Re: Dr Beeching

[news@nospam.freeserve.co.uk (Tony Polson)]

On Fri, 08 Jan 1999 11:55:53 GMT, in uk.railway Barry S. Doe
<tbc002@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

>It was not event investment. Many lines that could have survived (not just
>for 30 years but for ever) like Brockenhurst-Wimborne-Poole and the S & D
>down here, plus many others long-gone - were steam-hauled to the end and
>with every station having several staff on three shifts. Had paytrains been
>introduced it could have been very different -as East Anglia showed. 

Who was it said "Politics is the art of the possible"?.  I suspect that, in the
industrial relations climate of the 1960s, it was much easier to close a line
completely than to drastically reduce manning levels.  It was probably
politically impossible to gain trade union assent to manning reductions on the
scale that was needed after the tough decisions had been avoided for so long.

>It's too easy to look at the hopeless cases that indeed should never have
>been built and assume that applied to all the closures. I guess some were
>literally 20 times better than others, profitabibilty-wise.

I've no doubt you're right, but the reverse is also true.  It's just as easy to
say that no branch lines should have been closed if a few of them could be shown
to be profitable.  

Had BR provided competent accounts the right decisions *could* have been made in
most cases.  However, given the dreadful quality of the information Beeching was
given, there was little or no chance of saving the lines that could and should
have been retained.  Yet you still blame Beeching?  Why?

>> Money had to be found for building roads as car
>> ownership
>> boomed and car usage became more affordable.
>
>Sorry, you missed my point. Car useage boomed as they became affordable, but
>it should have been forseen that this would lead to today's situation and
>everything should have been done to retain an alternative that would not
>lead to despoiled country.

Hindsight coupled with 100% sentiment and 0% realism!  Well it *wasn't*
foreseen, but you now have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.  

If the senior railway management of the 1950s had had any real ability the
situation Beeching faced would never have happened.  We'd have been left with a
(probably) larger and (definitely) more integrated rail network and maybe less
roads (although I doubt the latter).  Instead, they (BR) let a valuable national
resource rot while lavishing huge amounts of Modernisation Plan money on
thoroughly useless projects.  

>Actually it was easy: let congestion rule. Had the government said you can
>travel as much as you like by car and we shall maintain the infrastructure
>but we shall never allow roads to be widened etc, then congestion would have
>been the thing that created its own balance. This is the current policy -
>but it's too late. Had sense been seen earler we could have had a better
>life because we would not have had motoroways and ruined villages.

You seem to live in a world where national and international economics,
employment and competitiveness do not exist, and where unlimited taxpayers'
money is available to pay for your 1:1 scale train set regardless of what is
happening in the real world outside.

>> had to drive my car in 1998 on roads fit for the 1950s
>
>Quite. So you would have kept to public transport - which CAN  cope with
>large numbers - and we would have all had a better environment. 

This is no more than a pipedream.  The huge extra cost of traffic congestion (an
accurately predictable and easily verifiable cost) would have stifled economic
development (and ruined the environment) placing this country's economy firmly
in the third world league rather than in the relegation zone of the premiership.
Note I say *traffic* congestion, I am referring to both road *and* rail traffic.


The railways should have been well placed to take some, maybe even the majority
of this traffic, but the fact is they were not.  Vast amounts of money (hundreds
of millions of pounds at *1955 prices*) were spent on grandiose schemes which
had no relevance to the needs and opportunities of the 1950s, let alone to those
of the decades that would follow.  

In fact it was Beeching who recognised the shift in the freight market and
particularly the opportunities for Liner Trains of containerised freight and
Block Trains of bulk freight.  None of the Modernisation Plan money was spent on
these things.  It was instead squandered on huge gold-plated marshalling yards
for wagonload freight which was already in rapid and terminal decline.  So much
money was wasted on the grandiose plans that no money was left to be spent on
sensible improvements such as fitted stock for freight trains.

I would also point out that I have lived and worked in (amongst other countries)
the Netherlands where I used a mixture of rail, bus, tram and car to travel
around the country.  I suspect the Netherlands may come close to your ideal, but
I would point out that the country has an *excellent* road network in addition
to its enviable rail system.  If, in your view, the UK needed to avoid building
roads to force people onto trains, what does that say about the service offered
by our railways?  The Netherlands has no need to compel people to use rail by
not allowing people to use alternatives.

>That does not mean you would not have kept a car - you would have
>grown up simply knowing how to use it. That is the problem with this country
>nowadays. I use train first for everything but so many people never even
>think of it even if they live near a station and want to go to London.

There are many reasons why people turn to modes of transport other than rail.
Cost (compared to the marginal cost of using a car which is already paid for,
taxed and insured) is one.  Convenience/comfort (compared to the door to door
comfort and privacy of a modern car) is another.  

