The strategic Reserve??

[Lampshade]

If someone dropped 'the' bomb on us, i doubt there would be many rail systems left anyway, so what would they run the kettles on?

I see your point, and raise you from 1:25

 

[ainsworth74]

So why was that not the reason for a large "scandal" then ?

Perhaps because those in Opposition realised that the tendering process was obviously open and showed no indication of bias. I dont know I can only surmise.

Good point hadn't thought of that. For me thats perhaps proof enough that there wasn't anything odd about it.

A quick check of the Wikipedia entry shows various errors of material fact.

Indeed, one whole paragraph on the conflict of interest, sounded alot like hyperbole and biased opinion to me rather than anything of factual relevence.

Thank you OT, as always your a mine of interesting and useful information!

 

[tbtc]

A quick check of the Wikipedia entry shows various errors of material fact

An error on Wikepedia

 

[Kernowfem]

I see your point, and raise you from 1:25

LOL...now THAT i would pay to see!!

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

although the idea of steam engines as a strategic reserve is barmy, the idea of railway infrastructure surviving a nuclear attack isn't.

Unless a part of the intial crater, railway infrastructure - bridges in particular are exactly the kind of structure that survive the compression waves of nuclear blasts. Buildings and houses do very poorly as the blast raises pressure within, and as the compression wave is followed by a low pressure wave, the high pressure can explode buildings as the high pressure forces its way out ( watch films of nuclear tests to see this happening). Bridges dont trap the pressure wave and so only suffer the initial blast. Tunnels obviously are quite resilient and track itself will not suffer unless directly hit. There would be debris to be cleared of course, and you wouldnt expect any signals or point motors to work.

Trains were running into Hiroshima a few days after the bomb dropped, and the tramway which runs about 100yds from ground zero was operating about 2 weeks later ( or so I understand).

Now, lets all hold hands and be grateful that the nuclear threat has diminished and we dont need to think about these things all the time

You are quite right, there were even a couple of underground telephone exchanges built in the Uk. Off the top of my head I cant remember what they were called, but there was one in Mancester and I think one in London as well. Both were built from deep level tube technology and I think were paid for by Nato. The irony was they were to survive A bomb attacks, but by the time they were completed the Soviets had H bombs. They were still used for a great many years though.
So a rail network would have survived I dont doubt, but bear in mind through the 60s they were replacing signal boxes with large electronic signal boxes. And almost all of those were in major cities, and not as Im aware hardened, or protection against EMP. A lot of the outerlying lines that had signalboxes would have been useable, but large sections of the main lines would have been unusable unless someone went around clipping points.

Im not sure the reasoning for the motorways really holds up under inspection though. it certainly WAS the reason for their construction in the US, no doubt. It probably was not in the UK. Ok, maybe the M1 was, but a glance at that horrific documentary 'The war game' will show why evacuation in the Uk wasnt really an option. With the firepower the soviets could use against us, there was nowhere left to run. I gather a Civil Service report came up with in the early 60s suggested that 6 to 9 H bombs would have been sufficient to have covered the country with fallout, rendering it ininhabitable for anyone outside of a bunker for 2 weeks. The soviets had a lot more than 6 H bombs by the end of the decade.....
By the 1970s the advice was to stay at home, but the motorway construction still went on apace.Evacuation may have had lip service in the early 60s, but I dont think it was ever a likely scenario. I doubt they would have put infrastructure in place to do it.

One thing I do find curious, there are no mentions in any of the civil service exercise papers I found on the National Archive online about the use of the railways in the runup to WW3. There are documents relating to the railway evacuation of dependents in Germany, but nothing I can find on British railways. I dont know how many of you were working for British Railways in the 60s and 70s, but did any of you receive briefings on any contingency plans?

 

[Metroland]

The real reason behind the introduction of the motorways was to enable the rapid movement of the military and weapons in the event of the Cold War developing, hence to a large degree why it went down the West side of the Country.

It was sod all to do with Marples making money and destroying the Railways.

