Wilson government & rail closures

[Dawg]

Has anyone got information as to why following the 1964 election, the Wilson government oversaw so many closures despite an election promise of halting the Conservative Marples/Beeching cuts?

 

[Titfield]

Because they took a detailed look at the books, drew the same conclusions as to the level of subsidy needed then and increasing in the future and decided that there were better uses for the monies which were needed elsewhere in the pursuit of their policies.

 

[swt_passenger]

Has anyone got information as to why following the 1964 election, the Wilson government oversaw so many closures despite an election promise of halting the Conservative Marples/Beeching cuts?

Not personally, but if you search in these forums there’s loads of discussions that include sources.

eg this thread from earlier this month:

Enquiry about the Beeching report

Evening all, I’m currently undertaking an EPQ report alongside my college work - this consists of an 5000 word academic report or an artefact of any degree, accompanied by a 1000+ word written statement, and is worth half an A-level I have chosen the latter which will be to film and edit a...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[yorksrob]

To be pedantic about it, I think they actually said something like they would "review" the closures in their manifesto, however the continuation of closures was against the spirit of what people voted for.

There was also a period when they were saying that they couldn't halt closures that had been started by the previous Government. Interestingly a backbencher put forward a private members bill to allow such closures to be halted, but unsurprisingly this didn't receive Government support.

 

[coppercapped]

Has anyone got information as to why following the 1964 election, the Wilson government oversaw so many closures despite an election promise of halting the Conservative Marples/Beeching cuts?

This has probably been answered in posts in other threads but basically the UK was suffering from 'stop and go' economic growth in the 1960s which limited the government's tax take and so the government's ability to support the railways. Specifically GDP growth at the top of the ‘go-cycle’ in 1960 was 6.3%, before falling to 1.1% in 1962 in the midst of a stop-cycle. This pattern occurred twice more in the rest of the decade, with growth peaking at over 5% in 1964 and 1968, and falling to under 2% during the stop-cycles in between.

The economy was also struggling in export markets leading to a balance of payments crisis and the devaluation of the pound, from $2.80 to $2.40 per pound sterling in November 1967. This meant that the nature of the last of the 1960s 'go'-cycles was different as a corollary of devaluation. Devaluation increased the cost of imported goods and services, reduced the purchasing power of the pound and increased inflation. These are some of several factors which meant that, unlike previous go-cycles, the post-devaluation growth cycle did not feed through to a significant increase in living standards — the growth in real disposable household income per head slowed at the end of the decade. This fell to about 1% — so limiting households' spending on things such as train travel — even as GDP growth rose to over 5%.

Fundamentally the government did not have the money to support the railways at a time when the deficit was increasing rapidly. Closing lines was one of the ways the government could control its spending.

 

[lightning76]

Has anyone got information as to why following the 1964 election, the Wilson government oversaw so many closures despite an election promise of halting the Conservative Marples/Beeching cuts?

If you are interested in the politics of the period, the diaries and memoirs of many of the key figures including Wilson, Healey, Crossman and Castle are readily available.

Taken together, there was something of a tussle between what one might describe as the "Old" Labour mentality of public spending - although this was more concentrated on healthcare and council housing than railways - and the "New" Labour mentality of presenting an acceptable face to international bankers.

Neither group had seemingly pointless branch lines with hardly any passengers as their first priority. Of course in some cases a different policy would have been beneficial in subsequent decades, however the people responsible at the time had to play the hand they had been dealt.

 

[eldomtom2]

To be pedantic about it, I think they actually said something like they would "review" the closures in their manifesto, however the continuation of closures was against the spirit of what people voted for.

The precise statement was that they would pause closures while plans for integrated regional transport were drawn up. They committed themselves to maintaining rural public transport, but definitely not to maintaining rural rail transport. Here is the relevant section of the 1964 Labour manifesto:

1964 Labour Party Manifesto -

The full text of all Labour Party manifestos from 1900 to the present.

www.labour-party.org.uk

Nowhere is planning more urgently needed than in our transport system. The tragedy of lives lost and maimed; growing discomfort and delays in the journey to work; the summer weekend paralysis on our national highways; the chaos and loss of amenity in our towns and cities - these are only some of the unsolved problems of the new motor age.

Far from easing these problems, the Government's policy of breaking up road and rail freight co-ordination, of denationalising road haulage and finally of axing rail services under the Beeching Plan, have made things worse.

