50 Years ago this year

[Tom D]

50 years ago this year, Dr. Beeching became chairman of British Railways. There has been much discussion as to the ‘rationalisation’ of the cuts that took place, and reduced the UK railway system from over 20,000 miles to just over 10,000 miles.

 

 

He was given a mandate to bring British Railways to a state of profitability, and begin the implementation of the 1955 modernisation plan. It is also well known that the Minister of Transport at the time, was a director of a road construction company, and believed railways to be a thing of the past.

 

 

It is these combination of factors which resulted in the railway system that exists in the UK today.

 

 

Personally, I believe that only certain lines within the system would ever be profitable, but by cutting specific lines from the system, the possibility of making other lines profitable was eliminated.

 

 

I also believe that in the not too distant future, rail transport will need to be expanded, as the costs of transporting by road will become less efficient, due mainly to traffic congestion and fuel costs.

 

 

I only hope that when the system is expanded, planners give thought to the objective of the system and not the business model.

 

I would appreciate your comments.

 

Tom D

 

 

[Kris]

50 years ago personal travel was harder so people tended to live closer to their work. This meant that many of the towns served by lines that were closed or had their stations shut were much smaller than they are now. The traffic that these were able to generate was limited. With the development of the road network and the growth in car ownership over the intervening years the distance that people commute to work has increased dramatically leading to the growth in many towns which might have made the lines and stations once open, far more profitable.

[Oldddudders]

Members of this forum are slightly unusual - many of us travel by train for the fun of it, and that is seldom the case among the general public. In the 50s - which were tough years, with a broken-down Britain recovering from 6 exhausting years of war, train travel was only undertaken when necessary, as few had many extra coins in their pockets. Thus, the Beeching Report had plenty of justification for noting lines where the trains were often empty - if the hard '50s couldn't generate traffic, how would the increasingly car-owning Britain of the early '60s do so? Lorries & the motorway network, then in embryo form but clearly destined to expand, were busily doing the same trick to freight, further weakening the case for marginal branches to be retained.

 

The industry was wonderfully old-fashioned. Stations had multiple staff despite a modest train service. Ancient working arrangements - vide the 1922 Agreement for footplate staff - kept staff numbers up, while passenger numbers visibly declined. As someone pointed out - Mr Micawber would not approve. When I joined BR in 1966, roundly 250,000 people were employed - and the Beeching cuts were already well under way by then. By the time Privatisation loomed in the '90s, the number was about 120,000. Yet train services on the lines that remained were in most cases more numerous and faster.

 

It is easy, in the clever spotlight of C21 vision, to identify routes which might today be giving a much better return, but for which the figures did not add up in Beeching's time. Concerns about fossil fuels and their future availability all add up to a good case for the railway - especially the electric railway - having impeccable green credentials now. But Beeching needs to be seen in the context of his time, and the anachronistic network that he inherited on taking charge did not pay its way in supporting the public purse that funded it. Surgery was inevitable - and in many cases, as right then as now.

[The Stationmaster]

Ian is absolutely right (apart from missing out the 1957 Manning Agreement of course) and as another who joined in 1966 and went through to the end of the last century I too saw a railway going through enormous cultural change in a country which was itself undergoing many changes. Gerry Fiennes - who served as the General Manager of two BR Regions and had joined the LNER just before the war - referred to Beeching as 'the good Doctor' and I believe he was absolutely right to do so. The railway had either to change or whither away and die and Beeching at least produced a focus and plan for the future - something which was sorely needed in order to get away from the ever lengthening trail of piecemeal cuts & closures as traffic vanished along with little concentration on reducing costs. But finally do not overlook one thing - hinted at indirectly in the OP - he was in many respects doing the bidding of the Govt and whatever might be said to the contrary the boundaries (especially financial) set by the Govt of the day can also have an impact on what happens on a British state owned railway system.

[caradoc]

I agree with Ian and Mike. It should be remembered that Beeching did not actually close railways, but recommend those he thought should be closed, and it was entirely within the power of the Government of the day to accept or reject his recommendations. Not all lines were closed under Conservative Governments either; Labour shut their share as well. Where I do believe a serious mistake was made was in not safeguarding routes which might have been useful in the future; An example might be the Oxford-Fairford branch. The section beyond Witney could never have survived, but how useful would an Oxford/Witney service be today, judging from the daily congestion on the A40 ?

[Edwin_m]

Beeching made the assumption that the bus was the best mode for local journeys with relatively low passenger flows. Advances in road vehicle technology had made buses reasonably comfortable, fast, reliable and cheap, and with rural traffic congestion unheard of he was probably right at the time. However he didn't reckon with the fact that the same developments would lead to mass car ownership, widespread congestion, and the spread of urbanisation which would combine to make some of the closed railways worth keeping after all.

