Reversing Beeching ???

[ess1uk]

Five extra bids added to shortlist of abandoned railways that could be restored | New Civil Engineer

http://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/five-extra-bids-added-to-shortlist-of-abandoned-railways-that-could-be-restored-18-05-2021/?tkn=1

[caradoc]

One of the five listed is this: 

 

the fifth is reinstatement of the Ironbridge to Bridgnorth line (West Midlands).

 

This would appear to be an extension of the Severn Valley rather than an addition to the national network, which I thought had been discounted (for good reasons) in the past ? 

 

[Northmoor]

17 minutes ago, caradoc said:

One of the five listed is this: 

 

the fifth is reinstatement of the Ironbridge to Bridgnorth line (West Midlands).

 

This would appear to be an extension of the Severn Valley rather than an addition to the national network, which I thought had been discounted (for good reasons) in the past ? 

 

Agreed, the SVR has long tried to play down any expectations of it reopening and distancing themselves from involvment in a scheme.

 

I'm very interested in what "re-configuring the Ascot-Ash Vale line" means as it's my local line.  A couple of extra stations might not go amiss.

[caradoc]

4 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I'm very interested in what "re-configuring the Ascot-Ash Vale line" means as it's my local line.  A couple of extra stations might not go amiss.

 

Is it perhaps referring to plans to combine part of the route with the North Downs line in the Frimley/Farnborough area ? 

 

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

Is it perhaps referring to plans to combine part of the route with the North Downs line in the Frimley/Farnborough area ? 

 

Can't see how that could be practical.  However if it involves reversing the junction at Ash Vale to face North-to-East (instead of reinstating Sturt Lane Junction, which would never be accepted by NR), I can really see the point, as it would greatly ease commuting from Frimley/Camberley/Bagshot to Woking and towards London.

[Zomboid]

When I commuted that way I often pondered whether there would be space for a flyover (or diveunder) between the aqueduct and the Frimley line. The embankment for up trains is still there of course.

 

Whether there would be any paths for such trains I wouldn't know. The Basingstoke and Alton services aren't that frequent that the slow lines are impossible, so it shouldn't be an issue until Woking when they'd probably need to go onto the fasts, at peak times at least.

 

But that's not going to happen. It would be more sensible to add/detach 4 cars to/from an Alton train at Aldershot if direct trains via the main line are needed.

[JN]

On 07/10/2019 at 14:31, Kallaroonian said:

OK so I keep up to date with UK news but nowadays I live in Australia so I might be a bit behind the curve here; you might all be aware of this topic already.

 

but I came across this 

 

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/06/without-the-beeching-report-there-might-not-have-been-brexit

 

Wow. I think.

Brexit was a result of EU membership and I'm not aware of anyone having suggested that the UK should join the EEC (as was) because of Beeching. I understand there were other factors or reasons to 'Vote Leave Take Control', but sovereignty was the point of Brexit rather than having new railway lines and stations - 'What stopped railway lines etc being built whilst the UK was a member of the EU?' being the obvious question. The railway closures carried on as the UK economy reoriented from a largely manufacturing economy to a largely service economy during its time as an EU member with help from Government.

[caradoc]

17 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Can't see how that could be practical.  However if it involves reversing the junction at Ash Vale to face North-to-East (instead of reinstating Sturt Lane Junction, which would never be accepted by NR), I can really see the point, as it would greatly ease commuting from Frimley/Camberley/Bagshot to Woking and towards London.

 

What I was thinking of was a vaguely-remembered proposal to link/combine the two routes where they run roughly parallel; No involvement with the LSWR main line was planned ! 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by caradoc
Clarification

[whart57]

8 hours ago, JN said:

Brexit was a result of EU membership and I'm not aware of anyone having suggested that the UK should join the EEC (as was) because of Beeching. I understand there were other factors or reasons to 'Vote Leave Take Control', but sovereignty was the point of Brexit rather than having new railway lines and stations - 'What stopped railway lines etc being built whilst the UK was a member of the EU?' being the obvious question. The railway closures carried on as the UK economy reoriented from a largely manufacturing economy to a largely service economy during its time as an EU member with help from Government.

