Sabotage ahead of Beeching's cuts?

[Dunsignalling]

There was a huge gap between the perception of a line's worth to the local communities it served and the incredible indifference of the rest of the world.  Reservations raised at closure meetings about proposed replacement bus services often had some validity when, within a few months of a line's closure, the bus operators were pressing for service reductions. They had simply over-egged their case to ensure victory. 

 

The nationalized railway system (like the National Health Service) was financed by the treasury to which we all contributed one way and another, so logically we were all paying for a public service. That said, arguments will always gain nothing against the stark reality big unsustainable losses. The problem with the Beeching era was the way losses were presented in order to achieve but one end. 

I don't recall any of the replacement bus services around here lasting (at least on a daily basis) much over twelve months before being discontinued altogether. Once the track or station had gone, the operators had achieved their aim. They took the government sweeteners for setting up the services and ran. Smaller settlements that lost rail connections were fortunate if, in the long term, they retained even a once-a-week service to the nearest market town.

 

The closure process was rigged just as much as the statistics that had been compiled and/or presented on a near-fraudulent basis by BR itself to obtain the result desired by their political masters. My suspicion is that this was made much easier by the fact that the industry was nationalised.  

 

Apart from those directly involved in the motor and fuel business, the only people locally who made an improved day-to-day living in the end were taxi operators.

 

John

Edited December 10, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Guy Rixon]

We should remember that the railway has a duty of care for safety right up to the closure of a line. Anything work needed to remove unacceptable (from a lawyer's point of view) risk would have to go ahead, even if closure was already scheduled.

[Dunsignalling]

It might be worth bearing in mind that the WR General Managers during the era of Beeching closures were Stanley Raymond and Gerry Feinnes. The former is know to have been contemptuous of Great Western attitudes and traditions and did his best to do away with them; the latter was an LNER man. I can't imagine either pursuing such a vendetta.

The WR (collectively) seems, at the time, to have regarded any piece of railway foisted on it by boundary changes, as an unwanted distraction from its core activities. 

 

At the top, there was almost certainly, "nothing personal" about any of it, though old rivalries died harder further down the pecking order. However, after redirecting whatever business they could to their own network, there was another purpose these unwanted lines could serve.

 

The political climate demanded cut-backs in rail expenditure across the board and the WR had to deliver its share. Closing the S&D and the ex-LSWR lines absorbed in the West Country, together with rationalising the former SR main line to within an inch of its life, enabled the WR to demonstrate they had achieved the "economies" required of them whilst minimising the effect on their "own" routes.

 

John

Edited December 9, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Enterprisingwestern]

I have read somewhere, so therefore apocryphal but supported by dates, that in some cases passenger surveys were made on thursdays when half day closing affected patronage, and on relevant branch lines, never on market days.

 

Mike.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Of course, many lines shouldn't have been built in the first place.

 

If only a more enlightened approach had been taken to closures, by leaving the right-of-way intact for possible future reinstatement.

[bike2steam]

Nowadays it would all be called corruption no doubt?

 

Mike.

 

In Marple's case it could be looked on as a 'conflict of interests'. But if the British government ( of all persuasions) from Attlee onwards, had been totally honest with the electorate and admitted outright that the nation was bankrupt, instead of pretending it was still a world power, then perhaps things might have been different.

[LMS2968]

In Marple's case it could be looked on as a 'conflict of interests'. But if the British government ( of all persuasions) from Attlee onwards, had been totally honest with the electorate and admitted outright that the nation was bankrupt, instead of pretending it was still a world power, then perhaps things might have been different.

You mean we perhaps might have spent few millions building motorways?

[Fat Controller]

I have read somewhere, so therefore apocryphal but supported by dates, that in some cases passenger surveys were made on thursdays when half day closing affected patronage, and on relevant branch lines, never on market days.

 

Mike.

My father planned his honeymoon along similar lines; mum didn't realise the AA Gazetteer was more than a road atlas.

[The Stationmaster]

The WR (collectively) seems, at the time, to have regarded any piece of railway foisted on it by boundary changes, as an unwanted distraction from its core activities. 

 

At the top, there was almost certainly, "nothing personal" about any of it, though old rivalries died harder further down the pecking order. However, after redirecting whatever business they could to their own network, there was another purpose these unwanted lines could serve.

 

The political climate demanded cut-backs in rail expenditure across the board and the WR had to deliver its share. Closing the S&D and the ex-LSWR lines absorbed in the West Country, together with rationalising the former SR main line to within an inch of its life, enabled the WR to demonstrate they had achieved the "economies" required of them whilst minimising the effect on their "own" routes.

