Re: Dr Beeching

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

On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 06:00:25 GMT, in uk.railway R.J.Drew@lboro.ac.uk (Richard
Drew) wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 15:52:31 GMT, news@nospam.freeserve.co.uk (Tony Polson)
>wrote:
>>About as biased and subjective a text as you could ever find.  
>
>That is a statement I agree with. 

So far so good.

>However, But you will note my previous post
>only took the liberty of repeating only one suposition. Even a biased book like
>this has to be based on confirmable facts. Do you have any problems with any of
>these, or are you just making a jibe because I'm honest enough to post my
>source?

It was certainly not intended as a jibe at you.  However it does no harm to make
a jibe at the book in question.  "The Great Railway Conspiracy" is an
entertaining read but it is unbelievably biased.  It has about as much
credibility and journalistic integrity as a cheap tabloid exposé.

When you say it is based on confirmable facts, I disagree.  I think the book's
conclusions must have been written long before the rest of the text.  It's based
on puff and innuendo and on a very narrow and selective view of the actions of
several people now no longer able to explain and, if necessary, defend
themselves.  Perhaps the author was suffering from selective dyslexia and
amnesia where any and all contrary arguments were concerned.  

It's a very good read as long as you don't take it seriously, I think it's more
of an entertaining "historical novel" than a factual account. 

IMHO a much better read, and a better basis for discussions about this period
would perhaps be "I tried to run a railway" by G. Fiennes which is about the
trials and tribulations of a BR senior manager who really cared about the
railways.

--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK