Was there a second Beeching Report?

[rdlover777]

Hi, i've been reading through the British Rail wikipedia entry and there is an part of the entry that talk about a second report by Dr. Beeching.

Does any one have any knowledge of this? Was this a real thing or just a rumor?

The only image related to this possible report is this; Image was based on a poster

Thanks in advance

Daniel.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That looks like one of the two less extreme options that were provided within the Serpell Report of the 1980s to me?

 

[sprinterguy]

The second Beeching Report was "The Development of The Major Railway Trunk Routes", published in 1965, two years after the better known "The Reshaping of Britain's Railways". It can be found here:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=14

The image you have posted is Map No. 21 from that report (page 74), which shows depicted in black routes selected for development with regard to forecast passenger and freight flows in 1984. I always regard it as noteworthy that, in 1965, the two Transpennine routes selected for future development were the Woodhead and Calderdale routes; the former closed by 1984 and the latter nowadays very much playing second fiddle to the busy North Transpennine corridor via Huddersfield.

 

[JohnR]

"The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes"

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=14

 

[yorksrob]

A very interesting report, which makes it more comprehensible how some of our main lines came to be single track. The maps are particularly interesting.

One thing worth noting is that to achieve the amount of concentration of traffic envisaged would have required all traffic to travel at about the same speed (around 70 mph suggested here). It's difficult to see how this could ever have worked with the mixed speed, mixed traffic railway we have always had. Having multiple routes between major centres seems to be the only way to square this circle.

The report pretty much discounts local passenger services outside of the core commuter areas (no surprises there). What's interesting is that it doesn't seem to have taken into account potential higher speeds above 70mph for express passengers. I know IC125 was quite a way off at this stage, but surely BR at this time aspired to faster express passenger trains ? Consequently the bulk freight at 70mph would have naturally required a second route.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A very interesting report, which makes it more comprehensible how some of our main lines came to be single track. The maps are particularly interesting.

One thing worth noting is that to achieve the amount of concentration of traffic envisaged would have required all traffic to travel at about the same speed (around 70 mph suggested here). It's difficult to see how this could ever have worked with the mixed speed, mixed traffic railway we have always had. Having multiple routes between major centres seems to be the only way to square this circle.

The report pretty much discounts local passenger services outside of the core commuter areas (no surprises there). What's interesting is that it doesn't seem to have taken into account potential higher speeds above 70mph for express passengers. I know IC125 was quite a way off at this stage, but surely BR at this time aspired to faster express passenger trains ? Consequently the bulk freight at 70mph would have naturally required a second route.

The likes of the late G Fiennes was debating about higher I/C speeds - "vitesse commercial" (sic) from the early 1960's as his time as line manager for the GN route - which led of course to the Deltics (despite his deep appreciation of the ex LNER Pacifics) - particularly as the Maples led motorway building programme was planned and being executed. He did much the same on the Western route - with higher speeds and reduced journey times before the M4 (as we know it know) ws in operation. BR's cash strapped approach to faster I?C journeys is well know. Certain regions were better at rebalancing local services (Fiennes again with the Paytrain and basic rural railway) - but this is generally well appreciated....

 

[yorksrob]

The likes of the late G Fiennes was debating about higher I/C speeds - "vitesse commercial" (sic) from the early 1960's as his time as line manager for the GN route - which led of course to the Deltics (despite his deep appreciation of the ex LNER Pacifics) - particularly as the Maples led motorway building programme was planned and being executed. He did much the same on the Western route - with higher speeds and reduced journey times before the M4 (as we know it know) ws in operation. BR's cash strapped approach to faster I?C journeys is well know. Certain regions were better at rebalancing local services (Fiennes again with the Paytrain and basic rural railway) - but this is generally well appreciated....

Ah thanks. Its interesting to see how G Fiennes fits into the debate.

Higher speeds and reduced journey times are one thing but squeezing in the additional capacity as well is the tricky bit.

 

[Taunton]

Gerry Fiennes spent some years in the early 1960s at BRB HQ (after GN Line Manager and before ER General Manager) and was instrumental in the more advanced aspects of the Beeching reports (Inter-City, Freightliner, Merry go Round, etc). He was a great supporter of Beeching trying to modernise the railway properly. More than one commentator has said that Beeching saw him as a future successor. He wasn't a train buff and he wasn't stuck in the old ways of doing things, as so many alas were.

BR's cash strapped approach to faster I?C journeys is well known.

Not really so. The continuous building of Mk 2 express stock from 1963 to 1975 was all about better, faster, more frequent services. Likewise a huge amount of track investment. Most of the CWR on main routes dates from this time, and a fair amount of multi aspect resignalling and centralised power boxes as well. All that money came from Beeching et al prising it out of government.

 

[yorksrob]

Not really so. The continuous building of Mk 2 express stock from 1963 to 1975 was all about better, faster, more frequent services. Likewise a huge amount of track investment. Most of the CWR on main routes dates from this time, and a fair amount of multi aspect resignalling and centralised power boxes as well. All that money came from Beeching et al prising it out of government.

I was reading an article by Chris Green recently and he attributed a lot of the railway's later success to these changes made (at least partially) as a result of this report.

It's interesting to note though that the current railway seems to be doing the opposite to the premise of this report, i.e. instead of consolidating all flows on a few routes, we're now separating out traffic flows, e.g. removing freight paths from the ECML, and moving IC express services to HS2 as examples.

 

[coppercapped]

I was reading an article by Chris Green recently and he attributed a lot of the railway's later success to these changes made (at least partially) as a result of this report.

It's interesting to note though that the current railway seems to be doing the opposite to the premise of this report, i.e. instead of consolidating all flows on a few routes, we're now separating out traffic flows, e.g. removing freight paths from the ECML, and moving IC express services to HS2 as examples.

At the time of the reports railway traffic was contracting so it made sense to concentrate it on as few routes as possible to minimise costs.

Now traffic is expanding...

 

[yorksrob]

At the time of the reports railway traffic was contracting so it made sense to concentrate it on as few routes as possible to minimise costs.

Now traffic is expanding...

True, but they were anticipating an expansion of trunk traffic flows between then and 1984 (with a contingency built in).