Cost effective alternative to Beeching.

[yorksrob]

I don't see the point in all this historical revisionism. They did what they did and we are where we are.

Whatever their motivation, a particular group of elected politicians, managers and maybe other actors behind the scenes decided (not conspired) to reshape the railways as they did over half a century ago. The architects knew they had to act very quickly as public resistance would grow and eventually bring the process to a stand, which it did, hence the large volume of near simultaneous closures. Maybe in modern eyes they went a little too far, too fast, maybe they didn't go far enough, maybe they didn't do enough to protect some of the more valuable alignments, but it all has to be seen through the prism of broader attitudes toward old 'Victorian Industries' as the railways were undoubtedly seen in the white heat of the post war technological revolution. While some may like to imagine a dastardly plot, the business community and thus the Tory party have by and large always recognised the importance of railways in their core applications, hence the reshaping report also contained many positive proposals for modernisation of what would be left. I have an official Conservative pamphlet from the period which sets out a strong argument that roads cannot be expected to meet all the heaviest freight, commuter and intercity traffic demands for various reasons so railways must continue to be supported for the sake of the economy. Governments of all colours have never given the railways an easy time, but there has not been a realistic existential threat at any time. The bonkers Serpell report emerged from a period of swivel-eyed lunacy in the DoT that by no means represented the broad view of business or the party. Whatever her personal position, Thatcher knew wide-spread closures at that time would have been political poison, and never followed up on Serpell, thank goodness, but the deep cuts to railway capital spending of the time were very challenging indeed.

Rather than continue to argue about the past, I think we all need to maintain vigilance, particularly at this difficult time, of shadowy influences who may wish to damage the industry or limit its development unreasonably in the future. The Conservative party, if it survives Brexit, might swing in alternative directions as to its positions on rail and public transport generally, under whatever new geopolitical interests the nation becomes aligned to, and of course in response to attitudes and behaviour of the public.

As to the past, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there".

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

 

[RT4038]

Add to the Kent Coast, the Clackton line, the WCML, the Glasgow blue trains etc.

If Dr B had been in charge of the Kent electrification, I wonder would we have got Strood or Ashford to Maidstone, or Ashford to Ramsgate, or would the network in Kent today be as motheaten as that in Sussex or Hampshire.

The Beeching cuts didn't provide 'freedom from the tyranny of the public transport timetable'. If you were wealthy enough, you could already buy a car. They curtailed the freedom of those who didn't have access to motor transport.

The Beeching cuts didn't provide that freedom - the motor car and its associated road network did. And the population were buying these, using them in ever increasing numbers and abandoning the railways. Yes, some people had their freedom curtailed, but they were a small minority.

 

[RT4038]

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

If the same circumstances occur again, I am confident that a similar course of action will be taken

 

[yorksrob]

The Beeching cuts didn't provide that freedom - the motor car and its associated road network did. And the population were buying these, using them in ever increasing numbers and abandoning the railways. Yes, some people had their freedom curtailed, but they were a small minority.

I think that this argument is overstated.

During the 1960's/70's, car ownership per head was much lower than today (see the 9th chart down):https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182497

Yes, car ownership was growing, but it would be a long time before ownership levels got anywhere near the levels we have today. But it was a useful narrative for the Establishment to justify what they were doing.

 

[yorksrob]

If the same circumstances occur again, I am confident that a similar course of action will be taken

Only if we go back to the same lack of scrutiny and atmosphere of deference that allows it.

 

[coppercapped]

I think that this argument is overstated.

During the 1960's/70's, car ownership per head was much lower than today (see the 9th chart down):https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182497

Yes, car ownership was growing, but it would be a long time before ownership levels got anywhere near the levels we have today. But it was a useful narrative for the Establishment to justify what they were doing.

