Was Beeching right and if not, what would you say to him if he was around today?

Question

Was Beeching right and if not, what would you say to him if he was around today?

Answer 1

It was right at the time, plenty of road space, booming British motor industry, cheap fuel, loss making railways, and a passenger base that wouldn't travel on public transport. Unfortunately some of the more valuable lines that could have been reinstated have been built over.

Answer 2

Dr. Beeching, a very biased figure in transport history was given a brief demanding the stremlining of the Railways in favour of Road Transport. The excuses he came up with for axing of many lines was right for the time, however now looking at the results and loss of alternative travel is a crime.

So many alternative lines and routes on the rail network could have been open relieving much of the overcrowding and delays to rail passengers. However, on the other hand, the costs and maintenance would have spiralled with these lines still in use, also would you have kept open all the lines, including the small one or two stop branch lines? Where would have you stopped the closures? Some of the lines where extremley unprofitable and would still be today, yes some of the lines could have been very useful and would now make great alternatives to the maximum coverage of the mainlines, but also you would have increased the problems of bottleneck points coming into the hub stations which is the main problem, even now at some of the major stations in London you are looking at a train arriving and departing every 2 - 3 minutes at peak times, if you had the alternative routes you would not be able to fit those trains into those stations without cutting out other services or diverting them to other stations.

As a Railway Employee, it is a shame the lines where cut and I would support any move to reopen some of them, however a proper enquiry and investigation would have to be undertaken.

Answer 3

It was all right for him and the rest of them, they had cars supplied at my expense.

Answer 4

The man was a short sighted moron... I have one word for him - 'Iraq'

Answer 5

Beeching destroyed the feeder lines that today would be economical routes.

The only fortunate thing is, he was removed from his position before he could close more lines.

Answer 6

hallo

Answer 7

To be honest, I was not about when Dr Beeching close so much of our railway, but I think that as with most government policies/departments, that he was pressured into closing lines down to save the government of the day money. Just like in the 1980's/90's the Tory Government decided to sell off the countries assets to line the Government's pockets. At the time these ideas look good, but its only lasts for the short term. If people in the government hap look at things properly and invested instead of closing down or selling off then perhaps the railways would be in a bettor position today. The same goes for the government selling off the assets like the electricity companies, they are now mainly foreign owned so any profits made now goes abroad to where the parent company is based rather than staying in the UK as it did in the past.

Answer 8

no, short sighted, lacking vision, failing to anticipate changed pattern of use and a thorough waste of what now we would see as a precious resource!

Answer 9

Maybe if he could have peered into the future and seen how the rail use today is crying out for more capacity, and the railways of the time had enough money to keep losing money hand over fist then he could have kept more lines open. But if he didn't shut loads of it down, the rail companies at the time wouldnt have had any money for modernisation and the services would have driven people from the railways making traffic an even bigger problem than it is today.

It's six of one, half dozen of the other....

Answer 10

No. We need the return of the branch lines to reduce traffic congestion and improve the distribution of goods.

A majority of the infrastructure is still in place and only requires updating to modern standards.

Answer 11

It is very easy to say in hindsight 'I told you so' But one must remember that things were very different 45 years ago when Beeching wrote his report. Motorways were being built and those were seen as the transport arteries of the future. The oil crises of the 1970s were in the future and were not foreseen. We were much less ecologically minded and rather than worrying about the planet heating up, allegedly due in part to overuse of fossil fuels, we were worried about another ice age. Clearly, there had to be some pruning of the railways in the UK. 19th century entrepreneurship had led to duplication in many parts of the country. Many mourn the demise of the Great Central through the Midlands to London. But had that never been built, would it have really been missed? I suppose it was logical to close many small wayside stations which were often miles from the towns they served. The closure of branch lines had been started before WW2 and perhaps he only speeded up the inevitable. However, as has already been said, where he was blind was in not realising that smaller lines were feeders to main lines. His followers were clearly wrong in minimising the infrastructure - for example in singling part of the Waterloo to Exeter line and the Princes Risborough to Banbury line. The latter has already been doubled again and there is talk of doing the same for the former. Stupid things were done like closing the Uckfield to Lewes line - what overall cost did that 5 or 10 mile stretch really have, bearing in mind that the major stretch to Uckfield was left open. We must, also, never forget the hidden agenda of the time. Beeching was appointed by Ernie Marples, the then Minister of Transport - whose family firm was busy in building motorways (altho' he had divested himself of shares)

Answer 12

At the time with new roads and motorways planned maybe, now we all know he was wrong as was the splitting up of the railway. all with hindsight

Answer 13

You're showing your age with this question.  Beeching left a huge slice of Lincolnshire without a train service as the old East Coast line (along with the branch lines leading off it) was completely closed.  Aside from that one area the UK rail network shrunk to half its former size but still British Rail could not run a good reliable service on what was left of the network.  Beeching's cuts were harsh but even if he had not done what he did, there would surely have been similar cuts somewhere along the line.  The UK rail network of the 1950's and early 1960's would not be economically viable today because of high staff costs and working conditions that would have been unheard of in Beeching's time.

