Happy Beeching Anniversary

[maniacmartin]

As today marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Reshaping of British Railways (or Beeching I report), I would like to wish you all a Happy Beeching Anniversary

 

[trainophile]

Happy?

 

[sheff'd victoria]

But which was worse ?

Beeching or the BR cuts of the 1980's ?

Beeching did not want to close the Woodhead Route it was BR that did that

 

[ainsworth74]

In terms of route miles and effect clearly Beeching. I'm sorry but the Woodhead was not all that important in the grand scheme of things and would only have become slightly useful in the last few years.

As with any Beeching thread I'll trot out my standard view point. The report was necessary there was a hell of a lot of track/stations that was surplus to requirements and needed to be closed. But there were also routes that were closed that should have stayed open or at the very least have been protected (but this was a different age) for instance York - Beverley, the Waverley Line or some of the Devon/Cornish branches. It is also worth remembering that it did have positives, the introduction of Liner trains for example was a great success. Finally Beeching was a tool to achieve an end he was given a remit by Government and achieved that goal. Personally I blame the Governments of the day more than I blame Beeching (particularly the about face by the incoming Labour government).

 

[oversteer]

Poor old Dr Beeching gets a lot of blame, but at the end of the day he was really a civil servant given a remit and the governments of the day could have ignored him, or reversed the decisions. Ultimately the 1960(?) Conservative government were the ones who wanted the railways to be profitable and the following Labour government continued this.

 

[Oswyntail]

I agree totally with Ainsworth74. However, what has always puzzled me has been that the report was written before the full impact of certain aspect of the Modernisation Plan could have been known. Would DMU operation have softened the economics of some of the rural lines, and made them less vulnerable (as pacers did a decade later)? A more co-ordinated approach could have produced a better report and a better system. But all parties were, then as now, enslaved to the motor industry, which probably explains things

 

[mrcheek]

Dr Beeching saved the railways.

If he hadnt made the necessary cuts at the time he did, then things would eventually have been a thousand times worse, the network would have effectively gone bankrupt, and fallen apart, and today it would look something like Mr Serpell desired.

This is also a good lesson for those who would criticise the current government cuts and George Osborne...

 

[rf_ioliver]

If he hadnt made the necessary cuts at the time he did, then things would eventually have been a thousand times worse, the network would have effectively gone bankrupt, and fallen apart, and today it would look something like Mr Serpell desired.

One aspect of Beeching (and those that followed) that often isn't mentioned was the amount of infrastructure. Many lines could have been kept open with progressive introduction of DMU services, rationalisation of track (eg: single lines instead of double), more relevant timetabling, staffing levels etc.

But ok, to put the 60's in the 2000's context, especially wrt staffing etc is a bit difficult.

Suffice to say, what was done was a hatchet job with important connections and services being lost against politics, and of course a lack of vision - or at least a someone naive vision of what might be.

Ian

 

[ainsworth74]

His remit was to make the railways pay, not come up with inventive ways of keeping routes open. I don't disagree that there are various methods that could have been used to help reduce losses or even eliminate them entirely via reduced staffing levels, rationalised infrastructure (one of BR's favourites) and cheaper forms of motive power. But that was not what he was told to do.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Dr Beeching saved the railways.

If he hadnt made the necessary cuts at the time he did, then things would eventually have been a thousand times worse, the network would have effectively gone bankrupt, and fallen apart, and today it would look something like Mr Serpell desired.

This is also a good lesson for those who would criticise the current government cuts and George Osborne...

I would gladly criticise Governments Cuts and that Muppet Osborne, however this is about another Tory Muppet I mean Puppet

Some cuts needed to be made but this was all about as big as a hatchet job as you will ever likely see

 

[yorksrob]

Beeching didn't save the railway. The legislation which allowed Government to pay for socially necessary services was what saved it. Beechings slash'n'burn approach to cutting the railway would have caused untold damage had he been allowed to continue.

 

[mr williams]

I've been watching some of the news coverage this morning and (IMHO) the point that is so often missed by commentators is that Beeching is judged by what we know today and with the benefit of perfect hindsight. In the early 60s the railways were in what many felt was terminal decline, 50% of the route mileage yielded just 5% of the custom and BR was losing an absolute fortune.

It is often forgotten how many lines and stations had already been closed prior to Beeching and that Beeching himself had no powers or authority to close a line. It was the Government of the day that said yes or no and most of the actual closures came under the following Labour Government which conveniently forgot about it's election promises - and it was a Labour Transport Secretary who signed off on the closure of both the Waverley and Woodhead lines!

