The main line through Matlock between Derby, Buxton and Manchester was very heavily used. It was also a very popular tourist route. The line was surveyed on a Bank Holiday Monday when there was very little traffic, result? Beeching axed the line.
Beeching went about a reshaping in the wrong way. Many ideas he had concerning intercity trains and bulk freight were ahead of his time but he will be forever remembered for the gross shortsightedness of the report. As John Betjeman said when he went by train in 1963. "In ten years from now when the roads are so full of traffic you'll be glad you still have a railway to your town. Don't let Dr. Beeching take it away from you".
It was not Beeching who was responsible for cutting the railways. It was the MP Ernest Marples, who instructed Beeching to do the job - and why? Because Ernest Marples owned a road building company! It was in his own self-interest to deplete the extent of the railways!
A rather rose tinted view. It was the British public who killed the rail network, deserting it in droves to embrace the motor car. And that's before we even get started on fare dodging (which was rife) and theft, by both rail employee's and the general public.
Which is very well illustrated at the end of the previous episode ‘Modernisation’ which is now thankfully available th-cam.com/video/j-T3j8qALIw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=DWXBNb25TqOeFKmV
What makes me so mad it the destruction of the rail bridges and letting the track routes rot, so we could never undo this evil man's damage. So many of the track routes could have been converted into roads and then eventually back to track and they should have preserved bridges for the future.
Totally agree. We lost some many branchlines here in Wales such as the Swansea to Brecon Railway which ran through the valleys up to Brecon. We should have an efogy of Beeching on bonfire night. He's the butcher of our railways.
I was only 13 at the time but knew that one day, in the future, road traffic would become unbearable. Looking at all those disused railways now is a sad reflection. Many of those dismantled branch lines could have been turned into cheap to run and environmentally friendly light tramways that would have served communities in the Welsh Valleys and elswhere. What a fantastic transport network we could have had if only someone could have shown a little foresight.
Should never have been nationalised. Beeching worked from the then-common belief that railways were like canals were in 1890; an outdated, declining mode of transport. But he failed to foresee or allow for the more-than-doubling of passenger numbers since privatization.
There have been some truly dreadful decisions made and this was one of the worst ideas implemented anyone could have and we reap a terrible price for this incompetence.
The lines should have been mothballed for future use. Now that motorways & roads across the country are at capacity there’s never been a better time to move back to the railway.
OMG what absolutely madness 😩 How we'd love these lines back now seeing the congestion on our roads now 🙈 Look no mobile phones and people smoking lol 😂 Hopefully some of it will return 👍🏻
BEECHING worked for EARNEST MARPLES, the same EARNEST MARPLES who Lord Denning (whilst presiding over the Profumo affair enquiry) stated 'probably used prostitutes'. The same EARNEST MARPLES who was making millions building roads, The same EARNEST MARPLES who was behind the closure of the Great Central route which is now to be replaced by HS2 at a cost likely to exceed £50 billion. Also the same EARNEST MARPLES who HM Tax Inspectors discovered had left this country to reside in France when they tried to visit him regarding outstanding tax issues going back to 1945. BEECHING was either a naive and guillible hitman or he knew and thus was in on it! Once again, the British taxpayers are paying for the corruption and will do so for many years to come!
+JOHN WALTON - Exactly. You summarize the situation perfectly. I guess that Beeching was not naive; he probably got given a huge back-hander. The whole thing was corrupt. On many branch lines passenger counts were taken only after key connections were cut.
Certainly corruption, and the 'Old Boy Network' looking after its members at the expense of the public as always. It didn't matter whether Beeching was incompetent or badly informed, I think it would have happened anyway. The road traffic lobby were keen to kill off the railways, much as they did in the USA.
Thanks for your comments Bill.Since I first wrote 12 months ago the government has revised the cost up to £61.5 billion (fractionally less than the original £32 billion forecast). PRODIGAL POLITICIANS? Money is easy for them to spend wastefully when they haven't had to graft to get it!
beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
funguy farage so you mean it is Harold Wilson's govt (1964-1970; Labour) who is to blame? It is very complex and similar things happened all over Europe in the mid 60s and later on. In Bergen Norway they lost both the tramway and the suburban railway in 1965, for example.
The Somerset and Dorset didn't have to close, it was still making a profit and it would lot quicker and cheaper to go from the South West to the Midlands and the North today. The old Bournemouth West station site is now a car park full of coaches which travel around the country instead of more environmentally friendly trains.
The South has the most investment in Railways today. They got off lucky. Parts of the UK such as the North East of Scotland lost up to 90% of their Railways. The largest region in Scotland and second most populous now has just 2 lines with 10 services a day between them.
Actually by the 1960s it was the most absurd branch line in the UK more than 60 miles (100k) long and only three passenger trains each way. With its steep grades which required specialised superpower in the form of the SD 2 8 O, double headed.West Country Bulleids and 9Fs. Other branches 15 miles long may have had added useful heavy summer traffic justifying their continuance to 1970 or later but the Somerset and Dorset should have been closed and reduced to two branches by 1959 a 20 mile branch north from Bournemouth to serve the coal mines and public school town and a 20 mile link branch south from Bath to connect with other east west trunk lines
@@Gorantaylis and what was the population at the time and how much industry? The size of the region is not important compared to the population levels. The population level is an indicator of the potential passenger levels. The industrialisation levels are good indicator of how much freight could be attracted to the rails (yes, rural areas can send their products by rail but those products are seasonal).
@@Gorantaylis so all products that can be conveyed by other means. The first 3 will need to be transhipped to rail vehicles with agriculture being seasonal and the last 2 put into pipes (pipelines having been in use since before WW2 for this purpose).
How could a man so convinced that railways were unnecessary ever be put in charge of the national railway? Beeching was in the pay of ICI, he made his money from building roads and road vehicles. The conflict of interests he had against the railway is astoundingly obvious... His very appointment was either an act of insanity, or immense corruption through all levels of government. How was this allowed to happen? How was nobody jailed? This was a criminal act, on a massive scale.
Because he was put in charge of BR and by Ernest Marples, the then transport minister who was chairman of a motorway building company. And commissioned by Marples to give him the results he wanted. Isn't there a certain 'Yes Minister' quote to the effect of "Never host a commission unless you know what the results will be"? As the old saying goes "Good people don't need laws to tell them how to act. Bad people don't care about following laws. And the worst people always find a way to be the ones writing them".
To answer that question, of how could someone convinced railways are unnecessary be put in charge, just look at the beliefs of Jeremy Hunt and the state of the health service after his tenure.. It's what Tories ALWAYS do, they pick out a bit of infrastructure for today's spree of hack & slash and they put in charge someone who loaths it. Then just sit back and wait for it to all tumble down.
please learn facts, beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
Funguy Farange is only partly right it is true that Harold Wilson partly saw Beeching report to the MacMillan government, as very much in tune with as white hot technological revolution, Labour was calling for with people getting cars to take the family on trips and getting rid of all those branch lines with hardly used by passengers which trains were.pulled bytank engines which looked like 1790s French steam cars, the LSWR 4 4 O or GWR 0 4 2 However when Beeching delivered his second report Pt2 as Chairman of British Rail was delivered to Wilson the new Labour MP in 1965 the report prefigured the Sepril report delivered to Thatcher circa 1982 and recommended the railways to a core mainline system. Wilson fired Beeching the following day
@@frederickmiles327 as stated all facts...... Beeching made recommendations...... Labour hacked the railways to bits. A lot more then beeching proposed. Report one....... It was labour again
What is not mentioned as often as it should be is that Ernest Marples was head of the ROAD construction company Marples Ridgeway. Just the job for the minister of transport. He said he had no interest as all the shares were in his wife's name. An all-party committee of MP's didn't give Marples what he wanted so he called in Beeching who was head of ICI and a personal friend. The late Professor John Tyme stated on Television that both had interests in road transport and scrap metal. Needless to say he was never on tv again... Thinking that Beeching was doing the railways a big favour by trying to make them profitable is delusional. It was all corrupt from the start - timetables were altered to make it hard work to use the trains and figures massaged. In fact 'corruption' doesn't even begin to cover it.
Not to mention that he fled the country in the mid 70s because of 30 years of tax evasion so he was greedy to the core, typical politician looking after his own interests ahead of the people hes meant to serve
To be fair, although the 'Beeching cuts' are now widely considered a mistake, there was a lot of financial problems with the railways at the time, and Beeching was simply hired as an accountant by the government to give recommendations. The railway network was built in the 19th century before there was any competition with cars, lorries and planes. By the 60s many stations and lines were losing a lot of money; in fact most stations actually closed in the 50s before Beeching. Today, the railways face the opposite problem, ever increasing passenger numbers with a network that's at full capacity. Many stations have been reopened and new railway lines such as Crossrail and HS2 are being constructed.
beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
@@funguyfarage3615 and would they pay the detention? Due to Tory mismanagement if the economy during the 1950s and early-1960s, Labour was force to spend money on defending the Pound and finally devaluing the Pound by 14%. All because the Tory economic policies were a sham.
Well I'm sure that they'd all be very proud of themselves now.We have some of the worst transport infrastructure in the industrial world and a public transportation system to be truly ashamed of!
