Beeching: The wonderful gift of hindsight.

[Greenback]

My feeling is that the decline in passenger numbers was more due to the decline in service levels during the post Beeching years. Quite a few small stations on main lines, which were in themselves pretty busy, were sacrificed because of the vision of fast, limited or non stop trains between larger centres.

Similarly, this was an era of cuts and retrenchment, as governments continued the furitless search for a profitable core network. As has been mentioned elsewhere, stations and lines continued to close after Beeching, though at a much reduced rate, which must have forced people into using buses and cars.

Ultimately, I think it is wrong to blame Beeching, just as it is wrong to blame Ian McGregor for what happened to the steel and coal industries. Both wer emerely tools of government policy.

 

[yorksrob]

I was watching Ian Hislop's excellent "Off The Rails" documentary recently which interviewed both proponents and opponents of the railway closures at that time. What struck me was an interview with a Western Region man who said that the local manager had prepared and delivered a plan to head office on how to economise on the Exmouth Branch. He was apparently told that it was his job to close the branch and not to try and improve it. I don't know how true this anecdote was, but if so, it illustrates the very worst sort of top-heavy, inflexible management culture that blighted British industry for many years.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Its one thing that a transport corridor is out of use, quite another that its effectively gone for good.

It is only by sheer good luck that the GW formation through Snow Hill survived to be used again. Without it, transport within the Birmingham area would very different.

The real sham of the 'Beeching' closures was the way that they were presented. Branch lines were treated as if they were completely divorced from the rest of the system and contributary revenue to other services was ignored. In point of fact, many branch lines were effectively isolated by the deliberate manipulation timetables to give no useful connections. Another aspect was the 'historic' nature of some of the services where the branch train had always been just that instead of being a through service to the nearest important centre.

To take the example of my own patch, the South Wales Valleys, services which did not run through to Cardiff were axed. Why, in the ninteen sixties, would anyone want to travel from Aberdare to Abercynon? The vast majority of passengers would want to go to Pontypridd or Cardiff and the ten minute wait for a connecting service (each way) added a severe time penalty to what was, and is, a relatively short journey. The neighbouring line to Merthyr Tydfil survived, with a much less concentrated population and less potential, simply because it ran through to Cardiff.

When Aberdare reopened for passengers, it was a point of policy that every train ran through to Cardiff. Is it feasible that that the people of the Cynon Valley today are fundamentally different to their parents and grandparents? In the years between closure and reopening, there have been road improvements and a vast increase in the proportion of car ownership in the area, so why do people use the train? The answers are self evident. The people are no different and all that they needed was a train service that was a service and not an imposition. Since reopening the Aberdare line has thrived.

The foregoing paragraph can be repeated in relation to the Vale of Glamorgan; Maesteg and Ebbw Vale, all of which are to be electrified. Don't forget that these were lines that Beeching etc. convinced a gullible public were of no further use to the community.

Everyone in railway management, in the sixties, was aware of the changes taking place as traditional heavy industry was disappearing from the valleys. The valley lines would be needed as never before, not for coal but as commuter routes to take people to and from the jobs which were becoming concentrated on the rapidly growing coastal belt. The problem was that that kind of thinking did not suit the orthodoxy of the Gospel According to Beeching and some irrepairable damage was done in his name.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was watching Ian Hislop's excellent "Off The Rails" documentary recently which interviewed both proponents and opponents of the railway closures at that time.

This was a good programme as a basis of background information for the younger members on this forum who were not around in those days, unlike some of us old enough to have lived through those days.

The mention of Marples and his background was a point well made, especially as Britain had a very strong home-based car building industry at that time which employed many thousands of engineering employees.

 

[Tiny Tim]

I'm pleasantly surprised by the tone of this thread. To be honest, I was expecting to be jumped on for not understanding the context of Beeching, and for professing hindsight to be a valid point of view.

Dr Beeching pursued the myth of a 'profitable core' railway network, a theme later refined by Serpell as the notorious 'Option A'. As other posters have noted, almost no allowance was made for future development or re-opening of routes. Even accepting that Beeching was simply fulfilling his brief to save money, there's no excuse for the orgy of closure and irreversible destruction that followed.