That was yet another myth that the Left managed to successfully generate, and even now various characters on here and elsewhere are absolutely convinced this was the reason :roll::roll::roll::roll:

Another example of how negative propoganda and plain disingenuous statements and distortions can become accepted fact if repeated often enough.

That's just as conspiratorial! The reason for the introduction of motorways was in response to the growth of road traffic (due to mass production of cheap cars and lots of surplus lorries and military personal with licenses after the wars) and really because everyone else was building them - rather like high speed rail today.

The relaxation of lorry weights was probably the biggest reason the railways suffered decline in the 50s/60s because it made road freight cheaper for all but bulk flows.

It's often said there is a connection between the military and motorways, especially in Germany and Italy, the two countries that really invented them. While true, wide roads are often put in place to move tanks along (which is not a traditional the UK has) most motorway construction before the war to reduce unemployment but mainily for national pride (propaganda) reasons from socialist and fascist dictators like Mussolini and Hitler. In fact the first motorways were almost empty, few people had cars. We see politicians doing things for national pride even today, like the Olympics and dome, plus various statues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8691249.stm

Hitler planned and built the Autobahn. Or did he?

AB sign In reality, the first section of what would later become the legendary German autobahn network was constructed and built before Hitler came to power. Construction on the Köln-Bonn Autobahn began in 1929. During opening ceremonies on August 6, 1932, none other than Konrad Adenauer was on hand to inaugurate the 20 km (12 mi) section of autobahn running between Cologne and Bonn. Adenauer, then the Oberbürgermeister (mayor) of Cologne, proclaimed: "So werden die Straßen der Zukunft aussehen." ("This is how the roads of the future will look.") Adenauer supported the autobahn project partly as a way to create jobs during hard economic times. Later he would become West Germany's first Bundeskanzler (chancellor, from 1949 to 1963).

AVUS and the World's First Autobahn
But the Cologne-Bonn superhighway was not the world's or Europe's first superhighway. The credit for that goes not to Hitler but to Benito Mussolini. The 80-mile autostrada from Milan (Mailand) to Varese was the world's first limited-access motorway. Designed and developed by Piero Puricelli, the Italian autostrada opened to traffic in 1924. Unlike the later autobahn, the Milan-Varese expressway was a toll road and did not have divided lanes until years later.

But the earliest precursor of the autobahn was German. Construction of the "intersection-free" AVUS (Automobil-Verkehrs- und Übungsstraße) began in Berlin in 1912. Not fully completed until 1921, the AVUS was essentially a closed race and test track. The industrialist Hugo Stinnes later purchased the roadway and expanded it to four lanes running a distance of almost 20 km (12 mi). Only much later did the AVUS connect with Berlin's public road network. Today it is part of the A115 autobahn.

So how did Hitler and the Nazis manage to take most of the credit for the autobahn they didn't invent? While it is true that about a quarter of Germany's current 11,000 km (6830 mi) autobahn network was originally built during the Third Reich, the early planning and design work was done by others. In 1924 the Studiengesellschaft für den Automobilstraßenbau (Stufa) was founded to begin planning for a German highway network. In 1926 Stufa published an ambitious plan for a 22,500 km German superhighway network. Its work was later taken over by HaFraBa, originally an agency set up to design a north-south autobahn that would link the Hanseatic cities (Bremen, Hamburg, Lübeck), Frankfurt, and Basel. As late as 1930 the National Socialist (Nazi) party helped vote down a HaFraBa autobahn proposal presented to the Reichstag. Ironically, it was the work of HaFraBa that allowed Hitler and his chief civil engineer Dr. Fritz Todt to proceed with autobahn construction in 1933, the year Hitler and the Nazis came to power. Hitler quickly realized the propaganda value he could get from promoting the autobahn. He and the Nazis found it easy to take credit for the earlier work of others and make it seem that it was all the Führer's own idea.

