Did the unions ever try and stop Beeching?

[HSTEd]

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.

GIven the relative spends on the rail industry and road network (~£12bn non-HS2 operational subsidy, vs something like £12bn total spend on the road network) this argument is not as powerful as it once was.

I don't think many people are actually suggesting the total destruction of the railway network, but a large fraction of the traffic on it is carried on a small portion of the route mileage, using only a small portion of the total personnel.

Once electric cars become widespread over the next few years (undermining the environmentalist argument), things start to look a bit bleak for the railways politically. It only has a decade or so to make its case to be a major part of the post-carbon transport system.

 

[LUYMun]

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.

Since you say that not using a facility would be inessential to someone, and they conceive it as a money pit, then by that definition I should believe that funding the NHS is a money pit just because I haven't had a major injury, or that schools shouldn't receive my taxes since I don't have children. They aren't important to me as an able-bodied, childless individual but it serves as a social good for others, much like the railways benefitting passengers, especially carless and poorer people, at the expense of non-/infrequent users.

 

[HSTEd]

Since you say that not using a facility would be inessential to someone, and they conceive it as a money pit, then by that definition I should believe that funding the NHS is a money pit just because I haven't had a major injury, or that schools shouldn't receive my taxes since I don't have children. They aren't important to me as an able-bodied, childless individual but it serves as a social good for others, much like the railways benefitting passengers, especially carless and poorer people, at the expense of non-/infrequent users.

The problem is the stats don't support the argument that the railway is a transport system for the poor.
If you go to the national transport survey, you can note that rail travel is even more biased to higher income quintiles than cars.

It is the bus that is the motorised transport system of the poor.

EDIT:
NTS0705b: Average distance travelled by household income quintile and mode (miles per person per year): England, 2002 onwards

Highest income quintile traveled 134% of average mileage (combined driver and passenger) in a car.
Highest income quintile traveled 182% of average mileage by surface rail
HIghest income quintile traveled 70% of average mileage by local buses (both in London and outside LOndon)

 

[LUYMun]

The problem is the stats don't support the argument that the railway is a transport system for the poor.
If you go to the national transport survey, you can note that rail travel is even more biased to higher income quintiles than cars.

It is the bus that is the motorised transport system of the poor.

EDIT:
NTS0705b: Average distance travelled by household income quintile and mode (miles per person per year): England, 2002 onwards

Highest income quintile traveled 134% of average mileage (combined driver and passenger) in a car.
Highest income quintile traveled 182% of average mileage by surface rail
HIghest income quintile traveled 70% of average mileage by local buses (both in London and outside LOndon)

Yeah, I wonder if the rail fares are so high it pushed out the lowest income quintile into other modes...

 

[HSTEd]

Yeah, I wonder if the rail fares are so high it pushed out the lowest income quintile into other modes...

In 2002 the figures were:

Highest income quintile traveled 160% of average mileage (combined driver and passenger) in a car.
Highest income quintile traveled 261% of average mileage by surface rail
HIghest income quintile traveled 55% of average mileage by local buses (both in London and outside LOndon)

So rail has actually become less weighted towards the top quintile in the last two decades! Probably due to the end of mass commuting into London post-coronavirus.

Cars and trains are becoming less biased towards the top, whilst bus is becoming more biased.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

I only use my GP a couple of times a year - sometimes less. Is that not an essential service ?

You do make a good point about the perception of the railway though. Some problems are inevitable (particularly weather related ones) but the industry and its masters can improve public perceptions by developing a period of stability in terms of industrial relations, fares etc.

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

GIven the relative spends on the rail industry and road network (~£12bn non-HS2 operational subsidy, vs something like £12bn total spend on the road network) this argument is not as powerful as it once was.

I don't think many people are actually suggesting the total destruction of the railway network, but a large fraction of the traffic on it is carried on a small portion of the route mileage, using only a small portion of the total personnel.

Once electric cars become widespread over the next few years (undermining the environmentalist argument), things start to look a bit bleak for the railways politically. It only has a decade or so to make its case to be a major part of the post-carbon transport system.

Are electric cars likely to become more widespread or cheaper than the petrol car in its heyday ?

If not, there'll still be a contingent who won't put up with the expense of running one and will still need the range of public transport we need now.

Personally I'm more concerned about the possible effects of self driving cars in this respect.

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

In 2002 the figures were:

Highest income quintile traveled 160% of average mileage (combined driver and passenger) in a car.
Highest income quintile traveled 261% of average mileage by surface rail
HIghest income quintile traveled 55% of average mileage by local buses (both in London and outside LOndon)

So rail has actually become less weighted towards the top quintile in the last two decades! Probably due to the end of mass commuting into London post-coronavirus.

