Re: Dr Beeching

[R.J.Drew@lboro.ac.uk (Richard Drew)]

On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 15:52:43 GMT, Barry S. Doe <tbc002@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

>One should also remember the dishonest way Beeching obtained figures to
>prove closure need. Seaside branch termini like Swanage, Lyme Regis,
>Sidmouth etc, were closed on the grounds of the revenue collected at those
>stations only (or any others on the branch) and no account was taken
>whatsoever of tickets sold say, in London, to get to those places - despite
>the fact that the latter revenue greatly exceeded the former.

IIRC the Swanage closure was not proposed by Beeching.

>In short Beeching was appointed by a government that doubted rail had any
>furture except for a few trunk routes and commuter lines and told to prove
>it and ditch most of it. Its been said vefore but worth repeating: the
>network was like a tree - cut the branches away too much and the trunk dies.
>Put another way, few people railhead or catch buses for part fo the journey
>and tend, where possible, to drive all the way, meaning a loss for the main
>trunk leg as well.
>
>If only we had modernised the whole system instead of only part of it we
>would now have a very different society with fewer roads, a better
>environment and towns - and more people alive. 

It is worth remembering when Beeching came on the scene a very large number of
branches had already been closed by the 'Branch Line Commitee'. Beeching get the
blame for closing lines that should still be open. IIRC as much track was closed
post Beeching as pre Beeching.

-- 
Richard Drew