It's true that manifestos are non-legally binding.
I don't think that means that voters don't have a right to be aggrieved when manifesto pledges are blatantly disregarded.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Short-sightedness of 1960s line closures
- Thread starter Philip
- Start date
- Status
It's true that manifestos are non-legally binding.
I don't think that means that voters don't have a right to be aggrieved when manifesto pledges are blatantly disregarded.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Thanks for that info.
This is what is written on Wikipedia:
Bridport Railway - Wikipedia
Are the roads in that area any wider these days?
The A35 to Dorchester is pretty good really - a wide and fast single carriageway with some duel and 3 lane sections, and no real pinch points.Thanks for that info.
This is what is written on Wikipedia:
Bridport Railway - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Are the roads in that area any wider these days?
Philip
On Moderation
Car ownership was still relatively uncommon in the 60s, at least in urban areas. Most people weren't in poverty but they weren't well off enough to afford to run a car and so they relied on the buses and trains for transport beyond walking distance.
In virtually all but the largest urban areas, rail was an irrelevance to local journeys. In these areas, and in the rural areas, buses had long since usurped the railways as the mode of choice for most local trips (more frequent and more convenient stops). People didn't make long commuting journeys then in any numbers, and certainly not much outside the major conurbations. People were much more home mobile then : If you got a job in the next door town, 15 miles away, you moved house. Wives rarely had careers and there was no Ofsted school ratings for people to get high about then!
Generally people made few long distance journeys [maybe one or two per year] and this couldn't sustain trains on anything but the main routes connecting the most populous places. Car ownership started ballooning in the 60s and 70s - as you say, rural settings first then suburbs quite quickly thereafter. It was no majorly profitable enterprise to be running a bus company at the time of the Beeching era either.
Labour's 1964 Manifesto didn't state they would stop Beeching though.
The exact words used were: "Labour will draw up a national plan for transport covering the national networks of road, rail and canal communications, properly co-ordinated with air, coastal shipping and port services. The new regional authorities will be asked to draw up transport plans for their own areas. While these are being prepared, major rail closures will be halted." http://labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1964/1964-labour-manifesto.shtml
What constitutes a "major" closure is, of course, open to discussion. But most people would probably interpret that as a major trunk route, such as the GCR and not a secondary branch line with half a dozen trains a day.
Absolutely right. There wasn't a promise of no closures, nor would one expect there to have been.
If they were being true to their manifesto, they would have halted closures while they devised a plan to evaluate routes. As it was, Fraser was just a continuation of Marples.
But the GCR, by that time, wasn't a major trunk route - it was a minor trunk route with half a dozen trains a day.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
I don’t often agree with @yorksrob in these discussions but have to concur that in the heady days of late 1964 Harold Wilson had confirmed his view in a letter that closure of local lines in the Scarborough/ Whitby/ Malton areas fell into the ‘major’ category and deserved a review.
By extension, almost every local line that was still open at the time could reasonably be expected to receive similar treatment.
However, as already noted up thread, the four transport ministers under Wilson all continued with closures. The only change from Marples was an increase in pace, scale and scope - viz the Network For Development including further proposals beyond Beeching and the introduction of the Surplus Track Capacity [hasty elimination] Grants under the 1968 Transport Act, which led to so much poorly considered singling and other rationalisation.
By extension, almost every local line that was still open at the time could reasonably be expected to receive similar treatment.
However, as already noted up thread, the four transport ministers under Wilson all continued with closures. The only change from Marples was an increase in pace, scale and scope - viz the Network For Development including further proposals beyond Beeching and the introduction of the Surplus Track Capacity [hasty elimination] Grants under the 1968 Transport Act, which led to so much poorly considered singling and other rationalisation.
Last edited:
It's not as good as it heads into Devon, which is probably a fairly good indicator of how many people cross the border...
True, but there was never really a useful rail link that way either...
- Status