I've posted this before, but repetition helps. This is the number of cards registered for use on the roads at the end of the year in question:

1909 53,000
1920 187,000
1930 1,056,000
1939 2,034,000
1946 1,770,000
1950 1,979,000
1960 4,900,000
1970 9,971,000
1980 14,660,000
1990 19,742,000
2000 23,196,100
2010 27,017,900

Note that the number of cars increased by 3.5 times between 1909 and 1920 despite there have being a World War in the interval. Obviously even then individual private transport was highly regarded.

Between 1950 and 1960 the number increased two and a half times and between 1960 and 1970 the number doubled. Since then the rate of increase has dropped. It grew by just less than 50% in the next decade and took another 30 years to double again.

It is absolutely clear from these figures that the only reason that road traffic increased was because of the motorways built by that crooked Marples. Was he Minister of Transport in 1920?

The increase in the number of cars between 1950 and 1970 by a factor of five was, of course, only a 'useful narrative'...

 

[yorksrob]

I've posted this before, but repetition helps. This is the number of cards registered for use on the roads at the end of the year in question:

1909 53,000
1920 187,000
1930 1,056,000
1939 2,034,000
1946 1,770,000
1950 1,979,000
1960 4,900,000
1970 9,971,000
1980 14,660,000
1990 19,742,000
2000 23,196,100
2010 27,017,900

Note that the number of cars increased by 3.5 times between 1909 and 1920 despite there have being a World War in the interval. Obviously even then individual private transport was highly regarded.

Between 1950 and 1960 the number increased two and a half times and between 1960 and 1970 the number doubled. Since then the rate of increase has dropped. It grew by just less than 50% in the next decade and took another 30 years to double again.

It is absolutely clear from these figures that the only reason that road traffic increased was because of the motorways built by that crooked Marples. Was he Minister of Transport in 1920?

The increase in the number of cars between 1950 and 1970 by a factor of five was, of course, only a 'useful narrative'...

But we have twice as many cars now, and we see a use for public transport. In the 1960's, half of households still didn't have access to a motorcar at all. The suggestion that non-motorists at that stage were an insignificant minority at the time was a fallacy.

 

[Lucan]

Note that the number of cars increased by 3.5 times between 1909 and 1920 .... Obviously even then individual private transport was highly regarded.
Between 1950 and 1960 the number increased two and a half times and between 1960 and 1970 the number doubled. Since then the rate of increase has dropped. It grew by just less than 50% in the next decade and took another 30 years to double again.

The big multiple of increase in the early days is just an artifact of it being a relativley new invention. After all, when the second ever motor car was built it alone doubled the existing number. Cars remained a very minority thing.

OTOH the increase from 1950 to 1970 was certainly caused by the adoption of pro-road government policies, including for example the building of outer-suburban housing estates with poor access to railways for city commuters, and of course motorways. The more recent slowing down reflects the increasing proportion of people who live what might be called "metropolitan" lives, entirely within a city except for holidays abroad reached by plane of course, a result of increased population density, and the high insurance costs for younger people.

 

[RT4038]

I think that this argument is overstated.

During the 1960's/70's, car ownership per head was much lower than today (see the 9th chart down):https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182497

Yes, car ownership was growing, but it would be a long time before ownership levels got anywhere near the levels we have today. But it was a useful narrative for the Establishment to justify what they were doing.

Nut you were berating the politicians earlier that th

OTOH the increase from 1950 to 1970 was certainly caused by the adoption of pro-road government policies....

And this strange phenomenon has not been seen in just about every other country on this planet, because that was what the vast majority of their populations desired? Only a 'command and control' would have been able to resist this, Canute-like, and look what has happened to them. The politicians and cnsultants clearly foresaw this rise of private vehicle use and resized the railway accordingly.

 

[yorksrob]

Nut you were berating the politicians earlier that th


And this strange phenomenon has not been seen in just about every other country on this planet, because that was what the vast majority of their populations desired? Only a 'command and control' would have been able to resist this, Canute-like, and look what has happened to them. The politicians and cnsultants clearly foresaw this rise of private vehicle use and resized the railway accordingly.