The term Autobahn was first coined by HaFraBa's public relations head, Kurt Kaftan, in 1928. The word also was used as the title of the organization's official magazine.

Another myth related to "Hitler's autobahn" is that of the employment benefits it provided. The main reason the autobahn had difficulty getting off the ground prior to the Nazi era was the worldwide depression and hyperinflation in Germany. Hitler promoted building the autobahn for the jobs it would create, but in reality autobahn construction never employed more than a small fraction of the millions of German unemployed. Before the war forced the Nazis to abandon all autobahn construction in late 1941, Russian prisoners of war were doing much of the work.

Historians continue to debate the issue of the military value of the autobahn in the Second World War. The Nazis clearly considered the network of German expressways of some military value, and even included the military in autobahn planning. But tanks and trucks were very hard on highway surfaces and the bulk of German military traffic, men and materiel, went by rail. The vaunted German autobahn network was still incomplete and much of the rest was made useless by Allied bombing and neglect.

One last sidenote: America's first “autobahn” was the Pasadena Freeway (then known as the Arroyo Seco Parkway) in California, which opened to traffic in December 1940. The Pennsylvania Turnpike opened a few months earlier, but it's a toll expressway, not a “free” way like the autobahn. President Dwight D. Eisenhower is said to have been inspired in part by the autobahn when he signed a bill to create the U.S. interstate highway system in 1956, but that's another story.

http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth08.htm

 

[Old Timer]

That's just as conspiratorial! The reason for the introduction of motorways was in response to the growth of road traffic (due to mass production of cheap cars and lots of surplus lorries and military personal with licenses after the wars) .

. In fact the first motorways were almost empty, few people had cars.

Somewhat contradictory ?

The experience in WW2 brought home the need to be able to move large equipment as well as defensive armaments across the Country - Battle of Britain, Baedecker Raids, Blitz, V1s, V2s.

One of the many realisations brought about by the war was just how difficult it was to move men, and equipment about. Not armies but ambulances, fire engines, rescue teams etc.

The Coventry Raid brought home this fact in a very strong manner for example, with even local forces only able to reach the City many hours after the raid had finished.

Infantry experience in WW2 proved just how quickly the Germans could move troops, supplies, and equipment from place to place and how quickly they could mount a counter-offensive with support being deployed from elsewhere.

It was an inevitable outcome of this that the road network of the UK, which lets be honest simply mirrored centuries of well trodden paths, reflected a byegone era when the principle locations on those routes had been far more important that they subsequently were.

Inter-Industrial town roads were always going to have to be developed and improved, and even today this trend continues.

Conspiracy theories are all very amusing but at some point reality has to set in.

 

[Metroland]

Hmn, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, I don't believe climate change is a leftist conspiracy, for example.

My post is not contradictory. As I said, the pre-WWII motorways were mainly built for national pride, and yes, to an extent, to move armies, but that was not their raison d'etre. The rail network was far faster, more secure, and could move people better at that time in all cases.

The security of the rail network is why the there is still much military traffic on the railways.

The motorway network here has no such connection, most large army bases are nowhere near the motorway network, and in any case the UK has always been stronger in air and sea power.

If the M6 goes up the west side, that's because that's where the large conurbations are. It's certainly nothing to do with the Cold war, as that was a war that was going to be fought in the air with ICBMs and bombers in any case. Most of this kit is sitting just north of Glasgow, and at the airbases of East Anglia, Wiltshire and Lincolnshire.

The great tank regiments were/are based in Dorset (a county with no motorways) and Wiltshire, well away from the M4.

You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to acknowledge some governments are not very balanced in their transport policy. And both Labour and Conservative in the 1950s/60s actively rebuilt towns and cities around North American auto-centric practices, believing railways were 'a thing of the past'. There was a whole fashion in post war town planning based around a lot of the principals, until the battles in the 1970s over ring ways and increasingly political objection to new roads took hold.

