Beeching

[exile]

As an auditor the lack of any verifiable backing evidence to the assertion of lines having huge losses that the inquirys were told stands out like a sore thumb that something underhand was going on.
The fact that the solution didnt put BR back in profit (its publicly intended aim) also questions the conclusions and solutions.

You didn't need an auditor to work out that trains with six people aboard on average were going to lose money, that wouldn't even have paid for the fuel.

 

[Greenback]

You didn't need an auditor to work out that trains with six people aboard on average were going to lose money, that wouldn't even have paid for the fuel.

I think that the point is that there was no real evidence of actual numbers produced. The lack of an objective analysis, including possible cost savings and initiatives to improve the attractiveness of services is a major criticism of the report that was raised at the time. It's never been answered properly.

 

[jas_sl]

Many people mention the Beeching/Marples axis - but my understanding is most of Beeching's closure recommendations were actually enacted under Barbara Castle in the ensuing government but she's (or they, Labour) never feature in most discussions. Doesn't that imply most people vilify Beeching for merely suggesting what he did?

 

[yorksrob]

Many people mention the Beeching/Marples axis - but my understanding is most of Beeching's closure recommendations were actually enacted under Barbara Castle in the ensuing government but she's (or they, Labour) never feature in most discussions. Doesn't that imply most people vilify Beeching for merely suggesting what he did?

Labour have been hopeless and have overseen several closures on their watch including many of the worst. In their defence, they did at least begin to develop the concept of the subsidised social railway, although in my opinion they didn't deviate from the Beeching Plan nearly enough.

 

[Greenback]

It's not really a case of party politics. It wasn't down to party ideology, it was more a case that almost all the educated high flyers of the time really could not see a long term future for the railways.

In my view it was similar to the boom years of the 2000's - most people could not comprehend that the housing boom and easy credit would come to an end. Madness in hindsight, but that was the accepted view among the majority of the ruling elite.

 

[ivanhoe]

The idea of doing nothing was non negotiable. The system was in a mess, the Country made some bad decisions in the 1950's modernisation plan and oil was as cheap as chips. The Japanese however took out a huge loan from the world bank and used it to rebuild their railways. That in hindsite was a brilliant decision.

If it wasn't Beeching, it would have been somebody else who would have done a similar job. If anything, Beeching laid down the foundations for BR to become more innovative and some great progress was made in the 1970's.

By then the car was increasingly the mode of travel of choice. All forms of public transport were suffering by the time the PTE's were formed. The famous bus names like Crosville and Ribble had all had their heydays by the 1950's. We truly had a near bankrupt transport system and action was needed. He made mistakes but Roads were the choice of the people at the time. My take anyway!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Labour have been hopeless and have overseen several closures on their watch including many of the worst. In their defence, they did at least begin to develop the concept of the subsidised social railway, although in my opinion they didn't deviate from the Beeching Plan nearly enough.

At least, you seem to have looked at both sides of the debate, in the comments that you have made. I would support your final remark concerning the amount of deviation from the Beeching Plan.

 

[Zoe]

He made mistakes but Roads were the choice of the people at the time. My take anyway!

The question here is if this choice should have been allowed? If the development of the private car had been prevented then it may have been better in the long term for public transport.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The question here is if this choice should have been allowed? If the development of the private car had been prevented then it may have been better in the long term for public transport.

There was a great move forward into private car ownership in those days, not just in Britain, but in the larger states of Europe. Governments saw large employment prospects in car plants such as Longbridge and I am old enough to remember that there was never a move to prevent the development of private car ownership in either of the main British political parties at that time.

The unions would have been vociferous in their opposition to such a plan, as it would be seen to be an attack on the job prospects of the workers in the British car plants.

 

[ivanhoe]

The question here is if this choice should have been allowed? If the development of the private car had been prevented then it may have been better in the long term for public transport.

The Unequivable answer is the car has brought many benefits to society, made us more mobile in the job Market but it's success has come at a price. In the 1960's, that price was unknown. Public transport policy has always been a low priority for most Governments.

 

[Zoe]

The Unequivable answer is the car has brought many benefits to society, made us more mobile in the job Market but it's success has come at a price. In the 1960's, that price was unknown. Public transport policy has always been a low priority for most Governments.

That may well be the case but I think most would agree that the car is not the future now. If they had thought that way back in the 1960s then we would have a much more extensive public transport network.

 

[Greenback]

The Unequivable answer is the car has brought many benefits to society, made us more mobile in the job Market but it's success has come at a price. In the 1960's, that price was unknown. Public transport policy has always been a low priority for most Governments.

The price has been very high in terms of depletion of resources, pollution of the environment and deaths/injuries through road accidents. I'm not sure whether increased mobility in the job market, with the rise of long distance commuting and the impact on rural communities should be classed as a benefit though.