I grew up in 50/60s,and still live in Stockport, and the amount of railway in the town was amazing,a lot of freight, but when it came to passenger service, the focus was the WCML, there was also the Midland main line,both routes serving both Manchester and London..with the congestion now on the roads,closing the Midland route to Manchester,Derby etc;was a mistake.I have looked at timetables, from the 60s, and the Midland route had a poor service, in comparison to the WCML.The strange thing about this,is most of the route from Manchester, to a few miles from Stockport, has re-opened, as a tram route, and about 3 miles further south, is now the route from Stockport-Sheffield(with the help of a chord line, built about 30 yrs ago)..most of the line that was built in 1902,still exists,,but has been built on in some parts,since its closure in 1967....The route from Stockport-Marple,had a 13-15 min journey time, and now it takes anything up to 45 mins for the same journey,by road,because of congestion..This will never be resurrected,because that too to has been built on,with a motorway and plans to build on other parts of the route has been approved..
Should some lines have stayed open? Yes We’re some closures justified? Or course. It’s hard to view the decisions made at the time through our eyes 50 years later. The reality is many lines never met their original objectives and were hard to justify 100 years after being built. Traffic flows ebb and change and much of the freight traffic had gone. Transport infrastructure needs to change as new technologies develop. Just because a service was needed in 1870 didn’t mean it still was in 1970.
1963: The end of the line Richard Beeching's brief as chairman of the British Transport Commission was simple: "Make the railways pay". British Rail was losing £140m a year when Dr Beeching took over the commission. His solution, announced on 27 March 1963, was equally straightforward - massive cuts. The Conservative government welcomed the report, but thousands of people - many in remote rural areas - were horrified they would lose their local branch lines. Opposition from the pressure groups failed and during the 1960s "Beeching's Axe" fell on 2,128 stations and more than 67,000 British Rail jobs.
Railways wasn't in Beechings interest. He was brought in from ICI and was more interested in roads...typically the wrong man for the job .... We all know how politicians work 🤔
Regarding the TUCCs and hardship, my understanding is that hardship was defined in such a way that if a replacement bus could be provided there was deemed to be no hardship
Beeching was a tory.... put into the railway by the tories.. and his wife.. well she was in the road building industry so he know closing parts of the railway would mean he and his wife would make more money because they would need to build more roads to transport people and goods. He seen it as a great benefit to himself and his wife and sod others.... it wasn't about "find something and then be good" at that i.e. Intercity travel (fast travel) it was about closing the railway to make him and his wife more cash!...
Take the Taunton- Barnstaple line for example. An amazing engineering achievement which, today, would cost a billion pounds with its tunnels, viaducts, cuttings etc. BUT- it managed to avoid most centres of population and ran empty trains for its last few years. Yes,it would have become a wonderful Heritage line but no one could have paid for its upkeep while waiting for that to happen. Beeching was given a job to do and he did it; the fault, if any, was with the politicians.
I agree what you say about Beeching (and the fact that by the mid-1960'd most of the population couldn't leave the trains for private cars fast enough) but the problem persists where there simply isn't capacity for mass car ownership. This is the real failing about democracy where there is too much freedom - restricting peoples use of their car would be electoral suicide for any political party hence the ever growing amount of cars on the rpad and to hell with the consequences
***** the economics of rail travel simply don't really stack up unless they are used on almost industrial levels - like the subway system of any major city - Singapore, Paris and London spring to mind.Otherwise they are simply too costly to run.Take the UK - train travel accounts for barely 6% of all journeys and just look at the expense in subsidy from the taxpayer.A study from Greece last year showed that it would be cheaper to close the entire network down and provide all the passengers with taxis! U have never really understood why people would rather travel by car between cities rather than sleep/read/daydream on a fast train - but then perhaps that's just me.
The problem in the US is that the only HSR line currently ix the NE Corridor, Washington DC to Boston. Most of the nation don't have the luxury of fast trains.
@@revol148 the road network also doesn’t pay its way,when you look at the construction and maintenance costs as well as the human cost and cost to the health services with the DAILY FATALITIES AND LIFE CHANGING INJURIES
Perhaps if Beeching had been forced to travel between a few of these towns by bus he would have admitted how impossible his ideas were. But like virtually all governments he was in it for personal gain and profit rather than serving the people.
In 1964, the rail line from Beenleigh in Queensland, Australia to Southport on the Gold Coast was closed despite great opposition. In 1996 a line from Beenleigh was reopened on a new alignment, 28 km to Helensvale and has since been extended south another 21km with a proposition for track duplications and a further extension to the Gold Coast airport. This line is electrified (25 kV) and now connects two of the main cities in the state. The more I look at this Beeching thing, the crazier it seems.
One of the worst decisions ever made to our once loved railway system.Such short sighted attitudes in those days,boardering on sheer madness. Yes the lunatics were running the asylum,and are still to this day. Railways should always be run by railwaymen...period.
Harold MacMillan who appointed Beeching was a former director of the GWR. The GWR was financed by variation in the dividends. In a bad year the shareholds would get only a minimal dividend or nothing. In the eyes of MacMillan British rail in 1948-55 while breaking even roughly in operating terms overall, had to finance its reequipment purely by loans which had to be repaid plus interest. Therefore by about 1954 MacMillan hadd concluded British Rail was worth nothing and would only produce accumulating losses. Harolds old railway seems a fairly marginal operation much in Cornwall, Devon and particulary wales being increasingly unprofitable while still post Nationalisation the western region ran in direct unproductive competiton with the Southern Region thru SW England to Exeter and Plymouth and to Birmingham with the London Midland region. Much of the continuing need for the SD would seem to have been because of these continuing old company allignments - as plenty of outher routings would have been possible to Bornemouth from the Midlands.
People blame Beeching. But it was Marples the Minister for Transport who told Beeching to do it. Marples company was building roads all over the UK including the M1. It was Marples who wanted to line his own pockets building roads.
Maples was a director of Marples Ridgeway (MR) and resigned his directorship in of that company in Oct 1961 when he became a Junior Cabinet minister, as he was required to do so by Parliamentary law; as ministers and above are required to do so today. From that moment onward he had no day to day involvement in the running of his old firm and was no a party to any contract negotiations. MR had no involvement in building the M1. It was built under the Special Roads Act 1949 by Tarmac and John Lang. IIRC Marples was Minister of Transport at the time when he officially opened it IIRC on 2 Nov 1959. Similar arguments could be made when he was in Housing. Beechings work was centered around a series of passenger and freight surveys taken on the entire network week ending 23 April 196, for which the Beeching 1 report was produced, and is viewable on the Railways Archive website as a pdf. The report, when published, did nor gain favour with Marple's or Macmillan the PM of the time who was concerned with its effect on key marginal seats and its impact on the tory vote. Note that the Tory's were all out of office in 1964.
For both Beeching and many politicians in 1951 - 1982 it was all about managing decline and Railways were very much seen as a sunset industry post war in the United States and UK. The general perception of the time was the future growth and dynamism would be concentrated in South, capital (London) and the Midlands Birmingham etc. Beeching did not really approve of extending electrification from London to Liverpool , Manchester as and Glasgow. Declining sunset cities in his view and was completely opposed electrifying the east coast main line and as early as his follow up 1965 report suggested closing it past Newcastle, one route to Birmingham and Scotland was all Brit rail required. Although of course an alt argument was Edinburgh could be served by an improved electrified link(off the WCML) from Carlisle over the Waverley.
There's something about Beeching's face that makes me want to hate him but I can't quite put my finger on it. He just looks like someone who has a predisposition to destroy rather than create. Maybe it's just me.
I find it ironic that Beeching noted that the passenger systems have peak travel periods with less traffic outside of the usual commuting hours. Does not the same thing happen on the motorways and secondary roads? And there are roads in rural areas that do not get that much traffic, per Beeching those should be torn up thus saving on their costs of upkeep.
beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
Hi wher can i find the whole series pls. i live in south devon in teignmouth and am interested in all info i can get about the railways in and around my area, phots vids, maps, very good program though, bit said its all gone, but good news some funding there to bring some back to life
@@goodwood-rc4nx not true. Mention of this is recorded in Hansard in 1960, and his wife denied receiving any shares from him and she told this in two newspaper interviews, in spite of being harassed by newspaper reporters at the time. Indeed you do not sell the shares to your wife, but transfer them, that is assuming she is a director of the firm anyway. That would be a conflict of interest, and to date, no hard proof or evidence has been produced as to where they went.... so far. It is suspected they went into a blind trust as cabinet ministers and above are required by parliamentary law (to dispose of their shareholdings), or an overseas trust as Marples had financial interests in Lichtenstein.
I know breaching was far from perfect but he was just a consultant and lines were shut he did not recommend for closure and visa versa. If these cuts never happened in the 60s things would have been even worse and the serpell report could have come in. Closures would have included the east coast mainline from Newcastle to edinbrough!
@6.00 mins. How wrong she was as well. She mentioned that Beeching overestimated car ownership. "Cars per person' really is the case today, not cars per family. My next door neighbours are a typical mum, dad, and a teenage daughter, all three of them own their own car.
The problem is the car is more than transport but people believe they NEED a car or want one for status they are car-dependant and 'a good walk' is 1/2 a mile not at least two; but considerable modal choice impacts (i.e. car ownership) have been greatly influenced by removal of the rail network density. A great many of the small towns in the 1960s are now larger (in excess of 20,000 population) and without a station but could sustain a station.
My goodness, what a fantastic insight to the " Butcher of the Railways " My 7 year old Granddaughter could have done a better job. Typical Accountant, Bottom line & no thought into the future. This guy should have been charged with, Rape of the Railways ! " Looked ahead into the next 20 years " yeah right, as for Earnest Marples, bloody hell, even Dick Turpin wore a mask. Do I need to say any more ?
beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
8:01 "Strangely" is no explanation! Without denying that Beeching was a Tory policy, as in Marples, the cuts continued under the Labour govt too. I remember how this series was utterly Labour biased, a blatant throwing out of the old value of TV impartiality, '+ how frustrating + oppressive that was in the era of TV given to us one-sidedly, before there was any web to react to it on. The rail unions' attitude over Beeching clearly did not fit her Labour agenda + we see her here stuck for any way to spin it.