 

John

 

Don't forget that the WR was probably far in advance of many other BR Regions in rationalising its own bits of ex GWR railway so what it did to lines it took over was in reality little different from what was happening 'at home'.  All part of reducing costs particularly infrastructure maintenance costs by massive layout simplification at some places (e.g Reading and Slough) and reducing many branch lines to 'basic railways' often with stations moved (e.g Marlow and St Ives) to release land for sale.

[Dunsignalling]

Don't forget that the WR was probably far in advance of many other BR Regions in rationalising its own bits of ex GWR railway so what it did to lines it took over was in reality little different from what was happening 'at home'.  All part of reducing costs particularly infrastructure maintenance costs by massive layout simplification at some places (e.g Reading and Slough) and reducing many branch lines to 'basic railways' often with stations moved (e.g Marlow and St Ives) to release land for sale.

Agreed, it was by no means confined to non-GWR infrastructure or anything new. It wasn't an easy time whatever ones standpoint.

 

I've known several ex-BR managers who quite baldly admit to ignoring potential "easy" cuts that could have been effected immediately so they'd have something left to deliver when the inevitable next set of targets hit their desks. I doubt there are many who wouldn't do the same in a similar scenario.

 

Receiving a whole new bunch of "dispensable" assets on 1st January 1963 must have taken off quite a bit of pressure for a few years, though. 

 

John

[bike2steam]

 Closing the S&D and the ex-LSWR lines absorbed in the West Country, together with rationalising the former SR main line to within an inch of its life, enabled the WR to demonstrate they had achieved the "economies" required of them whilst minimising the effect on their "own" routes.

 

John

 

In the mid 1950's the Southern Region had seriously considered the possibility of closing the S&DJR ( it's local traffic had taken a nose-dive after WW2), but the changes in regional boundaries in 1958 conveniently allowed them to 'pass the buck'.

[caradoc]

I don't recall any of the replacement bus services around here lasting (at least on a daily basis) much over twelve months before being discontinued altogether. Once the track or station had gone, the operators had achieved their aim. They took the government sweeteners for setting up the services and ran. Smaller settlements that lost rail connections were fortunate if, in the long term, they retained even a once-a-week service to the nearest market town.

 

The closure process was rigged just as much as the statistics that had been compiled and/or presented on a near-fraudulent basis by BR itself to obtain result desired by their political masters. My suspicion is that this was made much easier by the fact that the industry was nationalised.  

 

Apart from those directly involved in the motor and fuel business, the only people locally who made an improved day-to-day living in the end were taxi operators.

 

John

 

After Oxford/Cambridge closed (except of course Bletchley/Bedford), there was a local bus service between Oxford and Bletchley; This lasted into the mid-1970s at least, and was very hand for spotting trips to Bletchley ! There was also a coach service between Oxford and Cambridge, operated jointly by Percivals of Oxford and Premier Travel of Cambridge; Again, still going in the mid-70s and used for spotting at Hitchin and Cambridge. Today there is a half-hourly coach between Oxford and Cambridge, although personally I still hope that the East/West rail link comes to fruition, eventually.

[caradoc]

The WR (collectively) seems, at the time, to have regarded any piece of railway foisted on it by boundary changes, as an unwanted distraction from its core activities. 

 

At the top, there was almost certainly, "nothing personal" about any of it, though old rivalries died harder further down the pecking order. However, after redirecting whatever business they could to their own network, there was another purpose these unwanted lines could serve.

 

The political climate demanded cut-backs in rail expenditure across the board and the WR had to deliver its share. Closing the S&D and the ex-LSWR lines absorbed in the West Country, together with rationalising the former SR main line to within an inch of its life, enabled the WR to demonstrate they had achieved the "economies" required of them whilst minimising the effect on their "own" routes.

 

John

 

The WR did not hesitate to rationalise its 'own' routes as well; Large parts of the Oxford/Worcester route was singled, much of which has now had to be redoubled; Swindon/Kemble was also singled, and is now redoubled.

[caradoc]

I have read somewhere, so therefore apocryphal but supported by dates, that in some cases passenger surveys were made on thursdays when half day closing affected patronage, and on relevant branch lines, never on market days.

 

Mike.

 

But on the other hand, taking passenger surveys on the one busy day of the week would artificially inflate the figures, whereas taking them on a 'normal' weekday would provide a more accurate picture; The railway's operating costs would not be any less, whether it was half-day closing or a non-market day or not. I think we have to look at the bigger picture; Once more people were able to afford a car this immediately became their preferred mode of transport, being always available and not having to depend on the restrictions of railway timetables, connections and routes. 

