Beeching - 50 Years of the Axeman

[stevecs]

I have just been told about a new publication billed as a one off magazine type thing called - 50 Years of the Axeman

 

Format: Glossy A4 perfect bound Magazine

Number of pages: 132 - Price just £6.99 - Free UK postage when ordering on-line

 

 

http://www.mortonsbo...uk/beeching.htm

 

Described as the most hated civil servant in Britain, it was half a century ago that Dr Richard Beeching was appointed as chairman of British Railways with one key directive - to cut the soaring losses. The 1950s had seen the start of a mass shift from public to private transport, as lorries, cars, buses and motorbikes replaced trains as Britain’s most popular means of travel.So often pilloried by the press and public for closing numerous picturesque and romantic country branch lines, leaving even many large towns cut off from the railway network, Beeching might also be seen as merely streamlining a process that was already underway.

 

Back in the early Sixties, there were many who thought that not only were the days of steam locomotives numbered, but those of railways too, as mankind, leaping towards the first lunar landings, looked toward hovercraft and hovertrains as the transport of the future.

 

Against the dynamic background of the greatest decade of change of the 20th century, Heritage Railway editor Robin Jones looks back at the forces that were shaping the railway’s fortunes, the Beeching Axe, its critics, aftermath and its repercussions today.

 

Was Dr Beeching the villain of popular legend - or was he a hero who made Britain’s railways into a slimmer, leaner machine far more capable of tackling the challenges of the future? You decide!

[Pennine MC]

Saw this in Smiffs today (who have more of this sort of thing than you can shake a stick at). Only flicked through but wasnt particularly impressed (other than with the pukka Modern Image poster of an AC loco and AM4 B))

[EddieB]

It's marked as "Exclusive to WH Smith" and is written by Robin Jones of Heritage Railway fame (/notoriety?). While it tells the story of the Beeching Plan reasonably, there's quite a lot of "padding" both in text and pictures.

 

All in all, it's a fair attempt and (to misquote Jane Eyre) reader, I bought a copy. (But then I buy far too many magazines for my own good - and the good of my shelves).

[TheSignalEngineer]

Was Beeching the villain or was it the Minister of Transport responsible for setting his terms of reference?

 

Ernest Marples was a road builder, who wanted to close the railways and build motorways to replace them. He approved the building of the M1 then gave the work to the family firm. He sold his shares to avoid a conflict of interest - to his wife - on the condition that he bought them back for the same price when he left office if she requested it. After leaving office he was investigated by the Inland Revenue regarding 30 years of underpaid taxes and in 1975 after moving much of his money abroad, did a runner to his chateau in France, never to return.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

I believe that Mr Marples was originally the Postmaster General. He was also equally infamous with reference to the introduction of the London parking meter.

 

The formation of construction companies with MP's on the board was very common back then and not particularly frowned on. Most of the road building contracts were cascaded down and everyone who worked on these contracts benefited from the cash.

 

The conversion to roads was more about the growth of the motor lorry versus the Common carrier policy of BR that was scrapped some time before Beeching was appointed.

 

It was becoming obvious that BR and the railways in general were ill suited to the fragmented nature of freight at the time or in the future and it was this drop in freight traffic rather than passengers that caused the Beeching cuts. Genuine commuter lines are still there and thriving. So are the bulk freight lines.

[BTC]

Well, in one respect Beeching failed, because the railways have never made a profit after his tenure despite his surgery. However it is true to say that the losses would have been much worse had it not been for him. What is also true is that a large number of marginal lines were axed before the benefits of low-cost running methods were allowed to feature. It's easy to prove that a manually-signalled steam-worked line with a full complement of station staff at every station is unprofitable. A automatically-signalled line with a regular timetable of reliable (ie post early-60s) trains serving halts would be a different kettle of fish. The unions, government buying policy and the state of UK industry all had a hand in this.

Coming from a railway family, I have anti-Beeching vitriol in my blood, and no amount of unimpartial economic facts will purge it. He was given a task, he did it; the trends at the time were quite clearly against the railways, whatever role Marples played in things.

However I have to say that the biggest crime in this was not the wholesale closure of unprofitable lines, a project which was already in well in motion before him, but the wholesale disposal of former railway land that took place afterwards, mainly in the 1980s. That land should have been banked for future expansion in our era now that the railways are popular again.

[Guest Max Stafford]

I had a quick skim through this in Smiffs. Two things struck me. One was a feature appearing to sing the praises of Barbara Castle as transport secretary. The second was an apparent absence of any mention of the Waverley Route closure. In view of the former item, was the latter an airbrushing job...?

 

Dave.

[The Stationmaster]

I had a quick skim through this in Smiffs. Two things struck me. One was a feature appearing to sing the praises of Barbara Castle as transport secretary. The second was an apparent absence of any mention of the Waverley Route closure. In view of the former item, was the latter an airbrushing job...?

 

Dave.

 

.... or just plain gross ignorance on the part of the author (or team of authors)?

[Oldddudders]

Barbara Castle allegedly saved the Looe branch so cant be all bad

Is that why some nameplate manufacturer offered "7038 : Barbara Castle"?

[Pennine MC]

Barbara Castle allegedly saved the Looe branch so cant be all bad

 

Well, she had to leave herself somewhere to go.

 

See what I did there

[dmustu]

The conversion to roads was more about the growth of the motor lorry versus the Common carrier policy of BR that was scrapped some time before Beeching was appointed.

 

 

I was always of the understanding that it was beeching that managed to get rid of the railways 'common carrier' legislation, in 1964?

[Pennine MC]

I was always of the understanding that it was beeching that managed to get rid of the railways 'common carrier' legislation, in 1964?

