Re: Dr Beeching

[davidhSEND@NOspidacom.co.SPAMuk (David Hansen)]

It is observed that gof@iname.com (John Gough) wrote on Fri, 08 Jan
1999 08:52:56 GMT :

>I think the significance of the way in which British Railways -- I
>don't think it was the British Railways Board then -- squandered the
>1955 modernisation money can hardly be exaggerated.

A lot of the best managers left under nationalisation. BR then rushed
in past plans to make up for war damage. The excellent coaching stock
renewal programme, the not so excellent replacement of older wagons
with similar ones (that fitted in with current handling patterns and
facilities, but were not designed for future operations). The
locomotive policy would have made sense if fewer of the excellent
Standard steam locomotives had been built and they had then been run
to the mid 1970s. This would have given time for a proper evaluation
of diesel and electric locos. In particular the Standard tank
locomotives were a waste as multiple units would have been a better
bet.

The track changes were not all as bad as is now being made out. The
"white elephant" Bletchley flyover will eventually show its worth for
example. Better marshalling yards were needed to replace nests of
inefficient sorting yards. However the new yards were designed wrongly
to cope with old methods of working, instead of the ways of future.
Had the wagons first introduced in the late 1960s been introduced in
the early 1950s there would be a much larger wagonload freight system
today and the new yards, if properly designed, would still be in use.

>There'a a historic question here to which I should very much like to
>know the answer. It always seems that the nineteenth-century railway
>companies (I ought really to say pre-Grouping, I suppose) knew rather
>more about their income and expenditure than did British Railways in
>the fifties and early sixties. When and how did the decline in
>knowledge about the financial details of the business come about?

I think the knowledge existed. Indeed one of the main complaints of
people against the Beeching cuts was that cutting the branches would
threaten the trunks, which is exactly what happened. However those in
charge in Westminster ignored well reasoned arguments along these
lines. BR went along with the government, cooking the books in many
ways to prevent the true facts emerging. This was a deriliction of
their industry by the senior managers of the railway industry.

Sadly this attitude can still be seen today in some quarters. If the
senior management are not promoting the railways then they will never
get anywhere. With a few exceptions, like Ron Cotton and Chris Green,
railway managers since 1948 have often been the most dismissive of any
plans to improve the service.

>Beeching and
>his board had positive ideas they wanted to pursue. They weren't
>allowed to.

They got things like MGR coal and block oil trains going. Freightliner
has also carved out a niche for itself.




 David Hansen | davidhSEND@NO.spidacom.co.SPAMuk | PGP email preferred
 Edinburgh    |  CI$ number 100024,3247          | key number 5432274D
 Due to the amount of spam now killing e-mail I have modified my address
 to reply remove SEND NO SPAM.