 

I agree it is a shame that more closed routes weren't protected from encroachment, but if we'd foreseen all this then maybe we'd have kept those ones open in the first place? Also not to forget that Beeching foresaw and encouraged the types of traffic the railway is good at.

[Kris]

I agree it is a shame that more closed routes weren't protected from encroachment, but if we'd foreseen all this then maybe we'd have kept those ones open in the first place?

 

I quite agree that many routes of old lines should have been protected from encroachment but how long would you carry that policy on for? 10, 20, 30, 40 years or more?

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

Politicians in general are much more sensitive to voters and the effect on their majority caused by Government changes than is often believed. Back then a local issue like this would have caused widespread disquiet but the truth of the matter is that it just didn't. This was mainly because it affected actually very few people indeed in real terms.

 

Remember that the railways were staffed to deal with both passengers and freight and, if passengers disappeared but the freight didn't the line would remain open.

 

The truth is contained in the OP's post "and begin the implementation of the 1955 modernisation plan."

 

Begin? This is 1961 and six years after the plan was announced so it is fairly obvious that the plan was not being implemented fast enough or not at all and the subsidy was continuing to rise as revenues fell. This could not go on.

 

I cannot see that many or any of the lines could be easily or usefully be relaid or re-opened and privatisation of the rail track network or any part of it is not a viable option IMHO.

 

Can anybody on here report that as a paying railway user that they were inconvenienced by the Beeching closures? I certainly wasn't.

[Ceptic]

Looking from the left-field, it also begs the question.....

European railways were, pretty well, bombed out of existance, during the course of WW2.

Britain's railways fared hardly better.

Compare the 1948 Nationalised, and the privatised railways of present day Britain, with those of France , Germany, and, of course, Japan.

These countries invested in their National railway network immediately after the dust had settlled.

What did we do ? We spent spent millions compensating the private railway companies (and their shareholders), upon Nationalisation, and, have looked, post 1948, piece-meal, at modernisation, i.e. Diesel & Electric.

It is on record, that the British tax-payer also subsidised the expansion of the UK's Road / Motorway network, with the support of the 'Road hauliers lobby' (read Earnest Marples, MP, and sympathtic Dr. Richard Beeching) during BR's network decline.

Didn't the 1980s' taxpayer do just the same ? and has been doing, since the '80's / 90's railway privatisation.?

 

Going back to square one. How did Germany, France, and other European countries recover so quickly? after WW2. How were they so funded ?, and, 'Why didn't we do the same ?'

 

Regards.

[Kris]

 

Going back to square one. How did Germany, France, and other European countries recover so quickly? after WW2. How were they so funded ?, and, 'Why didn't we do the same ?'

 

 

 

Lots on money was pumped in to the economies of Germany and Japan to help them recover quickly and to prevent there populations turning on the occupying troops. At the same time that this was happening Britain was having to pay out huge amounts of money to repay debts from the war, this prevented much investment being made.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

 

Going back to square one. How did Germany, France, and other European countries recover so quickly? after WW2. How were they so funded ?, and, 'Why didn't we do the same ?'

 

 

There is a very simple answer to that question although it does inevitably verge on the 'political' - the biggest post-war recipient of Marshall Aid was the UK but a lot of it was spent on creating the NHS (which has saved my life a couple of times, starting in 1950, so I don't exactly begrudge that expenditure - especially when i look at hospital bills from before its creation) and we continued to owe the USA a very large amount of money on 'consumed' Lease-Lend equipment that wasn't available for return, a debt they weren't prepared to write-off. And that apart there were many other factors which meant there wasn't money available not only for railway modernisation but even to pay to the railway companies the moneys the Govt owed them for their wartime efforts (I have heard it said that nationalisation was considered to be cheaper than paying the companies what they were owed but don't know the truth, if any, of that statement).

[trisonic]

Shareholders were compensated in France and Germany upon nationalization why not here in the UK? Shareholders provided the finance to make the rail system as extensive as it was.

The answer is probably due to the then powers that be in the UK deciding to nationalize at our weakest moment (France and Germany did it before the War - actually France virtually did it in the 19th century).

 

Best, Pete.

 

Edit: My reply is in response to Ceptic.

[Kris]

 

What did we do ? We spent spent millions compensating the private railway companies (and their shareholders), upon Nationalisation.

 

 

 

The government effectively bought the railways from the private companies so paying them for their businesses does not seem unreasonable.