Six years ago I took on a new job which involved extensive travel within the UK
with the firm intention of doing 100% of it by public transport.  I did not
replace the company car which went with my previous job.  I moved house to be
within 8 minutes' walk of a main line railway station (Haywards Heath) so I
could commute to my job as a principal civil servant in Whitehall and so I could
have easy access to Central London terminals for train services to all parts of
Britain.  My wife's job, our chosen supermarket and our son's school were all
within 8 minutes' walk of our home.

After a year or so of this, it was clear that I could not rely on rail transport
for any business meeting for which an on-time arrival was essential.  Whether it
was the fault of Network SouthCentral, London Underground or any of the
InterCity 'shadow franchises' I used to complete my journey, I had to pass on a
litany of excuses for my lateness at meetings which sometimes stretched
credibility to breaking point.  I therefore began to travel the previous night
and stay over in a hotel (at taxpayers' expense) in order to be sure about my
arrival on time.  This not only cost more, it also ruined my family life.

Eventually I reluctantly succumbed to using a car.  Despite the fact that most
of my journeys involved the M25, I could predict my arrival time far more
accurately than when using the train.  Even allowing sufficient time for
possible traffic delays my total journey time to most of the destinations I
attended was less than for rail, so I did not need to leave home any earlier and
arrived home at the same time (or earlier) but with much greater reliability.
It also saved large amounts of money compared with the First Class rail travel
to which I was entitled, although I more often chose to travel Standard.

I was very disappointed not to be able to use rail for the majority of my
journeys, although I did still tend to use it for some trips where the car could
not realistically compete on journey time (e.g. Haywards Heath to Peterborough).
I feel that I made every effort to make rail travel work, but it didn't.

In the real world, where people are not rail enthusiasts like you and me, and
thus have no predisposition towards using rail, rail must compete.
Unfortunately, in the majority of cases, it does not.  As an example, I greatly
admire the determination of John Gough (who posts often on this newsgroup) to
use rail and I am often astounded by the tolerance he needs in order to put up
with the delay and disruption he suffers.  My job would not have withstood the
disruption.

>> Are you seriously suggesting that unlimited amounts of taxpayers' money
>> should have been used to continue to pay for all these lines for 30 years or 
>>more until a possible use could be found for them? 
>
>No. I am suggestion the better routes would have eventually required hardly
>any subsidy. 

Eventually?  So you ARE seriously suggesting that unlimited amounts of
taxpayers' money should have been used to continue to pay for all these lines
for 30 years or more until a possible use could be found for them.

>I don't wear rose-tinted spectacles. I just know what could have been had
>the government insisted that roads would not be improved simply because
>railways can cope and roads could obviously never do so and would inevitably
>lead to today's environment in a country as small as ours. 

How do you "just know what could have been"?  Your arguments are based entirely
on sentiment.

>With respect, all your comments show you totally disagree with anything said 
>in the White Paper. 

This discussion thread is entitled "Dr Beeching" and my points refer to the
1950s and 1960s, being the decades of the Modernisation Plan and of the Beeching
Report.  The White Paper applies to the situation now, in the late 1990s.  I
have made no comment whatsoever on anything in the White Paper, neither have I
made any comment on what should be done now, so I find your response quite
bizarre.  

>I am no Labour supporter (they have never done anything for railways
>in my opinion!) 

I'm surprised that an intelligent person should judge a political party solely
on one issue, however much of an obsession that issue might be to them.
  
>but it has to be said the White Paper's ideas are fine - merely they would have 
>been even better if said (and implemented) 30 years ago.

You're a lucky man to be blessed, not only with unlimited billions of pounds of
theoretical taxpayers money to spend on your ideas, but with 20/20 hindsight
stretching back 30 years or more.  

>I am not one of those people who wants everyone out of their cars so I have
>more space to drive mine. I use trains first and where that is not possible,
>buses or my cycle (round town). If none of those ispossible I use a taxi -
>yet despite travelling abour 20000 miles pa all over Britain I had to use a
>taxi only once last year where a bus was not available.
>
>I am proud of that - even more proud of the fact that I do so despite the
>fact I earn well above the average wage and could afford a e-type jag if I
>wanted one. If I can have a good life-style this way so could several
>million others if they thought out their position - and as a result we would
>have a better and safer country.

You're a very lucky man to be able to enjoy a career in your chosen hobby.  This
does not represent reality for the majority of the people in Britain.  You have
been able to live in what would be, for most people, a dream world.  Yet I do
not begrudge you any of it, and I think you do an excellent job as a railway
journalist in a very specialised area.  

However your views are narrowly based on your own personal circumstances and the
choices you have willingly made in order to experience as much rail travel as
possible within the constraints of your specialist career.  

Would that we were all so lucky. 

--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK