Beeching with a twist

[Mikey C]

Clearly, some of the closure decisions have proved to be bad mistakes in hindsight.

However, imagine if a lot of these closures hadn't happened, and being forced to keep going many uneconomical line with no extra financing, BR as a result had to cut investment in electrifcation, the PEPS, the HST etc Would the railways be in a worse state now as a result?

 

[yorksrob]

Strange comparison.

Beeching's remit was to rationalise the railway and that meant ridding it of the least profitable lines - that's what the politicians who paid him wanted him to do.

Whereas the Captain of that boat certainly didn't do what his paymasters expected.

But, if you want to compare Dr Beeching to someone responsible for many deaths...
.

To be honest, I was thinking more in terms of someone given a job to do, and making a hash of it through their own over-self confidence.

Then again, we all know that road users are at greater risk of accidents than rail users, so it's not inconceivable that a policy aimed at closing public transport links might have resulted in an increased incidence of traffic mortality. An interesting Masters project for someone to investigate perhaps.

At the moment we think that telephone boxes are obsolete, just like fifty years ago we thought that quaint little branch lines were obsolete.

Passenger numbers were low and getting lower, losses were great, we didn't have fifty years of hindsight in the 1960s.

The idea of mothballing every line closed would have caused further losses.

Again, who is this "we" that you keep referring to. Not the users of the railways. Not the people who objected to the TUCC's. Not the satirists and commentators at the time who pointed out the folly of the policy, and it's doubtful that this includes a large proportion of voters who voted for a manifesto that promised to halt the cuts (albeit a commitment that wasn't maintained in the event).

I suspect the "we" you refer to relates mainly to the Establishment of the time. The age of deference lives on !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Clearly, some of the closure decisions have proved to be bad mistakes in hindsight.

However, imagine if a lot of these closures hadn't happened, and being forced to keep going many uneconomical line with no extra financing, BR as a result had to cut investment in electrifcation, the PEPS, the HST etc Would the railways be in a worse state now as a result?

In reality, you only have to look to "The Reshaping of Britain's Railways" and the examples therein to see the truth.

An example, Swaffham - Dereham, shows a route that clearly needed to close. York - Beverley, on the other hand was a route where they had to assume that end to end passengers would travel via an alternative route just to make the closure proposal add up.

Anyone with a dispasionate, rational view of making economies on the railway, and not obsessed with closures as the be all and end all, would have seen the second example as a case for rationalisation and survival rather than the axe.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Those of us who were around at the time and in railway service looked on in dismay at some of the decisions that were made. The scatter gun approach to closures was clearly wrong. No attempts were made to combine services, to save on staff and running costs. Whole lines went into oblivion having had fully staffed stations etc to the very last day. Large swathes of the country were removed from the railway map without proper regard to practical alternative transport; think how quickly the replacement bus services disappeared.

The alleged purpose of all that 'surgery' by Beeching et al was that the railways would become profitable. They did not and losses mounted. For that reason alone Beeching must be branded a failure. Unfortunately, his failure was to cost many of us dearly.

 

[W230]

The alleged purpose of all that 'surgery' by Beeching et al was that the railways would become profitable. They did not and losses mounted. For that reason alone Beeching must be branded a failure. Unfortunately, his failure was to cost many of us dearly.

I still don't see it. We're still talking about 50 years of hindsight. The railways were haemorrhaging money. Some form of rationalisation was required. It didn't save as much money as it was supposed to (just like any government led efficiency savings never seem to) but less money was lost.

I can't believe that had all these rural branch lines stayed open that they would really provide much of a service now anyway. People simply don't want to wait around for a train than turns up every two hours and doesn't really go where they want. Would there be a 15 minute service on some long closed line? I can't see it somehow.

I also think that Beeching gets a bit of an unfair press. As far as I can tell he did exactly what was asked of him - provided a report into the sustainability of the railways. Unfortunately back then people weren't aware of the social and community benefits that can be brought about through a local rail service. But red or blue, whichever your flavour, it was the successive governments that closed the railways, not Beeching.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

I still don't see it. We're still talking about 50 years of hindsight. The railways were haemorrhaging money. Some form of rationalisation was required. It didn't save as much money as it was supposed to (just like any government led efficiency savings never seem to) but less money was lost.