Labour will draw up a national plan for transport covering the national networks of road, rail and canal communications, properly co-ordinated with air, coastal shipping and port services. The new regional authorities will be asked to draw up transport plans for their own areas. While these are being prepared, major rail closures will be halted.

British Road Services, will be given all necessary powers to extend their fleet of road vehicles and to develop a first-rate national freight service. Reform of the road goods licensing system must now await the report of the Geddes Committee but, in the interests of road safety, we shall act vigorously to stop cut-throat haulage firms from flouting regulations covering vehicle maintenance, loads and driving hours.

Labour believes that public transport, road and rail, must play the dominant part in the journey to work. Every effort will be made to improve and modernise these services. Urgent attention will be given to the proposals in the Buchanan Report and to the development of new roads capable of diverting through traffic from town centres.

Labour will ensure that public transport is able to provide a reasonable service for those who live in rural areas. The studies already mentioned will decide whether these should be provided by public road or rail services.

Neither group had seemingly pointless branch lines with hardly any passengers as their first priority.

This is the stereotype of lines Beeching proposed closure for. It is not necessarily accurate.

 

[lightning76]

This is the stereotype of lines Beeching proposed closure for. It is not necessarily accurate.

I accept your point, and reword my comment as "Neither group had railways as their first priority".

 

[MadMac]

To be pedantic about it, I think they actually said something like they would "review" the closures in their manifesto, however the continuation of closures was against the spirit of what people voted for.

There was also a period when they were saying that they couldn't halt closures that had been started by the previous Government. Interestingly a backbencher put forward a private members bill to allow such closures to be halted, but unsurprisingly this didn't receive Government support.

I mentioned on another thread that I had read somewhere that Wilson stood in an election meeting in Scarborough and pledged to keep the Whitby line open, only to find that even as PM, he had no authority to do so.

 

[Harvester]

I mentioned on another thread that I had read somewhere that Wilson stood in an election meeting in Scarborough and pledged to keep the Whitby line open, only to find that even as PM, he had no authority to do so.

The reason he gave was that when Labour took office (Oct 1964), consent had already been given to the closure, and under the terms of the 1962 Transport Act he could not halt a closure already decided. It would have needed legislation to change this, and with only a slim Labour majority of 4 in the Commons none was introduced, and neither was support given for the private members bill mentioned upthread.

 

[thenorthern]

One thing to remember is that the first Wilson government only covered 1964 until 1966. The 1966 Labour Manifesto of 1966 mentioned the following:

We are already reviewing the absurd closure programme of suburban and urban rail services. We shall maintain public transport services in our towns and cities and aim at higher levels of comfort and frequency. We shall also tackle the problems of central redevelopment and new forms of transport by financing feasibility studies by local authorities; e.g., a monorail for Manchester.

1. Co-ordinate road and rail in order to use existing resources to best effect. As a first step, we shall create a National Freight Authority to co-ordinate the movement of freight by road and rail, and provide a first-rate publicly owned service.
2. Legislate to annul the evil effects of the 1962 Tory Transport Act.
3. Encourage the formation of regional and area transport authorities, to provide more effective public transport in both the conurbations and rural areas, by integrating road, rail and other forms of transport.

http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1966/1966-labour-manifesto.shtml

Did they stick to it though? Not really as quite a few lines and stations closed between 1966 and 1970.

Wilson's 3rd term from 1974 until 1976 and Callaghans' government from 1976-1979 of course didn't see many closures however in that period the railways were in a very sorry state and although we had the Intercity 125 introduced around this time we also had the Winter of Discontent and the APT development which in hindshight was badly run.

 

[Magdalia]

Did they stick to it though?

Mostly yes, through the Transport Act 1968.

This established the Passenger Transport Authorities, with West Midlands, Manchester (SELNEC), Merseyside and Tyneside all before the 1970 General Election.

The 1968 Act also established the principle of public financial support through grant aid for individual lines, with grant aid usually for 3 year periods. Closures under the 1968 Act were because the the grant was assessed to be not delivering value for money, with some of them during the Conservative government of 1970-74.

But other lines, that might have been closed, survived because they received grants under the 1968 Act.

 

[yorksrob]

I mentioned on another thread that I had read somewhere that Wilson stood in an election meeting in Scarborough and pledged to keep the Whitby line open, only to find that even as PM, he had no authority to do so.

Yes, the Whitby lines were the ones that caught the public/press attention.