Answer 14

No ,Dr Beeching was so wrong.. because we could have transported so vey much by rail,saving the road traffic,especialy the europeon traffic ...which seem to get away with so much in the uk,,,,,,NO,!!! HE WAS WRONG

Answer 15

Dr. Beeching was probably quite correct to close down many uneconomic rail services, not only by the standards of his time but for any time.  However while his reports recommended many closures, they also recommended investment in other lines.  Politicians took after the first point enthusiastically, but tended to ignore the second.  Funny, that.  

Another thing that tended to be ignored was that lines with the highest passenger traffic generally ran at the greatest loss.  Thus some heavily used passenger lines were closed, but the London Metropolitan system, which was the biggest loss maker by a long way was not closed as it was realised that it

would be disastrous to do so.   Railways have rarely made a profit from passenger services anywhere in the world.  (That is why the ultra-expensive magnetic levitation systems are a pipe dream.)

What has often happened in cases of "downsizing" is that too much gets cut off.   If you are reducing staff you can always hire some more people.  But if you are closing railways after several years it is very expensive to get lines back into commission because land has been sold off.  

Perhaps Beeching should have been told to wield the axe with the consideration that there may be an oil shortage in the middling future.

"Dr. Beeching, you over did the closures, but they were not all your fault."

Answer 16

Over all, no, I don't think Dr Beeching was 'right' to destroy .what was (in short-sightedness). an established infrastructure

What would I say to him today!  'Get a real job.'

Sash.

Answer 17

Dr Richard Beeching did exactly what the Government of the day wanted - identify those parts of the railway business that were not making a profitable return to the (then) British Transport Commission.

Unfortunatly, the brief was flawed, because it ignored the consequences on the remainder of the business.

It was not the Good Doctor's fault that the report bearing his name became the death knell for the railway network. THAT responsibility lies with the Conservative Government of the day who commissioned his report.

Moreover, it was following Labour Government which actually authorised most of the branch line closures, against the advice of we transport professionals.

The Good Doctor has been unjustly blamed for the situation that was not of his making.

contributing

Answer 18

Dr. Richard Beeching I assume.  

http://www.rodge.force9.co.uk/faq/beechi...

The above gives a lot of background, and various opinions.

The only thing I would ask him would be "Was the effort worth it?"

Answer 19

He was wrong. But given the attitude of the time with the rise of the motorcar and the decline in the use of public transport there is some argument in his favour.

However, certain statistics were engineered and passenger trains were cut to such poor levels that people were practically forced off the railways.

Many branch lines and major town links were closed for no good reason but for me one of the biggest mistakes was closing the Midland Main Line. This was the most modern line, built with the future in mind, especially high speed direct links from Europe.

So many important links are lost forever there is a lot I would like to say to him, but the man was so anti railway there would be nothing anyone could say.

Answer 20

For the most part, no.

I would say to him that his axe cut much too deep.

Answer 21

May he rot in railway h**l.

Answer 22

Richard Beeching organised changes to British Rail ,axed some uneconomical lines ,He was chairman of British Rail.

Today could there have been more changes to carry freight ?

Fuel costs will rise in the future and there could be a debate,Cheaper in to send goods by road or switch to rail.

(In 1965 he was made a life peer as Baron Beeching, of East Grinstead in the County of Sussex.)

Answer 23

Most definitely Yes - he saved the railways because they were in a right mess at the time. He should have been looked at as a saviour. On many lines whole trains were being run for maybe 10 - 20 passengers (fact!) - this clearly could not continue.

Because of his work, the railways have recovered and are now becoming a success again. Sometimes you have to take a step back before you go forward again.

Answer 24

Under the Beeching cuts many railway 'feeder' lines were closed as well as seaside branch lines. Most of these closures were done on the basis of a week's survey of taffic levels. In most cases there were few attempts to make branch lines economical. The stations were often over-staffed and signalling systems were labour intensive right up to the end.

Future development of the towns and villages was never taken into account. That's why we now have huge towns like Gosport without a railway line.

If Beeching was around today I'd point him at the massive road congestion, huge land-take of motorways and the current mess that the last two governments have made of the remnants of the railway system - then just ask him "why did he hate the travelling public so much?"

Dr Beeching was employed by the Minister of Transport, who was Earnest Marples.

Earnest Marples had a big share in a roadbuilding company called Marples Ridgeway.

I think that says it all really....

Answer 25

No he was not right,I would say now the same as when he did it No.