It is in my strongest opinion that as a first starting point network rail should be using compulsory purchase and reinstating all of the below where heritage services don't apply as a starting point of regaining a properly structured railway network
Introduced to the British public simply as chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) Beeching's link to explosives and nuclear weapons was never mentioned. After a stint at the Woolwich Arsenal designing anti-tank weapons in World War II, Beeching had been moved on to the top secret ‘Tube Alloys’ project which was a cover for the development of the first British atomic weapons. At Royal Ordnance’s secret Fort Halstead base under the North Downs near Sevenoaks in Kent, Cottrell reveals, Beeching’s expertise in metallurgy made a key contribution to Britain’s rudimentary nuclear arsenal. The success of Britain’s 1950s atomic testing program brought Beeching the top job at ICI. Qualifications in metallurgy and state-of-the-art explosives were not, you might think, the ideal qualification for a man whose job was to go through the accounts of British Railways with a fine toothed comb. No, the reason Beeching was hired was because the Conservative government had already decided his job was chop up the railways to make way for the motor car and they needed a figurehead that could keep his mouth shut. www.rt.com/op-edge/205547-beeching-railway-network-britain/
Thank you for a very accurate statement regarding Beeching. You are absolutely right about him keeping his mouth shut.It is common knowledge that he was a friend of Marples,so we can readilly assume why he was selected. I think he kept his mouth shut about many issues regarding Marples. These could include Marples' involvement with Profumo and his chums, benefiting from road building contracts and outstanding HMRC issues. Beeching did keep his mouth shut. Maples fled to Monaco (a few hours before HMRC made a visit to his home in 1975). However, I recall Beeching's widow saying 'Marples made him do it' when interviewed by a TV reporter regarding Beeching's axe. To surmise, I firmly believe the very polished Beeching covered for a very distasteful,spurious EARNEST MARPLES (former Conservative MP, Minister of Transport,Director of Marples Rigeway etc.).
@@johnwalton6642 He was a former director of Marples Ridgeway, having resigned his directorship in Oct 1951, when he was made a junior cabinet minister, as ministers and above are required to do so today, in accordance with Parliamentary Law. From that moment onwards he had no involvement in the day to day running or contract negotiations in his former company.
A person that thinks a government service is useless is put in charge to fix it. And it then unexpectedly goes to shit. If only that was predictable lol. Luckilly that does not happen anymore nowdays lol......
Beeching had the right idea..you cannot continue to pay for routes that are expensive to maintain..I do strongly feel however, he over-did it, and the sources he used to make his decisions,may have been unreliable..Cutting off the arteries, that fed the main line, was a mistake,he isolated communities, who relied on the railways.The friendship of him with Marples, leaves a lot to be disried,as Marples was in road construction..The only problem was, the boom of the private car,road haulage went beyond what was expected,and Marples was making money on this..The promises of buses replacing branch lines, was at the time, a good alternative, but because they too, lost money, were withdrawn.The sell off of the railway land means routes that are needed today, cannot be re-instated..Beeching closed routes that today,proved to be a mistake..because the land has been built on..I have copies of the Beeching report, and there is a lot I agree with,but a lot I feel was very short-sighted..he closed my local station,and a route that today is badly needed,because of the traffic problems..but they will never be re-opened, because parts of it has a motorway on it, or built on,because the land was sold off...We could argue this for a long time, so that is my point of view..
beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
Strange that the line in London was able to be saved - an area served by many bus routes, numerous roads and other rail lines not too far away, yet in the countryside - especially the Welsh valleys where there simply was no alternative other than a very long detour via road - in some cases 40+ miles, whereas the railway cut through a tunnel and covered a fraction of that distance to reach the same point. Criminal that all those villages were left stranded like that. It was a public railway - for the public, paid from peoples taxes. I am sure the people that lived in those villages and communities out in the country paid the same amount of tax per £ that people in the larger towns and cities paid. Yes, i totally agree that money needed to be saved on the railways, but shutting so many vital lines was not the way to do it. Just look at how money is saved today on the railway, driver only operated trains, unmanned stations etc, that is something that should have been aimed for back then, rather than just shutting the lines without a single thought of the future.
I agree that some lines closed that should never have done and more should have been done to try and reduce costs, though I do wonder how the unions would have reacted to it in 1963. Cases of a branch line with one train running up and down it carrying one person or nobody at all were unsustainable though.
So many lines are reopening, short sighted terrible decisions which have cost more than they were ever expected to save. Network rail and privatisation is costing more than BR losses pre beeching. Varsity line from Oxford through MK to Cambridge and the Oxford direct to London are both being reinstated
They should have never passed his act. They should have temporary shut the stations and lines not making enough money until demand in the area grew back to which most areas now need this. Funny how things go full circle.
While I agree some lines should have been mothballed, some lines were complete no hopers though and in some cases should probably never have been built in the first place
Wherever you find a traffic bottle neck, you know you're near the route of one of the railways this man's report destroyed. I have one near me. They're going to solve it by... rebuilding the railway. Not on the same alignment, of course: they sold bits of the track bed to squeeze in another couple of houses and a car park or two. The most egregious act of economic and cultural vandalism by any civilised nation in the world.
Railway is still dearer per mile then the car as a journey. Thurrock To Harwich £40 Rtn PP. It's only North Essex! about £15 diesel in a car, an you could take 4 passengers. Southampton about £200 rtn ?
Not only Beeching cause damage to the UK Railways, Barbara Castle under the Tories party cause more damage by closing the Oxford to Cambridge line and the East West Rail Company is just starting to rebuild the line.
Perhaps the Beechingisation of the railways may have had its roots from before the First World War when the Great Western Railway built a couple of more direct roues such as the Badminton cut-off but then railways despite surviving two World Wars were to suffer from lack of further investment as politicians started to lobby for road transport and a programme of a much needed rail reshaping and Beeching report. Even if the road lobbying Transport Minister Ernest Marples appointed ICI's Dr Beeching as chairman of the British Transport Commission (later British Railways Board), he was not blameless for the reason as the conspiracy theorists love to think. In fact Beeching was much more mandate than Marples was whom regretted not been able to close more lines. Beeching's once said that closure programmes would bring £30m savings but this only brought £7m savings.
Beeching was the Ogre but ministers Who asked for it and approved it but hid behind Beeching he was right to push Intercity for Investment.. We now know that to regenerate any area good transport Road Rail Bus Trams Cycling but it has been a disastrous learning curve
it doesnt mention how as soon as these places were closed, all of the expensive infrastructure and land was sold off to companies for a pittance...not surprisingly owned or had a vested interest by politicians. The same thing run right up till thatcher got in and she sold off what was left. Then when the tories/labour got back in, they decided that they would open some of these lines back up, but very expensive surveys would have to be done on EXISTING track beds.... millions went into each of these surveys. then they had to go back and buy back the land from their cronies who had bought it for next to nothing.....couldnt possibly have been planned now, could it???? The politicians involved wit the surveying companies made a fortune, as with the privatization, many many politicians had a vested interest in these including railtrack. Beeching destroyed my home town which had not only a steelworks but a RNAD depot...now you tell me how they all travel by road???? The blatant lie was that small amounts of freight were moved at a time...really???? anyone with any eyes would see these huge freight engines hauling 40 or 50 wagons at a time....this went on 24/7. The small branch lines fed huge amounts of people into the main lines... but some of these small branch lines also offered a connection to towns and cities, not necessarily for work....it forced people out of the rural areas into cities...if you dont think all of this was planned, you need to read agenda 2030 by the UN (formerly 2021) and what is currently going on...its all connected to move and control the masses....the railway was a success but was always played down in the media to make people think it was terrible...but it was the railway that connected most of us and now it divides us. Ever wondered why the inions didnt fight it??? The unions are all part fo the issue, they are setup to do the behest of the politicians who are then told what to do by their paymasters. Unions will destroy, control indutries and they will pull the trigger and cause a strike went they are told to do so... incase you dont know, unions are an invention of the communist party... and act in a communist manner.. they have no interest in producing or wealth for its members...this is how they destroyed the likes of chrysler and the rest of the car plants in the UK...look back and see how weak they were during interactions on close downs, but see how agressive they were in causing strikes... the coal miners strikes during thatcher years shouldve seen the penny drop but it didnt.
The lines that should NEVER have closed!!!!!!! We could possibly forgive the branch lines if he wasn't a complete and Total Hypocrite..... he closed economic major trunk routes and mainlines, this drastic criminal folly for me includes prominently the East Lincolnshire Mainline Great Grimsby to Peterborough Great Central Mainline Varsity Line Oxford to Cambridge Stratford Upon Avon to Cheltenham. The Waverley route. Beverley to York LSWR Mainline Okehampton to Plymouth
One fact seems to have escaped the notice of many commentators, a LABOUR government was elected in October 1964 so they (and their union backers) could have stopped the whole process which had barely started had they either wanted to or saw it as a bad idea. Relying on economists is always a bad idea but, of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I just wish we could get it in advance!