On a slightly different subject, I've always felt that British Rail after Beeching had a rather self-destructive feel to it. Almost as if the shame of all those closures had induced a desire in BR to eat itself. The story of how BR attempted to close the Settle & Carlisle sheds an uncomfortable light on their attitude at this time. Using tactics familiar to Dr B. they only counted revenue collected on the line's few remaining stations (not from through ticketing) and refused to accept that there was a demand for more passenger services to re-opened stations. Even their assessment of the Ribblehead viaduct proved to be conveniently pessimistic. Luckily for us, this massaging of the facts was no longer sustainable. How many of Beeching's victims would have survived if the real statistics had been available?

 

[The Ham]

I'm pleasantly surprised by the tone of this thread. To be honest, I was expecting to be jumped on for not understanding the context of Beeching, and for professing hindsight to be a valid point of view.

As many have said, Beeching was given a task and he did it, unforutantly the work he did has often potrayed him as the devil incarnite by certain sectors. What he did was a tough job, but with hindsight including a better understanding of how some of the branch lines worked it was unfourtunatly misguided.

On a slightly different subject, I've always felt that British Rail after Beeching had a rather self-destructive feel to it. Almost as if the shame of all those closures had induced a desire in BR to eat itself. The story of how BR attempted to close the Settle & Carlisle sheds an uncomfortable light on their attitude at this time. Using tactics familiar to Dr B. they only counted revenue collected on the line's few remaining stations (not from through ticketing) and refused to accept that there was a demand for more passenger services to re-opened stations. Even their assessment of the Ribblehead viaduct proved to be conveniently pessimistic. Luckily for us, this massaging of the facts was no longer sustainable. How many of Beeching's victims would have survived if the real statistics had been available?

Real statistics like the anual passanger figures. For instance you only need to see how busy some of the trains to Newquay are during the summer compared with what they carry during the winter. Add to this the number of these passangers use long distance services to get there to see that some branch line closures (based on one off surveys) may not have been so wise.

 

[Johnuk123]

After all, we were all supposed to be flying cars in space by the year 2000, or so we were told at school.

That's right, I can remember a teacher at primary school telling us that by the year 2000 nobody would need to work and all household tasks would be done by robots.

 

[Pen Mill]

How many of Beeching's victims would have survived if the real statistics had been available?

I wouldn't say so much as available as much as available to whom.

Media communication of Parliamentary & Business activities was very sketchy in the 1960s. The man in the street didn't know and as a result wasn't able to care.

The whole process would've been very much more difficult in Today's world of immediate communication driven by the internet.

 

[Tiny Tim]

My feeling is that the decline in passenger numbers was more due to the decline in service levels during the post Beeching years.

This is exactly my point about BR's self-destructive attitude: Services were withdrawn and stations closed thus reducing passenger figures to a level where closure of the whole line became feasible. Even so, we shouldn't ignore the role of cheap private motoring in the decline of passenger numbers. Politicians at the time were keen to give voters the freedom of the roads.

 

[swt_passenger]

I was watching Ian Hislop's excellent "Off The Rails" documentary recently which interviewed both proponents and opponents of the railway closures at that time...

It was repeated a couple of nights ago on BBC4. Available on the BBC iPlayer until next Wednesday (15th).

 

[yorksrob]

On a slightly different subject, I've always felt that British Rail after Beeching had a rather self-destructive feel to it. Almost as if the shame of all those closures had induced a desire in BR to eat itself. The story of how BR attempted to close the Settle & Carlisle sheds an uncomfortable light on their attitude at this time. Using tactics familiar to Dr B. they only counted revenue collected on the line's few remaining stations (not from through ticketing) and refused to accept that there was a demand for more passenger services to re-opened stations. Even their assessment of the Ribblehead viaduct proved to be conveniently pessimistic. Luckily for us, this massaging of the facts was no longer sustainable. How many of Beeching's victims would have survived if the real statistics had been available?

There were probably elements of management that thought that way until quite long into the future. What BR needed most of all was a political will to maintain the network at that level. To be fair to Mrs Thatcher, she decided that there were to be no more large scale closures, and in the 1980's, the closures dried up. But at the same time BR was on a very tight budget, so something had to give, hence the albeit slower trickle of closures in the first half of that decade.

The reason why I think Sectorisation was one of the best things to happen, was that it recognised the purpose of the Regional Railway, which, up until then had just been the unprofitable bits that had to be pruned.

 

[Greenback]

This is exactly my point about BR's self-destructive attitude: Services were withdrawn and stations closed thus reducing passenger figures to a level where closure of the whole line became feasible. Even so, we shouldn't ignore the role of cheap private motoring in the decline of passenger numbers. Politicians at the time were keen to give voters the freedom of the roads.

Indeed. What is perhaps more accepted now is that the car is no more the answer to long term strategic needs than the railway, the canals or the horse and cart. What we need is a mixture of train, car, plane, bus, coach and ferry for both the movement of freight and people, and I can only see this becoming more necessary in the future.

None of these transport modes can carry the weight of the UKs' transport needs alone, which is why I soemtimes get depressed at the frequent arguments that develop as a result of someone saying that xxxx is better than yyyy for a particular journey!

Sadly, this balanced view was far, far less popular in the early 1960's when many people genuinely believed that motorways and lorries were the only way ahead.

There were probably elements of management that thought that way until quite long into the future. What BR needed most of all was a political will to maintain the network at that level. To be fair to Mrs Thatcher, she decided that there were to be no more large scale closures, and in the 1980's, the closures dried up. But at the same time BR was on a very tight budget, so something had to give, hence the albeit slower trickle of closures in the first half of that decade.

Not forgetting, of course, the seemingly constant cutbacks in such things as first and last trains, Sunday services and so on. Nor the singling of lines, and other rationalisation, which we are still paying for today, but which were seen at the time as the only way to balance the books and deliver the economies demanded by government budgets.

The reason why I think Sectorisation was one of the best things to happen, was that it recognised the purpose of the Regional Railway, which, up until then had just been the unprofitable bits that had to be pruned.

Again, with hindisght, it's clear that Sectorisation was very beneficial to Regional services in particular. It delivered an operational focus on the different types of service that was much needed, and noticeably absent from the geographically based management structure.

Mind you, I remember a lot of scepticism at the time from those who thought it was just paving the way to closing more branch/secondary lines and privatising the InterCity routes!

 

[exile]

It's certainly not true that passenger numbers were increasing pre-Beeching. There had been an increase in the late 50s peaking in 1957 but the numbers were on the way down by the early 60s - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif

Beeching was asked if it was possible to make BR break even - and said yes, if you cut out half of the network. He could have said no, it's impossible - what would have happened then?

 

[yorksrob]

Mind you, I remember a lot of scepticism at the time from those who thought it was just paving the way to closing more branch/secondary lines and privatising the InterCity routes!

It's easy to see why. I believe the crisis for the Settle - Carlisle during the 1980's was precipitated by the withdrawal of it's last InterCity service. However, in the longer term, even had the Glasgow - Nottingham service survived on the route, I don't think it would have been enough to secure the line's future. It needed to be developed to fully serve the local market (with a little help from coal freight of course).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If BR had had a management plan to solve its problems, they would not have needed a Beeching.
With great burdens from the past, and no agenda for change, they had no idea really.
We concentrate on passengers, but the freight situation was worse, BR being hopelessly uneconomic in a motor age.
When BR did get big money to spend in 1955 it mostly blew it away, and the Treasury has never trusted the railway with public money since (WCRM - deja vu!).
I still have my copy of the report, with each line and station crossed off as it closed.
(I also have the 1965 BR report which selected the Woodhead and L&Y transpennine routes for development, ahead of the Diggle and Hope Valley routes; and between Manchester and Liverpool selected the CLC and St Helens routes).

I agree with those who say, in hindsight, he went rather too far, but few of the rural single track branch lines should have survived.
A better outcome would have been the closure of most intermediate stations, leaving a faster service with a better chance of long-term survival.
This happened on the Cambrian main line, for instance, as a compromise to full closure, but was not tried on the Waverley or many other lines which would be very useful today.
I think Beeching had become a necessary evil, who was exploited by the politicians for their own ends.