But even in the late 80s, the conservatives were engaged in the plan for 'roads for prosperity', which involved large scale trunk and motorway building, with BR's budget being cut every year. This was until the late 90s, when the influential SACTRA report acknowledge there is no automatic link between new transport provision and economic growth in economies like the UK where networks (of all modes) are already developed.

In any case, it was acknowledged that we would never built enough roads - this is why no party sits on a road building ticket. This was nothing to do with the environment, more physical space. We don't have enough space for lots of low density car based sprawl, and in any case, most urban areas were completed before popular motoring, they are not designed for unlimited personal mobility. Even in the US, where they are, there is still considerable congestion which is why they are putting in light rail after ripping it all out.

While environmental arguments were used against more road building as far back as the 50s, until only recently that reason has become more acknowledged.

No University course in the UK today involving transport, has any similarity with those of the 1950s/60s, and transport policy is as a result much more balanced.

What I will acknowledge is the idea that you are left wing or right wing makes you pro any sort of transport, because transport is simply there to move people and goods. Socialists are just as keen on driving cars!

 

[Old Timer]

..But even in the late 80s, the conservatives were engaged in the plan for 'roads for prosperity', which involved large scale trunk and motorway building, with BR's budget being cut every year. This was until the late 90s, when the influential SACTRA report acknowledge there is no automatic link between new transport provision and economic growth in economies like the UK where networks (of all modes) are already developed.

Firstly your comment ignores the fact that much of this was road building to relieve congested towns, for example it is now much easier to drive to and from Cornwall in the Summer, and the region has benefitted from the various road building programmes economically.

Similarly Lincoln has benefitted from the ring road.

Woiuld you argue that roads such as the M40/M42 should not have been built ?

Like it or not rail is not the magic pill to solve all ills. Much freight traffic these days does not lend itself to rail distribution, other than distribution hubs. One of the reasons why the railways were in such trouble in the 50s and 60s was the requirement that they had a legal duty to carry any goods offered (common carrier) and a belief that trains serving every single location with one or two wagons could ever be economically efficient.

Only the Former Soviet Union believed in such a concept and having worked there since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the massive costs that this approach swallowed up have to be seen to be believed.

Times have moved on, and in the same way that Railways overtook canals, the road system has overtaken the Railways to a large extent. In some ways this is down to a lack of Political will by Labour since 1997 to take effective action to deal with European lorries which use our roads without paying the road fund licence, and which have sufficiently large fuel tanks as to be able to circumnavigate to their UK destination and back without the need to buy fuel in the UK.

Of course UK lorrries operating in reverse have had to fully pay their way by having to pay the European equivalent of the RFL

A very definite double whammy which in turn has resulted in the need for both additional road construction whilst at the same time accelerating and increasing road maintenance costs. All this in a show of Political dogma to establish a "Union" towards a group of Countries who neither want us in Europe (other than to pay for their profligacy) nor like us deep down !

It is regrettable that one of Labour's first acts was to remove the former Section 8 Grant, thus removing incentives for hauliers to develop railheads.

Finally I wonder if you have missed the point that the M6 served large connurbations for the reason given (Coventry) in my earlier response.

You need to remember that it was still considered to be necessary for large towns and cities to be capable of being evacuated in the event that a modern equivalent of the Bomber War took place. You also neglect the fact that these were centres of manufacturing which in a wartime situation would be producing components and equipment which would need to be distributed quickly.

All my points, which are emerging one by one form part of a much greater picture than simply one of creating a motorway network for the purpose of destroying the Railways. That never was the intent, and the suggestion is simply one from the paranoid minds of the Left.

 

[Oswyntail]

....But even in the late 80s, the conservatives were engaged in the plan for 'roads for prosperity',...

Not to mention Prescotts vision of a "Metropolitan" North of England based on an urbanised M62 corridor

 

[Metroland]

Firstly your comment ignores the fact that much of this was road building to relieve congested towns, for example it is now much easier to drive to and from Cornwall in the Summer, and the region has benefitted from the various road building programmes economically.

Similarly Lincoln has benefitted from the ring road.