Well they clearly didn't "resize the railway accordingly" as evidenced by the number of routes which they tried to "resize" out of existance, but which are clearly very important, wven in today's motor-saturated world.

That aside, could you imagine justifying a major cut to the railway network today on the basis that most households would use a car, let alone in the 1960's when half the population didn't have access to one.

Two things stand out for me from this thread.

First, in answer to the OP, yes there were more cost effective alternatives that could have been taken - at least for a lot of marginal routes. For those that weren't, well the railway had been closing those since the 1920's.

The second thing that springs to mind is that once you strip away the marshalling yards and the large numbers of loco types, the modernisation plan more or less had the right idea about what was needed, for the passenger railway at least. Electrification, regular interval multiple unit operation InterCity express trains (yes, I know that the snazzy title was invented during the Beeching era - Deltics were still InterCity even if the name didn't exist). This is the blueprint (albeit on a smaller scale) for today's railway, and most of those improvements actually increased usage and revenue, as opposed to the closure notice inspired death-spiral.

The 'reshaping' was a report borne of panick. A knee-jerk reaction to a problem which required deeper consideration. Sadly our politicians and civil servants of the time weren't up to the job.

Perhaps they should have given Beeching the job of sorting out freight - an area in which he was genuinely on the right track, and in which he clearly had a keen interest, judging by the proportion of his reports devoted to it.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Well they clearly didn't "resize the railway accordingly" as evidenced by the number of routes which they tried to "resize" out of existance, but which are clearly very important, wven in today's motor-saturated world.

That aside, could you imagine justifying a major cut to the railway network today on the basis that most households would use a car, let alone in the 1960's when half the population didn't have access to one.

Two things stand out for me from this thread.

First, in answer to the OP, yes there were more cost effective alternatives that could have been taken - at least for a lot of marginal routes. For those that weren't, well the railway had been closing those since the 1920's.

The second thing that springs to mind is that once you strip away the marshalling yards and the large numbers of loco types, the modernisation plan more or less had the right idea about what was needed, for the passenger railway at least. Electrification, regular interval multiple unit operation InterCity express trains (yes, I know that the snazzy title was invented during the Beeching era - Deltics were still InterCity even if the name didn't exist). This is the blueprint (albeit on a smaller scale) for today's railway, and most of those improvements actually increased usage and revenue, as opposed to the closure notice inspired death-spiral.

The 'reshaping' was a report borne of panick. A knee-jerk reaction to a problem which required deeper consideration. Sadly our politicians and civil servants of the time weren't up to the job.

Perhaps they should have given Beeching the job of sorting out freight - an area in which he was genuinely on the right track, and in which he clearly had a keen interest, judging by the proportion of his reports devoted to it.

It is good to see that at least some (in fact the great bulk of BR's task, given that the lines proposed for closure only carried 1-2% of any type of traffic) of Dr Beeching's work in bulk freight and inter city is appreciated.

But can the Reshaping Report honestly be described as 'panic' measure? As has been well noted before, thousands of miles of line had already closed 'tactically' ever since nationalisation. Marples had been appointed as early as October 1959. Beeching's appointment was announced in March 1961 and he took over as BTC Chairman in June 1961. The Reshaping report was published in March 1963 after nearly two years of data collection and analysis.

As has also been noted, Prime Minister Macmillan's speech to the House of Commons pointing out the need for a "remodelled" rail network had been as early as March 1960. Since that time there had been various committees, a white paper and new Transport Act in 1962 coupled with the winding up of the British Transport Commission. Years of hard work and consideration had gone into the changes against a background of steadily growing rail deficits and rapidly rising car ownership. The process was rather longer than the design of rail privatisation in the 1990s!

You have pointed out that a large slice of the population still didn't have access to a car in the 1960s but the overwhelming majority did have access to the roads by one means or another.

