Is There Too Many Energy Providers To...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Beeching Report - 50 Years On
16 Answers
Yesterday marked the 50th anniversary of "The Reshaping of British Railways", or, the Beeching Report as it was more widely known, and there has been much coverage of this in the media - this is but one example
http://
much has been said about the renaissance of the railways in recent years - and yet the recent McNulty report into value-for-money showed that every £5 train ticket carried (on average) a £4 subsidy and in rural scotland, the subsidy is more like £15. So in fact the situation now is as bad as it was in Beeching's day.
Beeching has been said to have had a bad press, he was just doing his job -http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/dont-blame-beeching-for-loss-making-railways
So at a time when 9 out of 10 journeys are made by road (and the volume of freight is in the same proportion), is it still right to permit the railways to haemmorage money - our money - or is it time for another Beeching to step up to the plate?
http://
much has been said about the renaissance of the railways in recent years - and yet the recent McNulty report into value-for-money showed that every £5 train ticket carried (on average) a £4 subsidy and in rural scotland, the subsidy is more like £15. So in fact the situation now is as bad as it was in Beeching's day.
Beeching has been said to have had a bad press, he was just doing his job -http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/dont-blame-beeching-for-loss-making-railways
So at a time when 9 out of 10 journeys are made by road (and the volume of freight is in the same proportion), is it still right to permit the railways to haemmorage money - our money - or is it time for another Beeching to step up to the plate?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Beeching Axe was too severe. 4000 miles were cut when probably half of that should have survived. One route that should have remained was the transPennine Woodhead route. There is no direct Manchester to Sheffield motorway and the roads are seriously congested with heavy frieght going through small villages. There have been numerous attempts to re-open Woodhead, but the bottom line is, that it should never have been closed in the first place.
Beeching was appointed by the Conservative Government who tend to be against rail (Thatcher famously never took a teain during her Premiership). Beeching delivered a Report that pleased his political masters.
Many routes needed to go, but the fact that many routes have since been re-opened shows the cuts were too severe.
A modern country needs a mix of transport modes to work effeciently. If you were to take away rail subsidies and let the network close, the road network would be at a standstill. Road tolls would be the answer to cutting road congestion but would be just as unpopular as closing the railways.
Beeching was appointed by the Conservative Government who tend to be against rail (Thatcher famously never took a teain during her Premiership). Beeching delivered a Report that pleased his political masters.
Many routes needed to go, but the fact that many routes have since been re-opened shows the cuts were too severe.
A modern country needs a mix of transport modes to work effeciently. If you were to take away rail subsidies and let the network close, the road network would be at a standstill. Road tolls would be the answer to cutting road congestion but would be just as unpopular as closing the railways.
The reason for the subsidies today being so large is to line the shareholders pockets with obscene dividends. At least the subsidies in Beeching's day went towards the upkeep of the railways - and in fact today's subsidies are several times LARGER than those received British Railways (allowing for inflation). British Railways could have restored Britain's railways to the finest in the world if they had received the level of subsidy extant today.
I have been trying to find figures comparing road and rail subsidy but that is proving hard to find. Figures that seem to keep cropping up are compiled by the Green Lobby (so it is up to you whether you believe them) and are from 1996. They claim the subsidy is something like...
Road £46 billion
Rail £1.15 billion
Road £46 billion
Rail £1.15 billion
try this Gromit http://
OK so it's the US, not the UK, but similar economics are applicable.
OK so it's the US, not the UK, but similar economics are applicable.
Many railway commentators now believe that far from sounding the death knell for Britain’s railways, the Beeching report proably saved it from even further more drastic closures. At the time the railways were already in decline, having lost about 3,000 route miles since WW2. The remaining network gobbled huge amounts of money and many of the branch lines served just a handful of passengers. Car ownership was in the ascendancy and many people deserted the railways to travel by car for both business and leisure. Furthermore, road congestion was not then anywhere near such a pressing issue as it is today.
There were problems with the Beeching Report. Not least the Good Doctor employed an over-simplifies analysis of the traffic patters and failed to recognise that many branch lines acted as feeder services to the Inter City network which Beeching suggested must form the core of the reshaped network. Many of the journeys on the core network would thus not be made because if travellers had to get in a car to reach the rail network then many of them chose to stay there for the entire journey.