No, the losses increased.

 

[james60059]

Of course as well we've seen another Beeching-reversal in West Wales in the last 2 years with Fishguard Harbour gaining extra services as well as Fishguard & Goodwick reopening as well, between 1964 and 2011, the harbour only had 2 trains a day both to to connect with the ferry to Ireland (one early afternoon and the other early morning), although a decision is due whether or not the Welsh Assembly Government will continue to fund the extra services from September 2014....

 

[CockneySparrow]

An example, Swaffham - Dereham, shows a route that clearly needed to close. York - Beverley, on the other hand was a route where they had to assume that end to end passengers would travel via an alternative route just to make the closure proposal add up.

Anyone with a dispasionate, rational view of making economies on the railway, and not obsessed with closures as the be all and end all, would have seen the second example as a case for rationalisation and survival rather than the axe.

The Swaffham to Dereham route would be bursting at the seams today I am sure so would Swaffham into Lynn

The March to Spalding route on the other hand would continue to make a loss even Norfolk Green buses have stopped running to Murrow due to losses, but still it would have served a good freight line avoiding Peterborough, at the end of the day who would travel from March/Ely to Doncaster on that line 20mph all the way (did I read somewhere it used to take 4 hours) rather than go to Peterborough and take a EC fast other than trainspotters

Some lines had to be lifted as it wasn't and still to this day no economic to keep them like one of the curves at Chippenham near Newmarket had to be lifted, who would travel on Ely to Cambridge service via Newmarket rather than the existing direct line
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One thing I would throw in the mix is that had all these lines stayed open or the majority of them it would cause chaos, imagine Cambridge as it is today then add an hourly service to St Ives, Mildenhall via Burwell, Haverhill and Bedford, would Cambridge station and the track layout cope, I think not

 

[yorksrob]

The Swaffham to Dereham route would be bursting at the seams today I am sure so would Swaffham into Lynn

The March to Spalding route on the other hand would continue to make a loss even Norfolk Green buses have stopped running to Murrow due to losses, but still it would have served a good freight line avoiding Peterborough, at the end of the day who would travel from March/Ely to Doncaster on that line 20mph all the way (did I read somewhere it used to take 4 hours) rather than go to Peterborough and take a EC fast other than trainspotters

Some lines had to be lifted as it wasn't and still to this day no economic to keep them like one of the curves at Chippenham near Newmarket had to be lifted, who would travel on Ely to Cambridge service via Newmarket rather than the existing direct line

My apologies - I meant to say Swaffham - Thetford as per the report

I agree Swaffham - Dereham was probably marginal at the time and had potential for rationalisation and a healthy survival !

 

[martinsh]

The March to Spalding route on the other hand would continue to make a loss even Norfolk Green buses have stopped running to Murrow due to losses, but still it would have served a good freight line avoiding Peterborough, at the end of the day who would travel from March/Ely to Doncaster on that line

March - Spalding didn't close until the 1980s (can't remember the exact date, but I travelled on it in 1980), so is irrelevant to any argument about Beeching.

 

[Gareth Marston]

We must remember that the railway was primarily loss making due to government legislation that forced it to carry goods at rates it couldn't make a profit out of, the 1854 and 1884 Railway and Canal Traffic Acts were still in force in the early 60's. Beeching hinted at this with the liner Tain concept which recognised that only big flow fruit was profitable yet the Government had signed off the modernisation plan based on the 19th century acts.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

I still don't see it. We're still talking about 50 years of hindsight.... I can't believe that had all these rural branch lines stayed open that they would really provide much of a service now anyway.

I wonder how old you are. I'm not talking about 50 years of hindsight. That period is still fresh in my memory.

No doubt you will watched documentaries about WW2 and have seen the 'Newsreels' of both sides. Do you believe that the Germans; British; Soviets or Japanese were telling their citizens the absolute truth? It's all pretty stirring stuff but you rarely get the opinions of the poor bugger who was up to his neck in it. My late father, for example, fought in North Africa; Italy; Greece and Jugoslavia and I can assure you that he never subscribed to the, almost, God like reputation of Montgomery.

