Did the unions ever try and stop Beeching?

[yorksrob]

I'd like to see the evidence for yours.

You're the one who's asked me to "understand" that most people don't use rail. To do so, I need to see your evidence.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

In the context of the Beeching re-shaping, in the 1960s, it is interesting to note how modal share of passenger transport was changing.

[From Transport Statistics Great Britain]
In 1955 passenger km by bus were 39% of movement, by rail they were 19%, leaving a minority 42% by private car.
With things like the ASLE&F strike of 1955 and the temporary Suez crisis in fuel availability in 1956 receding in the rear view mirror, rising car ownership and improvements to the road network, the figures for 1963 were 23% by bus, 12% by rail and a massive 64% by car. (These trends continued with vengeance thereafter.) It was already clear that many people had effectively turned their back on public transport, full stop.

The fact that people might have still done the odd public transport trip if their car was in for service or repair was neither here nor there in the underlying need for many rail and bus services, especially in rural areas.

The BTC had gone back to the Minister no fewer than six times in as little as 4 months at the end of 1962 to borrow a total of £82.5 million just to help pay the interest on its already massive accumulated earlier debt, to pay increased wages and basic bills like traction current and fuel. The entire edifice was utterly out of financial control.

(But the unions didn't seem to have noticed.)

That is a fair point in terms of the Beeching era.

Nevertheless, the massive debt should be seen in the context of a railway that was expected to pay its way, even though we now know this to be unrealistic. Some amount of re-shaping was inevitable, however if it had been done in the context of the recognition of a need of some subsidy and a willingness to rationalise, the results might have been less calamitous.

 

[Rescars]

There seems to be much in Beeching's analysis of total transport planning, needs and arrangements which still holds good today. See the link in stuving's post #36 - thanks again for this.

 

[WesternLancer]

You really are deluding yourself if you believe that. If I go to my local station I have a choice of going north or south. No use at all if I intend to go east or west. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to realise that rail plays no part in most people's travel plans. If even 5% of car journeys transferred to rail the trains would be swamped. There is no conceivable rail network that could cater for the journeys made by car.

With respect this is not always a reasonable assumption. No one presumes that rail can get everyone everywhere. But people will make all sorts of key decisions based on what transport options they have eg "I'll live in X because that has a station with services to A,B &C and I work in B (but could look for jobs in B&C and my partner works in C but has to visit clients in M,N &O towns so must use the car anyway and we only have one car) - and X town has buses to E where my son can go to college. This is why we live in X "

Just as people live in Y town because it has better road networks to where they work or need to get to than Z town does.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

and without wishing to appear facetious what journeys do they make and how do they "get around"?

Well, really vital tasks are things like getting to work, going to visit older family relatives to help share out caring and helping relatives with household tasks (done by train) being sent by parents to do shopping chores (would use bus or walk so not train) - obv I am excluding the use of the train for what might be leisure trips. One would also rely on trains to get to and from university at term time ends, or for visits back home mid term.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd like to see your evidence for that assertion.

I'd like to see the evidence for yours.

We have some data for this, at least for England, from the National Transport Survey

If we go to Table 0705 (NTS0705: Average number of trips and miles by household income quintile and mode: England, 2002 onwards) we can see that the average mileage and trip by mode for each transport mode, for each year.
The average number of trips per year by surface rail (in 2023) is 18 for all income groups.
Across the five income quintiles (lowest to highest) the numbers are 14, 11, 18, 18 and 31.

So the average person in the population takes a train trip approximately every ~3 weeks, but if you exclude the richest quintile then the number falls a little. The richest quintile makes a third of trips.

The mileage is 504 miles per person, across the entire population. This splits into quintiles (lowest to highest) as 293, 267, 461, 587 and 919.
That disparity is a bit different to the one for number of trips and shows a significant variation in "length of trip".
That's not given in the stats (that I've found), but I calculate it to be 28 for the general population and the quintiles as 20.9, 24.3, 25.6, 32.6 and 29.6.

Not sure what it seems, but it seems only a relatively small portion of the population use the railway regularly.

 

[Titfield]

In the context of the Beeching re-shaping, in the 1960s, it is interesting to note how modal share of passenger transport was changing.

[From Transport Statistics Great Britain]
In 1955 passenger km by bus were 39% of movement, by rail they were 19%, leaving a minority 42% by private car.
With things like the ASLE&F strike of 1955 and the temporary Suez crisis in fuel availability in 1956 receding in the rear view mirror, rising car ownership and improvements to the road network, the figures for 1963 were 23% by bus, 12% by rail and a massive 64% by car. (These trends continued with vengeance thereafter.) It was already clear that many people had effectively turned their back on public transport, full stop.

The fact that people might have still done the odd public transport trip if their car was in for service or repair was neither here nor there in the underlying need for many rail and bus services, especially in rural areas.

The BTC had gone back to the Minister no fewer than six times in as little as 4 months at the end of 1962 to borrow a total of £82.5 million just to help pay the interest on its already massive accumulated earlier debt, to pay increased wages and basic bills like traction current and fuel. The entire edifice was utterly out of financial control.

(But the unions didn't seem to have noticed.)

It is worth reading Gourvish (British Railways A Business History 1948:1973) on this subject.

What seems to me to be forgotten is that not only was BR in a financial quagmire but many of the factors which had put it there were increasing in impact and the situation would get worse despite the actions taken at the time.

 

[yorksrob]

We have some data for this, at least for England, from the National Transport Survey

If we go to Table 0705 (NTS0705: Average number of trips and miles by household income quintile and mode: England, 2002 onwards) we can see that the average mileage and trip by mode for each transport mode, for each year.
The average number of trips per year by surface rail (in 2023) is 18 for all income groups.
Across the five income quintiles (lowest to highest) the numbers are 14, 11, 18, 18 and 31.

So the average person in the population takes a train trip approximately every ~3 weeks, but if you exclude the richest quintile then the number falls a little. The richest quintile makes a third of trips.

The mileage is 504 miles per person, across the entire population. This splits into quintiles (lowest to highest) as 293, 267, 461, 587 and 919.
That disparity is a bit different to the one for number of trips and shows a significant variation in "length of trip".
That's not given in the stats (that I've found), but I calculate it to be 28 for the general population and the quintiles as 20.9, 24.3, 25.6, 32.6 and 29.6.

Not sure what it seems, but it seems only a relatively small portion of the population use the railway regularly.

The assertion wasn't about "regularly" though. My point is that most people use the railway some times.

Western Lord asserted that the majority of the population doesn't use the train

 

[stuu]

Various sources from a quick google search suggest around 60% of the population uses a train at least once a year. So if most equals >50% then yes, but a lot of those are very irregular users

 

[HSTEd]

The assertion wasn't about "regularly" though. My point is that most people use the railway some times.

Western Lord asserted that the majority of the population doesn't use the train

Well, if there is even a small number of actual commuters (who will make hundreds of trips per year), that would quickly account for a large percentage of the journeys.
Given that the mean is 18 trips per year annd they are only 24 miles long on average, I have a feeling that a substantial fraction of the population does not use the train. I unfortunately don't know where to find data to directly corroborate this (or not).

EDIT:
NTS defines 'trip' as a one way journey, so a full time commuter (if any still exist) working 200 days a year would run up 400 trips!

 

[Falcon1200]

The majority use rail for some things.

Not where I live they don't! My neighbours all have cars and therefore simply do not travel by train. And since Covid my son no longer commutes to Glasgow for work and so does not use the train now, at all.

 

[Titfield]

Not where I live they don't! My neighbours all have cars and therefore simply do not travel by train. And since Covid my son no longer commutes to Glasgow for work and so does not use the train now, at all.

The data is a summation but the reality is that there are parts of the country where for many different reasons, not least the (lack of) proximity to a rail service, a very large part of that areas population will not travel by train.

