lancastrian, so the last government were morons! I certainly don't rate the coalition one bit, in fact it frightens me what they are capable of doing, knowing the Tories track record! Don't forget they closed the Pits, Steelworks & the worst, attempted to close the Settle & Carlisle Railway!
I expect the Lib Dems to make things very difficult for Cameron soon!
Sorry - but your comments about the S&C are a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
The attempt to close the S&C was engineered and initiated by BR management - NOT any politicians.
BR had been running down the S&C since the late 60s. By the early 1980s it had a skeleton service, few open stations and some imminent bills owing to a lack of maintenance and investment, notably the Ribblehead viaduct.
BR's management proposed closure, which went out to consultation. The Thatcher government actually blocked BR's attempt to close it owing to the representations made - the Minister who declined BR's closure request was Michael Portillo.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The Tories under Margaret Thatcher also closed the Woodhead Line in 1981 - with hindsight, one of the most disasterous mistakes to make.
Regarding the Lib Dems making things difficult for Cameron soon, I wouldn't hold your breath. So far, they've simply collapsed and rolled-over.
And as with comments elsewhere about the Thatcher government and the S&C - this comment about Woodhead is similarly incorrect.
The government did NOT seek closure.
BR management applied for closure - the problem for the Woodhead route was the line had been freight only from Hadfield for a number of years, so there were no objections owing to withdrawl of service. As with the S&C, investment had been limited for a number of years, so the infrastructure would have required investment.
In this case, there was no practical reason the government could have blocked the closure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
From this site
http://www.2d53.co.uk/25yrsago/25yrsago1078.htm
"Quote" Even more tenuous connection: In the original tendering for the Trans Pennine franchise, Arriva's bid included reopening the route over Woodhead, and running a new service between Manchester and Sheffield with a journey time of 35 minutes. This was far too ambitious for the SRA, so Arriva didn't make the cut. They obviously learnt their lesson, and got the Wales & Borders franchise by offering extra car parking, some leaflets in Welsh and 7 Class 150s. Both Virgin and Central Railway have also proposed reopening, but the only traffic passing is on foot, bicycle or horseback.
Slightly sarcastic in tone but appropriate.
I'd think that if a private company was willing to spend enormous amounts of money reopening a main line, they must have figured there was potential traffic for the line?
Historically, Beeching was brought in by the Tories, but Labour under Harold Wilson promised to stop the closures but immediately reneged on that promise and continued what the Tories started.
With the Serpell Report the Tories planned more closures especially the Settle & Carlisle but were only defeated by a concerted campaign.
The Tories under Major privatised the railways, then Blair promised to renationalise them but went back on that promise as he so often did. He continued to entrench privatisation and pour public money into private companies hands.
I've already pointed out the government wasn't seeking the closure of the S&C - that was BR management.
The Serpell comment needs far more context.
Firstly there was the economic situation of the time - which was not dissimilar to the circumstances faced today.
Also "In many ways, 1982 represented the nadir of Britain's railways. That year saw the lowest number of passenger journeys of the second half of the 20th century, the lowest level of passenger-miles, and the lowest (real) level of passenger revenue since 1968.[1] Although these figures were partly the result of the 1982 strike (over rostering arrangements), rail passenger numbers had been in steady decline since 1957. (Only 1978-1980 saw consecutive years of passenger growth). In 1982 terms, revenues had decreased steadily from £2,300 million in 1970 to £1,800 million in 1982, while costs had risen from £2,500 million to £2,700 million.[2] Consequently, BR's deficit had increased by a factor of 4.5."
Source - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpell_report
So the background was a poor economic situation and BR's costs were rising whilst it's revenue was falling.
Serpell, rightly, was commissioned to carry out a number of 'what if' studies.
As it turns out, economic recovery saw an uplift in passenger numbers and consequently revenue, so the need for such drastic action was avoided. But to pretend it was ideologically driven is disingenuous. Instead it was an acknowledgement that endlessly increasing subsidies were unsustainable.
