Doctor Beeching's cuts

[Yuanls]

Wow. So many people have come here to discuss the effects and causes of Dr Beeching's decision. I never thought this many people were in to this kind of thing!

 

[yorksrob]

Wow. So many people have come here to discuss the effects and causes of Dr Beeching's decision. I never thought this many people were in to this kind of thing!

Well, thats the thing. We're not talking about some dry historical caase study. Those decisions blight towns across the country to this day.

Like the avatar btw

 

[ainsworth74]

Wow. So many people have come here to discuss the effects and causes of Dr Beeching's decision. I never thought this many people were in to this kind of thing!

Well we have had 3,278 members log in over the last rolling thirty day period and more than a thousand members logged in today. As I post there are 564 people on the forum 134 members and 430 guests (though some of the guests will be bots like Google). So there's quite a few people floating around on here most of the time and a topic as divisive as Dr Beeching is always going to bring out some of our more curmudgeonly )) members to talk at great length about the subject.

Also welcome aboard and I hope you enjoy your stay!

 

[Lankyline]

I think we need to get away from the word "Axe" Beeching's report made recommendations for the rationalisation of the railways to the then Conservative govt, the real villains in the piece were Marples & Castle for not only implementing these but carrying on with wholesale closures, particularly Castle as her party went back on the election promise to reverse the cuts.

As has already been stated on here, rationalisation was already under way before Beeching' s report, the railways were overmanned, lots of lines were uneconomical to run, infrastructure condition wasn't great due to hammering it took from the war & lacked investment and of course, car usage was slowly rising and they couldn't compete fairly on freight.

But I don't believe it was a fair playing field for the review either, services run down by "stealth" to show how unprofitable they were, no manpower reductions, restrictive work practices, timetable revisions to give better services to better reflect capacity, wider use of DMU's, more track singling etc etc

An example of this is Preston- Southport, axed for being unprofitable, yet retained steam haulage up to last day, fastest direct train took 27 mins ! was completely double tracked, had over 220 staff across the stations / level crossings / signal boxes, but no attempt was made to find economies, ie intro DMU's, reduce staffing, etc, no doubt this scenario could apply to a lot more lines.

So hopefully without the use of "rose tinted specs" was Beeching right to recommend the wholesale closures, yes, to a certain extent, it had to come, but I would have said it should have been done it in stages, say by region, with a more flexible criteria to judge routes profitability & social impact.

What has to be remembered though is that out of Beeching, came Intercity and Freightliner, 2 major success stories, modernisation and high speed routes for both passenger & freight.

The downside, too many "cut off" towns, whole areas deprived of rail links eg Devon & Cornwall, East Anglia, Lincolnshire, eradicating steam too soon without properly introducing reliable diesels and imo lines that should never have gone, either during Beeching or after

Great Central
Preston Southport
Keswick Penrith
Woodhead
Waverley route from Hawick to Edinburgh
Manchester Central Sheffield Midland
Portishead branch
Padstow / Bude to Oakhampton

 

[Welshman]

Well we have had 3,278 members log in over the last rolling thirty day period and more than a thousand members logged in today. As I post there are 564 people on the forum 134 members and 430 guests (though some of the guests will be bots like Google). So there's quite a few people floating around on here most of the time and a topic as divisive as Dr Beeching is always going to bring out some of our more curmudgeonly )) members to talk at great length about the subject.

Now then, Young Sir.
I'm going to take exception to this!
I have been known to be stubborn, a grumbler and even sometimes downright awkward, but never curmudgeonly!

 

[Busaholic]

Now then, Young Sir.
I'm going to take exception to this!
I have been known to be stubborn, a grumbler and even sometimes downright awkward, but never curmudgeonly!

Was it E.M.Forster who said 'only curmudge'? If it wasn't, it should have been.

 

[341o2]

the background to Beeching was the nationalisation of the railways in 1948 ( OVS Bullied reigned over this). the railways reacted to post war attitudes with the 1955 Modernisation Plan which was vetoed on grounds of costs. So the railways asked to have the same status as an independant road haulier so unprofitable sewrvices could be withdrawn

Beeching brought in as a consultant from ICI

It is thanks to Gerry Fiennes that we still have Exeter - Salisbury and a railway west of Plymouth as Beeching recommended closure of both.

The big problem with the west country was the withdrawal of the Atlantic Coast Express which was the reason for the former Southern network. The Salisbury - Exeter line deliberatley avoided towns (Yeovil Junction for example) so without holiday traffic the branch lines were doomed

The final nail in the coffin has been the attitude that lines would never be reopened and so many station sites developed

 

[davetheguard]

If you think the Salisbury - Exeter Main Line avoided towns, I'd say it wasn't as successful in doing that as the GW route, which serves nowhere of any size between Newbury & Taunton. (Westbury's not in Westbury; Frome isn't generally served by Inter City trains; Castle Cary is served, but more for its railhead status than for the place itself)

So in comparison, to this observer at least, the SR line serving Andover, Salisbury, Gillingham, Sherborne, Axminster, and Honiton en route, looks like a much more useful main line.