Were some of the closures short-sighted and unjustified - with the benefit of hindsight, certainly. But most of the closures would have happened anyway with or without the Beeching report and irrespective of which party was in power.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Dr Beeching was given a remit by then Transport Sec Earnest Marples (who owned a road haulage firm). We are lucky that Dr B made a case for stopping short of the the level of cuts that the remit suggested, the remit included for shutting the ECML north of Newcastle!
In some respects he did save the railways.

 

[yorksrob]

One wonders whether the post 1983 railway rennaissance could have happenned had the cuts been fully implemented to Dr Beechings methodology.

 

[Pugwash]

The real vandalism was allowing closed lines to be built over, the lines should clearly have been kept for future use.

 

[ainsworth74]

The real vandalism was allowing closed lines to be built over, the lines should clearly have been kept for future use.

Should they? This was the sixties, the car was king and the railway, seemingly, in terminal decline. With hindsight they should have been but with the information/policies in place in the sixties?

 

[swcovas]

But most of the closures would have happened anyway with or without the Beeching report and irrespective of which party was in power.

I have often wodered if all those closures WOULD have actually taken place had the Beeching report not been published with its long list of closure proposals many of which were pushed through with indecent haste.

 

[BlythPower]

Dr Beeching was given a remit by then Transport Sec Earnest Marples (who owned a road haulage firm). We are lucky that Dr B made a case for stopping short of the the level of cuts that the remit suggested, the remit included for shutting the ECML north of Newcastle!
In some respects he did save the railways.

Judging from his Wikipedia entry ol' Marples was a very dodgy character indeed. I knew about his road building interests, but not the prostitutes and the tax fiddling. He'd be a perfect fit for the Lib Dems nowadays.

 

[tbtc]

There was an RMT spokesperson on the radio this morning using the anniversary of Dr Beeching to warn about the fact that the same could happen in the near future if we let the Government get away with things.

Maybe aforementioned spokesperson hasn't noticed all of the investment on lines planned for the rest of the decade? Strange.

Anyhow, Dr Beeching. He was asked to do a job, he did it. If you have a problem, save the vitriol for those who gave him the task. And please save me from the 20/20 hindsight and conspiracy theory stuff - you have to understand the context of the time - in hindsight things would have been done differently, but then we can say that about anything.

Oh, and Serpell wasn't Beeching - Beeching wasn't Serpell. Some get that confused.

 

[Aldaniti]

The real vandalism was allowing closed lines to be built over, the lines should clearly have been kept for future use.

Too true! To me Beeching wasn't the innocent civil servant that people make out. For example, he looked at passenger numbers sometimes on singular days (sometimes amongst the quietest) rather than spread over a longer period. Other tricks were used to make the case for closure and both Conservative and Labour governments happily wielded the axe. The true villain (because of his bias and personal interests) was Marples. A lack of foresight is something that most politicians suffer from which is why we are in the mess we are today.

 

[Bald Rick]

Beeching didn't save the railway. The legislation which allowed Government to pay for socially necessary services was what saved it. Beechings slash'n'burn approach to cutting the railway would have caused untold damage had he been allowed to continue.

There is another point of view that as the Beeching closures didn't save enough money to make the railway pay, it thus forced Government's hand provide of socially necessary services. So perhaps the Beeching plan enabled the service provision we have today?

No doubt some of the closures, on reflection, were dubious. Equally very many were the right thing to do.

 

[Clip]

There was an RMT spokesperson on the radio this morning using the anniversary of Dr Beeching to warn about the fact that the same could happen in the near future if we let the Government get away with things.

Maybe aforementioned spokesperson hasn't noticed all of the investment on lines planned for the rest of the decade? Strange.

.

Don't be silly. They wouldn't see the openings and new lines and investments as that wouldn't be scaremongering enough for them would it?

 

[mr williams]

No doubt some of the closures, on reflection, were dubious. Equally very many were the right thing to do.

There was a guy on the Ian Hislop documentary a few years ago who said that a third of what Beeching closed should never have been closed, another third could have gone one way or the other but the remaining third should never have been built in the first place and keeping them open was indefensible.

 

[Pugwash]

Should they? This was the sixties, the car was king and the railway, seemingly, in terminal decline. With hindsight they should have been but with the information/policies in place in the sixties?

Yes they clearly should, if you make a decision you can never be sure it is 100% right, to have a way to reverse it is a wonderful thing.

 

[tbtc]

Yes they clearly should, if you make a decision you can never be sure it is 100% right, to have a way to reverse it is a wonderful thing.

Should we have retained all of the phone boxes closed down over the last twenty years (so that they could be replugged in, if mobile phone useage dropped and people started using pay phones again)?

Should Libraries have kept all of their VHS videos in case people stopped using DVDs and went back to technology that appeared outdated a decade ago?

