On reflection I think perhaps my use of the word deliberate relating to mechanisms not being set up to preserve rights of way post Beeching closures, was unfortunate. A business, whether in the private or public sector, will naturally try to dispose of any redundant liabilities, not only to release any asset value, which was minimal anyway in the case of much rural railway mileage, but also to limit future costs to maintain structures, including earthworks, and avoid any legal risks and unexpected costs of corridors under their ownership being used as alternative access routes to other land (animal and criminal escape routes for example). That instinct would also discourage councils from acquiring the corridors unless they had a realistic plan for their future reuse for some useful purpose. Central government wouldn't want to force local authorities as they might rightfully demand compensation for the liabilities taken on. Mechanisms to protect redundant transport corridors had never been created or seen to be required in the past, for closed canals for instance. So not a conspiracy or fraud, but rather a combination of factors that led to the general outcome, allied with the public spirit which was definitely feeling railways were in the past and generally had no imagination of any realistic need for reuse of the corridors, after all any futuristic new transport modes like monorails will simply be able to march down the high street on huge pillars, leaping over buildings as necessary, and the multi-storey terminal/car park will simply replace the deeply unfashionable victorian gothic revival town hall. While some people at the time may have seen the possibilities and opportunities in safeguarding corridors, I can understand they may have been considered cranks and outsiders, and the decisions followed the money and legal advice as usual. I guess any alleged government's deliberation in this respect would be in attempts to prevent the subject entering serious open debate in case the idea caught on in public consciousness as a new political aspiration, and that might have threatened the pace and magnitude and increased the cost of the broader closure and liquidation campaign with new legal technicalities, i.e. a closure/disposal might be deferred if an authority didn't have a coherent 'safegaurding plan' for each closed route if legislation to require one had been passed.