 

[station_road]

YouGov have some recent research on how many people don't use trains, and the reasons why - from June 2024. This is for adults, and the figures appear skewed by higher usage around London than elsewhere. 48% of people either never travel by train or do so less than every 6 months, with the percentage outside London likely to be higher than that.

https://business.yougov.com/content/49658-43-of-brits-are-satisfied-with-train-travel-in-the-uk

YouGov research conducted among British adults reveals that 14% travel by train at least once a week, showcasing its regular use by a sizeable portion of the population. Another 14% use the train once a month. However, there is a significant segment (27%) that travels by train less frequently than every six months, and 21% never use trains

Those living in London are more likely to travel by train, with 37% reporting that they use the train at least once a week compared to Britons in other regions.

Looking at recent train usage reveals that behaviours have not changed much in the last three months. Roughly two-thirds of train travellers (62%) report no change in their train usage since February. However, there are some positive and negative shifts. While 15% say their train use increased (4% a lot, 11% a little), 16% reported a decrease (7% a little, 9% a lot). Age demographics reveals that younger Britons are more likely to be riding the rails more frequently than older demographics.

 

[yorksrob]

YouGov have some recent research on how many people don't use trains, and the reasons why - from June 2024. This is for adults, and the figures appear skewed by higher usage around London than elsewhere. 48% of people either never travel by train or do so less than every 6 months, with the percentage outside London likely to be higher than that.

https://business.yougov.com/content/49658-43-of-brits-are-satisfied-with-train-travel-in-the-uk

Thanks for finding that.

So that's 52% of people who use the train once every six months or more (with a higher proportion presumably using the train more occasionally).

This rather destroys the assertion up thread that "the majority of people don't use the train".

 

[Taunton]

What is commonly not understood about many of the Beeching closures is that their patronage was by the 1960s a complete basket case. The myriad local services radiating from Taunton commonly had more carriages than passengers. There were a few trains per day which might have more, and the Minehead line was always the leader, but the staff could certainly see what a waste much of it had been ever since the 1930s when buses and cars became practical, and stations, no matter what they might be named, in the middle of nowhere ceased to be relevant.

Regarding bland nationwide statistics for "bus-train-car", these are so distorted by usage of the London Underground as to be meaningless.

 

[eldomtom2]

What is commonly not understood about many of the Beeching closures is that their patronage was by the 1960s a complete basket case.

I'd say that's actually the stereotype - but it certainly wasn't the case for every line. The maps included in the Beeching Report regarding passenger and freight usage are very informative.

 

[yorksrob]

Regarding bland nationwide statistics for "bus-train-car", these are so distorted by usage of the London Underground as to be meaningless.

A lot of people will use the London underground because a lot of people live in or around London. However the fact that over fifty percent of the population use the train, is quite relevant to the subsidy issue. Rail is not some cockamamie minority interest that the governing classes can ignore

That aside, I take your point about the railways around Taunton - I find it hard to see how Taunton - Yeovil would have survived. On the other hand, I find it hard to see how the authorities could have countenanced stranding towns like Minehead and Tiverton off of the railway network.

 

[Dr Hoo]

What the recent research actually shows that the majority of people outside London don’t use the train for all practical purposes when it comes to demand forecasting, especially for hypothetical journeys in rural areas such as Bakewell.

 

[yorksrob]

What the recent research actually shows that the majority of people outside London don’t use the train for all practical purposes when it comes to demand forecasting, especially for hypothetical journeys in rural areas such as Bakewell.

The same demand forecasting would probably conclude that my busy Bentham line train should be empty as well, in that case.

We all know about the demand forecasting for the Borders and Okehampton lines, afterall.

"But, but the Borders line was a one off ....Okehampton line ... er one off as well"

 

[Irascible]

On the other hand, I find it hard to see how the authorities could have countenanced stranding towns like Minehead and Tiverton off of the railway network.

Because the line from Exeter to Tiverton went on to Bampton & Dulverton ( originally built by a seperate company ), and as pretty a journey as that must have been - I spent a long time driving around there when I was younger - other than a small quarry at Bampton & probably some occasional produce, I can't see how that part ever made any money. Tiverton to Exeter was already a commuter route, but if you look at the line as a whole rather than breaking it into components then it really doesn't look good at all. The line to Tiv. Jct. didn't take people anywhere useful locally, just to connect to more distant places.