In 1965 outside London no part of Great Britain (as categorised by type of settlement from Provincial Conurbation down to Rural) had more than 2% of trips on any basis (not just work or commuting) by rail. Local buses took 19-47% (rather less in small towns and rural areas) with the odd 1% by coach or works/school bus (except in rural areas up to 4%). Cars and light vans already took from 17% in conurbations up to 32% in rural areas, simply counting drivers. A further 13% (conurbations) up to 25% (rural areas) traveled as car/van passengers. Motorcycles were 2-3%, push-bikes 4-11% (clearly varying in particular towns but rural shown as 7%). Walking over a mile accounted for 9-14% of trips. There were a very few trips by things like ferry or taxi.

To state the obvious, 98% of journeys outside London were by road in one shape or form (even if only on the pavement or in the gutter). So focus on and investment in roads was always going to be politically attractive. This applied all the way from motorways down to improvements in towns to benefit bus services. Bypasses could reduce congestion and make cycling and walking in smaller settlements more attractive. [These figures taken from Transport Statistics Great Britain.]

 

[yorksrob]

It is good to see that at least some (in fact the great bulk of BR's task, given that the lines proposed for closure only carried 1-2% of any type of traffic) of Dr Beeching's work in bulk freight and inter city is appreciated.

But can the Reshaping Report honestly be described as 'panic' measure? As has been well noted before, thousands of miles of line had already closed 'tactically' ever since nationalisation. Marples had been appointed as early as October 1959. Beeching's appointment was announced in March 1961 and he took over as BTC Chairman in June 1961. The Reshaping report was published in March 1963 after nearly two years of data collection and analysis.

As has also been noted, Prime Minister Macmillan's speech to the House of Commons pointing out the need for a "remodelled" rail network had been as early as March 1960. Since that time there had been various committees, a white paper and new Transport Act in 1962 coupled with the winding up of the British Transport Commission. Years of hard work and consideration had gone into the changes against a background of steadily growing rail deficits and rapidly rising car ownership. The process was rather longer than the design of rail privatisation in the 1990s!

You have pointed out that a large slice of the population still didn't have access to a car in the 1960s but the overwhelming majority did have access to the roads by one means or another.

In 1965 outside London no part of Great Britain (as categorised by type of settlement from Provincial Conurbation down to Rural) had more than 2% of trips on any basis (not just work or commuting) were by rail. Local buses took 19-47% (rather less in small towns and rural areas) with the odd 1% by coach or works/school bus (except in rural areas up to 4%). Cars and light vans already took from 17% in conurbations up to 32% in rural areas, simply counting drivers. A further 13% (conurbations) up to 25% (rural areas) traveled as car/van passengers. Motorcycles were 2-3%, push-bikes 4-11% (clearly varying in particular towns but rural shown as 7%). Walking over a mile accounted for 9-14% of trips. There were a very few trips by things like ferry or taxi.

To state the obvious, 98% of journeys outside London were by road in one shape or form (even if only on the pavement or in the gutter). So focus on and investment in roads was always going to be politically attractive. This applied all the way from motorways down to improvements in towns to benefit bus services. Bypasses could reduce congestion and make cycling and walking in smaller settlements more attractive. [These figures taken from Transport Statistics Great Britain.]

Well, yes, the fact that thousands of miles had closed tactically, suggest that an organic reshaping was already underway and would have continued anyway. Putting the kiss of death on lines such as the Steyning route by listing them for closure didn't really add much of benefit. Yes the decision to reshape and appoint Dr Beeching might have taken a while, but the analysis of what routes to close was done with panicky haste.

In 1965, you point out that 2% of all trips outside of London were by rail. To state the obvious, this is remarkably similar to the statistic of 2% of all trips taken by rail today when the importance of public transport is recognised, except that the lack of the distorting effect of London means that a much higher proportion of passengers travelled by rail outside London then, than today.

