Re: Dr Beeching

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

In article <UnBjxEIWWMl2EwIB@romana.davros.org>, "Clive D.W. Feather"
<clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In article <915706252.6496.0.nnrp-04.c2de42f8@news.demon.co.uk>, E.D.
>Wivens <news@largeprefer.co.uk> writes
>>The first task he undertook was a survey of the British railways
>>network designed to find out which parts were profitable and where the
>>losses were being made.
>>
>>His report "The Reshaping of British Railways" was published in 1963
>>and gave an accurate description of the state of the network for the
>>first time.
>>
>>It had been suspected a lot of the rail network was under used and
>>therefore uneconomic. The report revealed that only half the routes
>>covered the cost of operating them, and that half the stations
>>produced about 95% of all the revenue.

>However ...

>Consider a station such as Sunshine-on-Sea at the end of a branch line.
>The town is a major holiday resort and the branch is operated at
>capacity on summer Saturdays. Beeching accounting:

>200,000 return tickets London to S-o-S credited to London stations
>3 annual S-o-S seasons credited to Sunshine-on-Sea
>10 locos used for banking summer Saturday workings have their entire
>  maintenance costs allocated to the branch
>8 miles of branch line designated as "needs reballasting and relaying
>  next year"

>Result: the branch makes a thumping great loss and is closed. 200,000
>holidaymakers drive in future.

Ah yes, but fortunately the now redundant railway alignment allowed
for the building of the Sunshine-on-Sea inner relief road and the
former station site was available for the new multi-storey car park
and shopping centre.

>I exaggerate a bit, but it appears that in many cases:
>- fares were credited to the purchase station only
>- asset renewal dates were often moved to just after the scheduled
>  closure date, so if the line stayed open it would make a big loss
>- no allowance made for costs that would remain even if the line
>  closed (e.g. upkeep of overbridges)
>- no attempt was made to bring down running costs (e.g. by using single
>  car DMUs instead of loco+3 on quiet services, or running branches as
>  one-engine-in-steam outside good traffic hours, saving a signalman).

Freight traffic is treated as a seperate business and costed
accordingly, even the mixed trains.

Yes, these are good examples of the stupid "bean counting" accountancy
methods that were used.

Another popular one was to retime the connecting services so that
passengers using the line under threat had 55 minute waits in both
directions.

I remember a 70's map of showing proposed line closures which
truncated the Oban and Mallaig routes at Crainlarich. This was based
purely on an accounting model that showed the lines as "profitable" up
to the junction and "unprofitable" beyond it.

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