 

When I was growing up, in the 1960s, before we had a car, our holidays were by rail; My earliest memories from that time are being horribly delayed once on the way to Weston-Super-Mare, and being scared by a steam loco at Bristol Temple Meads (hence I model BR blue diesels, not steam !) As soon as we got a car, all our holidays were by road; It was both cheaper (there were 5 of us), and far more flexible, allowing us to effectively go anywhere we wanted. As a rail enthusiast, and (ex) railway employee, I would love to see more lines open, and thriving, but the world of the 1960s and after is not the world of the 19th century.

[LMS2968]

But on the other hand, taking passenger surveys on the one busy day of the week would artificially inflate the figures, whereas taking them on a 'normal' weekday would provide a more accurate picture; The railway's operating costs would not be any less, whether it was half-day closing or a non-market day or not.

I think you're missing the point. The operating costs would be the same, unless they were artificially inflated by a one-off piece of unnecessary maintenance. But otherwise, the costs might or might not be covered by the passenger (and possibly goods) traffic, and the number of daily passengers would be an indicator for this. Choosing the least advantageous time for of any survey could severely skew the calculation.

 

Despite the frequent mention of the word 'hindsight', this was known to be happening at the time, but obtaining correct figures to challenge those given was beyond what most people could find, and challenges frequently fell at this hurdle.

[SED Freightman]

I think you miss something there.  Even though a line is closed, normally the railway remains responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of all bridges.

 

A former work colleague was a senior scout where they had purchased the old station at Loch earn Head (I hope I spelled that correctly).   They were offered the road bridge and surrounding land in around and under it at the end of their plot for £1 but wisely declined since that would have made them responsible for all repairs.

 

I'll bet there are still bridges near long closed stations in and around Cornwall where NR are still picking up the bills for maintenance.

 

At privatisation most disused trackbeds, bridges, tunnels etc. transferred to BRB (Residuary) Ltd rather than Railtrack as the ongoing maintenance costs and liabilities could potentially have affected the latters share price.  Over the years efforts were made to sell off parcels of land and dispose of, or demolish,  structures where possible.  On 30th September 2013, BRB (Residuary) Ltd was abolished and most of the remaining property and structures were transferred to the Highways Agency Historical Railways Estate, certain larger properties that had major development potential were transferred to London & Continental Railways Ltd, probably to tempt potential buyers, whilst a number of properties and structures associated with the operational railway were transferred to Network Rail as they should have remained part of the operational railway in 1994.

[The Stationmaster]

I think you're missing the point. The operating costs would be the same, unless they were artificially inflated by a one-off piece of unnecessary maintenance. But otherwise, the costs might or might not be covered by the passenger (and possibly goods) traffic, and the number of daily passengers would be an indicator for this. Choosing the least advantageous time for of any survey could severely skew the calculation.

 

Despite the frequent mention of the word 'hindsight', this was known to be happening at the time, but obtaining correct figures to challenge those given was beyond what most people could find, and challenges frequently fell at this hurdle.

 

If what happened locally was an kind the counts were done over the whole week (possibly even two weeks?) although you can then perhaps say that the time of year makes a difference.  As far as costs are concerned any piece of railway will have a base maintenance cost plus a very clear base operating cost.

 

Thus some idiot has just written to our local 'paper suggesting the community crowd funds a takeover of the branch - probably not even realising that to run the existing level of service 7 days a week is going to require the employment of as many as six Drivers some of whom will spend several days each week doing nothing (unless they also work as Conductors possibly?) and each costing around £60,000 p.a. as an absolute minimum.   The numbers would not necessarily have been as great back in the 1960s but when you consider our branch terminus had over 60 staff (all departments) on the paybill in the early 1960s and now has one (plus traincrew from elsewhere nowadays) there were considerable sums to be saved simply by rationalising let alone closure.  The decision to keep a line open then becomes strictly a political one if it requires support from other than revenue.

[The Johnster]

Makes you wonder how any railways ever made a profit.  I am not sure that wages were proportionally that much lower in the 'old days', so the proportion of operating cost for any given staffing level would be fairly equal to the modern situation.

 

My own imaginary BLT, by no means a large establishment, imaginarily employs a station supervisor, leading railman, railman, booking clerk, goods clerk goods porter, signalman, shunter, and a 'lad' to make tea for everyone.  8 men before you consider traincrew or Per Way, and on 2 shifts; that makes it 16 and with holiday and rest day cover you are talking about 20 wages and the costs of administering them and providing them with uniforms and equipment, plus the costs of maintaining buildings and facilities for them to work in, plus the fuel and electricity the station uses.  Luckily they are all imaginary or at least plastic, so I don't have to pay them, even at 1950s rates...