 

Larry Elliott was stretching a point when he suggested Beeching might have led to Brexit. Beneath that headline was an argument that the Beeching closures caused some places to feel abandoned and thus more likely to take it out on the London-centric "elite", as they were encouraged to by the Brexit campaigners - who were all part of that London-centric elite themselves ..........

[Jim Martin]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

 

Larry Elliott was stretching a point when he suggested Beeching might have led to Brexit. Beneath that headline was an argument that the Beeching closures caused some places to feel abandoned and thus more likely to take it out on the London-centric "elite", as they were encouraged to by the Brexit campaigners - who were all part of that London-centric elite themselves ..........

I wasn't going to reply to this topic, because I assumed that the discussion was long-dormant; but in case anyone isn't aware (and I don't suppose that any non-Guardian reader would be), contrary to what you might expect from a senior writer at the Guardian, Larry Elliott is a strong Brexit supporter. More specifically, he's a "Lexiter": someone who opposed the UK's membership of the EU from the Left on the grounds that it's a corporatist organisation. He's written about his stance several times, including in this article. I realise that this is straying towards politics and I'm not letting on about my own position on either Brexit or Beeching; but I thought it might be useful for context if people are going to be reading the article linked in the OP.

 

Jim

Edited June 4, 2021 by Jim Martin
To correct autocorrect (grrr!). Dr Breaching? Really?

[whart57]

I made that point when it first came up two years ago. Marvellous these Lazarus threads aren't they,

[JN]

4 hours ago, whart57 said:

Beneath that headline was an argument that the Beeching closures caused some places to feel abandoned and thus more likely to take it out on the London-centric "elite"

Maybe Larry Elliot does have a bit of a point, but Beeching happened in 1963 and the UK joined the EEC in 1973. I understood his argument (I'm assuming a good faith argument, but a bad faith interpretation might be 'Brexiteers being capricious, fickle and simple people who can be bought off for our agenda'), but I'd dispute it on the grounds that about 40% of the London electorate voted to leave the EU too. That would mean places like Bacup, Ramsbottom and Rawtenstall didn't vote 100% to leave. I lived very close to a Beeching cut, but even with the awareness of the cut, the cut wasn't my motivation for voting the way I did. Nor did it motivate my neighbours to vote the way they did. If it did play a part in people's motivation, I imagine it would be further down the list than other national concerns.

 

The State-Aid rules of the EU prevent a Government from giving preferential treatment for investment in a particular area. The Dutch government found this out a couple of years ago. If you extended a line over a previous cut, that new journey would have to be open to competitive tender and could very easily seen as a state subsidy to a company if that journey was just given to the local franchise. Also, a car manufacturer or a coach operator might argue this government investment cuts against competition for its product/service. This is  the case even if the purpose was just to connect two previously unconnected and 'underdeveloped' places. Stare Decius (basically, agreeing to that which has been decided before) means a government can continue an anti-competitive policy (a state-run health service, a state-run railway, that existed as a state-run organisation before membership), but can't introduce or reintroduce an anti-competitive policy (like nationalising or renationalising previously privatised industries). Chiltern Railways had to build its new connection to Oxford via Bicester because they had the money as well as having a long-term franchise. In the UK Deutsche Bahn, who own Chiltern Railways, operate as a private firm rather than as a state-run entity. The only defence for state-aid within the EU is that of national security. The UK didn't have to competitively tender firms to build a new warship, but the government couldn't force the shipbuilder to buy steel made in the UK.

 

The point about sovereignty is to do with EU law taking precedence over UK law and not just in terms of legislation - that the rulings of the European Court of Justice took precedence over UK Court rulings (also, there are the different legal traditions to contend with - Common and Roman law). For Brexiteers, there is an inseparability of National (the Crown, not the Nation) and Parliamentary Sovereignty. Parliamentary Sovereignty is about the UK's supreme legal authority being the Crown in Parliament - no law can bind the Crown for it is Crown that all law came and comes to be made and from where all courts in the UK get their authority from to make rulings on the law. Therefore since the Crown exists in Parliament, Parliament also cannot be bound by any law.