A lot of drivel written here. Some facts: 1) Branch lines were, by the 50`s and 60`s, hardly used, yet still needed a driver, fireman and guard for the train, not forgetting the station masters, porters and signalmen needed along the route. Very costly exercise for so few passengers. 2) Many branch lines ran from nowhere much to nowhere in particular, and lost money from the day they were built. In fact my house is built on one, the old Salisbury to Christchurch line. 3) many of these lines were paralleled by another line, built by a long defunct rival railway. 4) Beeching didn`t close a single line, only the Govt could do that. 5) One irrefutable fact from Beechings findings: 50% of the network carried 95% of the traffic, the other 50% only 5%. It can fairly be said that Beeching saved Britain`s railways, it just couldn`t go on losing taxpayers money in the way it was. It was FAR too large a network then needed. There is no doubt that some of the methods used to carry out the rail traffic surveys were flawed, purely because the technology wasn`t there (i.e. computerised ticket systems) to be 100% accurate. I, for one, yearn for the rose tinted days of little tank engines pulling a couple of carriages through the leafy English countryside, ala Flanders and Swan, but I`m also realistic enough to know the railways by the early 60`s were an out of control massive drain on the public purse, and SOMEthing had to be done about it.
the statistics are faulty per definition. 50% of the network carried throught traffic ... the other 50% carried various point-to-point patterns of traffic but the most important factor is that the expense of buselising regional passenger traffic in the long run cost much more than evolving passenger trains from steam to 2nd generation dmus... even signaling would have evolved much quicker if the cuts had not put everything on limbo. If BR had waited a decade it could have completely dieselized and moved freight traffic to container or block /unit trains instead of not evolving by investing in massive obsolescent by definition sorting yards ... which closed 10 years after opening. One should compare british and american railways with others like japan ... wich when faced with the same problems invested in completely oposite solutions
I guess stations like Trent - didn't even have a town. The railways were duplicated and triplicated in some towns and cities. I love the mystique of the GC - but it would always be doomed as the LMS lot didnt want it! Remember Barbara Castle also closed down a shit load of miles of railways as well. Remember Beeching did bring about Inter CIty, MGR and Freightliner
Alistair Currah here is an idea. Make public transport more popular and convinient. It helps fund railways and helps save money on other forms of infrastructure. That's what a smart person would do when faced with such a social problem.. Guess smart people can't be used to push corperate agenda's so we don't want them in government right.
You make some good points and I understand some of the closures. The real problem was the destruction of the infrastructure with no future proofing. No thought to an increasing population etc... with some lines to be re opened at a later time. They also closed profitable railways as well by falcifing the costs on some lines.
May be answer is bring back the local lines and put on pump trucks that way people get fit the obese risk goes down and the theves cant steal the cables!!! that power the electric trains, think im on to a winner!!!
Yes the railway had it faults so does the airline industry, pub industry and so on.... but instead of working on those problems effectively it ended up with a situation of "inside story - Old, Dirty & Late (93) programme which is >>>>>>>. BUT! we didn't invest at that time as much as it needed but now we subisidise more NOW then we ever did when BR was around... People are quick to blame Labour for destroying BR but it was actually John Major who destroyed BR... Labour did nothing granted to stop but if we copied the railways in Germany, France, Japan and China we will have a good railway but multi companies running our railway is only good for one thing... the blame game when something goes wrong the railway operators and network rail who have a specific team who argue who's to blame... we led to a culture of money and blame yes we have modern ish trains in some areas BUT we don't build trains in this country anymore... Siemiens (350,450,444) built in.... Germany, Pendolino's some built in Birmingham but then later in Spain, 220's/221/222 built in Belgium our only saving graces are the fact the HST are built in the UK. Deltics, 47/57, Super Sprinter Units, turbostars are built in the UK... we loose BR but we also lost a trend of BR led engineering factories then taken over and eventually closed... its like we've killed our railway and our railway manufactering industries... it was a horrible ripple effect.. another grace is the fact that Network Rail are actively seeking to reopen lines that haven't seen a train since the 60's. Yes Network rail is CURRENTLY (but soon could go to private company thanks the tories) owned by the goverment so in a way yes we have a sort of british rail but we don't because of the multi train operators that are private evil money grabbing rail operators.
Yes it's amazing how much money is suddenly available now for the railways, having killed off BR, BREL, BR Reseach Derby etc. I can't take much pride in Crossrail etc. when the trains are all of foreign design, and, for a country that's meant o be struggling economically did we really need Crossrail at this time (that displaced IC125 due to being unsuitable for under London working)? You forgot IC225 being of UK manufacture, incorporating some APT technology in the Class 91s, may be not as iconic as IC125 but a good effort.
I'm off tomorrow night and eat grapes of wrath of khan university hospital they're hypnotic you like a plan gonna phone round here haha I'm jealous because it's your birthday and two weeks could be your loyal slave sometime how about a drinking competition sometime we should definitely meet
Wow - what an astonishingly one sided documentary. Plenty of anti-closure points made throughout the programme but anything shown in favour of closures was dismissed as 'propaganda'. Whether the closures described here were good or bad, the documentary maker really should give a clear presentation of both sides and allow the viewer to make their mind up.
This film ignores the Second Beeching report which covered the development of the railways which gave us the container trains amongst other improvement. BR tried to get British businesses to use container trains but without success. Mostt of the anti-Beeching comments here are by those wearing rose-tinted glasses. In 1961 BR was losing £300,000 per day. After Beeching left Britain's economy was in free-fall, cause by Conservative mismanagement between 1951 and 1964, ending with the devaluation of the Pound by 14% in November 1967, preventing Labour from reversing the Beeching cuts.
I don’t live in the UK but someone told me that Beeching “saved BR” meaning that BR was bleeding money and what would have happened if Beeching never existed? There would have still been cuts as was common in the ‘60s and later in Australia. Still, I get the impression that Beeching was over enthusiastic and had an agenda as I understand he was on loan from ICI which had vested interests. Similar thing happened in Victoria in 1980s with the Lonie Report which he recommened that all railways close except for suburban and Geelong services. The Liberal (conservative) government realised that this was political suicide and moderated the cuts somewhat although many of his recommendations were carried out over the next 12 years instead of immediately. Some branchlines closed but inter-urban and outer urban services remained, such as Seymour Bairnsdale and Bacchus Marsh to name a couple. Lonie was formerly from BHP which had vested interests in roads.
@@darylcheshire1618 ICI, Imperial Chemical Industries, was not involved with roads other than using them to move their products (they also used the railways). But you are correct someone was going to have to look seriously at how BR was operating. Marples, the Transport Mjnister, allegedly had vested interests coming from a road building company, he was MD of Matpkes Ridgeway until becoming a junior Minister under Churchill in 1951. He retained 80% of the company's shares. After becoming Transport Minister he eventually sold his shares to his wife, but not before Marples Ridgeway had won several contract. There is, however, no evidence of his involvement or more crucially lack of involvement in any of these decisions.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Marples resigned his directorship in Marples Ridgeway in Oct 1961 as he was required to do so by Parliamentary law. From that point he had no involvement in the day to day running or contract negotiations of his old firm. He was required by that same parliamentary law to dispose of his shareholding. This he did not do and it was revealed in the press in 1960, that he still had his shareholding in his old company. Whilst it is recorded in Hansard that he said" perhaps I should sell the shares to my wife." (sic) his wife stated in two newspaper interviews that she had received nothing in the way of shares from her husband. She said this in spite of being constantly harassed by newspaper reporters at the time. Equally no hard evidence or any proof has been forth coming as to where his shares went. It is assumed that they went into a blind trust as ministers and above use today. But equally they could nave gone into an overseas trust as Marples had interests in Lichtenstein. Again the jury is still out on this matter, certainly a research project for someone at companies house, if the info still exists. In the mid 1990s Dr Terry Gourvish an academic from the University f London was approached by BR to write a history of BR from Integration to Privatization. He and his team of researchers were give access to BRs private archive. Their research revealed that Marples was not influenced in any way by the road lobby.
@@michaelhearn3052 most sources say he resigned as Director of Marples Ridgway in November 1951 shortly after becoming a Junior Minister although he retained his shares. His first attempt to sell his shares was blocked by the Attorney General as he was using Reg Ridgway as an agent for the sale. Do you have the date for the Hansard report you mentioned? Most sources state categorically he sold his shares to his wife.
The main line through Matlock between Derby, Buxton and Manchester was very heavily used. It was also a very popular tourist route. The line was surveyed on a Bank Holiday Monday when there was very little traffic, result? Beeching axed the line.
the labour party never beeching. he had no power
@@bobtudbury8505 and the Tories. They both wanted to get rid of the haemorrhaging losses of £500m
Beeching went about a reshaping in the wrong way. Many ideas he had concerning intercity trains and bulk freight were ahead of his time but he will be forever remembered for the gross shortsightedness of the report. As John Betjeman said when he went by train in 1963. "In ten years from now when the roads are so full of traffic you'll be glad you still have a railway to your town. Don't let Dr. Beeching take it away from you".
It was not Beeching who was responsible for cutting the railways. It was the MP Ernest Marples, who instructed Beeching to do the job - and why? Because Ernest Marples owned a road building company! It was in his own self-interest to deplete the extent of the railways!
A rather rose tinted view. It was the British public who killed the rail network, deserting it in droves to embrace the motor car. And that's before we even get started on fare dodging (which was rife) and theft, by both rail employee's and the general public.
So how do you account for all the closures when he was no longer a minister during the time of the Labour government?
Which is very well illustrated at the end of the previous episode ‘Modernisation’ which is now thankfully available th-cam.com/video/j-T3j8qALIw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=DWXBNb25TqOeFKmV
What makes me so mad it the destruction of the rail bridges and letting the track routes rot, so we could never undo this evil man's damage. So many of the track routes could have been converted into roads and then eventually back to track and they should have preserved bridges for the future.
Kiinell many bridges and trackbed stretches were used for roads.