Cars and trains are becoming less biased towards the top, whilst bus is becoming more biased.

Those are interesting figures. Not sure what to make of the buses becoming yuppified (the ones I normally travel on don't feel like it).

 

[43066]

The problem is the stats don't support the argument that the railway is a transport system for the poor.
If you go to the national transport survey, you can note that rail travel is even more biased to higher income quintiles than cars.

It is the bus that is the motorised transport system of the poor.

EDIT:
NTS0705b: Average distance travelled by household income quintile and mode (miles per person per year): England, 2002 onwards

Highest income quintile traveled 134% of average mileage (combined driver and passenger) in a car.
Highest income quintile traveled 182% of average mileage by surface rail
HIghest income quintile traveled 70% of average mileage by local buses (both in London and outside LOndon)

It isn’t a transport method for the poor. I’m not sure what that’s a problem in and of itself, though?

The railway is skewed around (and helps facilitate) London and the Southeast where incomes tend to be higher, and where commensurately more tax is paid. In any case rail passengers bear a higher burden of the cost relative to the taxpayer than other systems worldwide.

 

[HSTEd]

Are electric cars likely to become more widespread or cheaper than the petrol car in its heyday ?

Yes.
Second-hand electrics are already available for £10,000 and this figure is falling rapidly as a true second-hand market develops.
Even if the car ends up with worn-out batteries it will still be ample for the sorts of journeys that characterise almost all car use.

If not, there'll still be a contingent who won't put up with the expense of running one and will still need the range of public transport we need now.

Electric cars, on aggregate, will have much lower operating costs than petroleum fuelled vehicles. They will have a lower total cost of ownership once a true second hand market develops over the next few years.

Personally I'm more concerned about the possible effects of self driving cars in this respect.

Widespread deployment of self-driving cars is probably a doomsday scenario for much of the railway.

 

[43066]

Widespread deployment of self-driving cars is probably a doomsday scenario for much of the railway.

This is obviously nonsense.

Cars aren’t exactly a new invention, neither are taxis. Yet rail use continues to grow, wherever it’s provided.

Only on here is rail’s demise constantly predicted, and seemingly yearned for by some!

Probably due to the end of mass commuting into London post-coronavirus.

If you think “mass commuting” into London has ended, you clearly don’t live there, or use the same trains I do…

 

[LUYMun]

In 2002 the figures were:

Highest income quintile traveled 160% of average mileage (combined driver and passenger) in a car.
Highest income quintile traveled 261% of average mileage by surface rail
HIghest income quintile traveled 55% of average mileage by local buses (both in London and outside LOndon)

So rail has actually become less weighted towards the top quintile in the last two decades! Probably due to the end of mass commuting into London post-coronavirus.

Cars and trains are becoming less biased towards the top, whilst bus is becoming more biased.

The rest of my point still stands.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes.
Second-hand electrics are already available for £10,000 and this figure is falling rapidly as a true second-hand market develops.
Even if the car ends up with worn-out batteries it will still be ample for the sorts of journeys that characterise almost all car use.


Electric cars, on aggregate, will have much lower operating costs than petroleum fuelled vehicles. They will have a lower total cost of ownership once a true second hand market develops over the next few years.

Widespread deployment of self-driving cars is probably a doomsday scenario for much of the railway.

A friend at work was telling me about his first old banger that he bought in the 90's for £400. Cheap cars didn't kill of the railway then and EV's have a fair way to go.

As for the doomsday scenario - I expect we'll have bigger things worry about with AI anyway.

 

[Irascible]

I was thinking more the Tivvy bumper to the junction.

That would be the one I wouldn't have kept, other than as an integrated loop for local trains between Exeter & Taunton. On its own you could have replaced it with a minibus.

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.

Money spent on education can reduce the load on health services, police, prisons, etc. That doesn't come up either, because we've been trained out of holistic big picture approaches by the attitude of every unit having to account for itself ( so it can be sold off, generally ).

Yes.
Second-hand electrics are already available for £10,000 and this figure is falling rapidly as a true second-hand market develops.
Even if the car ends up with worn-out batteries it will still be ample for the sorts of journeys that characterise almost all car use.


Electric cars, on aggregate, will have much lower operating costs than petroleum fuelled vehicles. They will have a lower total cost of ownership once a true second hand market develops over the next few years.

Widespread deployment of self-driving cars is probably a doomsday scenario for much of the railway.

Every now and then in a wander around the town - a fairly typical small town in this area - I look at how many cars are parked, and how many are parked off-road. The percentage parked off-road is way below that of on-road, even allowing for the newer housing expansion. There are no fast chargers here and I'm not sure the local grid could sustain everyone with onstreet parking here using fast chargers anyway, it struggles enough with normal domestic loads. How are people here meant to widely take up electric cars? again this is a fairly typical town too. IIRC hybrids are now selling better than electric cars in the UK.