Woiuld you argue that roads such as the M40/M42 should not have been built ?

It's often a two-way process. With by-pass building, often shops and business in the town centre suffers. Out-of-town shopping has an appalling record of degenerating small business in the area and the big hypermarkets move in employing people in the minimum wage.

With Devon and Cornwall, the tourist economy was most developed in the 30s and 50s, at the time of rail, when most people took their holidays here. These days a good deal of people fly abroad, and like many seaside places, the economy has suffered. Therefore improving airports does not always improve the economy. Great Yarmouth is the forth most deprived town the the country.

The point is, its not an automatic process, you improve transport and the economy improves, you don't have to take my world for it, read the report. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/sactra/

Like it or not rail is not the magic pill to solve all ills. Much freight traffic these days does not lend itself to rail distribution, other than distribution hubs. One of the reasons why the railways were in such trouble in the 50s and 60s was the requirement that they had a legal duty to carry any goods offered (common carrier) and a belief that trains serving every single location with one or two wagons could ever be economically efficient.

Never said it was and acknowledged that. Rail is, however better, in dense urban environments and connecting the centre of urban areas. It is not better in rural Wales. The MOD move a considerable amount of traffic between bases by rail, because rail has better security.

Rescue services tend to located locally, and if more are needed tend to be airlifted in.

Only the Former Soviet Union believed in such a concept and having worked there since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the massive costs that this approach swallowed up have to be seen to be believed.

Times have moved on, and in the same way that Railways overtook canals, the road system has overtaken the Railways to a large extent. In some ways this is down to a lack of Political will by Labour since 1997 to take effective action to deal with European lorries which use our roads without paying the road fund licence, and which have sufficiently large fuel tanks as to be able to circumnavigate to their UK destination and back without the need to buy fuel in the UK.

Well yes and no. Only people that think in black and white terms think we move from one to another form of transport like that. In fact there are more railways in the world that there ever were, HSR is now arguably a better solution to mobility than motorways, and as the world becomes more urbanised, we will need more rail, not less.

Of course UK lorrries operating in reverse have had to fully pay their way by having to pay the European equivalent of the RFL

A very definite double whammy which in turn has resulted in the need for both additional road construction whilst at the same time accelerating and increasing road maintenance costs. All this in a show of Political dogma to establish a "Union" towards a group of Countries who neither want us in Europe (other than to pay for their profligacy) nor like us deep down !

It is regrettable that one of Labour's first acts was to remove the former Section 8 Grant, thus removing incentives for hauliers to develop railheads.

Fair enough.

Finally I wonder if you have missed the point that the M6 served large connurbations for the reason given (Coventry) in my earlier response.

You need to remember that it was still considered to be necessary for large towns and cities to be capable of being evacuated in the event that a modern equivalent of the Bomber War took place. You also neglect the fact that these were centres of manufacturing which in a wartime situation would be producing components and equipment which would need to be distributed quickly.

All my points, which are emerging one by one form part of a much greater picture than simply one of creating a motorway network for the purpose of destroying the Railways. That never was the intent, and the suggestion is simply one from the paranoid minds of the Left.

Largely hogwash. At a time of war private transport would cease because of fuel rations, shortages or damage. So the function of motorways to move large volumes of private cars would actually cease. Roads, in general, are appalling for moving large numbers of people quickly, just look at what happened at New Orleans before Katrina. During a nuclear strike, there would be no evacuations and areas would be sealed off because of radiation.

Sorry OT, this seems just another excuse to have a rant about the Left, which you do seem to be rather paranoid about.

 

[Old Timer]

Originally Posted by Old Timer

Finally I wonder if you have missed the point that the M6 served large connurbations for the reason given (Coventry) in my earlier response.

You need to remember that it was still considered to be necessary for large towns and cities to be capable of being evacuated in the event that a modern equivalent of the Bomber War took place. You also neglect the fact that these were centres of manufacturing which in a wartime situation would be producing components and equipment which would need to be distributed quickly.

