Dr Beeching

[Ian J.]

It is alas all too easy to look through the telescope of today and see something which looks very different from what was staring people in the face 20 or 30 years ago let alone 50 years ago.

...

in most Western European countries since then and subsequently east of the former Iron Curtain.  Times change.

 

True. But, none of the things you have mentioned were major loss of routes, they were loss of or changes to facilities. Even if the genuine belief then was that rail was old and roads could handle everything but London's commuters, it's the sale of the land for the basic routes themselves that was, in hindsight, shortsighted.

[Welly]

For those wishing to read the original report a new facsimile edition "the reshaping of British railways" is available in hard copy only from the National Archives at £9.99 by mail order.

 

Wally

Got my copy at my local WHSmiths for the same price.

[Ohmisterporter]

I found this to be an interesting read regarding the Beeching cuts, and BR rundown in general, which pre-dated Beeching to some extent.

 

http://www.bilderberg.org/railways.htm

 

[The Stationmaster]

True. But, none of the things you have mentioned were major loss of routes, they were loss of or changes to facilities. Even if the genuine belief then was that rail was old and roads could handle everything but London's commuters, it's the sale of the land for the basic routes themselves that was, in hindsight, shortsighted.

Only shortsighted in the light of more recent events.  Exactly the opposite at the time those sales were bringing much needed investment money into the industry.

 

As it happens I think the wholesale closure of much of the Great Central route was a major strategic error but what was the alternative - probably closure of the Midland mainline, which might have been an even graver strategic blunder.  the simple fact was that the network was overloaded with duplication and multiplication on top of duplication of routes as well as facilities and all in the light of declining traffic levels and changing social and industrial circumstances through much of Britain.  The emergence of the so-called 'social railway' undoubtedly saved some routes and services as did sheer politics (in its Westminster sense) but much had to go and once it was out of use the cheapest as well as the most advantageous thing to do was to sell it off and use the money on routes that were retained.

[JeffP]

It is true to say, however, that Beeching's report contained two parts: railways and road transport.

 

The railways "suffered" their part being implemented, but the new road transport lobby stopped the other part ever being put in place.

 

That's why HGV's have it so easy now.

 

Well, maybe not NOW what with the EC and fuel prices, but since 1955.

[roythebus]

I recently read the Ian Allan book about Beeching, an interesting read. Was he right or wrong? In some ways right, in other ways wrong. The crook of this entire plan appears to be Marples, the Transport minister of that era, with his finger in the road building pie until as someone else pointed out easrlier he sold his shares to Mrs.Marples!

 

With my experienc of BR, when I started at Rugby in 1973 the drivers there remembered the elctrification; they expected their 100 steam locos to be replaced by 100 electric locos. They weren't, they were replaced by about 15 electric locos and a few diesels!  A lot of jobs went.

 

When i moved to Kings Cross, I was gobsmacked at the amount of loco crew provided there, remembering it was still mostly loco-hauled. There was something like 300 drivers and 250 secondmen, with a spare crew of driver and secondman booking on seemingly every hour. I sometimes sat and wondered at the cost of all these men sitting there doing very little. even with electrifiaction of the suburban services, there seemed to be the same amount of traincrew there. An awful lot of time was spent on empty coach movements to Ferme Park/Bounds Green and back to the Cross. All this dated back from the steam era.

 

My view of Beeching is similar to others on here, that "something" needed to be done, but he went too far in some areas and mis-managed other areas. One thing the Ian allan book points out is the cost of having spare coaches sitting around all year just for the summer Saturday services; it cites the Atlantic Coast Express as an example. That took something like 40 coaches which were only used on summer Saturdays, and cost far more to keep sitting around than they ever earnt in revenue.

[Welly]

On this day 23rd March 1985, Lord Beeching died. Also the re-opening of the Bathgate line to passengers was announced that same day.

[Sheffield]

It does seem an injustice that Beeching's name is associated in the public mind with the destruction of the railways, when the real villain was Ernest Marples, as has already been said a corrupt MP, and his associated road lobby.  Bearing in mind that Beeching's remit said nothing about public service or social need, and he saw the railways just as a business his plans were quite good. But it does seem there was a deliberate intention to creat a public need to use the roads and buy cars, and it was this intention that led to a lot of the less sensible closures. And for that Marples should take the blame, not Beeching.

As always the MPs had a hidden agenda.

[westerhamstation]

It does seem an injustice that Beeching's name is associated in the public mind with the destruction of the railways, when the real villain was Ernest Marples, as has already been said a corrupt MP, and his associated road lobby.  Bearing in mind that Beeching's remit said nothing about public service or social need, and he saw the railways just as a business his plans were quite good. But it does seem there was a deliberate intention to creat a public need to use the roads and buy cars, and it was this intention that led to a lot of the less sensible closures. And for that Marples should take the blame, not Beeching.

As always the MPs had a hidden agenda.

Look at Marples contribution to the Westerham Valley Branch Line.