Mass rollout of self-driving cars is one of those 20 years into the future things. Looks great until you look at the details. They still suffer from the same problems as driving a car vs a bus when it comes to congestion anyway.

 

[WesternLancer]

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.

Thanks for a very good post!

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Some very interesting observations. Particularly the one that the closure programme is still driving negative perceptions of the railway in some cohorts over sixty years later !

Would be future axe men should take note.

 

[mike57]

Some very interesting observations.

Just remember its a very small sample talking to people from a village which is reasonably affluent. I would also say it has a higher percentage of older residents. How this translates to other areas I have no idea.

A bit more background. Station usage is running at about 21,000 per annum. Thats an average of about 60 per day spread over 29 services between roughly 07:20 and 21:40 with an hourly core service each way during the day. Of those 60 a proportion will be visiting the RSPB reserve at Bempton Cliffs, at popular times when the sea birds are nesting this could be half the passengers. So optimistically thats 45 people from a catchment of 700 up to 1000 depending if you are prepared to walk 15 mins. Of those 45 a lot will be out and return so I am going to say 30 different people each day. I suspect that those 30 come from a pool of maybe 100 who use the train regularly, but that 100 is a bit of guess.

There is one other issue, I am not sure how this affects things, which I forgot to mention, the walk to and from. In the dark there is one very dark spot, maybe 200 yds. The station is well lit, but then as you come out there is a gap in street lamps. There is a footpath, but if its very dark a small torch is a wise addition to your 'pocket junk' or use the torch on your phone, its less than 3 minutes of the walk. and then you have a typical rural village streetlights i.e. not 'Blackpool illuminations' level, but they are now all LED and adequate. People do also drop and collect travellers off in cars in bad weather. If me and my wife are going in opposite directions she will often drop me on her way out, as usually my journey is the one more compatible with the train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2024 ==

I'm not sure the local grid could sustain everyone with onstreet parking here using fast chargers anyway, it struggles enough with normal domestic loads.

We have seen this over the last few years. We have lived here for 18 years. I have a small generator which we needed at our previous house due to an unrelaible electric supply. For most of that time it only got used in anger maybe 2-3 times. However over the last couple of years we have been plagued with power cuts, and its been needed on at least 4 separate occasions, and that apart from the times where it was later on and I didnt bother getting it out and starting it.

We had a discussion on this locally and the concensus was that it was increasing load (more houses, electric cars etc. etc.) and ageing infrastructure. This scenario is going to play out across the country. Yet again the law of unintended consequences comes into play, which the politicians promoting electric cars have failed to recognise.

 

[nanstallon]

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.

This is about the size of it. Like many people I know, an occasional rail trip is taken for fun or when it happens to suit, but rail is no longer the dominant form of transport, and i see no reason why the taxpayer should be expected to write a blank cheque for the railways.

 

[778]

This is about the size of it. Like many people I know, an occasional rail trip is taken for fun or when it happens to suit, but rail is no longer the dominant form of transport, and i see no reason why the taxpayer should be expected to write a blank for the railways.

Do you think line closures are the only solution? How much of the network do you think should be closed?

 

[WesternLancer]

This thread has gone fairly off topic in my view. Union opposition to Beeching cuts has little to do with current levels of passenger use.

 

[yorksrob]

This is about the size of it. Like many people I know, an occasional rail trip is taken for fun or when it happens to suit, but rail is no longer the dominant form of transport, and i see no reason why the taxpayer should be expected to write a blank for the railways.

It doesn't. It forces passengers, rightly to pay a contribution. Unlike all those other public services that don't.

This argument can be put down to motorists whining because no one who doesn't have permanent access to a car, will be calling for cuts.

 

[Juliet Barvo]

The unions absolutely made a lot of noise about the Beeching cuts and fairly strongly opposed them for obvious reasons. Bagwell's official history of the NUR devotes a entire chapter to Beeching and the unions. While the unions obviously paid a lot of attention to securing good redunancy agreements rather than preventing the loss of jobs, a degree of attention was definitely paid to the latter, and they certainly didn't support most closures. By the end of the 1960s the unions were bringing a fair bit of pressure on the government against the remaining closure proposals.

In addition, while not directly connected with the Beeching Report itself, there was a one-day nationwide strike in October 1962 in protest of workshop closures that would lead to the loss of around 9,500 jobs between 1962 and 1967. While the strike did not prevent any closures, it did secure fairly generous redundancy agreements.

That's really interesting, thank you