 

[Gareth Marston]

If BR had had a management plan to solve its problems, they would not have needed a Beeching.
With great burdens from the past, and no agenda for change, they had no idea really.
We concentrate on passengers, but the freight situation was worse, BR being hopelessly uneconomic in a motor age.
When BR did get big money to spend in 1955 it mostly blew it away, and the Treasury has never trusted the railway with public money since (WCRM - deja vu!).
I still have my copy of the report, with each line and station crossed off as it closed.
(I also have the 1965 BR report which selected the Woodhead and L&Y transpennine routes for development, ahead of the Diggle and Hope Valley routes; and between Manchester and Liverpool selected the CLC and St Helens routes).

I agree with those who say, in hindsight, he went rather too far, but few of the rural single track branch lines should have survived.
A better outcome would have been the closure of most intermediate stations, leaving a faster service with a better chance of long-term survival.
This happened on the Cambrian main line, for instance, as a compromise to full closure, but was not tried on the Waverley or many other lines which would be very useful today.
I think Beeching had become a necessary evil, who was exploited by the politicians for their own ends.

You repeat a big myth about the modernisation plan. What any debate on the Doctor has to bear in mind is that the railway at the time was still operating under Victorian legislation which required it to carry anything brought to it at a fixed published rate. OK in an era of near monopoly but the lorry in between the wars changed all that. No prizes for guessing that road haulage could cherry pick traffic away from the railway as it knew the costs of its competitor! The Big 4's Square Deal campaign of the late 30's was all about repealing this legislation so that they could concentrate on profitable flows. The marshaling yards and trip working diesels were not ordered because British Railways Management were incompetent but because the law of the land insisted on the railways being a common carrier. It was the carriage of general merchandise that made the losses - nothing to do with rural branches.

Govt insisted on the railways doing something that was loss making to provide a national service but gave them no subsidy for it. The whole history of UK railways is littered with doing governments bidding without government money. Govt didn't repeal this legislation until the 1962 Transport Act.

The modernisation plan was never fully implemented anyway, only three quarters of the DMU's envisaged were ordered. It was 20 year plan that was cut to a 15 year on three years in and ditched at year 8. Yes there were problems with implementation etc but its general thrust was compliant with what Govt wanted in 1955.

 

[D365]

It was repeated a couple of nights ago on BBC4. Available on the BBC iPlayer until next Wednesday (15th).

A very interesting watch, especially for a young 'un like me. How things have changed

 

[Greenback]

A better outcome would have been the closure of most intermediate stations, leaving a faster service with a better chance of long-term survival.
This happened on the Cambrian main line, for instance, as a compromise to full closure, but was not tried on the Waverley or many other lines which would be very useful today.

I don't agree with that. The Settle and Carlisle line had almost all of its local station closed and only survived by the skin of its teeth. Passenger numbers only increased when the local services were reintroduced and the smaller stations reopened.

There is not much point in having a faster service if the timings overall are still not competitive with road travel, and the trains that are left whizz through many of the places that contain people who might actually want to use the service.

 

[yorksrob]

A better outcome would have been the closure of most intermediate stations, leaving a faster service with a better chance of long-term survival.
This happened on the Cambrian main line, for instance, as a compromise to full closure, but was not tried on the Waverley or many other lines which would be very useful today.

Looking at the rail map, the Cambrian still appears to have quite a few stops along it.

Personally, I think that had something like RETB been developed a bit earlier it could have saved many lines that would nowadays have been thriving - such as the Waverley, or indeed the Somerset and Dorset. Not that Beeching would have been interested in coming up with such solutions for the rural routes as they simply didn't fit into his plan (which is the main criticism really).

 

[Greenback]

Looking at the rail map, the Cambrian still appears to have quite a few stops along it.

The line retains the following stops (west to east); Aberystwyth, Borth, Dovey Junction, Machynlleth, Caersws, Newtown, Welshpool and Shrewsbury.

In olden days there were quite a lot more; one sthat I can remember off the top of my head (not in any order) include Bow Street, Cemmaes Road, Carno, Moat Lane, Llanbrynmair, Buttington and Talerddig. Some of these served no useful purpose other than as a connecting point for other lines and branches, so with the loss of those lines closure was pretty inevitable. Others served tiny communities which would not hav eprovided a lot of custom.