Public opinion towards the report was not helped because the then minister for transport, Ernest Marples, who would give agreement to the closures, was chairman of Marples Ridgeway, a road construction firm, and this was the time when the UK’s motorway network was about to be constructed. But without going into great detail, although it had some fundamental flaws, something had to be done about the rail network and I believe the report formed the basis for some sound “pruning”. To compare it with today’s situation is not appropriate. There are few stretches of railway now that are not well patronised, the roads are full to capacity and, if anything, people are looking to alternatives to the car to get them about. I completely agree with Gromit that the country needs a mix of transport facilities but certainly any move to reduce the capacity of the railways at the moment most certainly would not be welcomed by many.
Incidentally, although recommended for closure in the Beeching report, the Woodhead route to which Gromit refers was not, in fact, one of its immediate victims. There was much prevarication over the future of the route but eventually passenger services were withdrawn in 1970 whilst freight continued until final closure in 1981.The reason then for its closure was that its non-standard electrical system (1500v DC when railways were generally 25,000v AC) was life expired and would have required a huge investment for what was a fairly short (though strategically important) route. There is a campaign to reopen the route but the stumbling block is the Woodhead Tunnel itself. Although only opened in 1954 (and was thus used for less than 30 years) it was sold to the National Grid who use it to route their 400kv cables through the Pennines.
There were problems with the Beeching Report. Not least the Good Doctor employed an over-simplifies analysis of the traffic patters and failed to recognise that many branch lines acted as feeder services to the Inter City network which Beeching suggested must form the core of the reshaped network. Many of the journeys on the core network would thus not be made because if travellers had to get in a car to reach the rail network then many of them chose to stay there for the entire journey.
Public opinion towards the report was not helped because the then minister for transport, Ernest Marples, who would give agreement to the closures, was chairman of Marples Ridgeway, a road construction firm, and this was the time when the UK’s motorway network was about to be constructed. But without going into great detail, although it had some fundamental flaws, something had to be done about the rail network and I believe the report formed the basis for some sound “pruning”. To compare it with today’s situation is not appropriate. There are few stretches of railway now that are not well patronised, the roads are full to capacity and, if anything, people are looking to alternatives to the car to get them about. I completely agree with Gromit that the country needs a mix of transport facilities but certainly any move to reduce the capacity of the railways at the moment most certainly would not be welcomed by many.
Incidentally, although recommended for closure in the Beeching report, the Woodhead route to which Gromit refers was not, in fact, one of its immediate victims. There was much prevarication over the future of the route but eventually passenger services were withdrawn in 1970 whilst freight continued until final closure in 1981.The reason then for its closure was that its non-standard electrical system (1500v DC when railways were generally 25,000v AC) was life expired and would have required a huge investment for what was a fairly short (though strategically important) route. There is a campaign to reopen the route but the stumbling block is the Woodhead Tunnel itself. Although only opened in 1954 (and was thus used for less than 30 years) it was sold to the National Grid who use it to route their 400kv cables through the Pennines.
Generally I'm considered right of centre but as far as public transport goes I do have a more socialist approach. I don't think we should be afraid of subsidising public transport especially rail. We should use taxation to get frieght and private transport off the roads. What we need to do is spend the money up front to get a top notch public transport system then subsidise it and tax the road users off the roads and use more(most) of the money already collected from motorists to fund public transport. I would like to see a return to pre beeching for the railways and get them run using private sector style effeiciency. No doubt some of you will point out the hypocracy of me having 2 cars and a motorbike but the fact I can means the current system is flawed. I would also add that I would use public transport more readily if it was reshaped as I specify above.
Center right Danger? You make Attila the Hun look like a Commie!
I have to agree though, I favour public subsidy of the Railways, it is the backbone of our infrastructure and just looking at rail tickets vs cost is not really the full story. The Railway network shifts millions around to work each day and these people pay taxes, lots of them. For instance without a Rail network how many people could get to London, you certainly cant live there because the housing is given to foreigners. And if you raised the fares, and kept taxes the same, then it would become simply uneconomic.
Out problem is that we sit on our Laurels and listen to the green brigade when it comes to building new track. We need to build our infrastructure up to the likes of France, Germany and Japan.
One last thing. I dont believe the Railways should be in the private sector. But, if nationalized it would need strict legal measures taken to prevent the likes of Crow holding the country to ransom like they did before.
