Reversing Beeching

[jonny777]

 

 

I remember when Branson first set up Virgin Atlantic, with just one 747 to his name. He was being interviewed at Heathrow by some **** stiring journalist trying to imply his cheaper fares could only be achieved by compromising on safety, "How else was he going to do it." He turned round and pointed at the BA four storey management block and said, "I haven't got one of those."

 

 

 

 

He has now....

 

[D854_Tiger]

He has now....

 

 

 

Be fair he's managing an entire space program as well now.

 

Apparently, on Virgin's first ever flight, the passengers were treated to a (live???) broadcast from the cockpit.

 

After the flight took off and then entered the cruise, the captain and second officer were both seen to light up two huge reefers, at which point, they turned to face the camera, gave the passengers a smile and reveal that the aircraft was being flown by Ian Botham and Clive Lloyd, dressed in full pilots uniforms.

[wombatofludham]

 ...and so could the broken housing market that's plagued with state intervention (or planning as we prefer to know it).

 

 

 

So you would prefer a complete free for all in housing development?  Lots of expensive housing on attractive countryside sites with "lovely views" whilst other areas go to rot?  Lots of ribbon development along prime roads as happened in the 1930s?  No National Parks/SSSIs/AONBs?  Massive housing estates on floodplains?

 

​It's not planning that is the bottleneck.  It's two things: an over reliance on private housebuilding and the Government's national policy of presumption in favour of development, which buys up land with planning permission and then doesn't build on it to keep up houseprices, act as an asset for borrowing against, and to keep rivals out whilst only building large detached high-profit housing in selected areas which are completely unaffordable to the majority of new buyers, and the second thing is this unfortunate concept of democracy:  unfortunately Joe and Joanna Numpty have to have their say on housing allocations and don't like having new housing on any open land near them.  This country could make an Olympic sport of Nimbyism.  

 

​So, by all means lobby the Government who would love nothing more than to give their donors in the development industry unfettered freedom from planning to build what they want where they want, but Joe and Joanna Numpty won't like that and I venture to suggest any Government who did would be in opposition for a long time..

[chriswright03]

I posted this as a discussion point really to see if there are options in this day and age in anyone's view.  Like extending lines, preservation lines being utilised more or even just what alternatives there are available.  I did say I did not want it to turn political so could we step back from that angle please?

[D854_Tiger]

So you would prefer a complete free for all in housing development?  Lots of expensive housing on attractive countryside sites with "lovely views" whilst other areas go to rot?  Lots of ribbon development along prime roads as happened in the 1930s?  No National Parks/SSSIs/AONBs?  Massive housing estates on floodplains.

 

 

I would prefer that there were no homeless people, I would prefer that high property prices were not allowed to totally devalue people's living standards (more so than any wage or tax regime could hope to compensate for) and I would prefer that next time someone has the (in my view laudable) ambition to let 350,000 extra people into the country every year they might at least have given some thought to where they might all live.

 

As to the solution, I keep an open mind, except to say last time massive social housing was tried, in the 1960s, well it hardly turned out well.

[Zomboid]

I posted this as a discussion point really to see if there are options in this day and age in anyone's view. Like extending lines, preservation lines being utilised more or even just what alternatives there are available. I did say I did not want it to turn political so could we step back from that angle please?

I wonder if reopening stations where towns have grown up around the old site isn't more likely. Not that I can think of very many (Soham perhaps?); the area where I live was impacted by closures etc, but there isn't anything crying to be reopened. And bring slightly parochial, I just don't know enough about transport problems further away.

[D854_Tiger]

I posted this as a discussion point really to see if there are options in this day and age in anyone's view.  Like extending lines, preservation lines being utilised more or even just what alternatives there are available.  I did say I did not want it to turn political so could we step back from that angle please?

 

I tried to keep it politics free (as much as it ever can be) but stating the money has to be found for whatever is desirable (in my case one big **** off train set if I had my way) isn't really being political only stating the obvious.

 

We currently have two entirely different agendas being offered up for the railways, by the world of politics, all I'm saying is at the moment one sounds more viable than the other (but am not saying which) is that OK on the politics.

 

Whatever or whoever and however delivers on the railways is fine by me, I'm entirely agnostic so long as Birmingham gets fifteen new light railway routes, four or five underground lines and numerous heavy rail local stations being reopened.

 

Noting that Germany proves the state can do that in Dusseldorf (a much smaller place) and Japan proves that the private sector can do it also.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Be fair he's managing an entire space program as well now.

 

Apparently, on Virgin's first ever flight, the passengers were treated to a (live???) broadcast from the cockpit.

His space programme seems to consist mainly of PR people putting out press releases saying that his (pretty basic) rocket plane will be ready 'next year'. It never is. I'm not sure how many people it takes to run that, as the development is contracted out. 

