Would a Marples style review of the railway be sensible now? What form might it take?

[Bletchleyite]

The country is still living with the repercussions of the disastrous closure programme. We do not need such an approach again.

There aren't realistically many lines left where closure would be sensible, Beeching got rid of most of them (there are the odd few though). However there may be some where properly integrated high quality bus services would offer more than rail - the Conwy Valley is often cited for this - you could probably do an hourly bus service for the money spent on rail with money left over to convert the railway to a cycle path (which would I expect be extremely popular). Any sensible review would include the possibility of that rather than just leaving it to the market. This sort of change is still slowly going on in places like Switzerland that didn't have a "big bang" Beeching.

On the other hand Beeching didn't only close lines - there was also significant modernisation of working practices, fleet etc - that would be no bad thing.

 

[devon_belle]

So long as the condition of sensibility is that of improving the network for passengers, rather than just desparately trying to squeeze more pennies in savings.

 

[Western Lord]

Beeching didn't close an inch of railway, governments (of both colours) did. Too many people on here talk about Beeching as if the relevant Ministers were bound by law to implement the recommendations in his report. In fact they could have just tossed it in the bin (like many other reports and recommendations that governments get).
Beeching drew up a plan for a modern sustainable railway, without him the whole lot might have been closed.

 

[Krokodil]

Conwy Valley is often cited for this - you could probably do an hourly bus service for the money spent on rail

And the ridership would drop like a stone.

In Switzerland they'd be looking at the tourist potential of the line, concluding that it should be an hourly service in summer, putting some suitable rolling stock on and retiming the Trawscymru and Sherpa buses to connect properly at Betws.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And the ridership would drop like a stone.

Would it? Sherpa'r Wyddfa is extremely successful - I'd envisage a replan of that network incorporating the Valley into it rather than a simple direct replacement.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Sherpa'r Wyddfa is a fantastic network, bus travel at its best in my opinion.

 

[HSTEd]

I think that an overview report would definitely be useful now, but I expect that the political cost of grasping the nettle of implementing it's findings would be far too high.

I don't think it would make particularly happy reading for any of the railway industry's stakeholder groups.

 

[DJ_K666]

Beeching didn't close an inch of railway, governments (of both colours) did. Too many people on here talk about Beeching as if the relevant Ministers were bound by law to implement the recommendations in his report. In fact they could have just tossed it in the bin (like many other reports and recommendations that governments get).
Beeching drew up a plan for a modern sustainable railway, without him the whole lot might have been closed.

They pretty much did that with the second Beeching report. The one that gets the bad press was 'The Reshaping of Britain's Railways' and the second one was 'The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes' which was much lesser known and would have selected around 3000 miles of lines for investment and development and the rest pretty much run down.

 

[simonw]

And the ridership would drop like a stone.

In Switzerland they'd be looking at the tourist potential of the line, concluding that it should be an hourly service in summer, putting some suitable rolling stock on and retiming the Trawscymru and Sherpa buses to connect properly at Betws.

Ridership is already very low.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that an overview report would definitely be useful now, but I expect that the political cost of grasping the nettle of implementing it's findings would be far too high.

I doubt, to be fair, its findings would be the same. Some very minor lines might be in danger of closure (stuff like the middle bit of the Cumbrian Coast), but in reality it'd mostly be talking of standardisation and simplification (and electrification) as well as the provision of lots of cheap capacity, because there are now environmental pressures that there weren't before. And probably destaffing of various things (which might fit your latter point).

Serpell wouldn't be the outcome unless the motivator was purely "a railway not requiring any subsidy", and that would be environmentally pretty disastrous as a plan.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that an overview report would definitely be useful now, but I expect that the political cost of grasping the nettle of implementing it's findings would be far too high.

I don't think it would make particularly happy reading for any of the railway industry's stakeholder groups.

So that's a no then.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2024 ==

Beeching didn't close an inch of railway, governments (of both colours) did. Too many people on here talk about Beeching as if the relevant Ministers were bound by law to implement the recommendations in his report. In fact they could have just tossed it in the bin (like many other reports and recommendations that governments get).
Beeching drew up a plan for a modern sustainable railway, without him the whole lot might have been closed.