IT WAS LABOUR NOT BEECHING
@@funguyfarage3615 It was Earnest Marples who started Beeching off btw Marples owned a road building company that he transferred to his wife
What a mess we inherited now crowded roads
Totally agree. We lost some many branchlines here in Wales such as the Swansea to Brecon Railway which ran through the valleys up to Brecon. We should have an efogy of Beeching on bonfire night. He's the butcher of our railways.
I was only 13 at the time but knew that one day, in the future, road traffic would become unbearable. Looking at all those disused railways now is a sad reflection. Many of those dismantled branch lines could have been turned into cheap to run and environmentally friendly light tramways that would have served communities in the Welsh Valleys and elswhere. What a fantastic transport network we could have had if only someone could have shown a little foresight.
Should never have been nationalised. Beeching worked from the then-common belief that railways were like canals were in 1890; an outdated, declining mode of transport. But he failed to foresee or allow for the more-than-doubling of passenger numbers since privatization.
There have been some truly dreadful decisions made and this was one of the worst ideas implemented anyone could have and we reap a terrible price for this incompetence.
The lines should have been mothballed for future use. Now that motorways & roads across the country are at capacity there’s never been a better time to move back to the railway.
OMG what absolutely madness 😩 How we'd love these lines back now seeing the congestion on our roads now 🙈 Look no mobile phones and people smoking lol 😂 Hopefully some of it will return 👍🏻
Keep the smoking away - that's what we can do without
the only cost cutting that is efective is sacking the politicians/burocrats
Ah, been a while since I saw that old Channel 4 ident. Good times.
BEECHING worked for EARNEST MARPLES, the same EARNEST MARPLES who Lord Denning (whilst presiding over the Profumo affair enquiry) stated 'probably used prostitutes'. The same EARNEST MARPLES who was making millions building roads, The same EARNEST MARPLES who was behind the closure of the Great Central route which is now to be replaced by HS2 at a cost likely to exceed £50 billion. Also the same EARNEST MARPLES who HM Tax Inspectors discovered had left this country to reside in France when they tried to visit him regarding outstanding tax issues going back to 1945. BEECHING was either a naive and guillible hitman or he knew and thus was in on it! Once again, the British taxpayers are paying for the corruption and will do so for many years to come!
+JOHN WALTON - Exactly. You summarize the situation perfectly. I guess that Beeching was not naive; he probably got given a huge back-hander. The whole thing was corrupt. On many branch lines passenger counts were taken only after key connections were cut.
Certainly corruption, and the 'Old Boy Network' looking after its members at the expense of the public as always. It didn't matter whether Beeching was incompetent or badly informed, I think it would have happened anyway. The road traffic lobby were keen to kill off the railways, much as they did in the USA.
Thanks for your comments Bill.Since I first wrote 12 months ago the government has revised the cost up to £61.5 billion (fractionally less than the original £32 billion forecast). PRODIGAL POLITICIANS? Money is easy for them to spend wastefully when they haven't had to graft to get it!
beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
funguy farage so you mean it is Harold Wilson's govt (1964-1970; Labour) who is to blame? It is very complex and similar things happened all over Europe in the mid 60s and later on. In Bergen Norway they lost both the tramway and the suburban railway in 1965, for example.
May be Beeching was in the wrong job, railways are expensive and cost money to run. But when they close and the land is sold your stuffed forever.
The Somerset and Dorset didn't have to close, it was still making a profit and it would lot quicker and cheaper to go from the South West to the Midlands and the North today. The old Bournemouth West station site is now a car park full of coaches which travel around the country instead of more environmentally friendly trains.
The South has the most investment in Railways today. They got off lucky. Parts of the UK such as the North East of Scotland lost up to 90% of their Railways. The largest region in Scotland and second most populous now has just 2 lines with 10 services a day between them.
Actually by the 1960s it was the most absurd branch line in the UK more than 60 miles (100k) long and only three passenger trains each way. With its steep grades which required specialised superpower in the form of the SD 2 8 O, double headed.West Country Bulleids and 9Fs. Other branches 15 miles long may have had added useful heavy summer traffic justifying their continuance to 1970 or later but the Somerset and Dorset should have been closed and reduced to two branches by 1959 a 20 mile branch north from Bournemouth to serve the coal mines and public school town and a 20 mile link branch south from Bath to connect with other east west trunk lines
@@Gorantaylis and what was the population at the time and how much industry? The size of the region is not important compared to the population levels. The population level is an indicator of the potential passenger levels. The industrialisation levels are good indicator of how much freight could be attracted to the rails (yes, rural areas can send their products by rail but those products are seasonal).
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Fishing, agriculture, timber, and of course oil and gas production. The NE is abundant with resources.
@@Gorantaylis so all products that can be conveyed by other means. The first 3 will need to be transhipped to rail vehicles with agriculture being seasonal and the last 2 put into pipes (pipelines having been in use since before WW2 for this purpose).
If only Mr Beeching was alive to see how crap the trains and buses are now.
How could a man so convinced that railways were unnecessary ever be put in charge of the national railway? Beeching was in the pay of ICI, he made his money from building roads and road vehicles. The conflict of interests he had against the railway is astoundingly obvious... His very appointment was either an act of insanity, or immense corruption through all levels of government. How was this allowed to happen? How was nobody jailed? This was a criminal act, on a massive scale.
Because he was put in charge of BR and by Ernest Marples, the then transport minister who was chairman of a motorway building company. And commissioned by Marples to give him the results he wanted. Isn't there a certain 'Yes Minister' quote to the effect of "Never host a commission unless you know what the results will be"?
As the old saying goes "Good people don't need laws to tell them how to act. Bad people don't care about following laws. And the worst people always find a way to be the ones writing them".
To answer that question, of how could someone convinced railways are unnecessary be put in charge, just look at the beliefs of Jeremy Hunt and the state of the health service after his tenure.. It's what Tories ALWAYS do, they pick out a bit of infrastructure for today's spree of hack & slash and they put in charge someone who loaths it. Then just sit back and wait for it to all tumble down.
please learn facts, beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
Funguy Farange is only partly right it is true that Harold Wilson partly saw Beeching report to the MacMillan government, as very much in tune with as white hot technological revolution, Labour was calling for with people getting cars to take the family on trips and getting rid of all those branch lines with hardly used by passengers which trains were.pulled bytank engines which looked like 1790s French steam cars, the LSWR 4 4 O or GWR 0 4 2 However when Beeching delivered his second report Pt2 as Chairman of British Rail was delivered to Wilson the new Labour MP in 1965 the report prefigured the Sepril report delivered to Thatcher circa 1982 and recommended the railways to a core mainline system. Wilson fired Beeching the following day
@@frederickmiles327 as stated all facts...... Beeching made recommendations...... Labour hacked the railways to bits. A lot more then beeching proposed. Report one....... It was labour again
What is not mentioned as often as it should be is that Ernest Marples was head of the ROAD construction company Marples Ridgeway. Just the job for the minister of transport. He said he had no interest as all the shares were in his wife's name. An all-party committee of MP's didn't give Marples what he wanted so he called in Beeching who was head of ICI and a personal friend. The late Professor John Tyme stated on Television that both had interests in road transport and scrap metal. Needless to say he was never on tv again... Thinking that Beeching was doing the railways a big favour by trying to make them profitable is delusional. It was all corrupt from the start - timetables were altered to make it hard work to use the trains and figures massaged. In fact 'corruption' doesn't even begin to cover it.
I wish more people would research this mass scale of vandalism. When will people learn that these changes are made to benefit the few.
Not to mention that he fled the country in the mid 70s because of 30 years of tax evasion so he was greedy to the core, typical politician looking after his own interests ahead of the people hes meant to serve
To be fair, although the 'Beeching cuts' are now widely considered a mistake, there was a lot of financial problems with the railways at the time, and Beeching was simply hired as an accountant by the government to give recommendations. The railway network was built in the 19th century before there was any competition with cars, lorries and planes. By the 60s many stations and lines were losing a lot of money; in fact most stations actually closed in the 50s before Beeching.
Today, the railways face the opposite problem, ever increasing passenger numbers with a network that's at full capacity. Many stations have been reopened and new railway lines such as Crossrail and HS2 are being constructed.
It showed Broad Street station at one point, which was to close itself two years after filming
Sat in traffic jam between Buckfastleigh and Exeter on Sunday for 2hrs, oh how I hate Beeching !
beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
Join the Club!
@@funguyfarage3615 and would they pay the detention? Due to Tory mismanagement if the economy during the 1950s and early-1960s, Labour was force to spend money on defending the Pound and finally devaluing the Pound by 14%. All because the Tory economic policies were a sham.
Only 2 hours,the roads must be improving
How short sighted Beeching was !
He should of gone to specsavers.
You're a star for uploading this, thank you.
Well I'm sure that they'd all be very proud of themselves now.We have some of the worst transport infrastructure in the industrial world and a public transportation system to be truly ashamed of!
0:26 AHHH! My blood runs cold. Possibly the scariest picture of Beeching ever taken...
Looks a bit like Hitler
@@dronespace that's it! That's who he reminds me of. WTF Britain, didn't you make it a point never to negotiate with a man who looks like that?
Here in the states Beeching is called CSX and Conrail..............