I have to agree though, I favour public subsidy of the Railways, it is the backbone of our infrastructure and just looking at rail tickets vs cost is not really the full story. The Railway network shifts millions around to work each day and these people pay taxes, lots of them. For instance without a Rail network how many people could get to London, you certainly cant live there because the housing is given to foreigners. And if you raised the fares, and kept taxes the same, then it would become simply uneconomic.
Out problem is that we sit on our Laurels and listen to the green brigade when it comes to building new track. We need to build our infrastructure up to the likes of France, Germany and Japan.
One last thing. I dont believe the Railways should be in the private sector. But, if nationalized it would need strict legal measures taken to prevent the likes of Crow holding the country to ransom like they did before.
And like they still do now particularly on the London Underground. Here you have train drivers (or on some lines, button pushers) who are essentially semi-skilled workers, earning in excess of £50k a year. They always strike on Boxing Day (because they don't think they should work), they demand (and get) huge premium payments for working on Bank Holidays and they demanded (and got) huge payments for working "normally" during the Olympics.
"But, if nationalized it would need strict legal measures taken to prevent the likes of Crow holding the country to ransom like they did before".
What! Like the bankers?
Crow made sure that Branson and the rest weren't going to make their quick bucks on the back of railway staff. That's why he keeps getting elected! Good for him and tough titties to all the union bashers!
What! Like the bankers?
Crow made sure that Branson and the rest weren't going to make their quick bucks on the back of railway staff. That's why he keeps getting elected! Good for him and tough titties to all the union bashers!
Bob Crow is a self serving has been, should be put out with the others of his ilk, sorry for those who end up at his unions mercy, been there and done that as they say.
the fare structuring is all over the place, if you have a quick fire brain like Martin Lewis money expert then you can look for and get good deals on rail travel, but most people are not, and not everyone can book so well in advance to get the best rates. If your relative is taken ill and they live miles away and you have to get there, it's going to cost.
If you take rail journeys for work, commuter time then it's expensive, out of those times not quite so much, what the rail companies should be doing is trying to find way to get people on the trains outside of commuter hours, as i have often seen almost empty trains...
the fare structuring is all over the place, if you have a quick fire brain like Martin Lewis money expert then you can look for and get good deals on rail travel, but most people are not, and not everyone can book so well in advance to get the best rates. If your relative is taken ill and they live miles away and you have to get there, it's going to cost.
If you take rail journeys for work, commuter time then it's expensive, out of those times not quite so much, what the rail companies should be doing is trying to find way to get people on the trains outside of commuter hours, as i have often seen almost empty trains...
While the Beeching cuts were probably too severe, it has to be said that some railway lines just weren't being used enough.
In the 1960's I lived in Watchet in Somerset and used the train to go to school in Minehead. But sometimes my brothers and myself were almost the only passengers on the train, especially in the winter.
If you want to see a railway line that can't possibly be paying for itself, try the Mid Wales line from Swansea to Shrewsbury. It goes through some beautiful scenery and its a great day out. But it takes all day to go there and back. Apart from the busier summer school holidays weeks, and the Royal Welsh Show, its almost empty. I went on it in early February last year and I outnumbered the staff of board by about 2 to 1 for most of the way. If it didn't have a substantial subsidy, it would have to stop running almost immediately.
Don't get me wrong, I like a nice railway as much as anybody, especially if it includes a lovely steam engine. If we all decide that massive subsidies are the way to go, than everything is OK.
In the 1960's I lived in Watchet in Somerset and used the train to go to school in Minehead. But sometimes my brothers and myself were almost the only passengers on the train, especially in the winter.
If you want to see a railway line that can't possibly be paying for itself, try the Mid Wales line from Swansea to Shrewsbury. It goes through some beautiful scenery and its a great day out. But it takes all day to go there and back. Apart from the busier summer school holidays weeks, and the Royal Welsh Show, its almost empty. I went on it in early February last year and I outnumbered the staff of board by about 2 to 1 for most of the way. If it didn't have a substantial subsidy, it would have to stop running almost immediately.
Don't get me wrong, I like a nice railway as much as anybody, especially if it includes a lovely steam engine. If we all decide that massive subsidies are the way to go, than everything is OK.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles82 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.