 

[coppercapped]

The big multiple of increase in the early days is just an artifact of it being a relativley new invention. After all, when the second ever motor car was built it alone doubled the existing number. Cars remained a very minority thing.

OTOH the increase from 1950 to 1970 was certainly caused by the adoption of pro-road government policies, including for example the building of outer-suburban housing estates with poor access to railways for city commuters, and of course motorways. The more recent slowing down reflects the increasing proportion of people who live what might be called "metropolitan" lives, entirely within a city except for holidays abroad reached by plane of course, a result of increased population density, and the high insurance costs for younger people.

[Sound of sucking teeth...]
The number of cars increased even faster in the 1920s - by a factor of more than five as Herbert Austin and William Morris (and Henry Ford) began to understand how to satisfy the suppressed demand for private transport. Between 1920 and the start of the Second World War saw the rate drop to a mere doubling (the same rate as in the 1950s).

The building of 'Metroland' was in full swing in the 1920s and 1930s at a time when road building was only just starting to get underway - the Great West Road, bits of the Great North Road and a better road to Brighton and so on. Other countries had started with autostrada and turnpikes some years before we did.

Housing estates were being built, but much house building followed existing roads - the 'ribbon development' which led to the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act.

Is the suggestion that branch lines should have been built to some or all of these housing estates? How would that have worked?
The estates were being built to give people a better quality of life than that possible in overcrowded central city areas and because the population was growing. Towns always grow outwards - they have no choice. Upwards is possible but to give people some space the 'upwards' bits have to be quite widely spaced - and then the results are really ugly.

I have the impression that some posters on this forum think that car growth and road building was a curiously UK phenomenon. I have news for them...!

 

[Lucan]

[Sound of sucking teeth...]

After that start I assumed that you were going to disagree with me, but on the contrary you underline what I said. Metroland was of course built around the Metropolitan Railway's country branch, and, as other examples, the south-west London suburbs of the Tolworth, Surbiton and Ewell areas grew around the LSWR/SR, including branch lines.

OTOH, later (ie after about 1960) suburbs and new towns grew (and still grow) with little or no regard to rail access : I am thinking of the massive suburb of New Addington (retrospectively served by Tramlink) and new station-less "satellite" suburbs like Thornbury and Portishead (outside Bristol) which have developed with extensive new housing in recent years.

Is the suggestion that branch lines should have been built to some or all of these housing estates? How would that have worked?

Ironically, Thornbury and Portishead are both rail connected, now; but by freight lines. Only the Byzantine bureaucracy attached to railways prevents much needed passenger services of some sort being run - you should see the traffic jam on the M5 from Bristol each evening as people drive home to Portishead (and tell me that the societal cost is less than running some light trains). The large housing estate of St Helier in Carshalton was built in the 30's with a rail connection to deliver building materials - which was then removed!

Housing estates were being built, but much house building followed existing roads - the 'ribbon development' ..

Ribbon development is associated with buses, not cars. Consider a district with few houses (ie pre-development); bus routes follow the main road (eg the original Southend Road). When houses were built more intensively, they were placed along or close to the main road in order to be not far from a bus stop. No-one wanted a half-mile (or more) walk along a side road to reach the nearest main road bus stop. You can see today that the posher 1920s-30s houses (as built) actually faced the main road and cheaper houses were a little down any side roads (the opposite would be preferable today). The pressure was thus to extend building further along the main road rather than laterally - ribbon devlopment. Today, with a car, it does not matter to be a half-mile from the main road as that only takes a minute, and is in fact preferable.

I have the impression that some posters on this forum think that car growth and road building was a curiously UK phenomenon. I have news for them...!

???.... I don't know what that has to do with this discussion. Other nations have indeed followed a similar pattern. The "fashionabilty" of roads and cars from the 1950's extended throughout the Western World, particularly inspired by the German Autobahns. I have read economists who have used car ownership figures and even car sizes as yardsticks to compare national prosperities, and clearly politicians did not want to be last in the international stakes by that measure.