 

As for the planned reopenings, the scale of what's proposed doesn't seem that much different from the ongoing programme of reopenings that's been happening over the last 30+ years. It's good, but it's nothing revolutionary. 

[wombatofludham]

 

 

As to the solution, I keep an open mind, except to say last time massive social housing was tried, in the 1960s, well it hardly turned out well.

 

That's because the rules of tenancy were not enforced.  In the 1940s and 1950s when Council housing was massively increased you had to be married to qualify for one, in regular employment, agree to keep the place tidy and to submit to inspections, and could be evicted for any what would now be called anti-social behaviour.  And before anyone starts making political points, that was rigidly enforced by the Labour run council my grandparents rented their house from.

 

There is absolutely no reason why such good tenancy agreements could not be put in place today, other than the marital and possibly the employment rules, as nothing in them is discriminatory and is about behaviour, respect and good neighbourliness.

 

As for wanting homes for all in need, you will find all planners share the aspiration, but it's not in their court to do much about it if the housebuilders are sitting on extensive landbanks and if the locals object to everything.

[The Stationmaster]

I see it's printed on 75% recycled paper so it's hardly surprising it contains at least 75% recycled ideas and heavily used buzzwordssome of which (e.g South West alliance) have patently not managed to achieve what it said on the tin.  The Branson quote (in a linked media story) that NR is 'too large' had me falling about laughing - BR was a darned sight larger and rather amazingly actually delivered large works projects on time and within budget (perhaps because it understood what it was doing?).  However I agree absolutely that some aspects of NR are over centralised but will the empire holders allow their fiefdoms to be broken up I wonder.

 

Basically I'll believe it when it happens and I say that as someone who has twice in the past 25+ years (within BR and in later a consultancy role) had to 'cast my eye over' various matters connected with the feasibility and operational methodology of re-opening the line from from Bere Alston to Tavistock.  All of it is of course possible if the finance is there but seemingly one of the idea is to increase costs by splitting off part of the current GWR franchise idea thus making things less efficient - methinks the Minister remains as confused as he has been in the past.

Edited November 29, 2017 by The Stationmaster

[luckymucklebackit]

The Westminster government can make life difficult enough for the SNP that they will either be forced to follow suit or suffer rail services deteriorating.

 

The SNP will then have to find ways to blame any bad outcomes as England's fault (their usual ploy on which up to now they've successfully based their entire political career) but that sort of thing only has so much shelf life and tends to wear thin after a while with the voters.

 

The SNP has a much better record on rail reconstruction than the rest of the UK (London excepted), Larkhall. Alloa, Airdrie to Bathgate and the Borders Line are the best examples, pressure is still on to add to these lines but the cost of electrification of just about everything in the central belt just now will probably mean no reopened routes in the near future.  Possible future re-openings include Grangemouth, Methil and St Andrews, with the extension to the Borders line still a possibility

 

Jim

Edited November 29, 2017 by luckymucklebackit

[jonathan452]

Too late for Cambridge to St Ives!

 

And that was a line where the money men said that the existing infrastructure was too poor to warrant upgrading the line. How many are there that will be in the same category yet people hope to have a railway again.

 

Kings Lynn perhaps? Not sure about elsewhere in the country as I'm too out of date with developments really.

 

It is a welcome development though.

Also Luton to Dunstable.

 

Meanwhile the Croxley Link (Metropolitan Line Extension) debacle.

 

And is Mr Grayling even aware of the Watton on Stone to Stevenage 'closure'?

[D854_Tiger]

The SNP has a much better record on rail reconstruction than the rest of the UK (London excepted), Larkhall. Alloa, Airdrie to Bathgate and the Borders Line are the best examples, pressure is still on to add to these lines but the cost of electrification of just about everything in the central belt just now will probably mean no reopened routes in the near future.  Possible future re-openings include Grangemouth, Methil and St Andrews, with the extension to the Borders line still a possibility

 

Jim

 

I don't doubt it, recognising that devolved power generally has helped matters where transport is concerned.

 

It's just that the main parties in Westminster do have a vested interest in stuffing Wee Jimmie Krankie.

 

Sorry if that offends but the *** is about to bring in minimum alcohol pricing, she has already banned alcohol on Scotrail and separating me from my beer is politics beyond the pale, even though I am English, and anyway I've got a wife for that kind of thing without her poking her ore in.

[phil-b259]

I tried to keep it politics free (as much as it ever can be) but stating the money has to be found for whatever is desirable (in my case one big **** off train set if I had my way) isn't really being political only stating the obvious.

 

We currently have two entirely different agendas being offered up for the railways, by the world of politics, all I'm saying is at the moment one sounds more viable than the other (but am not saying which) is that OK on the politics.