Should the army have kept all of its horse equipment a hundred years ago, when they were replacing horses with tanks?

Where do you draw the line? Are West Ham fans going to demand that their football club retain the current stadium when the team move to the Olympic Stadium in a few years time?

Now that we know that rail use has grown over the past thirty years, its easy to see this as having been inevitable, but it certainly wasn't in the '60s.

 

[yorksrob]

There is another point of view that as the Beeching closures didn't save enough money to make the railway pay, it thus forced Government's hand provide of socially necessary services. So perhaps the Beeching plan enabled the service provision we have today?

No doubt some of the closures, on reflection, were dubious. Equally very many were the right thing to do.

Yes, there's possibly a nugget of truth in that. I don't hold the Dr entirely responsible for all of the mistakes made at the time (particularly given the culpability of some the political players). I just don't see him as some great saviour. Rather a bit of a stooge, blundering through the railway with a questionable methodology.

 

[Pugwash]

Should we have retained all of the phone boxes closed down over the last twenty years (so that they could be replugged in, if mobile phone useage dropped and people started using pay phones again)?

Should Libraries have kept all of their VHS videos in case people stopped using DVDs and went back to technology that appeared outdated a decade ago?

Should the army have kept all of its horse equipment a hundred years ago, when they were replacing horses with tanks?

Where do you draw the line? Are West Ham fans going to demand that their football club retain the current stadium when the team move to the Olympic Stadium in a few years time?

Now that we know that rail use has grown over the past thirty years, its easy to see this as having been inevitable, but it certainly wasn't in the '60s.

No - but the land should have been retained, they would now make rather useful WIFI repeaters / locations for fibre boxes.

Should Libraries have kept all of their VHS videos in case people stopped using DVDs and went back to technology that appeared outdated a decade ago?

No - but it would be useful for the BBC / British Library to retain a copy of output.

- I am not suggesting the assets are maintained - but the route kept clear, in some instances they were deliberately built over.

Look at the renaissance the canals have had hundreds of years after they were built. This could never have been envisaged, but a smart move nevertheless.

 

[bennunn]

Should we have retained all of the phone boxes closed down over the last twenty years (so that they could be replugged in, if mobile phone useage dropped and people started using pay phones again)?

Should Libraries have kept all of their VHS videos in case people stopped using DVDs and went back to technology that appeared outdated a decade ago?

Should the army have kept all of its horse equipment a hundred years ago, when they were replacing horses with tanks?

Where do you draw the line? Are West Ham fans going to demand that their football club retain the current stadium when the team move to the Olympic Stadium in a few years time?

Now that we know that rail use has grown over the past thirty years, its easy to see this as having been inevitable, but it certainly wasn't in the '60s.

Rail is different though, in that the exact location is key, and once the permanent way is obstructed, it's very hard to rebuild.

In the unlikely event that there were suddenly demand for more phoneboxes or VHS tapes, it would be easy enough to make some more. They could make phoneboxes that exactly replicated whichever old ones had been taken away and destroyed if they really wanted to. You just can't do that with railway lines.

Railway route mileage is not a generic commodity. All of it is unique, and the unique should be preserved.

(I'm angry that the original surface building at London Bridge underground has just been demolished. Hadn't been used for years, but I liked the fact that it was there and it might have had a use in a future expansion if traffic increased).

 

[Oswyntail]

Should we have retained all of the phone boxes closed down over the last twenty years (so that they could be replugged in, if mobile phone useage dropped and people started using pay phones again)?...

Interestingly enough, I was at a conference last week, where it was stated that, in the "vulnerable" areas of society, mobile phone usage is dropping significantly because it is too expensive.

Where do you draw the line? Are West Ham fans going to demand that their football club retain the current stadium when the team move to the Olympic Stadium in a few years time?...

They would be quite sensible to do so. I suspect the operating costs of the new stadium will be beyond the pockets of a relatively small club like WH, particularly with some bleeding of fans as a direct result of the move. I think it is quite likely that there will be a romantic "Back to Boleyn" movement, rather like the "Return to the Valley" seen in Charlton.

 

[bennunn]

They would be quite sensible to do so. I suspect the operating costs of the new stadium will be beyond the pockets of a relatively small club like WH, particularly with some bleeding of fans as a direct result of the move. I think it is quite likely that there will be a romantic "Back to Boleyn" movement, rather like the "Return to the Valley" seen in Charlton.

Given the courtroom tragi-soap opera that my football club has become, I wish deeply that Highfield Road had never been sold off and reduced to rubble.

I've never felt like the Ricoh is truly 'home'. And we've been there eight seasons now.

Shiny new things aren't always better.