I grew up in 50/60s,and still live in Stockport, and the amount of railway in the town was amazing,a lot of freight, but when it came to passenger service, the focus was the WCML, there was also the Midland main line,both routes serving both Manchester and London..with the congestion now on the roads,closing the Midland route to Manchester,Derby etc;was a mistake.I have looked at timetables, from the 60s, and the Midland route had a poor service, in comparison to the WCML.The strange thing about this,is most of the route from Manchester, to a few miles from Stockport, has re-opened, as a tram route, and about 3 miles further south, is now the route from Stockport-Sheffield(with the help of a chord line, built about 30 yrs ago)..most of the line that was built in 1902,still exists,,but has been built on in some parts,since its closure in 1967....The route from Stockport-Marple,had a 13-15 min journey time, and now it takes anything up to 45 mins for the same journey,by road,because of congestion..This will never be resurrected,because that too to has been built on,with a motorway and plans to build on other parts of the route has been approved..
Should some lines have stayed open? Yes
We’re some closures justified? Or course.
It’s hard to view the decisions made at the time through our eyes 50 years later. The reality is many lines never met their original objectives and were hard to justify 100 years after being built. Traffic flows ebb and change and much of the freight traffic had gone. Transport infrastructure needs to change as new technologies develop. Just because a service was needed in 1870 didn’t mean it still was in 1970.
1963: The end of the line
Richard Beeching's brief as chairman of the British Transport Commission was simple: "Make the railways pay".
British Rail was losing £140m a year when Dr Beeching took over the commission. His solution, announced on 27 March 1963, was equally straightforward - massive cuts.
The Conservative government welcomed the report, but thousands of people - many in remote rural areas - were horrified they would lose their local branch lines.
Opposition from the pressure groups failed and during the 1960s "Beeching's Axe" fell on 2,128 stations and more than 67,000 British Rail jobs.
If the Beeching cuts were so unpopular, why did it take decades before they started reversing the process?
DDD BBB If you look at Beeching’s wiki, some lines were reinstated and some were never cut and others modified over many years.
@@darylcheshire1618 I'd like to have modified Beeching's arse with my foot.
Only became politically possible when the traffic decline was turned round + road optimism went out
Railways wasn't in Beechings interest. He was brought in from ICI and was more interested in roads...typically the wrong man for the job .... We all know how politicians work 🤔
Regarding the TUCCs and hardship, my understanding is that hardship was defined in such a way that if a replacement bus could be provided there was deemed to be no hardship
The problem was the insisting on profitability on a public service
The railways were already losing freight to the roads by the time the Beeching report came along
A several part series on why the phrase " were from the government and we are here to help " is the most dangerous phrase.....
Beeching was a tory.... put into the railway by the tories.. and his wife.. well she was in the road building industry so he know closing parts of the railway would mean he and his wife would make more money because they would need to build more roads to transport people and goods. He seen it as a great benefit to himself and his wife and sod others.... it wasn't about "find something and then be good" at that i.e. Intercity travel (fast travel) it was about closing the railway to make him and his wife more cash!...
IT WAS LABOUR NOT BEECHING
Just shows how bent and evil both labour and conservative really are, and the sheep of this country keep voting for the scum.
Shocked that the rail unions at least according to this film did very little. I wonder what the moden day RMT would have made of an attack like this.
Take the Taunton- Barnstaple line for example. An amazing engineering achievement which, today, would cost a billion pounds with its tunnels, viaducts, cuttings etc. BUT- it managed to avoid most centres of population and ran empty trains for its last few years.
Yes,it would have become a wonderful Heritage line but no one could have paid for its upkeep while waiting for that to happen. Beeching was given a job to do and he did it; the fault, if any, was with the politicians.
I agree what you say about Beeching (and the fact that by the mid-1960'd most of the population couldn't leave the trains for private cars fast enough) but the problem persists where there simply isn't capacity for mass car ownership. This is the real failing about democracy where there is too much freedom - restricting peoples use of their car would be electoral suicide for any political party hence the ever growing amount of cars on the rpad and to hell with the consequences
***** the economics of rail travel simply don't really stack up unless they are used on almost industrial levels - like the subway system of any major city - Singapore, Paris and London spring to mind.Otherwise they are simply too costly to run.Take the UK - train travel accounts for barely 6% of all journeys and just look at the expense in subsidy from the taxpayer.A study from Greece last year showed that it would be cheaper to close the entire network down and provide all the passengers with taxis! U have never really understood why people would rather travel by car between cities rather than sleep/read/daydream on a fast train - but then perhaps that's just me.
The problem in the US is that the only HSR line currently ix the NE Corridor, Washington DC to Boston. Most of the nation don't have the luxury of fast trains.
@@revol148 the road network also doesn’t pay its way,when you look at the construction and maintenance costs as well as the human cost and cost to the health services with the DAILY FATALITIES AND LIFE CHANGING INJURIES
The chaotic introductory music says it all; as does the comment- softening up of the public-oh dear. We were cheated, nothing less!
Perhaps if Beeching had been forced to travel between a few of these towns by bus he would have admitted how impossible his ideas were. But like virtually all governments he was in it for personal gain and profit rather than serving the people.
In 1964, the rail line from Beenleigh in Queensland, Australia to Southport on the Gold Coast was closed despite great opposition. In 1996 a line from Beenleigh was reopened on a new alignment, 28 km to Helensvale and has since been extended south another 21km with a proposition for track duplications and a further extension to the Gold Coast airport. This line is electrified (25 kV) and now connects two of the main cities in the state.
The more I look at this Beeching thing, the crazier it seems.
One of the worst decisions ever made to our once loved railway system.Such short sighted attitudes in those days,boardering on sheer madness. Yes the lunatics were running the asylum,and are still to this day. Railways should always be run by railwaymen...period.
do you think that people in the 1950s actually "loved" their railway? Enthusiasts excluded of course!
Harold MacMillan who appointed Beeching was a former director of the GWR. The GWR was financed by variation in the dividends. In a bad year the shareholds would get only a minimal dividend or nothing. In the eyes of MacMillan British rail in 1948-55 while breaking even roughly in operating terms overall, had to finance its reequipment purely by loans which had to be repaid plus interest. Therefore by about 1954 MacMillan hadd concluded British Rail was worth nothing and would only produce accumulating losses. Harolds old railway seems a fairly marginal operation much in Cornwall, Devon and particulary wales being increasingly unprofitable while still post Nationalisation the western region ran in direct unproductive competiton with the Southern Region thru SW England to Exeter and Plymouth and to Birmingham with the London Midland region. Much of the continuing need for the SD would seem to have been because of these continuing old company allignments - as plenty of outher routings would have been possible to Bornemouth from the Midlands.
North London Line now part of Ovwrground round London Route and is packed...Broad Street gone but route now is vital London Link..
People blame Beeching. But it was Marples the Minister for Transport who told Beeching to do it. Marples company was building roads all over the UK including the M1. It was Marples who wanted to line his own pockets building roads.
Maples was a director of Marples Ridgeway (MR) and resigned his directorship in of that company in Oct 1961 when he became a Junior Cabinet minister, as he was required to do so by Parliamentary law; as ministers and above are required to do so today. From that moment onward he had no day to day involvement in the running of his old firm and was no a party to any contract negotiations. MR had no involvement in building the M1. It was built under the Special Roads Act 1949 by Tarmac and John Lang. IIRC Marples was Minister of Transport at the time when he officially opened it IIRC on 2 Nov 1959. Similar arguments could be made when he was in Housing. Beechings work was centered around a series of passenger and freight surveys taken on the entire network week ending 23 April 196, for which the Beeching 1 report was produced, and is viewable on the Railways Archive website as a pdf. The report, when published, did nor gain favour with Marple's or Macmillan the PM of the time who was concerned with its effect on key marginal seats and its impact on the tory vote. Note that the Tory's were all out of office in 1964.
anybody who says or thinks busses replace trains - i guarantee uses neither
For both Beeching and many politicians in 1951 - 1982 it was all about managing decline and Railways were very much seen as a sunset industry post war in the United States and UK. The general perception of the time was the future growth and dynamism would be concentrated in South, capital (London) and the Midlands Birmingham etc. Beeching did not really approve of extending electrification from London to Liverpool , Manchester as and Glasgow. Declining sunset cities in his view and was completely opposed electrifying the east coast main line and as early as his follow up 1965 report suggested closing it past Newcastle, one route to Birmingham and Scotland was all Brit rail required. Although of course an alt argument was Edinburgh could be served by an improved electrified link(off the WCML) from Carlisle over the Waverley.
There's something about Beeching's face that makes me want to hate him but I can't quite put my finger on it. He just looks like someone who has a predisposition to destroy rather than create. Maybe it's just me.
I could use Beeching face as a punch bag,
I find it ironic that Beeching noted that the passenger systems have peak travel periods with less traffic outside of the usual commuting hours. Does not the same thing happen on the motorways and secondary roads? And there are roads in rural areas that do not get that much traffic, per Beeching those should be torn up thus saving on their costs of upkeep.
What a foolish comment.
beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
Hi wher can i find the whole series pls. i live in south devon in teignmouth and am interested in all info i can get about the railways in and around my area, phots vids, maps, very good program though, bit said its all gone, but good news some funding there to bring some back to life
His wife had shares in a road building busness so inorder for him to make a ripp off he killed off the railway
Marples owned the shares and got wife to look after them as would have been a conflict of interest lol
@@goodwood-rc4nx not true. Mention of this is recorded in Hansard in 1960, and his wife denied receiving any shares from him and she told this in two newspaper interviews, in spite of being harassed by newspaper reporters at the time. Indeed you do not sell the shares to your wife, but transfer them, that is assuming she is a director of the firm anyway. That would be a conflict of interest, and to date, no hard proof or evidence has been produced as to where they went.... so far. It is suspected they went into a blind trust as cabinet ministers and above are required by parliamentary law (to dispose of their shareholdings), or an overseas trust as Marples had financial interests in Lichtenstein.