 

Whatever or whoever and however delivers on the railways is fine by me, I'm entirely agnostic so long as Birmingham gets fifteen new light railway routes, four or five underground lines and numerous heavy rail local stations being reopened.

 

Noting that Germany proves the state can do that in Dusseldorf (a much smaller place) and Japan proves that the private sector can do it also.

 

However that is only because the legislative set up allows it.

 

In the case of Germany what people need to remember is that the country is a Federal entity made up of largely self governing states (called Lander) each with their own Parliaments, presidents and tax revenues. As with other Federal states like the USA, this proper display of 'localism' (Not the lame version occasionally pedalled by Westminster politicians) allows considerable freedom to respond to the needs of the inhabitants.

 

Back in the UK there is simply no way of funding 'grand plans' in the regions while they are more or less entirely dependent on the UK Treasury for funds. If most of the income tax (as well as business rates etc raised in the Birmingham area went to a regional body with real legislative clout then all sorts of things would become possible transport wise.

 

The problem is that no politician / political party wants to give up power if it can help it - we saw that a decade or so ago with the proportional representation referendum where the model put to the voters was not the most efficient attractive one that could have been picked and the stance of the 'big two' parties that sought to portray the potential of collation Governments becoming the norm as the end of the world (despite the evidence that collations tend to result in more moderate, inclusive Governments that generally have no issues in delivering for the full parliamentary cycle.

[melmerby]

Dr Beeching did exactly what his Master (road builder Ernie Marples) wanted him to do:

Create more requirement for new road building.

Marples was the evil (some might even say corrupt) one, but poor old Dr Beeching gets the blame.

 

 

I'm curious to know how this "integrated" TOC/Maintenance system will work.

One of the reports says from 2020 the ECML franchise will have the responsibility of maintaining the railway therefore only one interested party, rather than several when something needs to be done.

So what of XC, Great Northern, EMT, Grand Central et al who also use parts of the ECML.?

I can see numerous squabbles & legal to-ing and fro-ing with this arrangement, nothing new then, even more work for lawyers

 

Keith

[lapford34102]

 

The government will also consider splitting up two of the biggest train operators - Great Western..............

 

Welcome back Wessex Trains........

 

Stu

[phil-b259]

Also Luton to Dunstable.

 

Meanwhile the Croxley Link (Metropolitan Line Extension) debacle.

 

And is Mr Grayling even aware of the Watton on Stone to Stevenage 'closure'?

 

The first is now a guided busway and would not only need considerable work to turn it back into a railway but would be a big 'loss of face' to those who funded it in the first place.

 

The second suffers from the 'solution to a problem that doesn't exist' syndrome. The bottom line is there never has been good enough BCR to make it worth doing - the only way the most recent attempt got as far as it did was by under estimating the costs involved and due to the then Conservative Mayor plundering TfL funds earmarked for other causes to help is fellow Conservative, the MP for Watford out in the upcoming general election. Having had a good look at the figures, TfL have said that the scheme cannot be delivered without significant extra funding - which given that the line lies entirely outside Grater London (it is in the country of Hertfordshire) with TfLs operation of the Metropolitan line simply being an accident of history rather than a statement of political responsibility. As such the Mayor of London is quite correct to stop any further expenditure on the project, which in truth never should have started in the first place.

 

The third example is not a closure however you look at it. Network Rail have an agreed obligation to provide turnback facilities at Stevenage. This is needed as there will not be enough new trains to allow services to continue to terminate at Letchworth and provide the peak time service required inwards of Hertford. Outside of peak times and at weekends it is envisaged that there will be sufficient slack in the train fleet for a service to be extended up to Letchworth to turnback. The obligation is just that an obligation - not an 'aspiration' (or any of those weasel type words) that NR is fully committed to - and the SoS is none to pleased that it won't be ready in time for the train fleet upgrade and timetable changes that will happen ove the next few years. Equally he is not going to mess up the Franchise / Management contract with GTR to buy a few extra trains to save  NRs blushes

Edited November 29, 2017 by phil-b259

[Mike Storey]

Despite assertions by others on here, the "strategy" covers Wales - it specifically mentions funds being contributed to South Wales projects, and it acknowledges much of the progress made in Scotland, by banging heads together, by focussed investment and by a new type of prescriptive franchise, on which many of the "new" ideas are based.

 

It seeks and examples, additional private funding but the vast core remains taxpayer funded.

 

Consolidation and alignment of incentives, strategic aims and funding by the state, seemed to be the favoured model that helped put us on the winning side in two world wars. It led not to shortages, but to something like what the nation needed at the time. And private enterprise (other than railway shareholders) made quite a few bob out of it. Quite why it is presumed it is not a suitable model for peacetime, remains one of life's great mysteries.