That may well be the case but I think most would agree that the car is not the future now. If they had thought that way back in the 1960s then we would have a much more extensive public transport network.

Unfortunately, retail and business parks still seem to be planned and constructed without any consideration of public transport links. I think that the message hasn't fully got through to people in positions of power who make the decisions.

 

[passmore]

That may well be the case but I think most would agree that the car is not the future now. If they had thought that way back in the 1960s then we would have a much more extensive public transport network.

Trouble is, we don't have a viable alternative to the car so to many people, the car is the future.

Don't know where you got the 'most would agree' from.

 

[Greenback]

Trouble is, we don't have a viable alternative to the car so to many people, the car is the future.

Don't know where you got the 'most would agree' from.

It's ironic that far more people actually 'need'* a car now because of the erosion of public transport, the closure of rural schools and the centralisation of services that has been encouraged by the rise in car use.

In the 1960's it became an aspiration to own a car for lesiure purposes, rather than a necessity to get to work, school or go shopping.

* it's 'need' based on the fact that for many, not having a car does not make it impossible to go to work, or school, or shopping, but it makes it a lot more inconvenient.

 

[Zoe]

Trouble is, we don't have a viable alternative to the car so to many people, the car is the future.

Don't know where you got the 'most would agree' from.

The private car isn't susainable, like it or not there is going to have to be an alternative in the future (due to climate change and lack of resources) or people won't be able to travel. As I said in another thread, best to start planning for that future now.

 

[passmore]

It's ironic that far more people actually 'need'* a car now because of the erosion of public transport, the closure of rural schools and the centralisation of services that has been encouraged by the rise in car use.

In the 1960's it became an aspiration to own a car for lesiure purposes, rather than a necessity to get to work, school or go shopping.

* it's 'need' based on the fact that for many, not having a car does not make it impossible to go to work, or school, or shopping, but it makes it a lot more inconvenient.

I remember, Greenback. My first job fortunately enabled me to get my first and only car: a Morris Minor Station Wagon. It was an aspiration for many of my old friends to own a car in those days. Back then, if push came to shove, people were quite content to walk everywhere and anywhere. I can remember walking from the West End to Camden on one of the days where the Northern Line had decided to go belly-up. I didn't use buses either as far as I can recall.

Nowadays, cars are, for want of a better phrase, a 'part of people' and many people can't live without one. That's why I find it difficult to believe that there are people who don't see the car as the future.

 

[Greenback]

I think that a lot of people realise the need to cut down on car usage. Some even manage to do it! For the majority it's more easily said than done. I think it's a case that once you have a car, it's very difficult to do without one due to the convenience it brings. It's the same with smartphones! as well!

As an example Mrs G needs a car because her job spans five different locations in two different counties. Two lcations are impossible to get without a car, the othe rthree can be done, but if she has tot ravel between two of them on the same day, she wouldn;t actually have any time to do anything! Her employers therefore insist that staff must have a car, and reimburse them mileage.

I don't need a car for work, so we only have one car. However, although we can easily walk into the town at weekends, where there is a large Asda, a shopping centre and a brilliant market, we take the car because it's easier and quicker than carting a load of shopping home on foot.

 

[Caertroia]

Beeching wa snot stupid. You don;t get to be chair of ICI by beign daft, more likely by going to the right school and knowing the right people. .

He was clever, not born in a rich family, and did well through his own efforts.

"Beeching was born in Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent, the second of four brothers. His father was a reporter with the Kent Messenger, his mother a schoolteacher and his maternal grandfather a dockyard worker. Shortly after his birth, Beeching's family moved to Maidstone where his brothers Kenneth (who was killed in the Second World War) and John were born. All four Beeching boys attended the local Church of England primary school, Maidstone All Saints, and won scholarships to Maidstone Grammar School,... " (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Beeching,_Baron_Beeching)

 

[Gareth Marston]

You didn't need an auditor to work out that trains with six people aboard on average were going to lose money, that wouldn't even have paid for the fuel.

So you think the reports passenger surveys were accurate reflections of the usage of all lines? I'm not denying that someone may have counted only 6 passengers on a train at some point during week ending 23/4/62. That was the methodology used, a headcount carried out in one week in April 62. Beeching and chums then tried to say that these figures gave an accurate reflection of average usage. Its been heavily ripped to pieces over the years as it is statistically inept, an A level Maths exam board used it as basis of a question in the 80's with candidates awarded more marks the more faults they found with it. The same train could have had 20 on the week after and needed extra carriages in August, undoubtedly some services were very lightly used but the weak methodology means many lines were actually busier than assumed especially if involving seasonal flows.