[Coombe Barton]

The general philosophy of the 1960s was “If it’s old, renew itâ€

 

Nowadays the general philosophy is “If it’s old, what’s its heritage value?â€

 

This may explain a lot of the thinking and action of the time.

 

 

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

 

European railways were, pretty well, bombed out of existance, during the course of WW2.

Britain's railways fared hardly better.

 

Going back to square one. How did Germany, France, and other European countries recover so quickly? after WW2. How were they so funded ?, and, 'Why didn't we do the same ?'

 

Regards.

 

Not quite. Most of our rail network was pretty much intact. Certainly some of it was damaged but with Herculean effort it was rarely shut for long. I don't think the Luftwaffe spent too much energy targetting railways as it was pretty obvious that hitting the track in open country was a waste of resource and most of the damage sustained was actually collateral damage when looking for something more important. It was one of the turning points of the war when the Luftwaffe was redeployed to bomb cities. Most of the London terminii are very much as built.

 

In Europe of course and particularly later in the war post D Day a great deal of sabotage and bombing was employed to destroy the larger French railway yards to prevent the Germans using it to bring up or deploy reinforcements. Quite a few French locos were strafed around this time. Only possible once the Luftwaffe was dealt with.

 

It is generally reckoned that destroying a rail network is unwise for a land based Army as they can use it equally as well for rapid deployment of troops once a successful landing has been made. This was the reason that the bridge at Remagen remained intact. Germany wanted it up to the last minute for retreat and possibly attack.

 

I think that the reason that the railway did not recover well is that all this effort had worn out the stock, the staff and the management to an equal degree and the returning Tommy was not prepared to put up with the filthy Victorian conditions and attitudes that still prevailed on the railways. it was also pretty obvious that the railways were never going to be able to re-equip and modernise on their own so nationalisation was essential.

 

Both French and German railways were already in national ownership and the French ones were rapidly rebuilt using War Loans and reparation money. Germany lost half its system to Stalin and again was practically rebuilt using American money and know how although I find all the European systems considerably less intensive than ours was anyway.

[Tim V]

The general philosophy of the 1960s was “If it’s old, renew itâ€

 

Nowadays the general philosophy is “If it’s old, what’s its heritage value?â€

 

This may explain a lot of the thinking and action of the time.

 

 

Got in one.

 

The 60s was about out with the old bring in the new. The white heat of technology, you've never had it so good.

 

Unfortunately a lot of other things were thrown away in the 60s. Sometimes what was put in new wasn't necessarily better.

 

Look at what is happening with 60s architecture now. It's life expired, and being pulled down. No one appears to be asking for it to be listed. Have you noticed how the older buildings alongside 60s blocks are being retained?

[Guest Max Stafford]

Don't forget that in the '50s and early '60s. Britain was spending huge amounts to maintain the perception of being a top-table world military power unlike the others. David, I need to take issue with your comments about people not being inconvenienced by the closures. It caused a great deal of hardship in the Scottish Borders. The ghost town that is modern Hawick bears stark testament to a town that lost any meaningful connection to the outside world. I know a few folks from those parts who had to move home to keep their jobs post January '69.

 

Dave.

[James]

I wonder how many enthusiasts have actually read his first report?

 

I think he's had a bad press over the years - not every decision was perhpas correct but when such things are done en masse then there, I susoect, will never be a perfect result. Also many decision were made as a result of a snapshot which perhaps wasn't the best way to approach things but when annalysing on such a large scale I'm not such there would be an ideal method.

[spamcan61]

I wonder how many enthusiasts have actually read his first report?

 

I think he's had a bad press over the years - not every decision was perhpas correct but when such things are done en masse then there, I susoect, will never be a perfect result. Also many decision were made as a result of a snapshot which perhaps wasn't the best way to approach things but when annalysing on such a large scale I'm not such there would be an ideal method.

 

A good summary I think, changes were demanded, and fast. The 1950s railway network was still pretty much a Victorian solution to a Victorian problem, the world had moved on. Beeching's proposals ensured we still have some railway network left to travel on.

[spamcan61]

Don't forget that in the '50s and early '60s. Britain was spending huge amounts to maintain the perception of being a top-table world military power unlike the others.

Dave.

 

Indeed, it would maybe be interesting to compare the cost of the Modernisation Plan with military spending over the period; I'm no expert, but off the top of my head:-

 

- No less than three V-bomber developments, all financed into production (I'm ignoring the Short Sperrin as a drop in the ocean)

 

- All sorts of other aircraft (maybe lump TSR2 into this)

 

- Blue Steel

 

- Nuclear warhead/bomb development

 

- Guided missiles - Bloodhound etc.

