What if the Beeching Axe never happened?

[Greenback]

Wasn't he supposed to make the railways well (pay) again?

 

[Metroland]

It was probably just used as a status title to give the sense he was an intelligent man, that knew what he was doing. And I'm sure he did in his chosen field in ICI.

Unfortunately being well qualified in one field doesn't make you expert at everything, or even have any element of common sense, or a rounded approach. Beeching admitted he knew nothing about railways.

Nevertheless, Beeching was only following government orders to 'make the railways pay'. Leaving aside they were basically worn out because of the war - we'd have lost the second world war without them, there was no motorways at the time.

Cost benefit analysis wasn't very well understood at the time, and the idea that everything 'should pay' is actually ideology in the field of public service - the same isn't applied to other things.

If you look at the history of public spending in the country over the last 300 years the vast majority is spent on the military, for expansionist polices, land grabs or to settle politicians idealogical conflicts.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_year1890_0.html

No money was really spent on health and education until the Victorian period, then only a fraction of the military budget, and nothing much on transport until after the war.

If you allow markets to run on their own, its rather like a game of monopoly, and ever increasing wealth is shifted to the top. This is fine to a point, but divided societies are not happy ones nor are they very efficient - as you are wasting a lot of talent as people nearer the bottom of the pile do not get the opportunities or resources to make the most of themselves.

In the case of the railways, a lot of the closures were never really looked at from the point of view of lack of connectivity, and many parts of the country have never really recovered since Beeching and remain backwaters.

 

[Bittern]

Do you mean that you prefer to dream of what the past was not rather than face the hard ánd explained facts? As you like.

I will continue to post with ideas and comments to take us into the next "railway age" as I believe there is one in development, and with expected results far sooner than many think.

Then you're in the wrong thread. This thread is not about the next "railway age". Go create one that is about the next "railway age" if you want to talk about it so much.

 

[Domeyhead]

It's an interesting question, that is best answered in the drab world of economics and Treasury funding rather than out in the fresh air of rail operations. As others have pointed out there were closures before and after Beeching, but if two hypotheses are put together it would be interesting to see what happens namely
1) That successive Governments from the 1950s until the present placed a greater emphasis on the social benefits of the railway (and were more inclined to fund it as such)
2) That industrial relations permitted a rapid modernisation of both infrastructure and working practices to accelerate to the rate of progress and automation.

It is clear we would have a far larger passenger network today and possibly a greater freight presence as well (though the old wagonload freight days would be numbered with or without Speedlink). Sadly though the efficiency of such a modernised railway would destroy the very charm that we remember so fondly. I suggested elsewhere who would praise the S&D today if it had survived but become a sterile DMU only service serving unmanned stations with no goods yards and only glass bus shelters on platforms. Others have also pointed out that we would have very little heritage if the railways had survived the purges. Maybe we have to be careful what we wish for!

 

[Barn]

As for Dr Beeching, remember that first names weren't used nearly as much in print or formal conversation back then. And "Mr Beeching" would have the effect of denying his qualification.

 

[Train wasp]

Maybe if Beeching had the foresight to looking in to the future he would of mothballed most of these lines rather than selling off these lines. Then once there is a commercial case to reopen a particular line there would be less red tape to go throw before a line can reopen again.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It's an interesting question, that is best answered in the drab world of economics and Treasury funding rather than out in the fresh air of rail operations. As others have pointed out there were closures before and after Beeching, but if two hypotheses are put together it would be interesting to see what happens namely
1) That successive Governments from the 1950s until the present placed a greater emphasis on the social benefits of the railway (and were more inclined to fund it as such)
2) That industrial relations permitted a rapid modernisation of both infrastructure and working practices to accelerate to the rate of progress and automation.

That's the most sensible analysis I think I've seen on this subject.

Its hard to understand how the various changes we've experienced over the decades would have afftected the railways (if not "axed"), and conversely, how the wide pre-Beeching reach of the rail network might have influenced other developments. Perhaps the Wilson government would have introduced radical "improvements", "modernisation", expansion and creative planning; perhaps the Thatcher government would have fragmented and privatised BR sooner, and perhaps the network would have simply died a longer, slower death.

I agree that the role of the Unions through the 60s, 70s and 80s would have been a factor. And that puts the outcomes firmly in the political domain.
Its likely that this "what-if" history would have been a mix of these factors.

Perhaps rural lines would have suffered from neglect and urban interchanges received bursts of investment.
It IS likely that the massive roadbuilding programmes of the 70s and 80s would have been better integrated with rail interchanges, which we could now be re-developing to suit 21c needs more easily than we can now.
But its UN-likely that the decline in rail freight would have been avoided. That had little to do with "the Beeching cuts".
Similarly, the decline of coal mining and coal consumption, and of the UK's heavy engineering would have been unnaffected. and consequntly the justification for lines with high heavy freight useage.
It is JUST possible that, with a wide pre-Beeching reaching network, that the rail-parcels services would have survived much longer, and maybe still working effectively in the more remote areas.

Its all guesses

 

[yorksrob]

Sadly though the efficiency of such a modernised railway would destroy the very charm that we remember so fondly. I suggested elsewhere who would praise the S&D today if it had survived but become a sterile DMU only service serving unmanned stations with no goods yards and only glass bus shelters on platforms. Others have also pointed out that we would have very little heritage if the railways had survived the purges. Maybe we have to be careful what we wish for!

Whilst I agree with the majority of your analysis, I don't share your pessimism with regard to how the railway would have turned out, for example many rationalised railways today retain a tremendous amount of charm - the local route between Ashford and Hastings and numerous Cornish branches being prime examples. Also, even if the Beeching cuts had never taken place at all, there were still plenty of already closed branches ripe for preservation such as the Bluebell and K&ESR

 

[kennethw]

Unfortunately being well qualified in one field doesn't make you expert at everything, or even have any element of common sense, or a rounded approach. Beeching admitted he knew nothing about railways.

That's exactly what caused a storm of protest, for example the closure of Okehampton - Bere Alston (Devon). Firstly the section to Tavistock was one of the best used and the town had already lost the former GWR branch to Tavistock South & Launceston, secondly the strategic importance, WR crews would learn the route so in the event of old father Neptune throwing up a big one and cutting the WR Exeter - Plymouth route in the region of Dawlish or Teignmouth, services could continue

The protest was that the railways were being run by politicians and accountants