Ironically, new housing and increases in population mean that there have been campaigns at places like Carno and Llanbrynmair to reopen their old stations.

Personally, I think that had something like RETB been developed a bit earlier it could have saved many lines that would nowadays have been thriving - such as the Waverley, or indeed the Somerset and Dorset. Not that Beeching would have been interested in coming up with such solutions for the rural routes as they simply didn't fit into his plan (which is the main criticism really).

Quite right, but the technology simply wasn't there at the time and I don't think many people at all could have foreseen CCTV controlled level crossings, signals controlled by radio and self operating points in 1963.

Whether Beeching would have paid much attention to technological developments does seem unlikely, given the dubious methodology used to recommend closures. Also, he doesn't seem to have been the type to challenge his superiors!

 

[yorksrob]

The line retains the following stops (west to east); Aberystwyth, Borth, Dovey Junction, Machynlleth, Caersws, Newtown, Welshpool and Shrewsbury.

In olden days there were quite a lot more; one sthat I can remember off the top of my head (not in any order) include Bow Street, Cemmaes Road, Carno, Moat Lane, Llanbrynmair, Buttington and Talerddig. Some of these served no useful purpose other than as a connecting point for other lines and branches, so with the loss of those lines closure was pretty inevitable. Others served tiny communities which would not hav eprovided a lot of custom.

Ironically, new housing and increases in population mean that there have been campaigns at places like Carno and Llanbrynmair to reopen their old stations.

My goodness, that must have taken a long time !

Quite right, but the technology simply wasn't there at the time and I don't think many people at all could have foreseen CCTV controlled level crossings, signals controlled by radio and self operating points in 1963.

Whether Beeching would have paid much attention to technological developments does seem unlikely, given the dubious methodology used to recommend closures. Also, he doesn't seem to have been the type to challenge his superiors!

Indeed. The de-staffing of stations and lengthening of block sections and track rationalisations were the necessary forerunners of RETB on those lines.

 

[Greenback]

My goodness, that must have taken a long time !

It probably would have taken most of the day if there had been a service that stopped at every single station between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury!

In practice, though, there would have been shorter workings that didn't run the length of the line, while the ones that did would have been expresses calling at the principal stations only.

Indeed. The de-staffing of stations and lengthening of block sections and track rationalisations were the necessary forerunners of RETB on those lines.

I think in the time of Beeching, thought had been givne to destaffing stations, but this was long before computerised TVM's, and pay train technology was pretty much limited to bus type ticket machines.

The biggest problem, though, was that things had been done the same way for generations, and it was very difficult to envisage the sort of bare minimum railway we have today at a time when there were goods yards, sidings, engine release roads, and all the associated paraphenalia that we now only see on heritage lines.

 

[paul1609]

I don't agree with that. The Settle and Carlisle line had almost all of its local station closed and only survived by the skin of its teeth. Passenger numbers only increased when the local services were reintroduced and the smaller stations reopened.

There is not much point in having a faster service if the timings overall are still not competitive with road travel, and the trains that are left whizz through many of the places that contain people who might actually want to use the service.

I feel the Settle and Carlisle is somewhat of a one off. The smaller stations are only viable because of the large number of leisure visitors to the area, there is insufficient local population for most of them to be viable.
This was not the case when the Beeching report was published. The Yorkshire dales national park was only designated 8 years before Beeching and tourism has only developed in the western part significantly since the 1980s.
When i first went camping to Horton in Ribblesdale in the 1970s there were virtually no facilities.

 

[Greenback]

I feel the Settle and Carlisle is somewhat of a one off. The smaller stations are only viable because of the large number of leisure visitors to the area, there is insufficient local population for most of them to be viable.
This was not the case when the Beeching report was published. The Yorkshire dales national park was only designated 8 years before Beeching and tourism has only developed in the western part significantly since the 1980s.
When i first went camping to Horton in Ribblesdale in the 1970s there were virtually no facilities.