I know breaching was far from perfect but he was just a consultant and lines were shut he did not recommend for closure and visa versa. If these cuts never happened in the 60s things would have been even worse and the serpell report could have come in. Closures would have included the east coast mainline from Newcastle to edinbrough!
was Breaching related to that other famous controversial figure of the time Beechams ?!
@6.00 mins. How wrong she was as well. She mentioned that Beeching overestimated car ownership. "Cars per person' really is the case today, not cars per family. My next door neighbours are a typical mum, dad, and a teenage daughter, all three of them own their own car.
The problem is the car is more than transport but people believe they NEED a car or want one for status they are car-dependant and 'a good walk' is 1/2 a mile not at least two; but considerable modal choice impacts (i.e. car ownership) have been greatly influenced by removal of the rail network density. A great many of the small towns in the 1960s are now larger (in excess of 20,000 population) and without a station but could sustain a station.
it was the labour party that closed all the lines inc some not on beechings report . Afterwards the labour party then gave beeching an award
See the old boy at around 18:50 casually flick ash all over the floor. "Much loved railways"? Dont be silly!
My goodness, what a fantastic insight to the " Butcher of the Railways " My 7 year old Granddaughter could have done a better job.
Typical Accountant, Bottom line & no thought into the future. This guy should have been charged with, Rape of the Railways !
" Looked ahead into the next 20 years " yeah right, as for Earnest Marples, bloody hell, even Dick Turpin wore a mask.
Do I need to say any more ?
beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
beeching? he only recommended. the labour party cut some of his proposals BUT cut a lot more then he didn't propose. IT WAS LABOUR NOT BEECHING
Marples had a road building firm. God help us. What a bloody crook.
@@stephenreeds3672 Of course, Marples Ridgeway based in Bath. What a bunch of crooks !!
8:01 "Strangely" is no explanation!
Without denying that Beeching was a Tory policy, as in Marples, the cuts continued under the Labour govt too. I remember how this series was utterly Labour biased, a blatant throwing out of the old value of TV impartiality, '+ how frustrating + oppressive that was in the era of TV given to us one-sidedly, before there was any web to react to it on.
The rail unions' attitude over Beeching clearly did not fit her Labour agenda + we see her here stuck for any way to spin it.
It is in my strongest opinion that as a first starting point network rail should be using compulsory purchase and reinstating all of the below where heritage services don't apply as a starting point of regaining a properly structured railway network
Introduced to the British public simply as chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) Beeching's link to explosives and nuclear weapons was never mentioned.
After a stint at the Woolwich Arsenal designing anti-tank weapons in World War II, Beeching had been moved on to the top secret ‘Tube Alloys’ project which was a cover for the development of the first British atomic weapons. At Royal Ordnance’s secret Fort Halstead base under the North Downs near Sevenoaks in Kent, Cottrell reveals, Beeching’s expertise in metallurgy made a key contribution to Britain’s rudimentary nuclear arsenal. The success of Britain’s 1950s atomic testing program brought Beeching the top job at ICI.
Qualifications in metallurgy and state-of-the-art explosives were not, you might think, the ideal qualification for a man whose job was to go through the accounts of British Railways with a fine toothed comb. No, the reason Beeching was hired was because the Conservative government had already decided his job was chop up the railways to make way for the motor car and they needed a figurehead that could keep his mouth shut.
www.rt.com/op-edge/205547-beeching-railway-network-britain/
Thank you for a very accurate statement regarding Beeching. You are absolutely right about him keeping his mouth shut.It is common knowledge that he was a friend of Marples,so we can readilly assume why he was selected. I think he kept his mouth shut about many issues regarding Marples. These could include Marples' involvement with Profumo and his chums, benefiting from road building contracts and outstanding HMRC issues. Beeching did keep his mouth shut. Maples fled to Monaco (a few hours before HMRC made a visit to his home in 1975). However, I recall Beeching's widow saying 'Marples made him do it' when interviewed by a TV reporter regarding Beeching's axe. To surmise, I firmly believe the very polished Beeching covered for a very distasteful,spurious EARNEST MARPLES (former Conservative MP, Minister of Transport,Director of Marples Rigeway etc.).
@@johnwalton6642 He was a former director of Marples Ridgeway, having resigned his directorship in Oct 1951, when he was made a junior cabinet minister, as ministers and above are required to do so today, in accordance with Parliamentary Law. From that moment onwards he had no involvement in the day to day running or contract negotiations in his former company.
close the North London line , was so shot sighted . Boris and his gang have now spent millions re opening it.
A person that thinks a government service is useless is put in charge to fix it.
And it then unexpectedly goes to shit. If only that was predictable lol.
Luckilly that does not happen anymore nowdays lol......
as people have said at least 1/3 of what was closed would be very well used these days if had no been ripped up
Beeching had the right idea..you cannot continue to pay for routes that are expensive to maintain..I do strongly feel however, he over-did it, and the sources he used to make his decisions,may have been unreliable..Cutting off the arteries, that fed the main line, was a mistake,he isolated communities, who relied on the railways.The friendship of him with Marples, leaves a lot to be disried,as Marples was in road construction..The only problem was, the boom of the private car,road haulage went beyond what was expected,and Marples was making money on this..The promises of buses replacing branch lines, was at the time, a good alternative, but because they too, lost money, were withdrawn.The sell off of the railway land means routes that are needed today, cannot be re-instated..Beeching closed routes that today,proved to be a mistake..because the land has been built on..I have copies of the Beeching report, and there is a lot I agree with,but a lot I feel was very short-sighted..he closed my local station,and a route that today is badly needed,because of the traffic problems..but they will never be re-opened, because parts of it has a motorway on it, or built on,because the land was sold off...We could argue this for a long time, so that is my point of view..
beeching was given the job of recomedding only....the following labour party ignored some of his cuts but CUT a whole lot more then beeching proposed .........THE UK LABOUR PARTY AGAIN!
The conservatives recommended it and Labour went through with it. They are just as bad as each other.
Strange that the line in London was able to be saved - an area served by many bus routes, numerous roads and other rail lines not too far away, yet in the countryside - especially the Welsh valleys where there simply was no alternative other than a very long detour via road - in some cases 40+ miles, whereas the railway cut through a tunnel and covered a fraction of that distance to reach the same point. Criminal that all those villages were left stranded like that. It was a public railway - for the public, paid from peoples taxes. I am sure the people that lived in those villages and communities out in the country paid the same amount of tax per £ that people in the larger towns and cities paid. Yes, i totally agree that money needed to be saved on the railways, but shutting so many vital lines was not the way to do it. Just look at how money is saved today on the railway, driver only operated trains, unmanned stations etc, that is something that should have been aimed for back then, rather than just shutting the lines without a single thought of the future.
I agree that some lines closed that should never have done and more should have been done to try and reduce costs, though I do wonder how the unions would have reacted to it in 1963. Cases of a branch line with one train running up and down it carrying one person or nobody at all were unsustainable though.
where are parts 1-4 then?
So many lines are reopening, short sighted terrible decisions which have cost more than they were ever expected to save. Network rail and privatisation is costing more than BR losses pre beeching. Varsity line from Oxford through MK to Cambridge and the Oxford direct to London are both being reinstated
what about the worst closure the Waverley Route? part of this is now re opening
Aberystwyth to Carmarthen is one that needs to reopen - a 45 mile journey that currently takes 6 hours by train via England (!)
Holiday just using the train for a wk around the UK would cost the same as going on a cruise (inner cabin) for 7 days
You could run up a very high mileage on the train in that week
They should have never passed his act. They should have temporary shut the stations and lines not making enough money until demand in the area grew back to which most areas now need this. Funny how things go full circle.
While I agree some lines should have been mothballed, some lines were complete no hopers though and in some cases should probably never have been built in the first place
Wherever you find a traffic bottle neck, you know you're near the route of one of the railways this man's report destroyed. I have one near me. They're going to solve it by... rebuilding the railway. Not on the same alignment, of course: they sold bits of the track bed to squeeze in another couple of houses and a car park or two. The most egregious act of economic and cultural vandalism by any civilised nation in the world.
what was the railway equivalent of the M25?
@@steveluckhurst2350 Any major terminus, since the trains either moved slowly or were stationary.
@@TheGalacticEmperorOfLabels haha. seriously, was there a London orbital railway?
@@steveluckhurst2350 No, but perhaps there should be, with different lines for businessmen, ordinary people, and chavs.
20 years !
Peter Hall 20 years what...?
this is way the railways are a mess
Railway is still dearer per mile then the car as a journey. Thurrock To Harwich £40 Rtn PP. It's only North Essex! about £15 diesel in a car, an you could take 4 passengers. Southampton about £200 rtn ?
Somebody should make something abut Dai Woodam.
4:32 7th March 1996 David Bowman died at the age of 82.
This "Modernisation Plan" was too good to be true
Not only Beeching cause damage to the UK Railways, Barbara Castle under the Tories party cause more damage by closing the Oxford to Cambridge line and the East West Rail Company is just starting to rebuild the line.
Just to correct you there. Barbara Castle was a Labour MP and Minister of Transport in a Labour Wilson Government post 1964.
Perhaps the Beechingisation of the railways may have had its roots from before the First World War when the Great Western Railway built a couple of more direct roues such as the Badminton cut-off but then railways despite surviving two World Wars were to suffer from lack of further investment as politicians started to lobby for road transport and a programme of a much needed rail reshaping and Beeching report.