Some of us, who contribute to this forum, actually worked for BR in that period and the idea that it was just 'rural branch lines' that were chopped is ridiculous. Please have a look at your 'Railway Atlas' and you will soon realise how many inter-urban routes, with great potential, were ripped out of the system. No research was undertaken on how to improve or make services more efficient.

No projections regarding the rundown of traditional industries and the need to 'travel to work' were permitted. It was simply a 'formula' that was applied regardless of local or national needs.

Of course, some lines were doomed to close because they had outlived their usefulness and that was nothing new in the Sixties. Many lines had closed by that time and, for the most part, they weren't missed but others were crying out for sensible services that actually went where people wished to go. Do you really believe that Aberdare; Ebbw Vale and all the other lines that managed to survive to be re-opened and thrive were 'dead in the water' in the Sixties?

If there is one thing that drives me to despair is the re-writing of history and the 'rehabilitation' of Beeching / Marples. Their 'job' was to 'make the railways pay'. The outcome was that they failed spectacularly.

 

[anthony263]

In hindsite many lines in Wales would certainly have been useful today even if only for freight. The line north of Maesteg to Treherbert is one example along with the line to Porthcawl. The replacement bus service between Treorchy & Cymmer did not last too long although Brewers & Rhondda did get a healthly number of passengers when they launched services from Treorchy to Swansea & Maesteg.

Would the Severn Beach line be better used than it is today if the link north of Severn Beach to Pilling had not been closed?

I am sure Mr Beeching would be shocked to see many lines he closed now being re-opened and with such high passenger numbers. In fact I would love to see the looks on their faces if they read about the whole debate on HS2 and the current HS1/Channel Tunnel.

 

[Mikey C]

In hindsite many lines in Wales would certainly have been useful today even if only for freight. The line north of Maesteg to Treherbert is one example along with the line to Porthcawl. The replacement bus service between Treorchy & Cymmer did not last too long although Brewers & Rhondda did get a healthly number of passengers when they launched services from Treorchy to Swansea & Maesteg.

Would the Severn Beach line be better used than it is today if the link north of Severn Beach to Pilling had not been closed?

I am sure Mr Beeching would be shocked to see many lines he closed now being re-opened and with such high passenger numbers. In fact I would love to see the looks on their faces if they read about the whole debate on HS2 and the current HS1/Channel Tunnel.

HS1 and HS2 don't invalidate the need to prune some of the uneconomical and unused lines. It's not as if there was a high speed line through Kent or up to Birmingham that was shut by Beeching.

 

[HSTEd]

While one could argue that had the innovations of the later era (such as pay-train, unmanned stations and track rationalisations) arrived early they could have reduced the cost of running such lines, it was probably the desire amongst BR managers to avoid a repeat of the Beeching cull that lead to their development in the first place.

The GCML might have survived in a form similar to the WoEML for instance.

 

[alwaystouchout]

Would there be much passenger potential on the GCML in addition to releasing capacity elsewhere by becoming a freight line?

As far as Rugby could there be a re-opened station at Brackley and parkway stations serving Buckingham and Daventry perhaps?

 

[tbtc]

If there is one thing that drives me to despair is the re-writing of history and the 'rehabilitation' of Beeching / Marples. Their 'job' was to 'make the railways pay'. The outcome was that they failed spectacularly.

The problem with that argument is that it suggests that Beeching didn't go far enough - if you want to "make the railways pay" then presumably there's no scope for something like the Heart of Wales?

HS1 and HS2 don't invalidate the need to prune some of the uneconomical and unused lines. It's not as if there was a high speed line through Kent or up to Birmingham that was shut by Beeching.

I've joked in the past that if Beeching had closed the Euston, Toton & Meadowhall railway then more enthusiasts would love the HS2 plans. But as it doesn't follow the trackbed of some abandoned route, they aren't interested.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

The problem with that argument is that it suggests that Beeching didn't go far enough - if you want to "make the railways pay" then presumably there's no scope for something like the Heart of Wales?