Minehead lasted into the second wave of closures like Ilfracombe & Okehampton, so that at least was borderline. The interesting question is how did Newquay survive when Minehead didn't or vice versa ( Falmouth at least had dock traffic ).

My own considered ( mostly by asking people who would have taken the train ) opinion is that a lot of the lack of traffic is because the railways themselves were rubbish, rather than not going where people wanted to go. The Modernisation Plan should have dealt with that but pretty spectacularily didn't.

 

[nanstallon]

Because the line from Exeter to Tiverton went on to Bampton & Dulverton ( originally built by a seperate company ), and as pretty a journey as that must have been - I spent a long time driving around there when I was younger - other than a small quarry at Bampton & probably some occasional produce, I can't see how that part ever made any money. Tiverton to Exeter was already a commuter route, but if you look at the line as a whole rather than breaking it into components then it really doesn't look good at all. The line to Tiv. Jct. didn't take people anywhere useful locally, just to connect to more distant places.

Minehead lasted into the second wave of closures like Ilfracombe & Okehampton, so that at least was borderline. The interesting question is how did Newquay survive when Minehead didn't or vice versa ( Falmouth at least had dock traffic ).

My own considered ( mostly by asking people who would have taken the train ) opinion is that a lot of the lack of traffic is because the railways themselves were rubbish, rather than not going where people wanted to go. The Modernisation Plan should have dealt with that but pretty spectacularily didn't.

I recall that the line from Tiverton to Tiverton Junction had a generous (although with some long gaps) service, but few trains stopped on the main line at Tiverton Junction, which rather limited the purpose of the line. For example no down trains called there between 10.21 and 16.55 (exactly the same time as a train left for Tiverton on the other side of the station!). Beeching recommended closing Tiverton Junction station as well as the branch, but it was kept open as a railhead, and these days most trains do call at Tiverton Parkway which in 1986 replaced Tiverton Junction.

 

[Irascible]

I used to use Tiv Jct as a nipper, the service was indeed pretty sparse although the branch to Town had long gone so that wasn't relevant. It wasn't amazingly well used but given the service that's pretty understandable! 50% of the time we'd end up driving to Taunton, which is not the best journey to a station. There must have been a bus there, but I can't remember even seeing one let alone using it. Closing it would have left a pretty big hole in the network, it might have got Parkway open in the 70s instead of the 80s though - although where, is a good question. Cullompton has a M5 junction too.

It was at least a fairly nice station ( if smelly, thanks Lloyd Maunders ) unlike Parkway. Some time spent in the signalbox there germinated a fascination with networks in general.

 

[yorksrob]

Because the line from Exeter to Tiverton went on to Bampton & Dulverton ( originally built by a seperate company ), and as pretty a journey as that must have been - I spent a long time driving around there when I was younger - other than a small quarry at Bampton & probably some occasional produce, I can't see how that part ever made any money. Tiverton to Exeter was already a commuter route, but if you look at the line as a whole rather than breaking it into components then it really doesn't look good at all. The line to Tiv. Jct. didn't take people anywhere useful locally, just to connect to more distant places.

Minehead lasted into the second wave of closures like Ilfracombe & Okehampton, so that at least was borderline. The interesting question is how did Newquay survive when Minehead didn't or vice versa ( Falmouth at least had dock traffic ).

My own considered ( mostly by asking people who would have taken the train ) opinion is that a lot of the lack of traffic is because the railways themselves were rubbish, rather than not going where people wanted to go. The Modernisation Plan should have dealt with that but pretty spectacularily didn't.

I was thinking more the Tivvy bumper to the junction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2024 ==

I recall that the line from Tiverton to Tiverton Junction had a generous (although with some long gaps) service, but few trains stopped on the main line at Tiverton Junction, which rather limited the purpose of the line. For example no down trains called there between 10.21 and 16.55 (exactly the same time as a train left for Tiverton on the other side of the station!). Beeching recommended closing Tiverton Junction station as well as the branch, but it was kept open as a railhead, and these days most trains do call at Tiverton Parkway which in 1986 replaced Tiverton Junction.

