests in the road industry.

Beeching was nevertheless the front man so it is inevitable his name is associated with the cuts.

How very true.

When you consider, for example, the Cat's Cradle of lines of the old rival companies [GC, Midland, etc] in the East Midlands, then some pruning was necessary, as you say. The problem was Beeching was charged to assess each line seperately, and not see the whole as an integrated system.

Interestingly, Beeching seems to have been rehabilitated in his home town of East Grinstead. A section of the A22 bypass, built on part of the disused trackbed of the Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells Central line, one of the many lines "axed" by him, is now called "Beeching Way"

Apparently, as the road now utilises a deep cutting, local opinion suggested it be called the "Beeching Cut"!!

[ainsworth74]

In my eyes he's already been rehabilitated for exactly the reasons laid out in RPMs very good response.

[Schnellzug]

Oh yes, he wasn't Evil, as such, it was the terms of reference set by the Politicians that were basically flawed (a good example being to assess the viability of every line purely on the basis of revenue generated by it, regardless of how much inward traffic there may have been, e.g. on lines to Holiday resorts), and there was some things could sensibly be trimmed, e.g. the multiplicity of stations built by competing companies in one city. What we all know now though, of course, is how short-sighted the fixation with closing "duplicate routes" was.

[yorksrob]

Isn't it true that even towards the end of his life, long after he retained any responsibility towards Marples (or any other organ grinders) he regretted not closing more railways !

He helped to set BR on a wild goose chase of trying to find the mythical "profitable" railway through ever more route closures and helped to ensure that such routes were sold off and built on quickly.

[NSEFAN]

Originally Posted by Yorksrob

Isn't it true that even towards the end of his life, long after he retained any responsibility towards Marples (or any other organ grinders) he regretted not closing more railways !

He helped to set BR on a wild goose chase of trying to find the mythical "profitable" railway through ever more route closures and helped to ensure that such routes were sold off and built on quickly.

As privatisation has shown, the definition of "profit" is a bit more complex than "more money in than out"...

[Schnellzug]

Originally Posted by NSEFAN

As privatisation has shown, the definition of "profit" is a bit more complex than "more money in than out"...

particularly when the Politicians are in charge.

[Phil6219]

Wasn't the idea of large freight terminals (ala the Freightliner idea) down to him?

Phil

[yorksrob]

Originally Posted by NSEFAN

the definition of "profit" is a bit more complex than "more money in than out"...

Particularly where you have to "sex up" a case for closure by including supposed "terminal costs" even where the terminal station remained open and didn't undergo any significant alteration at the time, or by discounting revenue from end to end traffic using the route, simply because those passengers might use another less direct route instead. Both of these methods were used to justify the closure of York - Beverley via Market Weighton.

Dr Beeching had an ideological view of how the railway should have looked, and cooked the evidence to fit it. He should be looked upon as a warning from history.

[LE Greys]

I always thought Beeching was an ICI man who Marples brought in specifically because he was not a railwayman, and he needed someone who could look at it from an 'independent' point of view (in other words, use as a scapegoat).

[Butts]

Originally Posted by LE Greys

I always thought Beeching was an ICI man who Marples brought in specifically because he was not a railwayman, and he needed someone who could look at it from an 'independent' point of view (in other words, use as a scapegoat).

I was just about to have a grumble about the lack of appearances by Davros ....when I realised wrong Dr Who.

Don't blame Marples or Beeching blame the man in the street who availed himself of a motor car and stopped using the trains

[Greenback]

Originally Posted by LE Greys

I always thought Beeching was an ICI man who Marples brought in specifically because he was not a railwayman, and he needed someone who could look at it from an 'independent' point of view (in other words, use as a scapegoat).

I don't believe that Dr Beeching was brought in to provide an independent view. He was given a remit that, in reality, precluded such a thing. Though I think that in bringing in an outsider there was less resistance to closing railways than if a career railwayman had been brought in to do the same thing.

I think that Beeching's reputation has improved in recent years, as more people now seem to realise that he was working to orders form above.

[LE Greys]

Originally Posted by Greenback

I don't believe that Dr Beeching was brought in to provide an independent view. He was given a remit that, in reality, precluded such a thing. Though I think that in bringing in an outsider there was less resistance to closing railways than if a career railwayman had been brought in to do the same thing.

I think that Beeching's reputation has improved in recent years, as more people now seem to realise that he was working to orders form above.

Hence the inverted commas around 'independent'. Maybe I should have added a .

[Greenback]

Originally Posted by LE Greys

Hence the inverted commas around 'independent'. Maybe I should have added a .

Ahm I see, you meant that he could be presented as independent, even though he wasn't really? An early attempt at spin perhaps?