I suppose at least they kept one of them open - on the basis of hardship for schoolchildren in the Esk valley !

One thing to remember is that the first Wilson government only covered 1964 until 1966. The 1966 Labour Manifesto of 1966 mentioned the following:



http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1966/1966-labour-manifesto.shtml

Did they stick to it though? Not really as quite a few lines and stations closed between 1966 and 1970.

Wilson's 3rd term from 1974 until 1976 and Callaghans' government from 1976-1979 of course didn't see many closures however in that period the railways were in a very sorry state and although we had the Intercity 125 introduced around this time we also had the Winter of Discontent and the APT development which in hindshight was badly run.

I would say yes - to an extent. But too little, too late.

I'd argue that whatever state the railways were in in 1976-79, the network definitely needed to be stabilised in terms of coverage. Only then could a recovery be facilitated.

The precise statement was that they would pause closures while plans for integrated regional transport were drawn up. They committed themselves to maintaining rural public transport, but definitely not to maintaining rural rail transport. Here is the relevant section of the 1964 Labour manifesto:

1964 Labour Party Manifesto -

The full text of all Labour Party manifestos from 1900 to the present.

www.labour-party.org.uk

This is the stereotype of lines Beeching proposed closure for. It is not necessarily accurate.

Yes, perhaps a classic case of the electorate seeing what they wanted to see in the manifesto, rather than what was actually there !

 

[Harvester]

I suppose at least they kept one of them open - on the basis of hardship for schoolchildren in the Esk valley !

It wasn’t Labour. Marples reprieved the Esk valley Whitby to Middlesbrough line from the Beeching cuts, making the announcement prior to the 1964 General Election.

 

[Western Lord]

For those that think there are votes in railways, bear in mind that in spite of continuing the closure programme, Labour massively increased its majority in the 1966 election.

 

[Cach17]

For those that think there are votes in railways, bear in mind that in spite of continuing the closure programme, Labour massively increased its majority in the 1966 election.

It's worth pointing out however that some of the bigger closures, such as the Varsity Line, the Waverley Route and the Nottingham to Rugby section of the GCR, took place after 1966.

 

[yorksrob]

It wasn’t Labour. Marples reprieved the Esk valley Whitby to Middlesbrough line from the Beeching cuts, making the announcement prior to the 1964 General Election.

You learn something new every day !

 

[eldomtom2]

Did they stick to it though? Not really as quite a few lines and stations closed between 1966 and 1970.

Were they "suburban and urban rail services" though? The manifesto doesn't seem to have anything to say on rail services outside of that, and certainly there were several suburban/urban passenger services that Beeching proposed for closure but were reprieved (e.g. Liverpool-Southport, the North London and the GOBLIN, Manchester-Glossop/Hadfield) - though I don't know when their reprieves came.

 

[nw1]

For those that think there are votes in railways, bear in mind that in spite of continuing the closure programme, Labour massively increased its majority in the 1966 election.

Probably not because of that though. They must have done other good things in 1964-66 which compensated for the closures.

 

[Killingworth]

For those that think there are votes in railways, bear in mind that in spite of continuing the closure programme, Labour massively increased its majority in the 1966 election.

There was so much else going on at that time, as there always is. Despite having a large majority in 1966 Ted Heath had a workable majority in 1970. Back then the big issue was who ran the country, the unions or the government. It was the perception that it was the unions that helped Thatcher to get elected in 1979.

The trouble with railways is that timescales are long. Statistics on which to base decisions are slow to come through and by the time a decision is made the world has moved on again. The rapid decline of wagon load freight after massive marshalling yards had been built. The collapse of coal, the bedrock of railways. The boom in private car use and small vans. On the other side the resurgence of passenger traffic from about 1985 came as a pleasant surprise to most.

With constantly changing political policies and direction by both parties in government and the speed, or lack of it, in implementing things like railway closures it's no wonder we are where we are.

Closures, openings or major improvements all have long lead times from inception to delivery. Any new Transport or Rail Minister hardly has time to find their way round their office before moving on. The juggernaut of railway momentum yields very slowly to any manifesto statements - as they quickly find out!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I accept your point, and reword my comment as "Neither group had railways as their first priority".