[Northmoor]

9 hours ago, JN said:

Stare Decius (basically, agreeing to that which has been decided before) means a government can continue an anti-competitive policy (a state-run health service, a state-run railway, that existed as a state-run organisation before membership), but can't introduce or reintroduce an anti-competitive policy (like nationalising or renationalising previously privatised industries).

Thank you @JNfor that explanation, if only more of the Brexit debate had been done that way. If I'm understanding your paragraph above correctly, it may explain why Labour under Jeremy Corbyn were so non-committal on Leave or Remain.  Policies to re-nationalise the railways (and a number of other industries) could not have been implemented under EU law if we had "Remained".

[JN]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Thank you @JNfor that explanation, if only more of the Brexit debate had been done that way. If I'm understanding your paragraph above correctly, it may explain why Labour under Jeremy Corbyn were so non-committal on Leave or Remain.  Policies to re-nationalise the railways (and a number of other industries) could not have been implemented under EU law if we had "Remained".

Well, Corbyn is on record as giving the EU seven out of 10 - what that means precisely I don't know (other than "the EU isn't perfect"), but its better than three or five out of 10. I couldn't tell if he meant that or was just advocating that as a way of preventing  (more) splits in the Labour Party - he was known for his anti-European stance, but people are allowed to change their minds. Nor do I have a window in to a person's soul.

 

However, a prevention of state aid and other associated policies was the reason John Mann argued for Brexit/'Lexit' and was exemplified by the Port Talbot crisis during the referendum campaign and the Longbridge crisis in 2000. The Lexit argument, as with 'the big red bus campaign', the operative word is 'could' (there was no 'must' or 'shall'). Stare Decius is not strictly only about, as I understand it, legal precedent, but also includes 'investment' in the law as it stands and that the 'burden of proof' is on the status quo (another way to express in a related field might be 'political consensus'). The primary function of Stare Decius is not to 'entrench' law (or special interests), but to prevent the public being messed about.

 

The problem for a domestic government is that the EU's legal jurisdiction is international. Taking the Longbridge example (simply because its easier) this would mean that in order to save Longbridge the then Labour government would have had to either make an equivalent rescue act of all similar car plants in the EU (which they couldn't do as then they would have to be in power forever) or give an equivalent investment to all other car plants in the EU (which itself would be contentious and expensive) just to remain within the EU rules of fair competition (fair in the sense of the same practices, rules etc). That said, Gordon Brown bailed out the banks in 2008. I'm not sure of the legal case, but the economic justification was that if he and others didn't act the economy (nationally and internationally) would come crashing down due to payments and receiving of payments as well as multiple bank runs and multiple banks collapsing all at the same time. The action was also co-ordinated internationally, at the G7, so the action Brown took was about the UK portion of the global effort. A legal case might not have been required as there was such an overwhelming economic case for doing so - I'm not sure of the ECJ's powers, but usually a case has to be presented and found in favour of rather than have policies 'abstractly' struck down (this is certainly the case in UK and US courts).

 

There are justified reasons for letting a business or industry 'fail', but explaining it leads me off-topic.

 

Sorry if I've overcomplicated hinges, but it's a complicated subject. I'm whilst I'm not an expert I wanted to explain things from an 'academic' point of view then I can keep my political opinions off the forum and let people make up their own minds from the facts as I see them (I'm also trying to make 'good faith' points rather writing anyone's press release).

[whart57]

It is rare to see the Lexit argument explained in such detail, or any Brexit argument come to that.

 

The Port Talbot example though should be provided with the caveat that the EU recognised the danger to European steel industries posed by Chinese dumping their excess production and proposed heavy tariffs. It was the British government that vetoed them.

 

The further example of not being able to restrict steel tenders on government contracts to UK producers does go to the heart of what the EU is about. The Dutch steel manufacturers invested heavily in modernising plant and in newer steel alloys, investment that would not have been justified by the Dutch home market for steel and they were ready to complain about not being given the opportunity to tender. The EU, as a Danish politician observed, is an alliance of small nations and nations yet to recognise they are small, and thus its aim is to provide a larger market than national markets can ever be. Britain, through voting for Brexit, is not prepared to accept they are relatively small on the global stage.

[JN]

6 hours ago, whart57 said:

It is rare to see the Lexit argument explained in such detail, or any Brexit argument come to that.