However, as it turned out, we were fortunate in that both routes survived......

 

[Taunton]

A surprising aspect of the revenue analysis at the time was that Taunton generated as much revenue to London as Salisbury did, plus far more revenue to Bristol and the north than Salisbury did on the Westbury-Bristol line. The Atlantic Coast Express, in all honesty, only delivered good loads for around eight summer Saturdays per year, whereas the Paddington line had a far better all year long distance revenue base.

I'm aware that nowadays Salisbury has developed a significant daily commuter base to Waterloo, that just wasn't there in the 1960s when Basingstoke was about the outer limit for this.

 

[DarloRich]

I often wonder if enougth was done to try and reduce costs short of closure. Reduced manning, smaller stations, DMU operations, simple signalling etc.

While lots of the closures were justified routes could have been saved with a more sensible approach to cost reduction

 

[Taunton]

I often wonder if enougth was done to try and reduce costs short of closure. Reduced manning, smaller stations, DMU operations, simple signalling etc.

While lots of the closures were justified routes could have been saved with a more sensible approach to cost reduction

Read Gerry Fiennes' book "I Tried to Run a Railway" for details of his "Basic Railway" concept, which actually included a number of he points stated here - although in East Anglia, where he was doing this, many of the services had been dmu operated for quite some years by the time Beeching came along. Incidentally, you will find there that Beeching supported Fiennes in this and was all for the cost reductions as well - this was not the attitude from some levels of traditionalist management.

He was somewhat thwarted on costs by multiple level crossings, still required to be the old type with a signalman and gates, which on some routes consumed more than 50% of the costs.

If it hadn't been for one line in his book which laughed at Barbara Castle's Ministry of Transport, would Fiennes have ended up as BR Chairman ?

 

[edwin_m]

He was somewhat thwarted on costs by multiple level crossings, still required to be the old type with a signalman and gates, which on some routes consumed more than 50% of the costs.

The first AHB crossing was installed in 1961 (according to Wikipedia), so if the issue had been grasped some routes could have had crossing operating costs reduced before any final decision on closure. The problem (besides institutional inertia) could have been that replacing crossings required a lot of investment whereas the other "basic railway" principles could be achieved much more cheaply.

 

[Welshman]

I often wonder if enougth was done to try and reduce costs short of closure. Reduced manning, smaller stations, DMU operations, simple signalling etc.

While lots of the closures were justified routes could have been saved with a more sensible approach to cost reduction

I totally agree with you.
In my experience of West Yorkshire, where dmus had been introduced from 1954 onwards, little attempt was made to rationalise the infrastructure, which had been built for steam traffic.
Wayside stations remained staffed right up to their closure. Booking-offices remained open and staffed, as, if I remember correctly, the "Pay-Train" concept was not developed until the 1970s, after many lines had already been closed.

Introducing what were then clean, fast and modern trains certainly increased passenger revenue, but without cost reductions in other areas, this was not enough to save many stations and branches.

 

[Greenback]

I think a lot more could have been done to reduce costs rather than close lines. But at the time all types of rail traffic seemed to be in a spiral of decline. Making people redundant would have cost money, so I wouldn't be surprised if many managers thought it wasn't worth it, as the lines would have to close within a few years anyway.

We know now that the approach was wrong, but who could have known at the time?

 

[341o2]

If you think the Salisbury - Exeter Main Line avoided towns, I'd say it wasn't as successful in doing that as the GW route, which serves nowhere of any size between Newbury & Taunton. (Westbury's not in Westbury; Frome isn't generally served by Inter City trains; Castle Cary is served, but more for its railhead status than for the place itself)

So in comparison, to this observer at least, the SR line serving Andover, Salisbury, Gillingham, Sherborne, Axminster, and Honiton en route, looks like a much more useful main line.

However, as it turned out, we were fortunate in that both routes survived......

Originally the Salisbury & Exeter railway concentrated on just that..traffic between the two towns. Absorbed into what became the Southern railway the Atlantic Coast Express in competition with the GWR for the West of England holiday traffic and was the all important train

Of the two lines from London to Exeter it is indeed the better, (Southern supporters dubbed the opposition the Great Way Round) but at Exeter there is the 1 in 36 bank between Central & St Davids and if Waterloo had been chosen also traffic west of Exeter would have to reverse

Beeching decreed the two lines were a duplication with consequence that one would be closed or relegated and Paddington was chosen and Waterloo relegated

Population has grown considerably since the 1960's. In 1965 the line had a 2 hour timetable and was not safe as Feinnes noted the "necessity" to keep stations such as Crewkerne open and commented that the railway could still close. And serve the local communities right.

