DarloRich
Veteran Member
Trotting out the whitewash version of what happened with some embellishment about Fiennes?
The fact remains the closures failed to achieve their stated objectives and saved little money overall. This combined with the flaws/inconsistency's/half truths/misdirection in the report and the primary funding source of the party in Government at the time will always leave a huge question mark on the process.
The best description of what is popularly known as "Beeching" is that the closure programme was akin to a company whose late shift was always not achieving its production quota and working late thereby claiming overtime and increasing costs. The Management decides to deal with it by cutting the canteen staff jobs.
but was that more to do with not taking on the unions at the same time? - working practices don't seem to have changed that much on what remained as a result
The railways were not losing money because passengers had deserted the railway there had been an increase since nationalisation nor was the main problem loss making branch lines. Basically the railway had been run into the ground because of Government policy which forced it to carry goods and passengers at rates which weren't commercially viable. Combine this with the profitable coal traffic and other bulk movement goods being a lot less than in yesteryear UK coal production in 1960 was two thirds of 1913 for instance and then factor in that road completion had taken away most of the less than wagonload trade but Legislation forced the railways to maintain facilities for doing it.....
so your answer is what? KBO in the hope something changes? Do try and remove the rose tinted glasses...........
Things could not carry on as the had done. The railway was, to all practical purposes, bankrupt. Yes i know that was as a result of long term government inactivity in relation to infrastructure spending but that led to the position where Beeching was needed.
Expensive loco hauled stock continued into the 80s primarily because some of the first generation DMUs required expensive bodywork rectification, and there was a large surplus of diesel locomotives due to falling freight traffic. However, spending money on Mk1 rolling stock already 20 years old was probably not seen as worthwhile. There was no experience of diesel worked push/pull in the Beeching era [the SR experience only being gained from 1967 onward].
Beeching was obsessed with route mileage, and so he should have been. Especially unmodernised route mileage with lots of level crossings. He knew that the lion's share of passenger revenue came from travel between the cities/large towns. York-Hull passengers could be carried on other lines not proposed for closure. He knew how little the Pocklingtons and Market Weightons of this world contributed to the railways finances. He knew that for the railways to survive they needed to concentrate all their investment resources on Inter-City lines to get the fastest, most frequent services possible. It was a choice of upgrading lots of lines a little bit (jack of all trades) or upgrading the Inter City lines alot . Bearing in mind the circumstances of 1963 I think he got a lot right.
As a railway enthusiast of course I would like to have seen more lines remain open. But we keep looking back and vilifying those over 50 years ago who were operating in a completely different age and set of circumstances. Bonkers. The reasons for the Beeching Plan go back long before this.
I agree. Resources had to be concentrated on where the money was. The money wasn't in Pocklington and it wasn't where local alternatives or other lines existed.
That is harsh on the people of Pocklington (for example) but that very hard headed, business like approach is surely right. With spotters/enthusiasts that approach will always be missing. I don't like the fact so many lines and stations closed but I think many of them had to go.
If Beeching had been given a free hand to concentrate all investment on a few Inter Coty trunk routes as you suggest (and as his second report suggested) it would have been an even greater unmitigated disaster for the country than even the Beeching cuts were.
Or it would have created a profitable railway network unencumbered by the millstone of subsidy to rural routes.
Yes, I'm sure there was a lot of operational problems too.
I just wonder how long Beeching would have lasted at ICI if he had paid someone to rubbish it with the public.
Just find it very hard to accept that someone employed to run something would go out of the way to pull it to pieces.
Speaks volumes to me.
that is because you look at it through the prism of a romantic spotter/enthusiast and not a business person!
Turn it around: how long would he have lasted at ICI if, losing million upon millions a year he carried on doing what had always been done because it had always been done? How long would he have lasted making products from outdated plants that no one wanted to buy because they were to expensive?