 

The Port Talbot example though should be provided with the caveat that the EU recognised the danger to European steel industries posed by Chinese dumping their excess production and proposed heavy tariffs. It was the British government that vetoed them.

 

The further example of not being able to restrict steel tenders on government contracts to UK producers does go to the heart of what the EU is about. The Dutch steel manufacturers invested heavily in modernising plant and in newer steel alloys, investment that would not have been justified by the Dutch home market for steel and they were ready to complain about not being given the opportunity to tender. The EU, as a Danish politician observed, is an alliance of small nations and nations yet to recognise they are small, and thus its aim is to provide a larger market than national markets can ever be. Britain, through voting for Brexit, is not prepared to accept they are relatively small on the global stage.

That reminds me, rather than saying "'burden of proof' is on the status quo" I should have said "'the presumption'..." with the burden of proof being on 'the change'.

 

"The Port Talbot example though should be provided with the caveat that the EU recognised the danger to European steel industries posed by Chinese dumping their excess production and proposed heavy tariffs. It was the British government that vetoed them."

Yes, you are right about the then Conservative government were more interested in the International steel market than the jobs (in the present and future) of steel workers in Port Talbot and the future of the wider community (or so it seemed). The 'community' is what Lexiteers (and Brexiteers too, but perhaps in a different way) care more about. Although, there were wider issues involved than just the application of tariffs on steel - the UK's fiscal situation connected to the construction of Hinkley Point B (the latter reason can also be seen as an environmental policy). The Port Talbot situation was similar to the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty's Social Chapter - the then Conservative government got an opt out from the Social Chapter, but Labour implemented the Social Chapter (with the Conservatives accepting its implementation by 2010) albeit in a slightly watered down form (Labour then went on to take credit for things like the minimum wage which is both true and not true - their responsibility, but not their idea). However, I'm not convinced a Labour if they had been in power could/would have dealt with the Port Talbot situation any differently.

 

There are debates in Economic History about whether domestic policy drives foreign policy or vice versa. An example might be did fear of the Soviet Union drive the Neo-Liberalism of the 1979-2016? era (at the cost of the Western Nation-State? Trump tried, but seems to have failed, to reassert the Nation-State as a valid political entity) or did the domestic liberalisation of the economies of France, (West) Germany, the UK and US drive the fall of the Soviet Union? Both of these can be true as well as the Soviet Union collapsing after four leaders (Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev) in three years.

 

"The further example of not being able to restrict steel tenders on government contracts to UK producers does go to the heart of what the EU is about."

Well, sure. Whilst facts don't have feelings people have feelings about facts. However, the foundational principle of the EU was about tying France and Germany together after the wars between the two countries from 1870 to 1945. Alsace-Loraine, changed from France and Germany four times in 31 years (from France to Germany back to France back to Germany back to France). Alsace is probably the most contested part of Western Europe and has been In dispute since the foundation of the Frankish Kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire. It's also worth having a look at Robert Schuman's biography.

 

"The EU, as a Danish politician observed, is an alliance of small nations and nations yet to recognise they are small, and thus its aim is to provide a larger market than national markets can ever be. Britain, through voting for Brexit, is not prepared to accept they are relatively small on the global stage."

If nothing else I think the vaccine rollout shows that the UK, post-Brexit, is not going to be as bad as some members of the Remain campaign had us believe - Cameron even went as far as to say Brexit would lead to WW3. As Matthew Goodwin often explains there are academic debates about the extent to which culture (identity rather music or sport) and/or economics are driving politics in the UK and US at the moment (over the last 20 years or so). I remember at the start of the referendum a Remainer said "Well, whatever the result, it's neither going to be the apocalypse or paradise." Contrast that with the end credits of the Newsnight referendum result show there’s footage of an old man weeping , in to his pint, saying "I've got my country back."

Edited June 5, 2021 by JN

[whart57]

12 hours ago, JN said:

There are debates in Economic History about whether domestic policy drives foreign policy or vice versa. An example might be did fear of the Soviet Union drive the Neo-Liberalism of the 1979-2016? era (at the cost of the Western Nation-State? Trump tried, but seems to have failed, to reassert the Nation-State as a valid political entity) or did the domestic liberalisation of the economies of France, (West) Germany, the UK and US drive the fall of the Soviet Union? Both of these can be true as well as the Soviet Union collapsing after four leaders (Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev) in three years.