Admittedly, there would have to have been good connections for it to work - but then the whole route between Taunton and Exeter needed a local service. Perhaps something similar to the Thames valley branches should have been attempted.

 

[Meerkat]

A lot of people will use the London underground because a lot of people live in or around London. However the fact that over fifty percent of the population use the train, is quite relevant to the subsidy issue. Rail is not some cockamamie minority interest that the governing classes can ignore

Except that once you get down to those using rail once or twice a year it is unlikely to be essential.
They use it because it is there but would just shrug and use a different mode if it was shut.
Railways really aren’t important to the majority of people. Which is why it’s so damaging to continually be a money pit.

 

[Western Lord]

Except that once you get down to those using rail once or twice a year it is unlikely to be essential.
They use it because it is there but would just shrug and use a different mode if it was shut.
Railways really aren’t important to the majority of people. Which is why it’s so damaging to continually be a money pit.

Indeed. My next door neighbours never use trains, but if asked if they had used a train in the last six months would answer yes, because a couple of months ago they were on holiday in Cornwall and (on my suggestion) used the St. Erth park and ride to take the train into St. Ives. If the line didn't exist they would simply have driven and put up with the parking situation. Back at home they are back into never use trains mode.

 

[yorksrob]

Except that once you get down to those using rail once or twice a year it is unlikely to be essential.
They use it because it is there but would just shrug and use a different mode if it was shut.
Railways really aren’t important to the majority of people. Which is why it’s so damaging to continually be a money pit.

But they're already in the minority. According to this research, 52% use it more.

And also define "money pit". The railways are used it seems, by more than half of the population, but expenditure on them is comparatively small compared to other areas of public funding. That makes them less a "money pit" and not a bad deal.

 

[Meerkat]

But they're already in the minority. According to this research, 52% use it more.

And also define "money pit". The railways are used it seems, by more than half of the population, but expenditure on them is comparatively small compared to other areas of public funding. That makes them less a "money pit" and not a bad deal.

Only 28% use trains at least once a month. Considering all the alternatives that doesn’t shout ‘essential service’ like education/NHS/etc.
’money pit‘ is perception. Those not regularly using trains will have a perception based on media stories of massively over-budget projects, closed lines shambles, staff demanding more money, and everything the railway does costing sums that seem ludicrous to the layman. And apart from enthusiasts you generally only hear anecdotes of rail use when the railway has failed. No one walks into the pub and tells their mates that their rail commute had been bang on time that day!
Nationalisation will only make things worse - government run means ‘failing industry’, ‘tax funded’, ‘subsidies’, and other negative perceptions.
This is the PR problem facing the railway when proposing a very expensive (in absolute terms - measured in the SI unit of new hospitals) project to trundle a two coach train along only hourly.

 

[43066]

Only 28% use trains at least once a month. Considering all the alternatives that doesn’t shout ‘essential service’ like education/NHS/etc.

I bet more than 28% of the population use the NHS a lot less than once a month…

’money pit‘ is perception. Those not regularly using trains will have a perception based on media stories of massively over-budget projects, closed lines shambles, staff demanding more money, and everything the railway does costing sums that seem ludicrous to the layman. And apart from enthusiasts you generally only hear anecdotes of rail use when the railway has failed. No one walks into the pub and tells their mates that their rail commute had been bang on time that day!

While that might be a description of your own view, I’m not at all sure is widely held by “the layman”. Most people probably understand that the railway is funded to create positive economic externalities which benefit everybody, even those who don’t use it.

 

[mike57]

Except that once you get down to those using rail once or twice a year it is unlikely to be essential.
They use it because it is there but would just shrug and use a different mode if it was shut.
Railways really aren’t important to the majority of people. Which is why it’s so damaging to continually be a money pit.

Its interesting, we are fortunate in retaining our village station, and since 2019 have had an hourly service north to Scarborough and south to Hull Doncaster and Sheffield. The Yorkshire Coast line has seen increasing usage over the last few years apart from during Covid. The trains through Bempton are reasonably comfortable, cl 170s for the most part, and jouney times are OK, BUT...