It should be noted that this thread specifically references Marples, so is addressing Government policy, rather than just Beeching's interpretation and implementation of it.

They pretty much did that with the second Beeching report. The one that gets the bad press was 'The Reshaping of Britain's Railways' and the second one was 'The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes' which was much lesser known and would have selected around 3000 miles of lines for investment and development and the rest pretty much run down.

This "modern, sustainable" railway would have been pretty useless and threadbare once the "lines not selected for development" had been run down and chopped. (Any one believing that closure wasn't the ultimate aim for these lines is living in cloud cuckoo land).

 

[Krokodil]

Would it? Sherpa'r Wyddfa is extremely successful - I'd envisage a replan of that network incorporating the Valley into it rather than a simple direct replacement.

The sort of people who go to Betws for a day trip are different to the sort of people going up to Pen-y-Pass. Betws also sees a considerable amount of London traffic which risks being lost to private cars or to other destinations if the alternative is a bus.

There are a lot of people who won't consider a bus and I don't blame them. I do use buses when it's not practical to cycle and find the journey slow and uncomfortable. It's not pleasant to be rattled around on hard suspension.

Ridership is already very low.

Certain trains are often full and standing. Busier than the No. 19 bus which covers the other side of the valley as far as Betws.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The sort of people who go to Betws for a day trip are different to the sort of people going up to Pen-y-Pass. Betws also sees a considerable amount of London traffic which risks being lost to private cars or to other destinations if the alternative is a bus.

There are a lot of people who won't consider a bus and I don't blame them. I do use buses when it's not practical to cycle and find the journey slow and uncomfortable. It's not pleasant to be rattled around on hard suspension.

This depends on what constitutes "a bus". This sort of route in places like Germany and Switzerland would be operated by something looking much more like a part-low floor coach. I agree city buses (the likes of Enviro200s which are common) are awful for this sort of operation.

 

[DJ_K666]

Would closure of any railway be as easy as it once was? The law that came in during the 60s was designed to close a line swiftly and (mistaken in my opinion) to remove the powers that allowed it to be built in the first place. That's been largely repealed now and closure is that much more difficult, not to mention a political hot potato which could be electoral suicide for any government fooling around with the idea.

Beeching wasn't either for or against the railways and saw his report as surgery as opposed to mad hacking. He was also constrained by his contract, where he wasn't allowed to consider cost cutting measures. This led to some fiery exchanges with Sir Ivan Stedeford during that period.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2024 ==

So that's a no then.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2024 ==



It should be noted that this thread specifically references Marples, so is addressing Government policy, rather than just Beeching's interpretation and implementation of it.



This "modern, sustainable" railway would have been pretty useless and threadbare once the "lines not selected for development" had been run down and chopped. (Any one believing that closure wasn't the ultimate aim for these lines is living in cloud cuckoo land).

Yes. Especially when you look at the maps. And I reckon many intermediate stations that survived the first time would be on the chopping block too. It really does read like an 'All Lines Lead to London' charter.

 

[Krokodil]

This depends on what constitutes "a bus". This sort of route in places like Germany and Switzerland would be operated by something looking much more like a part-low floor coach. I agree city buses (the likes of Enviro200s which are common) are awful for this sort of operation.

I haven't yet sampled the Yutong E12s used on some TrawsCymru routes. The route which shadows the West Highland Line Extension uses a high-floor coach with a wheelchair lift and was reasonably comfortable but again if you tried replacing the trains with them you'd still lose most of the custom.

 

[yorksrob]

He was also constrained by his contract, where he wasn't allowed to consider cost cutting measures. This led to some fiery exchanges with Sir Ivan Stedeford during that period.

A contract which would have been specified and approved by Marples - which neatly illustrates why he shouldn't be seen as a suitable figure to emulate in any context whatsoever.

 

[RT4038]

Certain trains are often full and standing.

Two buses then?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

On the other hand Beeching didn't only close lines - there was also significant modernisation of working practices, fleet etc - that would be no bad thing.