Today there has been a partial reinstatement of some track lifted in 1965 and an hourly service. When I last visited trains were well patronised something that didn't always happen in the 60's

I'm not sure whether Feinnes was sacked or agreed to resign, but "I tried to run a railway" was published without prior permission of BR

 

[thewiltog]

I totally agree with you.
In my experience of West Yorkshire, where dmus had been introduced from 1954 onwards, little attempt was made to rationalise the infrastructure, which had been built for steam traffic.
Wayside stations remained staffed right up to their closure. Booking-offices remained open and staffed, as, if I remember correctly, the "Pay-Train" concept was not developed until the 1970s, after many lines had already been closed.

Introducing what were then clean, fast and modern trains certainly increased passenger revenue, but without cost reductions in other areas, this was not enough to save many stations and branches.

Referring to 1963, when he started using the station regularly, Martin Bairstow writes (Railways Through Airedale & Wharfedale, 1985)

"In order to service about 75 passengers each weekday, Apperley Bridge boasted a station master, two clerks, two leading porters, a junior porter to clean the signal box windows etc, a vanman who distributed one van load of parcels around Rawdon and Yeadon and a goods checker who ensured that the odd wagon of coal in the goods yard had the right labels on."

 

[Buttsy]

Referring to 1963, when he started using the station regularly, Martin Bairstow writes (Railways Through Airedale & Wharfedale, 1985)

"In order to service about 75 passengers each weekday, Apperley Bridge boasted a station master, two clerks, two leading porters, a junior porter to clean the signal box windows etc, a vanman who distributed one van load of parcels around Rawdon and Yeadon and a goods checker who ensured that the odd wagon of coal in the goods yard had the right labels on."

During the discussions regarding the Modernisation plan, one of the members of the committee (A. Brown, I think) was pushing for a reduction in labour costs as well as new equipment, as to run the railway with new stuff and Victorian practices was not going to bring the railway back to anywhere near profit. The above comment clearly shows where BR's problems lie at the start of the 60s, more so than uneconomic lines.

The problem with staffing was that the government often used nationalised industries to help the unemployment figures by ensuring that there we jobs available.

Having read a number of books on the Beeching issue, it is clear that had the right decisions been made at the time of moderisation with regard to labour, then the need for the severity of 'Beeching' cuts in the 60s would have been significantly reduced.

 

[Greenback]

The desire for the railways to pay their way was probably a secondary concern in the late 1940's and 1950's compared with the necessity for there to be jobs for the returning heroes of the war, especially those who had left jobs on the railways in order to join up. As time went on, priorities changed.

 

[muddythefish]

Very few railway lines are "profitable" in that fare box income exceeds costs, giving ammunition to the right wing who have always argued that "uneconomic" lines should be closed.

Like Beeching however they ignore the other social and economic factors that make railways a vital part of communities. Beeching's brief was far too narrow but he was of course only a lackey of Marples, the real villain of the piece.

 

[Richard1960]

Very few railway lines are "profitable" in that fare box income exceeds costs, giving ammunition to the right wing who have always argued that "uneconomic" lines should be closed.

Like Beeching however they ignore the other social and economic factors that make railways a vital part of communities. Beeching's brief was far too narrow but he was of course only a lackey of Marples, the real villain of the piece.

Yes who would have thought a road building man would have wanted to cut so many lines so Marples /Ridgeway could build their roads.

Beeching was indeed somewhat of a lackey.

 

[yorksrob]

Labour and employment issues are an interesting point. Whilst full employment was a laudable aim, during Macmillan's "you've never had it so good" period, the UK was encouraging immigration to solve a labour shortage, so arguably this would have been the best time to address over staffing rather than relying on route and station closures.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Referring to 1963, when he started using the station regularly, Martin Bairstow writes (Railways Through Airedale & Wharfedale, 1985)

"In order to service about 75 passengers each weekday, Apperley Bridge boasted a station master, two clerks, two leading porters, a junior porter to clean the signal box windows etc, a vanman who distributed one van load of parcels around Rawdon and Yeadon and a goods checker who ensured that the odd wagon of coal in the goods yard had the right labels on."

That sums it up well - Ipswich Goods circa 1982 had around 2 shunters , 5 yard staff - a Senior clerk , 2 assistant clerks - a Supervisor , a double manned class 03 on 2 shifts. (An Area Manager , Freight) - some days they had zero inwards traffic to deal with. The nearby Freightliner loction at West Bank had one "C" grade supervisor who did everything - and on a bad day managed to deal with 2 full trains - and often a bit more (quite a bit more) - and did all the commercial work , including canvassing for traffic.