The village is 700 people with another 300 ish within 15 mins walk, there will be one or two regular users, but really out of 700 people very few are using the service. We cut back from 2 to 1 car for myself and my wife when I started to WFH about 5 years ago (pre covid). On the odd occasion when we both need to be out together in different places one of us can generally use the train this might be a couple of times a month. For town/city centre journeys (Hull/Beverley/Scarborough) the train is actually slightly quicker most of the time. The roads in this area are not the best, with one short 2 mile exception are all single carriageway, and the nearest motorway/decent dual carriageway is over 30 miles away.

So why dont more people use it, This is a totally unverified set of theories based on local observations:

• Difficulty in buying tickets, the ticket machine is tempremental, and a predominantly older population who haven't got to grips with etickets.
• Difficulty in planning and booking a longer journey, knowing your way around the fares system, for example you pretty well have to split tickets for any journey south changing at Doncaster or the quoted fares tend to be in eye watering territory
• A perception that the railways are still running down and not a choice to consider. This view is more prevalent amongst the older population who remember the Beeching era and experienced it first hand. Younger, under 40 say, are more open minded.
• The bus timetables appear on local notice boards, people will spend 30 mins on a bus to Bridlington when they can do the journey for similar cost in less than 10 minutes by train, so lack of publicity. The local community rail partnership do try to raise the profile, but they are not very dynamic, and certainly dont think outside the box. (sorry if anyone on here is member, just one residents view...)

The stupid thing is most of these things are easily fixed, you wouldnt have to throw loads of money at them, but then if everyone used the train when they could the current 3 car 170s would quickly reach overflowing and you would have a fresh set of problems.

Back to OPs question, Unions have tended to be fighting for 'No change at all' and have ended up with losing everything, in the case of the railways a more pragmatic approach could have saved some lines and resulted in a more extensive system, playing a larger part in day to day life, but as with a lot of industrial relations issues it becomes a fight to the death, literally in a lot cases. I am sure that this approach is not in the best interests of the members, looking back through my memories several disputes developed in this way. The concept of 'half of something rather than all of nothing' seems to be missing from peoples thought process in these cases.

 

[Gloster]

Most of the public and much of the media overlook the fact that money spent on rail can reduce the need to spend on other things: more roads, more car parks, coping with intangibles such as damage to health from pollution, etc. Ask a ’rip up the tracks’ merchant how all the cars needed to cater for rail passengers if there no trains are going to have enough road space or where they will all park and you will probably get a stupid answer. But sometimes even they will know it is a stupid answer.

 

[Meerkat]

I bet more than 28% of the population use the NHS a lot less than once a month…

The NHS has rather fewer alternatives, and when you need it you usually really need it.

Back to OPs question, Unions have tended to be fighting for 'No change at all' and have ended up with losing everything, in the case of the railways a more pragmatic approach could have saved some lines and resulted in a more extensive system, playing a larger part in day to day life, but as with a lot of industrial relations issues it becomes a fight to the death, literally in a lot cases.

Didn’t a strike in 1955 hugely damage the railway’s future, particularly on the freight side?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2024 ==

Most of the public and much of the media overlook the fact that money spent on rail can reduce the need to spend on other things: more roads, more car parks, coping with intangibles such as damage to health from pollution, etc. Ask a ’rip up the tracks’ merchant how all the cars needed to cater for rail passengers if there no trains are going to have enough road space or where they will all park and you will probably get a stupid answer. But sometimes even they will know it is a stupid answer.

Most of the lines considered basket cases wouldn’t make a massive difference to road traffic, and new roads are useful to far more people.

 

[43066]

Back to OPs question, Unions have tended to be fighting for 'No change at all' and have ended up with losing everything

Not in the recent national dispute they didn’t.

The NHS has rather fewer alternatives, and when you need it you usually really need it.

Private health is increasingly an alternative for millions. It’s also not an either or - unless you’re a Tory minister who wants to cut public services. We can and should be able to afford both properly funded healthcare and a properly funded railway. We spend less than other European countries on both.