I read and have a copy of in my opinion a fantastic book that gives that side of the story. Beeching: Champion of the Railway by RHN Hardy

Beeching

books.google.com

Title Beeching: Champion of the Railway?
Author Richard Harry Norman Hardy
Edition illustrated
Publisher Ian Allan, 1989
Original from the University of Virginia
Digitized Aug 17, 2009
ISBN 0711018553, 9780711018556
Length 126 pages

 

[Sorcerer]

I would definitely not like a Marples style review of the railways if that would constitute a Transport Minister who had a vested interest in road building companies that he later sold to his family deciding whether or not the railways need major closures. Thankfully I don't see that happening right now.

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt, to be fair, its findings would be the same. Some very minor lines might be in danger of closure (stuff like the middle bit of the Cumbrian Coast), but in reality it'd mostly be talking of standardisation and simplification (and electrification) as well as the provision of lots of cheap capacity, because there are now environmental pressures that there weren't before. And probably destaffing of various things (which might fit your latter point).

Serpell wouldn't be the outcome unless the motivator was purely "a railway not requiring any subsidy", and that would be environmentally pretty disastrous as a plan.

I think it would mostly involve thousands of staff cuts (probably stuff like ticket offices and residual catering for the chop, Driver Only Operation on all new train fleets) and investment focussed on things that would enable further staff cuts in On Board Staff, signalling, maintenance and the like.

So staff will hate it, and a lot of contractors probably end up losing tonnes of work and will thus opppose it, and hell ROSCOs probably wouldn't like an accelerated replacement cycle of rail vehicles (especially as the pendulum seems to have swung towards state ownership). Obviously vastly fewer front line staff will mean that an axe will be taken to managerial and other such grades, so they will oppose it.

Fares would likely end up with trebling the cost of railcards or axing them entirely. So passengers probably wouldn't like it either!

In essence, you end up with fighting everyone.

 

[RT4038]

I think it would mostly involve thousands of staff cuts (probably stuff like ticket offices and residual catering for the chop, Driver Only Operation on all new train fleets) and investment focussed on things that would enable further staff cuts in On Board Staff, signalling, maintenance and the like.

So staff will hate it, and a lot of contractors probably end up losing tonnes of work and will thus opppose it, and hell ROSCOs probably wouldn't like an accelerated replacement cycle of rail vehicles (especially as the pendulum seems to have swung towards state ownership). Obviously vastly fewer front line staff will mean that an axe will be taken to managerial and other such grades, so they will oppose it.

Fares would likely end up with trebling the cost of railcards or axing them entirely. So passengers probably wouldn't like it either!

In essence, you end up with fighting everyone.

Already we are speculating disaster because the status quo may be rocked!

If you upset everyone, then there can be no accusations of favouritism?

 

[DJ_K666]

A contract which would have been specified and approved by Marples - which neatly illustrates why he shouldn't be seen as a suitable figure to emulate in any context whatsoever.

Yeah he ought to have stayed as Postmaster General. The Postcode we use was his doing.

Personally I think someone far less biased would have made a better Transport minister, like someone who didn't own a road building firm and hadn't rigged the sale if his shares in that firm.

 

[Magdalia]

The problem the railway has now is effectively using full capacity in key parts of the network, not large parts of the network becoming superfluous.

The organisational structure imposed at privatisation was designed to suit the railway priorities in the 1990s, but constrains its ability to adapt to economic circumstances that have changed significantly in the 30 years since.

The saga of the East Coast Main Line timetable, and the issues at Ely are good examples of this.

The railway needs to find a way to address that, and quickly, but I don't think it needs a grand review of the scale of the Beeching Report.

 

[RT4038]

Yeah he ought to have stayed as Postmaster General. The Postcode we use was his doing.

Personally I think someone far less biased would have made a better Transport minister, like someone who didn't own a road building firm and hadn't rigged the sale if his shares in that firm.