 

[Taunton]

Yes who would have thought a road building man would have wanted to cut so many lines so Marples /Ridgeway could build their roads.

Sorry to keep coming in with opposing views on this discussion, but Marples Ridgeway Ltd built very little of the UK motorway network, almost all of it was done by their direct competitors. What sections they did do, the bulk were in London, where the Beeching closure proposals would have minimal effect. The company did plenty of other civil engineering works, for docks, utilities, etc, and also a lot of work overseas. They were by no means one of the largest civil engineering companies of the time.

Looking at the list of major road projects they did (not that many) I can't see one which serves the same area as a rail line Beeching put up for closure.

 

[ainsworth74]

Very few railway lines are "profitable" in that fare box income exceeds costs, giving ammunition to the right wing who have always argued that "uneconomic" lines should be closed.

Though wasn't it Labour, who at this time were definitely left wing, that were responsible for most of the closures?

 

[muddythefish]

Though wasn't it Labour, who at this time were definitely left wing, that were responsible for most of the closures?

Odd that Labour should get the blame for a Conservative party policy.

Weren't they just following national transport trends and the mood of the times ?

If you're going down that route, it should be pointed out that more grammar schools were converted to comprehensives under the Tories than under Labour.

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry to keep coming in with opposing views on this discussion, but Marples Ridgeway Ltd built very little of the UK motorway network, almost all of it was done by their direct competitors. What sections they did do, the bulk were in London, where the Beeching closure proposals would have minimal effect. The company did plenty of other civil engineering works, for docks, utilities, etc, and also a lot of work overseas. They were by no means one of the largest civil engineering companies of the time.

Looking at the list of major road projects they did (not that many) I can't see one which serves the same area as a rail line Beeching put up for closure.

It still places Marples in the frame as a member of the road lobby, still gives him an incentive to marginalise rail transport and still represents a substantial conflict of interest I'm afraid.

 

[ainsworth74]

Odd that Labour should get the blame for a Conservative party policy.

Didn't Labour decry that policy and say they would reverse it if they got into power?

Weren't they just following national transport trends and the mood of the times ?

Wouldn't the same apply to the Conservatives?

If you're going down that route, it should be pointed out that more grammar schools were converted to comprehensives under the Tories than under Labour.

I'm unclear of the relevance of education to this topic but in any case I do not have the knowledge to comment on that.

 

[Greenback]

Labour and employment issues are an interesting point. Whilst full employment was a laudable aim, during Macmillan's "you've never had it so good" period, the UK was encouraging immigration to solve a labour shortage, so arguably this would have been the best time to address over staffing rather than relying on route and station closures.

That's true, but we I'd bet as much as 10p that the prevailing mindset was a quick cull rather than a long, slow lingering death. The main two objectives were an unrealistic desire to find a profitable core network and to justify a massive road building programme. All this was based on the notion that railways had had their day and, like the canals, were pretty much finished.

We know what nonsense that was now, but at the time it was shared wisdom across much of the country, and very few people in decision making positions thought differently, even those involved in running the railway. The 1960's were, after all, the time of looking forward to a modern, bright and science based future. Rail had a very limited role in that futuristic vision.

Didn't Labour decry that policy and say they would reverse it if they got into power?

Yes

Wouldn't the same apply to the Conservatives?

Yes

I'm unclear of the relevance of education to this topic but in any case I do not have the knowledge to comment on that.

Ditto!

 

[Spamcan81]

Very few railway lines are "profitable" in that fare box income exceeds costs, giving ammunition to the right wing who have always argued that "uneconomic" lines should be closed.

Like Beeching however they ignore the other social and economic factors that make railways a vital part of communities. Beeching's brief was far too narrow but he was of course only a lackey of Marples, the real villain of the piece.

Yet again you conveniently ignore the fact that Labour transport ministers signed off more miles of closures than their Tory counterparts. The real villain of the piece was the road lobby who held sway over both political parties. Labour could have stopped and even reversed Beeching at a stroke after their 1964 election victory but chose not to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Though wasn't it Labour, who at this time were definitely left wing, that were responsible for most of the closures?

Yep but don't expect our resident Guardianistas to admit that.

 

[thewiltog]

Though wasn't it Labour, who at this time were definitely left wing, that were responsible for most of the closures?

Just for fun, here are some figures...

Stations in the Beeching Report Appendix 'B', England and Wales only
Closures by successive Ministers of Transport

Marples (Con) 246
Fraser (Lab) 352
Castle (Lab) 303

Since they were in office for differing periods, these are the average numbers of closures per 100 days while they were in charge

Marples (Con) 43.3
Fraser (Lab) 81.5
Castle (Lab) 36.3

Marples dates are counted from the publication of the Beeching report until he lost office.
Over his whole tenure (pre-Beeching included), his rate is 58.2