 

1962 AFAIK under that year's Transport Act, which I think was when the BRB came into being and the BTC was abolished

[Guest Max Stafford]

I think it was the '68 act that abolished 'common carrier'. This was the when the sundries part of the goods traffic and the road delivery element of BR became NCL.

 

Dave.

[dmustu]

Thats good to know, cheers.

[DLT]

Barbara Castle allegedly saved the Looe branch so cant be all bad

And the Vale of Rheidol. The VoR was under threat, and some moves behind the scenes ensured that her Ministerial tour of Wales included a ride on the line.

Not only was she successfully lobbied to retain it, but cash was found for investment.

[The Stationmaster]

1962 AFAIK under that year's Transport Act, which I think was when the BRB came into being and the BTC was abolished

 

1962 Transport Act, Part I Para 3, Part III, para 43 are effectively the paragraphs which abolished the Railway's requirement to be a Common Carrier. (very handy is the National Archive's Legislation site)

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

Am I right in thinking though that the announcement that CCP would be abolished was in 1955? In other words due notice was given so that the railways and the roads could start making the adjustments.

[caradoc]

And the Vale of Rheidol. The VoR was under threat, and some moves behind the scenes ensured that her Ministerial tour of Wales included a ride on the line.

Not only was she successfully lobbied to retain it, but cash was found for investment.

 

What kind of nonsensical transport policy closes the Waverley route in its entirety, without even considering retaining the most useful part, ie Edinburgh to Hawick, yet saves the Vale of Rheidol line, a railway performing no useful function as a means of transport whatsoever ? And how on earth has Barbara Castle come to be regarded as a rail-friendly Minister of Transport ?

 

The situation now is what should have happened in the 1960s, ie VoR sold off as a tourist enterprise and most useful part of the Waverley route retained, or rather about to be rebuilt (at massive expense).

[APOLLO]

Our politicians, all parties, past and present are absolutley useless when it comes to transport. Controlled by accountant / bankers who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

 

With petrol near £1.50 / litre, and ever rising, we are beginning to rue the day Beeching picked up his axe.

 

Big subject, and perhaps a model railway forum is the wrong place to discuss, but unless this naion starts to heavily invest in it's public (??) transport soon - we will all be walking to work / shops etc etc.

 

Still, sunny old Wigan still has 2 stations and seven rail routes out of town !!

 

Brit15

[Pennine MC]

Am I right in thinking though that the announcement that CCP would be abolished was in 1955? In other words due notice was given so that the railways and the roads could start making the adjustments.

 

Possibly, though I think the railway's desire to rid itself of it had started back in Big Four days, when road competition initially became a serious threat. I think the 'adjustment' on the part of the average road haulier would be minimal - 'more business, thank you very much'

 

Edit - further info from the generally excellent Goods and Not So Goods (my bold):

 

It was the Transport Act of 1953, the year Elizabeth came to the throne, which first substantially altered the legislation relating to 'common carriers' and allowed British Railways to refuse less profitable cargo.

[The Stationmaster]

Possibly, though I think the railway's desire to rid itself of it had started back in Big Four days, when road competition initially became a serious threat. I think the 'adjustment' on the part of the average road haulier would be minimal - 'more business, thank you very much'

 

 

I'm, fairly sure that it got underway in the 1930s with some sort of 'square deal' (for the railways) campaign; I wonder if that was in part driven by road vehicle licence changes which had also had the effect of making larger petrol engined lorries more competitive and sounded the death knell for the large steam lorries such as the top of the range Sentinels?

(BTW from my reading of the 1953 Transport Act, which was mainly about road haulage de-nationalisation, I get the impression that it reinforces the Common Carrier status of the railways by allowing potential customers to query rates via a tribunal)

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

 

Edit - further info from the generally excellent Goods and Not So Goods (my bold):

 

 

It was the Transport Act of 1953, the year Elizabeth came to the throne, which first substantially altered the legislation relating to 'common carriers' and allowed British Railways to refuse less profitable cargo.

 

When did this common carrier start. Was it grouping or nationalisation?

[Pennine MC]

When did this common carrier start. Was it grouping or nationalisation?

 

Ooh, way back I think; ISTR reading of it being to even out the railway advantage in the days of the canals, and ironically it came around to hinder the railways again when they too faced competition

[The Stationmaster]

Ooh, way back I think; ISTR it being to even out the railway advantage in the days of the canals, and ironically it came around to hinder the railways again when they too faced competition

 

The Railway & Canal Act of 1888 amended and amplified some of the original imposition of the 1854 Railway & Canal Act which is stated by several sources to be the Act which put the Common Carrier duty onto the Railways (I can't find a copy of that Act to check the wording). The 1888 Act rearranged the way in which the duty was overseen and how complaints were to be handled and that explains the reference in the 1953 Transport Act (which altered the way in which complaints against railway charging were to be made).

[BTC]

Not forgetting that each particular railway usually had provisions in its original enabling Act that imposed some sort of common carrier-type duty and regulated tolls on that particular railway. These were often added by the local landowners who stood to benefit the most from the regulation. Sometimes it was a toll cap - especially when the major landowner owned the industries that would benefit the most from low tolls, and sometimes it was a toll floor where the major local landowner wanted to protect his investment in local canals and turnpikes or prevent cheaper goods from far away competing with his industries in local markets. The actual structure of the regulation tended to come out of intense lobbying by the various interested parties as the enabling bill passed through parliament - large amounts of money was spent by various parties to sway MPs round to a desired outcome. Parliament was fairly evenly balanced between classically liberal free-traders and those who sought to protect the interests of the landowners.

 

The result was, of course, a confusing mess of tolls, regulations, alliances and trade wars. The various Railway and Canal Acts were a tidying up exercise to try to bring some order out of the piecemeal chaos that had ensued: they imposed national common carrier regulations and regulated tolls.