I don't think his connection with a road building firm would have made any difference. The United States, Canada and all the Western European countries were all building motorway networks, indeed some countries far more advanced in their programmes than us. Not much of our motorway system had been built by the time of the Beeching cuts, and already a considerable amount of traffic, both passenger and freight, had deserted the railways. I think it fanciful to believe that politically the motorway system, and road transport in general, could have been constrained and diverted back to the railways. Business and most private individuals wanted (and still want) the freedom that road transport brings, in spite of the downsides, rather than relying on train and bus timetables and the peccadillos of their management and staff.

 

[eldomtom2]

He was also constrained by his contract, where he wasn't allowed to consider cost cutting measures.

I have not heard that claim before - do you have a source? It doesn't seem to accord with his well-known plans for modernisation of working practices, or the fact that he justifies a lack of focus on cost-cutting measures in his report by arguing that they would fail to make the lines he proposed to close profitable:

The third suggestion, that rail buses should be substituted for trains, ignores the high cost of providing the route itself, and also ignores the fact that rail buses are more expensive vehicles than road buses. The extent to which the economics remain unsound can readily be seen by inserting a Movement cost of three shillings per mile in the table on page 17. It would still be necessary to have a passenger density of 14,000 per week, to cover the total cost of the service, as compared with 17,000 per week with diesel multiple units. It is not immediately apparent either, why it is thought that rail buses would give a better standard of service than a road bus in most rural areas. Similarly, consideration of the cost figures will show that thinning out the trains, or thinning out the stations, would not make a service self-supporting even if it had no adverse effect on revenue.

 

[Krokodil]

Two buses then?

No, because the loadings would quickly evaporate to just those with no driving licence. Few people who are able to drive will choose to travel by bus, whereas many do use the train. Almost all of the bus routes put in post-Beeching withered away. Llew Jones used to run four buses per day to complement the Conwy Valley Line but they've now gone and there's just one bus which doesn‘t do the whole route. Even if you assumed no loss of traffic you'd need two double deckers (which may not even be cleared) and will have problems with luggage and pushchairs.

Much better to add an extra unit and double the frequency. Plan the crossing at Llanrwst to coincide with school times and you can fill the those trains up with kids, while the tourists fill the daytime trains. The train becomes more convenient, more people use it.

 

[RT4038]

No, because the loadings would quickly evaporate to just those with no driving licence. Few people who are able to drive will choose to travel by bus, whereas many do use the train. Almost all of the bus routes put in post-Beeching withered away. Llew Jones used to run four buses per day to complement the Conwy Valley Line but they've now gone and there's just one bus which doesn‘t do the whole route. Even if you assumed no loss of traffic you'd need two double deckers (which may not even be cleared) and will have problems with luggage and pushchairs.

Much better to add an extra unit and double the frequency. Plan the crossing at Llanrwst to coincide with school times and you can fill the those trains up with kids, while the tourists fill the daytime trains. The train becomes more convenient, more people use it.

and the subsidy just goes up and up and up.

 

[Krokodil]

Business and most private individuals wanted (and still want) the freedom that road transport brings, in spite of the downsides, rather than relying on train and bus timetables and the peccadillos of their management and staff.

Mass car ownership is killing us. Not as much as it's killing Americans, granted, but still killing us. I'm not just talking in terms of collisions, pollution etc. either, but also because the infrastructure (both roads and parking) requires a huge amount of space and providing public services to sprawl costs more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2024 ==

and the subsidy just goes up and up and up.

You think that your idea of replacing "quiet" trains with buses won't result in an increase in subsidy?

 

[HSTEd]

You think that your idea of replacing "quiet" trains with buses won't result in an increase in subsidy?

Yes, you could make the bus free and it would cost less to subsidise than the train.

 

[RT4038]

Mass car ownership is killing us. Not as much as it's killing Americans, granted, but still killing us. I'm not just talking in terms of collisions, pollution etc. either, but also because the infrastructure (both roads and parking) requires a huge amount of space and providing public services to sprawl costs more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2024 ==


You think that your idea of replacing "quiet" trains with buses won't result in an increase in subsidy?

Maybe, but in spite of the downsides it is what the people want. Outside of the big urban areas, public transport is always going to be an inconvenient product, bearing in mind the infrastructure and sprawl that is already built and occupied.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't; quite the opposite. (Horses for courses of course).