 

 

 

It's more accurate to say that the advocates of neo-liberalism used - and stoked up - fear of the Soviet Union to build support for their approach to the economy. A carrot and stick approach. Also the fundamentals of the Soviet system were already under pressure and showing the cracks that would cause its collapse before Thatcher and Reagan came to power. If you are going to link neo-liberalism and the Soviet collapse then the dates suggest the relationship is the other way about, that the Soviet collapse removed the social needs in countries like France and West Germany to resist Anglo-American pressure to roll back the state.

 

Whilst facts don't have feelings people have feelings about facts. However, the foundational principle of the EU was about tying France and Germany together after the wars between the two countries from 1870 to 1945. Alsace-Loraine, changed from France and Germany four times in 31 years (from France to Germany back to France back to Germany back to France). Alsace is probably the most contested part of Western Europe and has been In dispute since the foundation of the Frankish Kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire.

 

People have feelings about what they think are facts. It is true that Alsace - a province with a French name but capital with a German name - has been a contested region since Roman times, it is not true that that contest has been between France and Germany all that time, or that it is unique. The whole of the Rhineland, including the Netherlands, is part of a mishmash of peoples speaking different languages and different dialects within those languages and following different versions of Christianity. Kings, dukes and emperors went to war over who ruled those regions but the peoples who lived there either suffered from the soldiery tramping over their fields and stealing their cattle, or, as in the most contested regions, adapted and turned supplying the armies into a business. Before 1914 borders were for taxes and customs duties, not to control people. Before 1914 even city and local tramways crossed and recrossed the borders several times an hour - or day in the case of rural steam trams - without a single passport check. Freight on the other hand was checked to see if the appropriate duty had been paid.

 

The English, living on an island on which they had eliminated borders by 1707, don't have that recent history, though we should have been more sensitive to the border issues in Ireland. The Irish understand that borders cause problems, as do most Europeans, but the English think borders create solutions. We only need to look at the history of the world over the last couple of centuries to see that the English view is dangerously wrong. Borders do not fit peoples and making people fit borders results in resentment and violence. Look at Northern Ireland.

 

If nothing else I think the vaccine rollout shows that the UK, post-Brexit, is not going to be as bad as some members of the Remain campaign had us believe - Cameron even went as far as to say Brexit would lead to WW3. As Matthew Goodwin often explains there are academic debates about the extent to which culture (identity rather music or sport) and/or economics are driving politics in the UK and US at the moment (over the last 20 years or so). I remember at the start of the referendum a Remainer said "Well, whatever the result, it's neither going to be the apocalypse or paradise." Contrast that with the end credits of the Newsnight referendum result show there’s footage of an old man weeping , in to his pint, saying "I've got my country back."

 

David Cameron and George Osborn were the biggest handicaps the Remain campaign had to carry. I'm pretty certain that at least a couple of million voted leave simply out of spite against those two. However Cameron never said Brexit would lead to World War Three, that was the spin put on it by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, in my opinion two politicians who outdo Cameron and Osborne for deceit and general sliminess by a huge margin. Cameron gave a speech in which he spoke of threats from Russia and others and of Britain being weaker by decoupling from European partners as well as citing Europe's war-torn history, but not actually predicting World War Three. It's sad that people believe he did because of Johnson and Gove.

 

I agree with the Remainer that the result will not be apocalypse or paradise, however look at the cost. Five years and counting of political turmoil, billions wasted on duplicating trade treaties we already had, millions of people facing uncertain futures and, trivial but personal, my packages from Europe stuck in some bloody warehouse for weeks because of red tape we didn't have before. Even the fishermen of Britain feel betrayed. Fortunately for Teflon Boris - but not for the rest of us - Covid is doing a grand job hiding the effects of Brexit. But benefits? When a trade deal with the Faroes is deemed worthy of headlines then you know the pickings are slim.