[Il Grifone]

I heard that the branch lines were to be replaced with bus services, which didn't exist at the time and didn't afterwards either. What happened was people bought cars.....

 

The cost of the 1955 Modernisation plan and the railway's losses should be compared with today's subsidies to private companies.

[62613]

I heard that the branch lines were to be replaced with bus services, which didn't exist at the time and didn't afterwards either. What happened was people bought cars.....

 

The cost of the 1955 Modernisation plan and the railway's losses should be compared with today's subsidies to private companies.

 

 

Indeed, and the fact that the railway is more tightly controlled today by the government than ever BR was.

[Oldddudders]

Indeed, and the fact that the railway is more tightly controlled today by the government than ever BR was.

Yes, but it also has considerably more investment, a much newer fleet of trains, and visible expansion in places. Not much bad news there.

[Edwin_m]

The railway is now carrying more passengers than before Beeching on, obviously, a much smaller network. 

 

Freight is a different story of course. 

[John_Hughes]

Concerning passenger stock that only got brought out on high days and holidays, it should be pointed out that much of it (all of it?) was old build which had long since had its book value reduced to zero. Keeping it in service for a few days' operation each summer cost very little whereas it had considerable earning capacity on those days. Some other Saturday services were strengthened with stock from weekday business trains - the Bristolian stock was regularly used on English Riviera holiday trains, for instance.

 

There's a widespread impression that pre-Beeching the railways accounting systems were pretty poor. On the contrary the Big Four knew exactly what it cost to provide a service and could give exact pence-per-mile costs of running any particular train, and Board oversight of income and expenditure was often ferocious, though admittedly some CMEs could pull the wool over their eyes from time to time. The major problems were the lack of capital from the late 1920s onwards - with the consequent difficulties of making the necessary investments - and government interference that stopped them expanding into such areas as road and air transport. The present fragmentation in UK public transport is the direct result of such policies.

[The Stationmaster]

Concerning passenger stock that only got brought out on high days and holidays, it should be pointed out that much of it (all of it?) was old build which had long since had its book value reduced to zero. Keeping it in service for a few days' operation each summer cost very little whereas it had considerable earning capacity on those days. Some other Saturday services were strengthened with stock from weekday business trains - the Bristolian stock was regularly used on English Riviera holiday trains, for instance.

I'm not so sure about some of that.  Some railways did try to tackle those costs but it isn't just the stock, it's the cost of where it is stabled, the costs of moving it from there to where it will work (and back), the costs of cleaning it and so on.  Add to that your point that it was old stock which meant that passengers who used the railway a couple of times a year concluded it was the land of ancient and grubby coaches so they could understand why Mr Smith down the road was now going on holiday in his car and you begin to see Beeching's point.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

Beeching seems to be cropping up a lot lately...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21829838

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread, Beeching is a bye-word for wanton destruction and short-termism...rule by bean-counters not people who actually know about their industry. Any town now lacking a station is attributed to his cuts; I have lost count of the number of grumbles about Beeching closing Midhurst station and associated branchlines; or the Meon Valley route (both long-gone before he took his position). In many cases, the cuts were inevitable, the hopeless lack of regulation and duplication of routes a century before left a legacy that a war-weary and chronically under-funded BR could not cope with.

 

For me, the biggest regret was the total lack of foresight, at least in maintaining the trackbed for possible future use. That said, towns which had a small local population of mainly local workers for many years, have exploded in growth over the last 20-30 years; sadly long after many of these branches, that could easily have served their needs, were dug up...ironically in many cases sacrificing their permanent way and structures to make way for the sprawl they could serviced. 

 

Beeching made his suggestions, Marples blessed each and every closure (inevitable given his background; clearly the notion of 'conflict of interest' had never crossed MacMillan's mind when he gave that cabinate post (or more likely he didn't give a ****!). Perhaps more suprising was the subsequent Labour government's continuation...but then Castle was no friend of the railways either.

 

A classic case of 'act in haste; repend at leasure'!

[keefer]

read an interesting piece in 'the courier' today regarding the campaign for reinstatement of railway to st. andrews

 

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/british-rail-not-dr-beeching-closed-st-andrews-branch-line-1.79294

[Re6/6]

With all the Beeching 'commemorations' at the moment and looking forward to what might have happened, this quote taken from a piece by Alan Marshall of 'Rail News' is appropriate (if slightly OT)

 

For those, like me, who were around in 1980 and thought we really then had a great opportunity to complete a rolling programme of electrification, it has been a continuing disappointment that Margaret Thatcher’s economic advisers scuppered proposals that would have seen around 90 % of train operations worked electrically by now.

 

Full article here: http://blog.railnews.co.uk/?p=133#more-133

[James]

Concerning passenger stock that only got brought out on high days and holidays, it should be pointed out that much of it (all of it?) was old build which had long since had its book value reduced to zero. Keeping it in service for a few days' operation each summer cost very little whereas it had considerable earning capacity on those days.