Every line has its individual characteristices. It's true to say that leisure travel has greatly increased in most areas, though I would suggest that its quite different in nature than in the 1960's (week long family holidays in resorts like Blackpool having greatly dwindled in popularity for example).

I do think that closing so many stations as was done on the S&C was a mistake. As with the Cambrian, osme of the closures were probably justifiable at the time, but the concept of removing all local services and keeping a handful of intercity services was mistaken.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The Cambrian Main Line had a mix of semi fast, express and short workings there was only 2 or 3 through trains a day from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth that did all stations - three and three quarter hours!

The intermediate stations between Welshpool and Shrewsbury (5) closed in 1960, Moat Lane Jnc in 1962 and the others (13) in June 1965, DMU's had been introduced in autumn 64 and the schedule came down to two hours 20 minutes.

 

[yorksrob]

I feel the Settle and Carlisle is somewhat of a one off. The smaller stations are only viable because of the large number of leisure visitors to the area, there is insufficient local population for most of them to be viable.
This was not the case when the Beeching report was published. The Yorkshire dales national park was only designated 8 years before Beeching and tourism has only developed in the western part significantly since the 1980s.
When i first went camping to Horton in Ribblesdale in the 1970s there were virtually no facilities.

Settle-Carlisle is a bit of a special case, with it's tourist potential. A better comparison is the East Suffolk line - former main line passing through a relatively sparsley populated area of unspectacular countryside, it was, indeed, listed for closure by Beeching. However, it did provide a vital lifeline for a number of reasonably sized market towns, and after some parliamentary wrangling they rationalised it and developed the service specifically to serve those towns. The line is now thriving, so much so that they've had to reinstate an additional passing loop at Beccles. It's hard to see any reason why the Waverley or S&D for example wouldn't be doing just as well had they survived.

 

[Greenback]

Settle-Carlisle is a bit of a special case, with it's tourist potential. A better comparison is the East Suffolk line - former main line passing through a relatively sparsley populated area of unspectacular countryside, it was, indeed, listed for closure by Beeching. However, it did provide a vital lifeline for a number of reasonably sized market towns, and after some parliamentary wrangling they rationalised it and developed the service specifically to serve those towns. The line is now thriving, so much so that they've had to reinstate an additional passing loop at Beccles. It's hard to see any reason why the Waverley or S&D for example wouldn't be doing just as well had they survived.

It's easier to see a good future for the S&D and the Waverley route if they had not been closed, compared to some of the branch lines that were a bit of an anachronism. An example of the latter was the Ashburton to Totnes line, now thankfully preserved from Buckfastleigh! The natural destination for the people of Ashburton and Buckfastleigh was Newton Abbot, but the train journey via Totnes was rather long in comparison with road!

At least lines like the Waverley route had connections at both ends that tapped into the rest of the network, as well as serving the intermediate towns and villages.

 

[yorksrob]

It's easier to see a good future for the S&D and the Waverley route if they had not been closed, compared to some of the branch lines that were a bit of an anachronism. An example of the latter was the Ashburton to Totnes line, now thankfully preserved from Buckfastleigh! The natural destination for the people of Ashburton and Buckfastleigh was Newton Abbot, but the train journey via Totnes was rather long in comparison with road!

At least lines like the Waverley route had connections at both ends that tapped into the rest of the network, as well as serving the intermediate towns and villages.

I think they should have made more of an effort with some of the seaside branches, and some linking towns to the network perhaps. But I agree, it's hard to imagine who would have ended up using Church Fenton - Harrogate for example.

 

[Greenback]

I think they should have made more of an effort with some of the seaside branches, and some linking towns to the network perhaps. But I agree, it's hard to imagine who would have ended up using Church Fenton - Harrogate for example.

Definitely! Not all of the branches that were closed should have been closed. Some were hopeless cases, but others would have had a good future - knowing what we know now, of course!

 

[paul1609]

Where duplicate routes exist I wonder how many still open routes should have been closed. My favourite example is the Uckfield line. Instead of the current route through Edenbridge Town with the benefit of hindsight wouldnt we really have been better retaining the route from Groombridge through East Grinstead to Three Bridges and Gatwick Airport? That is the major centre of employment for the area. Plus the line through Tunbridge Wells for a faster service to London?