But to me the real clincher is the costs, the report just says what the cost headings were at UK level theirs no sub analysis by region let alone at line level. The reports assumptive costs on train operation are "very rough and dirty" and no evidence was ever presented to back them up, when you try and use the techniques in the report about cost per mile of train operation etc and apply them to lines where the "losses" were known you cant get them to balance. There are instances of the declared losses being higher than the assumptive operating costs!

At the inquiry's the TUCC were just told by BR that line A made losses of X there was never any backing evidence and the closure hearing remit specifically forbid any questioning - anyone who stood up and demanded proof as my father did was threatened with removal. If all branch line and stopping trains were such basket cases then the evidence should have been so overwhelming the easiest thing in the world would be to show the actual evidence.

At best the analysis and use of evidence in the report was lazy and inept and the scope for mistakes and inaccuracy high.

 

[exile]

So you think the reports passenger surveys were accurate reflections of the usage of all lines? I'm not denying that someone may have counted only 6 passengers on a train at some point during week ending 23/4/62. That was the methodology used, a headcount carried out in one week in April 62. Beeching and chums then tried to say that these figures gave an accurate reflection of average usage. Its been heavily ripped to pieces over the years as it is statistically inept, an A level Maths exam board used it as basis of a question in the 80's with candidates awarded more marks the more faults they found with it. The same train could have had 20 on the week after and needed extra carriages in August, undoubtedly some services were very lightly used but the weak methodology means many lines were actually busier than assumed especially if involving seasonal flows.

But to me the real clincher is the costs, the report just says what the cost headings were at UK level theirs no sub analysis by region let alone at line level. The reports assumptive costs on train operation are "very rough and dirty" and no evidence was ever presented to back them up, when you try and use the techniques in the report about cost per mile of train operation etc and apply them to lines where the "losses" were known you cant get them to balance. There are instances of the declared losses being higher than the assumptive operating costs!

At the inquiry's the TUCC were just told by BR that line A made losses of X there was never any backing evidence and the closure hearing remit specifically forbid any questioning - anyone who stood up and demanded proof as my father did was threatened with removal. If all branch line and stopping trains were such basket cases then the evidence should have been so overwhelming the easiest thing in the world would be to show the actual evidence.

At best the analysis and use of evidence in the report was lazy and inept and the scope for mistakes and inaccuracy high.

Given that BR was losing huge amounts of money overall then surely SOME lines must not have been covering their costs! And there really were lines where 6 per train was a realistic year-round average - eg the Banff branch. And, if a line was busy in August, that hardly makes it viable if it was transporting empty space the rest of the year. For instance - if trains were carrying an average of 50 from September to June, and 200 in July and August, that's an annual average of just over 60.

Bear in mind that a DMU service would need to carry 17,000 passengers per week to break even taking into account fixed costs as well as operating costs.

 

[ivanhoe]

'At best the analysis and use of evidence in the report was lazy and inept and the scope for mistakes and inaccuracy high.'

I think that conclusion smacks of denial. The railways were in a mess and truncating the network had to be done. Think 1960's when analysing Beeching. Oh and to those who think the car has no future, look at the work being done on alternative fuels in our Universities. I reckon I will be going to a cemetery in a motorised hearse , rather than a horse and cart. To write the car off now is akin to writing the railways off by a certain civil servant in the 1980's,

 

[Greenback]

'At best the analysis and use of evidence in the report was lazy and inept and the scope for mistakes and inaccuracy high.'

I think that conclusion smacks of denial. The railways were in a mess and truncating the network had to be done. Think 1960's when analysing Beeching. Oh and to those who think the car has no future, look at the work being done on alternative fuels in our Universities. I reckon I will be going to a cemetery in a motorised hearse , rather than a horse and cart. To write the car off now is akin to writing the railways off by a certain civil servant in the 1980's,

The alternative fuels are not without their own problems and drawbacks. The car is not going to disappear to be replaced by proper horsepower, but today's lifestyle of heavy car use will not be sustainable. Economic, environmental and availability factors will see to that.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Given that BR was losing huge amounts of money overall then surely SOME lines must not have been covering their costs! And there really were lines where 6 per train was a realistic year-round average - eg the Banff branch. And, if a line was busy in August, that hardly makes it viable if it was transporting empty space the rest of the year. For instance - if trains were carrying an average of 50 from September to June, and 200 in July and August, that's an annual average of just over 60.

Bear in mind that a DMU service would need to carry 17,000 passengers per week to break even taking into account fixed costs as well as operating costs.

No ones denying that some lines were just never viable what I question is the poor analysis as a means to decide on line closure - there's far too many question marks on many lines also if line closures were the solution to the loses why by the end of 60's was subsidy introduced? If closing branch lines and cutting stopping services was the answer then the core should have been profitable.

 

[exile]

No ones denying that some lines were just never viable what I question is the poor analysis as a means to decide on line closure - there's far too many question marks on many lines also if line closures were the solution to the loses why by the end of 60's was subsidy introduced? If closing branch lines and cutting stopping services was the answer then the core should have been profitable.

At the time, it was still thought possible - it was only in the 70s that BR finally admitted that no matter how much the network was cut, a profitable railway would not emerge. The Serpell report suggested that a 1,600 mile railway might just about break even. Today it's not even certain that would be the case given the high capital cost of trains and infrastructure for inter city routes.

Decisions on individual lines were more questionable - the Beeching Report had no figures for more than half a dozen services and the reader was supposed to take it as read that all the other closures listed had similar justifications.
Given the Transport Act of 1962 when it came to enquires only evidence of hardship was to be taken into account, so chairmen had to rule discussions of financial justification, possible ways of making savings, non-financial benefits of train travel such as reduced road congestion, out of order.

People do tend to conflate the Beeching Report and the closure programme. The latter had been under way since 1950. It was accelerated after the 62 Transport Act which made it much easier to push them through. The Beeching Report was an attempt to take a strategic view and indicate to the public the scale of the cuts which were thought necessary. Even with no report, the closures would still have happened.

 

[Gareth Marston]

British Railways "huge losses" amounted to 17% of the expenditure, today the privatised TOC's need 50% subsidy.

You can trace why the railway of the early 60's wasn't profitable from Government decisions or non decisions stretching back to the 1830's. Common Carrier status but no support from Govt the Big 4 tried in vain pre WW2 to get that monkey off their backs, the wartime run down with no compensation but the Big 4 shareholders were compensated out of railway budgets post nationalisation, the resultant failure to modernise, rising wages in the 50's in an industry still awash with labor.

 

[exile]

British Railways "huge losses" amounted to 17% of the expenditure, today the privatised TOC's need 50% subsidy.

You can trace why the railway of the early 60's wasn't profitable from Government decisions or non decisions stretching back to the 1830's. Common Carrier status but no support from Govt the Big 4 tried in vain pre WW2 to get that monkey off their backs, the wartime run down with no compensation but the Big 4 shareholders were compensated out of railway budgets post nationalisation, the resultant failure to modernise, rising wages in the 50's in an industry still awash with labor.

It would have been difficult to keep the railways running at all if wages had not been raised to keep pace with other industries. The factors you mention were significant but as in other countries the real problem was loss of market share - only in the UK things were worse than in Europe, where passenger and freight traffic increased over the period (though not so bad as in the US where passenger services more or less vanished between WW2 and 1971). In Europe it was thought acceptable to provide a general subsidy to railways, but that was not the case in the UK until 1968, before that the nirvana of a profitable railway was still being sought.

Today the main problem the railways (and other transport systems) face is the high cost of infrastructure construction and maintenance. The perils of trying to do it on the cheap are evident in China today. In the UK the costs of the byzantine structure and high salaries due to competition between employers are additional factors. Not that I'm against high salaries for what are responsible and safety-critical jobs but it helps to make trains more expensive to run than buses and thus vulnerable to being cut should the government be forced to reduce subsidies.

 

[jones_bangor]

It's a shame that working practices weren't looked at.

The assumptions Beeching made were based on staffed stations and archaic infrastructure.

I think a lot of lines could have been saved if a model based on unstaffed stations, single line block working and single car DMUs had been applied. Basically a driver and a guard would have been the staff costs on a lot of lines that were closed.

But of course the Unions wouldn't have that, 'elf 'n safety guv!!

 

[Zoe]

The alternative fuels are not without their own problems and drawbacks. The car is not going to disappear to be replaced by proper horsepower, but today's lifestyle of heavy car use will not be sustainable. Economic, environmental and availability factors will see to that.

Indeed, production of cars still uses limited resources and has a high carbon footprint. If driverless cars are introduced then the number of cars that need to exist will be significantly reduced but even then will still use more resources than public transport would. If it gets to a time where a car is not affordable to most people then there will need to be a much more extensive public transport network including services to remote locations or people will be cut off. It would be a good idea to start planning a more extensive network now.

 

[exile]

The problem with cars is that they use a lot of road per passenger, no matter what form of propulsion is used - not to mention the land that's needed to park them. This is OK in free flowing traffic but in rush hours is a disaster. Some cities particularly in the third world without adequate mass transit systems have permanent gridlock.

 

[Markdvdman]

Hi all,

First post from me and I despise a lot of what happened under the Beeching cuts, but as people said action SHOULD have been taken post war! Marples is to me a word I cannot post on here!

For interesting reading regarding it, look here:

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