 

Contrast that with the end credits of the Newsnight referendum result show there’s footage of an old man weeping , in to his pint, saying "I've got my country back."

 

When I read of young Europeans having their relationships broken up by Brexit then my reaction to that old man is "you stupid, selfish old git"

 

[Northmoor]

20 minutes ago, whart57 said:

The English, living on an island on which they had eliminated borders by 1707, don't have that recent history, though we should have been more sensitive to the border issues in Ireland. The Irish understand that borders cause problems, as do most Europeans, but the English think borders create solutions. We only need to look at the history of the world over the last couple of centuries to see that the English view is dangerously wrong. Borders do not fit peoples and making people fit borders results in resentment and violence. Look at Northern Ireland.

 

To relate this to the subject of the thread: this is why I have always believed that the justification for reopening Carmarthen - Aberystwyth is based on the flawed argument that people travelling from A to B - which are both within the same country - should not have to cross into another country to do so.  The English/Welsh border is not based on natural, geographic features, it's an entirely artificial construct.  The railways and roads were always built to link the places where people actually lived and traded (irrespective of their nationality) and to skirt the natural boundaries that a bl**dy great range of mountains provided.

[whart57]

34 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

To relate this to the subject of the thread: this is why I have always believed that the justification for reopening Carmarthen - Aberystwyth is based on the flawed argument that people travelling from A to B - which are both within the same country - should not have to cross into another country to do so.  The English/Welsh border is not based on natural, geographic features, it's an entirely artificial construct.  The railways and roads were always built to link the places where people actually lived and traded (irrespective of their nationality) and to skirt the natural boundaries that a bl**dy great range of mountains provided.

 

Back in the early days of devolution when the question of where to site the Welsh Assembly came up some geographers did a study to find the most suitable location based on population, natural features and transport links. The answer they came up with was Shrewsbury. Salopians will also know that Clun and all its neighbours with "Clun" in the name are really corruptions of "Llan" and point at a relatively recent Welsh-speaking past. And then there is Offa's Dyke, which was a marker of how far the rule of the kings of Mercia stretched in the lands of the Severn. In many ways the Carmarthen-Aberystwyth line has the same purpose as Offa's dyke. Offa's dyke had a defensive purpose but its main functions were to delineate who a peasant owed fealty to and who he paid taxes to. That and whether his heirs were determined by English or Welsh customs. The Carmarthen-Aberystwyth line is to tie Aberystwyth and the mid-Wales coastal region to Cardiff, and thus the Welsh government, rather than Shrewsbury or Chester.

[caradoc]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

When I read of young Europeans having their relationships broken up by Brexit then my reaction to that old man is "you stupid, selfish old git"

 

Do you personally know that old man, and why he reacted as he did ? No, of course you don't. My reaction to your entire post, which has no place whatsoever in RMWeb, is unprintable......

 

[whart57]

28 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Do you personally know that old man, and why he reacted as he did ? No, of course you don't. My reaction to your entire post, which has no place whatsoever in RMWeb, is unprintable......

 

 

Brexit was very divisive, it was intended to be, and at no time in the last five years has any attempt been made to take the heat out. That divisiveness will spill over into other areas of life. If that bothers you then try a more conciliatory approach

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, whart57 said:

If that bothers you then try a more conciliatory approach

 

Says the guy who wrote my reaction to that old man is "you stupid, selfish old git"'

 

 

[whart57]

35 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Says the guy who wrote my reaction to that old man is "you stupid, selfish old git"'

 

 

 

You reacted though didn't you. You could have shrugged shoulders and let it go.

 

There was a lot more in that posting of mine which you could have engaged with but you condemned that too. Yet this thread is a lot about the politics of Britain and how that affects transport and industry

Edited June 6, 2021 by whart57

[whart57]

To get back on topic, wasn't it in Wales where some MPs argued with Harold Wilson for the retention for a line on the grounds that it passed through five marginal constituencies?

[Northmoor]

15 minutes ago, whart57 said:

To get back on topic, wasn't it in Wales where some MPs argued with Harold Wilson for the retention for a line on the grounds that it passed through five marginal constituencies?

Yes, it was the Central Wales Line (still open over 50 years later).  Can't remember if it was with Wilson though or before his election win.