[Edwin_m]

I can only think that typical fares (and freight rates) must have been much higher relative to average wages in the "heyday" of railways, if the railway was to pay all those staff, make an operating profit and even pay a dividend as many did at the time.  But the railways are always said to have made travel possible for the masses, so they couldn't have been that unaffordable.  Does anyone have any data on this? 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Edwin_m

[brianusa]

You mean we perhaps might have spent few millions building motorways?

 

In view of what transpired over the years, its probably just as well.  The UK was ill prepared for the increase in traffic and the sheer number of cars that appeared when 'you never had it so good' and in subsequent years.

 

Brian.

[dibber25]

I remember a conversation with Ken Painter (an ex-BR manager) at the time he was taking delivery of the first Class 59s for Foster Yeoman. He told me he had seen fellow BR employees build their careers on how quickly they could drive away traffic and close lines. He said that it was BR's intention to eliminate freight traffic from the county of Somerset entirely, a scheme which he scuppered by ensuring that the quarry stone continued to be moved by rail. Ken, incidentally, was a railway modeler (he showed me a GW 2-8-0 - I seem to think it was a 47xx but I might be wrong), that he had just completed, and we discussed scenic work for his layout. The fundamental of all this discussion is really that railways, whether nationalized or privatized, are at the mercy of politicians, and politicians run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. They view everything in short term and are influenced only by their own prospects for re-election. Beeching and BR management of the day mutilated the railway because that's what they were told to do by the politicians and undeniably, some of the latter were corrupt, not least Marples. In today's more enlightened times, with so much more public scrutiny, they wouldn't get away with it, but things were different then. (CJL)

[vaughan45]

I remember a conversation with Ken Painter (an ex-BR manager) at the time he was taking delivery of the first Class 59s for Foster Yeoman. He told me he had seen fellow BR employees build their careers on how quickly they could drive away traffic and close lines. He said that it was BR's intention to eliminate freight traffic from the county of Somerset entirely, a scheme which he scuppered by ensuring that the quarry stone continued to be moved by rail. Ken, incidentally, was a railway modeler (he showed me a GW 2-8-0 - I seem to think it was a 47xx but I might be wrong), that he had just completed, and we discussed scenic work for his layout. The fundamental of all this discussion is really that railways, whether nationalized or privatized, are at the mercy of politicians, and politicians run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. They view everything in short term and are influenced only by their own prospects for re-election. Beeching and BR management of the day mutilated the railway because that's what they were told to do by the politicians and undeniably, some of the latter were corrupt, not least Marples. In today's more enlightened times, with so much more public scrutiny, they wouldn't get away with it, but things were different then. (CJL)

 

Unfortunately, having been involved with many flavours of the public sector over the last 40 years, I'm not sure things are any better now - just a gloss of transparency to keep 'joe public' happy

[The Stationmaster]

Unfortunately, having been involved with many flavours of the public sector over the last 40 years, I'm not sure things are any better now - just a gloss of transparency to keep 'joe public' happy

 

Absolutely.  When BR 'drove away' freight traffic in the 1980s by the 'simple expedient' (so seen by many) of increasing its rates we were under very strict instructions not to reveal the truth of what was happening.  In reality what happened was that an instruction from The Treasury changed the calculated rate of return BR was required to make on freight traffic leaving it with the only option, in many cases, of increasing its charges while knowing full well that the higher rates would not be competitive and traffic would be lost.

 

Come privatisation, and freed of theoretical nonsense from The Treasury, some of the lost traffic was quickly, and profitably, regained by what became EWS.  Similarly BR's passenger fares were effectively driven as much by The Treasury's requirements as they were by anything else - but again BR got the blame.

[meil]

 

The closure process was rigged just as much as the statistics that had been compiled and/or presented on a near-fraudulent basis by BR itself to obtain the result desired by their political masters. My suspicion is that this was made much easier by the fact that the industry was nationalised.  

 

 

Remember when the NCB took the money donated to the Aberfan families to make good their negligently constructed waste tips.

[Mark Saunders]

Absolutely.  When BR 'drove away' freight traffic in the 1980s by the 'simple expedient' (so seen by many) of increasing its rates we were under very strict instructions not to reveal the truth of what was happening.  In reality what happened was that an instruction from The Treasury changed the calculated rate of return BR was required to make on freight traffic leaving it with the only option, in many cases, of increasing its charges while knowing full well that the higher rates would not be competitive and traffic would be lost.

 

Come privatisation, and freed of theoretical nonsense from The Treasury, some of the lost traffic was quickly, and profitably, regained by what became EWS.  Similarly BR's passenger fares were effectively driven as much by The Treasury's requirements as they were by anything else - but again BR got the blame.

 

That was known about at the time and was no secret! That was why several traffics became Railfreight Distribution as it had a lower return on capital than other sectors!

 

Mark Saunders