As far as the Central Wales line is concerned, it is not a typical example and the route had already been prepared for closure, first by abandoning the CTC system, which was partly completed, and then closing the direct route into Swansea. But what would the closure of that route have achieved? The losses made on providing that service were a drop in the ocean compared to the bigger picture. In the event it was too much of a political hot potato and we ended up with what we have now. It is not ideal but it does serve as a lifeline to many, particularly at its southern end.

The fact is that despite closing about a third of the network, the losses continued to mount. In many cases, the 'surgical' approach of chopping off 'unhealthy' limbs had the opposite effect to the received wisdom of the day. For example, the loss of local services into Newport resulted in a marked drop in passenger figures joining the London and West Country services. People do not like bi-mode travel and did not use coach services to Newport in order to join trains. They quite sensibly, if reluctantly, stuck with the coach all the way. We had to wait for the arrival of the 125s to reverse that trend.

 

[Bill EWS]

I agree with the lack of foresight. Unmanned stations, single manning, Radio signalling etc, more economical locos and train sets just never came into their minds. Just the usual quick fix and short term votes as we get from polititians even now, whatever their colour.

 

[W230]

I can't believe that had all these rural branch lines stayed open that they would really provide much of a service now anyway. People simply don't want to wait around for a train than turns up every two hours and doesn't really go where they want. Would there be a 15 minute service on some long closed line? I can't see it somehow.

I wonder how old you are. I'm not talking about 50 years of hindsight. That period is still fresh in my memory.

I've highlighted the word all in my original post as I think you missed my point.

The period may well be fresh in your memory. But it's still 50 years. You thought there would be a 'renaissance' of the railways in the 21st century even back then?! :?

Please have a look at your 'Railway Atlas' and you will soon realise how many inter-urban routes, with great potential, were ripped out of the system.

What great potential was there in the 60's? Industry was declining, people didn't commute in the numbers or distances they do now, car ownership was increasing and public transport was perceived as outdated and unfashionable. As I mentioned earlier, people simply didn't see any future in the railways.

If there is one thing that drives me to despair is the re-writing of history and the 'rehabilitation' of Beeching / Marples. Their 'job' was to 'make the railways pay'. The outcome was that they failed spectacularly.

I'm not trying to rewrite history, i'm trying to look back at the past objectively, not with emotion at what took place. Personally I can't see that anyone can make the railways "pay" their way, if you're referring to not requiring subsidy to run. Neither, IMO, should they have to, as a public service.

Please don't think that I think the decisions made were the right ones, I just think that with hindsight it's easy for us to stick the boot in to Beeching, a businessman who was brought in to look at how to run the railways (a public service) as a business. By all means stick it in to Marples...

 

[DXMachina]

While I wish - as a financial accountant - that politicians could be ranked not just on their stand on social, personal and ethical issues but also on their grasp of Cost-Benefit Analysis & Social Costs, it won't be happening any time soon

I'd love to have a pre-Beeching scale rail network too. But no government thinks so far ahead as would have been needed for us to still have one.

 

[Gareth Marston]

While one could argue that had the innovations of the later era (such as pay-train, unmanned stations and track rationalisations) could have reduced the cost of running such lines, it was probably the desire amongst BR managers to avoid a repeat of the Beeching cull that lead to their development in the first place.

The GCML might have survived in a form similar to the WoEML for instance.

It wasn't a later era folk like Railfuture for runners the branch line reinvigoration society were advocating it at the time and of course Gerald Fiennes did it on the east Suffolk amidst the carnage elsewhere. BR had introduced DMU's in the late 50's in fleet strength, the lines kept un rationalised were needed to facilitate the railway and canal traffic acts of the 19th century which the BTC blindingly unquestioned unlike the Big 4. Government policy made the railways inefficient and loss making not the existence of railways themselves the politicians of the day failed to grasp this.

 

[Zoidberg]

...

I just think that with hindsight it's easy for us to stick the boot in to Beeching, a businessman who was brought in to look at how to run the railways (a public service) as a business. By all means stick it in to Marples...

Hear, hear.