Largely hogwash. At a time of war private transport would cease because of fuel rations, shortages or damage. So the function of motorways to move large volumes of private cars would actually cease. Roads, in general, are appalling for moving large numbers of people quickly, just look at what happened at New Orleans before Katrina. During a nuclear strike, there would be no evacuations and areas would be sealed off because of radiation.

Hogwash ? And the literary basis for that or is that just an opinion ? You obviously did not read what I wrote properly.

 

[Metroland]

I read it perfectly. No such theory/requirement exists to my knowledge (I've read several books on road history) especially as road transport is fuel inefficient, primary powered by one fuel source and is relatively insecure.

Rail is far more efficient at moving large numbers of people and bulk freight, so you argument there doesn't stand up either, at usually higher speeds. Millions of people were evacuated during the Second world war with little issue. I would be impossible to move all those children out of London today on the contemporary road network with such efficiency.

Sorry, your theory has no more evidence that the Strategic steam reserve one, in fact less plausible.

 

[Old Timer]

I read it perfectly. No such theory/requirement exists to my knowledge (I've read several books on road history) especially as road transport is fuel inefficient, primary powered by one fuel source and is relatively insecure..

. Personally I find military history and strategy more relevant to military matters, still never mind as it appears to be the case that the perspective is invalid, we must all accept that I guess.

Sorry, your theory has no more evidence that the Strategic steam reserve one, in fact less plausible.

Suit yourself, as long as you are happy in your beliefs, why should I worry.

Must be difficult having to deal with us lesser moratls.

 

[Metroland]

Not at all, I'm not so dogmatic (especially about the left or right) I can't come around to other people's points of view. But like many, I do require a certain amount of evidence and clear thinking.

I certainly hope there wasn't a strategy, usually there is massive fuel shortages at even a whiff of a truckers blockade. God help us if a load of lefties invaded the place, the second armoured cyclists core would overun the Royal Kensington 4x4 brigade, just on account of the queue for emergency hummus supplies at the local Tesco on the outer ring road.

 

[Old Timer]

I think your logic was quite clear.

YOU don't believe it, therefore it is wrong, therefore I am wrong, therefore I am speaking hogwash.

You disagreed that there would be evacuation after the WW2.

In closing the debate may I refer you to the Civil Defence Dispersal Scheme plans. ?

This link will save time
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-for-evacuation-of-cities-may-be-revived.html

 

[Metroland]

Just a paper exercise which have to be done by law, in the event of a full scale nuclear strike, no such thing would be attempted. There's certainly no evidence to suggest the motorway network was built with that in mind in that article or anywhere else, and I've outlined my reasons why. Fuel shortages and congestion cripple the roads in peacetime, let alone war.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

OT, that article is interesting, but perhaps a bit misleading. The central problem is there wasnt enough land to move something like 60 million people to safety without moving them to Canada or somesuch. Yes, Im sure they came up with a study to do it, but it certiainly wasnt workable. At the same time they were evacuating people out of the cities to the countryside, the RAF would be dispersing the V bomber fleet out to all the dispersal areas in the countryside. Where was the safety?


That there were plans I quite believe. I dont think they would have worked or even used, and Ive yet to see any documentary evidence they had anything to do with building the motorways. In fact, I was under the impression the bulk of the motorways in the UK were built in the 1970s, long after evacuation or Civil Defence existed in any meaningful form. If the motorways had any wartime utility it would to be supporting the war effort in West Germany, now that I could believe. it was a cracking way of moving tank transporters over a loading gauge larger than the railways, which is unsuited to British tanks. Ive yet to see any evidence of that either admittedly.

Needless to say, if anyone sees any evidence to support either theory Id be fascinated to look through it. Im certainly keeping an open mind on the subject.

I think it fair to say though that sadly the Strategic Reserve, at least in the British context was a myth. Sadly, because I would love someone to find a working Blue Pullman set larger than OO gauge.