And still dont!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Mostly yes, through the Transport Act 1968.
This established the Passenger Transport Authorities, with West Midlands, Manchester (SELNEC), Merseyside and Tyneside all before the 1970 General Election.
The 1968 Act also established the principle of public financial support through grant aid for individual lines, with grant aid usually for 3 year periods. Closures under the 1968 Act were because the the grant was assessed to be not delivering value for money, with some of them during the Conservative government of 1970-74.
But other lines, that might have been closed, survived because they received grants under the 1968 Act.

That was under the leadership of Barbara Castle as Secretary of State for Transport, and arguably set the principle and level of subsidy for the railway onwards.
1965 was also the time when BR published "Beeching II" The Development of the Major Trunk Routes.
Re-reading that report, two of the three worked examples did not stand the test of time.
The Transpennine routes selected for development were Woodhead and Calder Valley, while for Manchester-Liverpool the CLC route via Warrington and the LNWR route via Tyldesley and St Helens were chosen.
That was largely because of heavy freight use, whereas today it's the fast passenger services which dominate those traffic flows.

 

[Killingworth]

The Transpennine routes selected for development were Woodhead and Calder Valley, while for Manchester-Liverpool the CLC route via Warrington and the LNWR route via Tyldesley and St Helens were chosen.
That was largely because of heavy freight use, whereas today it's the fast passenger services which dominate those traffic flows.

Back then heavy freight was mostly coal but that trade was already declining and is now long gone. Today the Hope Valley freight traffic has increased substantially as more limestone and cement is extracted.

Trends in rail traffic build up gradually with little heed to parliamentary manifestos.

 

[thenorthern]

Were they "suburban and urban rail services" though? The manifesto doesn't seem to have anything to say on rail services outside of that, and certainly there were several suburban/urban passenger services that Beeching proposed for closure but were reprieved (e.g. Liverpool-Southport, the North London and the GOBLIN, Manchester-Glossop/Hadfield) - though I don't know when their reprieves came.

I suppose as well what is now classed as "suburban and urban" now wasn't the same in the 1960s. For example the Birmingham Snow Hill to Wolverhampton Low Level Line (now West Midlands Metro) would easily be considered urban rail by todays standards however as at the time Wolverhampton and Birmingham were considered separate places in different counties the same would not have been said in 1972 when the line closed.

 

[DarloRich]

If you are interested in the politics of the period, the diaries and memoirs of many of the key figures including Wilson, Healey, Crossman and Castle are readily available.

If you want a good general history of the period I would recommend the following tomes by Dominic Sandbrook:

• Never Had It So Good, a history of Britain from the Suez Crisis to the Beatles, 1956–63.
• White Heat, covering the years 1964–70

There wont be much about railways per se but do a great job at giving the context behind the issues mentioned above

 

[WesternLancer]

If you want a good general history of the period I would recommend the following tomes by Dominic Sandbrook:

• Never Had It So Good, a history of Britain from the Suez Crisis to the Beatles, 1956–63.
• White Heat, covering the years 1964–70

There wont be much about railways per se but do a great job at giving the context behind the issues mentioned above

also to be recommended are David Kynaston's series of books on post war British history

eg : Modernity Britain - 1957-1962

I believe this is part of his series called 'Tales of a New Jerusalem' which commences in 1945

 

[ChiefPlanner]

also to be recommended are David Kynaston's series of books on post war British history

eg : Modernity Britain - 1957-1962

I believe this is part of his series called 'Tales of a New Jerusalem' which commences in 1945

Kynaston's books are an excellent read to get "the feel" of Britain in those day , very well researched. Reading the few comments on the rail industry at the time (by contributers) , indicates a level of dissatisfaction with the service , and certainly views on economic poor value for money. This was the age of modernity and change , which most of the railway did not really have , and compared poorly to say motorway service stations , coffee bars etc ......

 

[WesternLancer]

Kynaston's books are an excellent read to get "the feel" of Britain in those day , very well researched. Reading the few comments on the rail industry at the time (by contributers) , indicates a level of dissatisfaction with the service , and certainly views on economic poor value for money. This was the age of modernity and change , which most of the railway did not really have , and compared poorly to say motorway service stations , coffee bars etc ......

Thanks for those observations. Point well made because those these can be of relevance to the thread topic in terms of the political consequences about how voters feel (felt at the time I mean) about the closure proposals - or probably in reality how politicians feel voters see them.

 

[DarloRich]

also to be recommended are David Kynaston's series of books on post war British history

eg : Modernity Britain - 1957-1962

I believe this is part of his series called 'Tales of a New Jerusalem' which commences in 1945

absolutely - a detailed work