 

The Beeching Plan was largely (but not exclusively) driven by the major shareholder in a private construction company, that happened to build motorways. It is of note that a government of one colour,has carried on largely the transport strategy of another colour, thank goodness, despite the private interests of many in that government in other modes. That much is progress.

 

As for re-openings, there is a choice between creating extra capacity for lines already bursting at the seams (such as BML2) or creating extra demand from new development, whether by new stations or re-opened/new lines. Only the latter can attract private finance, primarily through Section 54, but any sensible person would require that the former is attended to first. At least the paper mentions both, even if it does not link them. To give just one example, Strensall and Haxby outside York, have been waiting for their stations to be re-opened for decades now (I did some work on them in the late 1980's). The stumbling block (apart from NYCC and City Council endless dithering) was that the trains were already full and extra infrastructure was needed further along the line to increase capacity and add another unit to the line's services. So taxpayer/community charge payer/business rate payer funding would be needed before any private developer could be reasonably asked to cough up - opportunity perhaps already lost by now in those locations.

[phil-b259]

I'm curious to know how this "integrated" TOC/Maintenance system will work.

 

So I imagine are most people with half a brain cell

 

Once again it is a Conservative minister trying (and failing) to square to diametrically opposing principles. On the one hand, as with all true Conservatives, you have this obsession with 'competition' / 'franchising' / 'outsourcing' / 'small Government' which is what gave us the current privatisation set up in the first place - but on the other you have a desire for a strong single controlling entity (lets call it 'British Rail') which cuts out all the middlemen and is very efficient / directly accountable for all aspects of the operation.

 

The 'free market' is nothing of the sort if the Government is forced to 'rig' the system - either stick with the current system (NR, TOCS, ROSCOs, Open Access operators and private FOCs) warts and all or effectively renationalise the thing (even if it then gets flogged off as vertically integrated units). Ministers need to STOP PRETENDING there are easy solutions to the mess they themselves have created.

Edited November 29, 2017 by phil-b259

[Dunsignalling]

Welcome back Wessex Trains........

 

Stu

Oh Good, my WT mouse-mat is starting to look a bit tatty............

[D854_Tiger]

Consolidation and alignment of incentives, strategic aims and funding by the state, seemed to be the favoured model that helped put us on the winning side in two world wars. It led not to shortages, but to something like what the nation needed at the time. And private enterprise (other than railway shareholders) made quite a few bob out of it. Quite why it is presumed it is not a suitable model for peacetime, remains one of life's great mysteries.

 

The railways have coped under both private and state ownership.

 

Where they have failed to cope, under either form of ownership, was when successive governments insisted on always considering them as a business that must aim for profit and show a return on investment, whilst their primary competing mode was never (and still isn't) considered in anything like that same kind of business-like way.

 

Roads have always been built according to need, never according to profit, and only recently has the concept emerged of railways being afforded the same kind of treatment, albeit to a much lesser extent.

 

There hasn't really been a level playing field for the railways since the days of the turnpikes.

[phil-b259]

I I did say I did not want it to turn political so could we step back from that angle please?

 

A bit difficult to do that given:-

 

(i) The document is a Government one, and anything the Government does is influenced by the political party in charge.

(ii) It rattles on about how great privatisation has been and implies that privatisation has more or less single handedly been the reason for the growth in passenger numbers

(iii) Lays out plans for yet more fragmentation (splitting of the GWR franchise etc) while at the same time calling for more consolidation.

(iv) Is being championed by a minister with a track record of manipulating things so it fits with their political ideology (re the Southern DOO dispute)

Edited November 29, 2017 by phil-b259

[Horsetan]

 

Be fair he's managing an entire space program as well now.....

 

His space programme seems to consist mainly of PR people putting out press releases saying that his (pretty basic) rocket plane will be ready 'next year'. It never is. ....

 

OT, but certainly much commented on in Private Eye

[D854_Tiger]

A bit difficult to do that given:-

 

(i) The document is a Government one, and anything the Government does is influenced by the political party in charge.

(ii) It rattles on about how great privatisation has been and implies that privatisation has more or less single handedly been the reason for the growth in passenger numbers

(iii) Lays out plans for yet more fragmentation (splitting of the GWR franchise etc) while at the same time calling for more consolidation.

(iv) Is being championed by a minister with a track record of manipulating things so it fits with their political ideology (re the Southern DOO dispute)

 

 

I rather think the mistake was made early, when Beeching was mentioned, that's about as political as it gets on a railway forum.

 

Rather like posting a cartoon of the prophet and hoping there won't be a fuss on Muslim TV.

[PenrithBeacon]

I think it was right to reduce the railway network in the 1960s but it is surely right too to add to it now.

As ever it will come down to money. HS2 is costing a fortune and the government is still wedded to austerity