 

- Still trying to compete in the 'space race'

[luckymucklebackit]

I have a list of all stations closed in Scotland, and surprisingly there were more closed between 1955 and 1960 than during the Beeching era, Beeching just made the process more high profile. Still think that had 1960s Members of Parliament been subject to the same degree of media scrutiny as todays MPs then the TV and Newspapers would have been highlighting Earnest Marple's business interests (Marples Ridgeway) as being a major conflict of interest - lets close as many railways as possible and build motorways, and get my company to build them.

 

JIm

[Katier]

For me the whole shambles was down to a major rush and poor management, while centered on the flawed concept that everyone would drive a car to work (or as I understand it to a major railway station). Rushing through the replacement of steam while BR was losing money was just crazy. Would seem to me, with the benefit of hindsite, the rationalisation needed to be to make a more analytical approach to introducing new diesel/electrics, i.e. giving prototypes more time in development to make sure they were reliable then introducing them on suitable routes in a more measured approach.

 

Meanwhile the beeching report would rationalise the railways by looking at where the true waste was, bring in more unmanned stations etc.

 

What I don't get is why they replaced steam so quickly.. when they seemed to anti-rail. Proper analysis I'm sure could have made the savings without such a hamfisted and poorly implimented approach.

 

 

[ForestPines]

Indeed, it would maybe be interesting to compare the cost of the Modernisation Plan with military spending over the period; I'm no expert, but off the top of my head:-

 

- No less than three V-bomber developments, all financed into production (I'm ignoring the Short Sperrin as a drop in the ocean)

 

- All sorts of other aircraft (maybe lump TSR2 into this)

 

- Blue Steel

 

- Nuclear warhead/bomb development

 

- Guided missiles - Bloodhound etc.

 

- Still trying to compete in the 'space race'

 

You can add in: participating in the Korean War, and the Malayan Not A War (For Insurance Purposes). None of which were, it's true, as much of a money-sink as the British nuclear weapons programme. Military spending led directly to charges for some NHS healthcare, something relatively sacred to the government of the day; it's not surprising railways were further down the pile.

 

(I have, incidentally, read the first Beeching report, when I was a student and bored in the university library one day. I also read the full text of the Festiniog Railway's Act under the same circumstances, although not on the same day.)

[The Stationmaster]

For me the whole shambles was down to a major rush and poor management, while centered on the flawed concept that everyone would drive a car to work (or as I understand it to a major railway station). Rushing through the replacement of steam while BR was losing money was just crazy. Would seem to me, with the benefit of hindsite, the rationalisation needed to be to make a more analytical approach to introducing new diesel/electrics, i.e. giving prototypes more time in development to make sure they were reliable then introducing them on suitable routes in a more measured approach.

 

Meanwhile the beeching report would rationalise the railways by looking at where the true waste was, bring in more unmanned stations etc.

 

What I don't get is why they replaced steam so quickly.. when they seemed to anti-rail. Proper analysis I'm sure could have made the savings without such a hamfisted and poorly implimented approach.

 

 

Don't necessarily associate Beeching with dieselisation - all he was after in that respect was reducing costs. As far as dieselisation itself was concerned the process was relatively simple - a wide range of British manufacturers had (for wider political reasons) to be given the opportunity to produce prototypes for BR and to bid for BR orders. But then - pre-Beeching - the decision was made to dieselise faster than originally planned which meant locos had to be ordered enmasse, in more than a few cases based on prototype designs which had barely left the drawing board but had the undeniable advantage of being readily available from factories that could produce them relatively quickly and in the numbers believed to be needed.

 

Some of the need vanished due to Beeching but a lot more vanished simply because the traffic fell away as traditional industries also underwent change and contracted. That meant the fleet could be rationalised and the poor or over expensive to maintain designs could be junked - which took quite a time when you think about it.

 

And why was steam replaced so quickly? Simple really - it was becoming less attractive as a working environment almost everyday and it was expensive to support from running sheds to main works to an endless stream of coal trains around the country. In reality it could only be continued in areas where jobs were scarce and labour was plentiful - where there were more attractive jobs in other industries recruitment had become difficult as early as 1950 or thereabouts and that situation never really improved.

[S.A.C Martin]

This is a truly fascinating thread chaps - it's so easy to find information, for the most part, directly centred on Beeching's cuts, and in most cases, pointing the finger squarely at him, that - speaking purely for myself - I was not aware of some of the points that have been raised in this thread, such as the difference in approach to rebuilding railway networks as that outlined above.

 

I can't add to the debate myself, but I am finding it hugely rewarding to read this. Please keep going!