Re: Dr Beeching

[news@largeprefer.co.uk ("E.D. Wivens")]

In article <3695899c.3370816@news.bigpond.com>,
consultancy@bigpond.com (greg h) writes:

<snip>

>There can be much criticism levelled at the methods Beeching employed
>in his rationalisation processes (basically, they were purley
>economically based - if the line wasn't making a profit, scrap it). No
>consideration appeared to be given to the social implications of loss
>of rail services to localities

The Beeching plan did take into account social need. There were even
requirements that alternative bus services had to be provided before
passenger trains could be withdrawn.

This concept of social need coupled with the inability of 1960's buses
to climb hills actually preserved some rail lines that were scheduled
for closure.

An example of this is the Hope Valley route between Manchester and
Sheffield. The buses could not get to some of the communities served
by rail and so the line was saved after a public inquiry.

A side effect of this was that in the late 70's another report decided
there were too many lines across the Pennines and so British Rail
closed the Woodhead route. This was a high speed electrified main line
between Manchester and Sheffield which had been extensively improved
only forty years before.

That was just stupid "bean counting" accountancy and nothing to do
with the Beeching Plan.

> (it has been said that no community any
>where in Great Britain (Eng, Scot & Wales) was more than 40miles from
>a railway station).

Nice idea but not true. Large areas of Scotland have never had railway
lines. There were lines proposed for these areas from about 1850 on
but they never got built.

> It's very interesting to get hold of a map of
>British rail system pre-Beeching and compare it to current day

It's also surprising how much rail mileage has been lost after 1970
when the Beeching era ended.

Wivens
-- 
E.D. Wivens
Largeprefer Limited
<URL:http://www.largeprefer.co.uk/>