My Dad would tell you how wrong you are on that. He worked for BR in the early to mid-sixties. He said the stock you describe was filthy, old and unreliable. Making some of them servicable used up valuable resources. And it certainly didn't compare with the brand new luxury coaches or a car.

 

My take on it -

 

http://eastmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/beeching-fifty-years-on.html

[Lambton58]

Ian Hislop's documentary (Ian Hislop Goes of the Rails) was repeated on BBC4 tonight.  I thought it was a very good & balanced look at Beeching and his report.  Well worth catching on iplayer.

 

Ralph

Lambton58

[steve fay]

The Eastern valley lines were closed to passengers in April 1962. This at the current time was due to lack of passengers even though DMUs had been introduced. What didn't help was the recasting of the timetables.

Firstly the train that brought workers up to Panteg steel works was changed so it arrived at Griffithstown 10 mins after clocking on.

Also if a through ticket was bought from Blaenavon to London Newport was accredited with the sale and in the books that was the journeys point of origin.

The same thing was happening on the western valleys too. I've heard from drivers who's train was held on the opposite side of hill fields tunnel purposely to miss the connection with the London train and that the 0nce 5.15 train off Newport was recast to leave at 4.45 thus missing all the workers finishing at 5.

This was all done because BR wanted rid of the passenger services to make way for freight for the newly opened LLanwern steel works.

All this a year before beeching. The western valley lines are now taking record amount of passengers.

A lot was justified but a lot was spun to make it look much worse than it was and successive governments are to blame.

 

It's a pity now that most of the railway lines in South Wales are now clogged up roads.

[Ceptic]

 

And where are the commemorations dedicated to Dr. R. Beeching & E. Marples M.P. ??, ...You may well ask ??? 

[Sheffield]

If there is a commemorative to Marples I trust it will be placed in the rogues gallery.

[Pacific231G]

I think that even without Beeching we'd have ended up with almost as many closures that we'd now be regretting (though not as many as Dr. Beeching would have made if he'd had his way) It might though have been more of the death of a thousand cuts that's happened in other countries. The road lobby was equally powerful in many other countries and the car industry really had the ear of governments in those days and a healthy motor industry was seen as a key to economic progress.

 

It's hard to remember now with a billion and a half passengers each year the extent to which the commonly accepted view at that time was that railways were an obsolete pre-motor form of transport that had had its day. The fact that none of the major airports apart from Gatwick were planned to be rail served is quite telling in that. (hence Bristol Lulsgate rather than Filton) Railways were being seen rather as the canals had before and apart from a few specialist purposes such as intercity were bound to gradually decline.

 

I am though a bt dubious about the claims that Beeching was the saviour of the railways even if he did go a bit too far. That's because he was actually planning even more drastic "pruning" down to a core network to be developed while the rest- apart from a few commuter routes- gradually withered away. The map is fairly terrifying.

 

 

Once railways ceased to be an option for even many "intercity" journeys I wonder how rapidly this "core network" would also have declined and been slated for closure.

 

This negative and now old fashioned view of railways (unless you take Jeremy Clarkson seriously) was very widely held and had been for some time in most of the western world.

 

In France they also had large scale closure of local rail passenger services but that was planned twenty five years earlier than Beeching before the war and trains were at least replaced by buses operating the same routes (usually far more slowly) . The "grand plan" then was that railways would take care of long distance traffic while roads would handle all the local stuff and bus operators weren't allowed to run scheduled long distance services but in return were given all the local routes. Unfortunately nobody told the road hauliers that they were also supposed to take their loads to the nearest railhead not deliver them to the other end of the country!

 

Leading railwaymen actually applauded this "coordination" (a weasel word much like "rationalisation") as getting the network back to what it should be connecting major towns and cities.

 

Many lines closed to passengers did, and some still do, remain open for mostly agricultural goods traffic, but the passenger closures continued in waves after the war - usually when a conservative government was in power. However, the attitude had changed. It was by then recognised that a replacement bus service would only attract about a third of the passengers who'd taken the train- which saved even more money in subsidies-  but that didn't matter as the buses were really only a stop gap till everyone had access to a car and wouldn't need any public transport. 

 

I don't know if it's true but it has been said that one reason why the Wilson government didn't stop the Beeching closures - apart no doubt from the Ministry of Transport's civil servant telling ministers that they were inevitable- was that the Transport & General Workers Union was far larger and therefore more influential in the labour movement than the NUR and ASLEF. The TGWU organised truck and bus drivers, car workers and others involved with road transport who would all tend to benefit from a movement towards road transport. Whether a Conservative government could have stomached Beeching phase two which the Wilson government didn't we'll never know.

[Ian J.]

To add, we must also not forget the Serpell report of 1983 (30 years ago this month). It's most drastic option saw most everything but a few main feeder lines to London cut. The only reason we tend to forget it was because none of it was acted on. Oh if only Beeching had been ignored so...