Even if the road lobbying Transport Minister Ernest Marples appointed ICI's Dr Beeching as chairman of the British Transport Commission (later British Railways Board), he was not blameless for the reason as the conspiracy theorists love to think. In fact Beeching was much more mandate than Marples was whom regretted not been able to close more lines. Beeching's once said that closure programmes would bring £30m savings but this only brought £7m savings.
in USA, the gov't gives great support to highways & airports but NOTHING for railroads. This outrageous. Our politicians are very poor.
sorry but did Dr Beeching just say he looked ahead 20 years......I CALL BS ON THAT >XO
and he got a peerage to boot.
Labour government shut most of the railways between 1964 to 1970. Not Beeching😂
Beeching was the Ogre but ministers
Who asked for it and approved it but hid behind Beeching he was right to push Intercity for Investment..
We now know that to regenerate any area good transport Road Rail Bus Trams Cycling but it has been a disastrous learning curve
it doesnt mention how as soon as these places were closed, all of the expensive infrastructure and land was sold off to companies for a pittance...not surprisingly owned or had a vested interest by politicians. The same thing run right up till thatcher got in and she sold off what was left. Then when the tories/labour got back in, they decided that they would open some of these lines back up, but very expensive surveys would have to be done on EXISTING track beds.... millions went into each of these surveys. then they had to go back and buy back the land from their cronies who had bought it for next to nothing.....couldnt possibly have been planned now, could it???? The politicians involved wit the surveying companies made a fortune, as with the privatization, many many politicians had a vested interest in these including railtrack. Beeching destroyed my home town which had not only a steelworks but a RNAD depot...now you tell me how they all travel by road???? The blatant lie was that small amounts of freight were moved at a time...really???? anyone with any eyes would see these huge freight engines hauling 40 or 50 wagons at a time....this went on 24/7. The small branch lines fed huge amounts of people into the main lines... but some of these small branch lines also offered a connection to towns and cities, not necessarily for work....it forced people out of the rural areas into cities...if you dont think all of this was planned, you need to read agenda 2030 by the UN (formerly 2021) and what is currently going on...its all connected to move and control the masses....the railway was a success but was always played down in the media to make people think it was terrible...but it was the railway that connected most of us and now it divides us. Ever wondered why the inions didnt fight it??? The unions are all part fo the issue, they are setup to do the behest of the politicians who are then told what to do by their paymasters. Unions will destroy, control indutries and they will pull the trigger and cause a strike went they are told to do so... incase you dont know, unions are an invention of the communist party... and act in a communist manner.. they have no interest in producing or wealth for its members...this is how they destroyed the likes of chrysler and the rest of the car plants in the UK...look back and see how weak they were during interactions on close downs, but see how agressive they were in causing strikes... the coal miners strikes during thatcher years shouldve seen the penny drop but it didnt.
Has anyone else noticed Beechings' "hitler" mustache!? Funny that..
yes, who could forget that Hitler was a fat, bald man with a moustache!
The lines that should NEVER have closed!!!!!!!
We could possibly forgive the branch lines if he wasn't a complete and
Total Hypocrite..... he closed economic major trunk routes and mainlines, this drastic criminal folly for me includes prominently the
East Lincolnshire Mainline Great Grimsby to Peterborough
Great Central Mainline
Varsity Line Oxford to Cambridge
Stratford Upon Avon to Cheltenham.
The Waverley route.
Beverley to York
LSWR Mainline Okehampton to Plymouth
One fact seems to have escaped the notice of many commentators, a LABOUR government was elected in October 1964 so they (and their union backers) could have stopped the whole process which had barely started had they either wanted to or saw it as a bad idea. Relying on economists is always a bad idea but, of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I just wish we could get it in advance!
A lot of drivel written here. Some facts:
1) Branch lines were, by the 50`s and 60`s, hardly used, yet still needed a driver, fireman and guard for the train, not forgetting the station masters, porters and signalmen needed along the route. Very costly exercise for so few passengers.
2) Many branch lines ran from nowhere much to nowhere in particular, and lost money from the day they were built. In fact my house is built on one, the old Salisbury to Christchurch line.
3) many of these lines were paralleled by another line, built by a long defunct rival railway.
4) Beeching didn`t close a single line, only the Govt could do that.
5) One irrefutable fact from Beechings findings: 50% of the network carried 95% of the traffic, the other 50% only 5%.
It can fairly be said that Beeching saved Britain`s railways, it just couldn`t go on losing taxpayers money in the way it was. It was FAR too large a network then needed.
There is no doubt that some of the methods used to carry out the rail traffic surveys were flawed, purely because the technology wasn`t there (i.e. computerised ticket systems) to be 100% accurate.
I, for one, yearn for the rose tinted days of little tank engines pulling a couple of carriages through the leafy English countryside, ala Flanders and Swan, but I`m also realistic enough to know the railways by the early 60`s were an out of control massive drain on the public purse, and SOMEthing had to be done about it.
the statistics are faulty per definition.
50% of the network carried throught traffic ... the other 50% carried various point-to-point patterns of traffic but the most important factor is that the expense of buselising regional passenger traffic in the long run cost much more than evolving passenger trains from steam to 2nd generation dmus... even signaling would have evolved much quicker if the cuts had not put everything on limbo.
If BR had waited a decade it could have completely dieselized and moved freight traffic to container or block /unit trains instead of not evolving by investing in massive obsolescent by definition sorting yards ... which closed 10 years after opening.
One should compare british and american railways with others like japan ... wich when faced with the same problems invested in completely oposite solutions
I guess stations like Trent - didn't even have a town. The railways were duplicated and triplicated in some towns and cities. I love the mystique of the GC - but it would always be doomed as the LMS lot didnt want it!
Remember Barbara Castle also closed down a shit load of miles of railways as well.
Remember Beeching did bring about Inter CIty, MGR and Freightliner
Beeching was a hero. 1000's of polluting steam locos cut for scrap, and lots of uneconomic lines closed.
Alistair Currah here is an idea. Make public transport more popular and convinient.
It helps fund railways and helps save money on other forms of infrastructure.
That's what a smart person would do when faced with such a social problem..
Guess smart people can't be used to push corperate agenda's so we don't want them in government right.
You make some good points and I understand some of the closures. The real problem was the destruction of the infrastructure with no future proofing. No thought to an increasing population etc... with some lines to be re opened at a later time. They also closed profitable railways as well by falcifing the costs on some lines.
Moreover much of his data been collected upon a SUNDAY!
JML
Is it me or does Beeching's moustache looks kind of like Hitler's? Maybe foreshadowing?
The stupidity of inept politicians, delegate the job to someone even less qualified.
Never call him, Dr he is and was a disaster. Killed East Yorkshire.
JML
May be answer is bring back the local lines and put on pump trucks that way people get fit the obese risk goes down and the theves cant steal the cables!!! that power the electric trains, think im on to a winner!!!
Beeching was a Tory working for Torys.
Before Beeching there were trains ... during Beeching no trains .... now he's gone .... bring them back ... simple !!
Yes the railway had it faults so does the airline industry, pub industry and so on.... but instead of working on those problems effectively it ended up with a situation of "inside story - Old, Dirty & Late (93) programme which is >>>>>>>.
BUT! we didn't invest at that time as much as it needed but now we subisidise more NOW then we ever did when BR was around... People are quick to blame Labour for destroying BR but it was actually John Major who destroyed BR... Labour did nothing granted to stop but if we copied the railways in Germany, France, Japan and China we will have a good railway but multi companies running our railway is only good for one thing... the blame game when something goes wrong the railway operators and network rail who have a specific team who argue who's to blame... we led to a culture of money and blame yes we have modern ish trains in some areas BUT we don't build trains in this country anymore... Siemiens (350,450,444) built in.... Germany, Pendolino's some built in Birmingham but then later in Spain, 220's/221/222 built in Belgium our only saving graces are the fact the HST are built in the UK. Deltics, 47/57, Super Sprinter Units, turbostars are built in the UK... we loose BR but we also lost a trend of BR led engineering factories then taken over and eventually closed... its like we've killed our railway and our railway manufactering industries... it was a horrible ripple effect.. another grace is the fact that Network Rail are actively seeking to reopen lines that haven't seen a train since the 60's. Yes Network rail is CURRENTLY (but soon could go to private company thanks the tories) owned by the goverment so in a way yes we have a sort of british rail but we don't because of the multi train operators that are private evil money grabbing rail operators.
Yes it's amazing how much money is suddenly available now for the railways, having killed off BR, BREL, BR Reseach Derby etc.
I can't take much pride in Crossrail etc. when the trains are all of foreign design, and, for a country that's meant o be struggling economically did we really need Crossrail at this time (that displaced IC125 due to being unsuitable for under London working)?
You forgot IC225 being of UK manufacture, incorporating some APT technology in the Class 91s, may be not as iconic as IC125 but a good effort.
the later Class 390 Pendolino vehicles were built in Italy, not Spain.
Reopen this lines. Now.!
I'm off tomorrow night and eat grapes of wrath of khan university hospital they're hypnotic you like a plan gonna phone round here haha I'm jealous because it's your birthday and two weeks could be your loyal slave sometime how about a drinking competition sometime we should definitely meet
Wow - what an astonishingly one sided documentary. Plenty of anti-closure points made throughout the programme but anything shown in favour of closures was dismissed as 'propaganda'. Whether the closures described here were good or bad, the documentary maker really should give a clear presentation of both sides and allow the viewer to make their mind up.
This film ignores the Second Beeching report which covered the development of the railways which gave us the container trains amongst other improvement. BR tried to get British businesses to use container trains but without success.
Mostt of the anti-Beeching comments here are by those wearing rose-tinted glasses. In 1961 BR was losing £300,000 per day. After Beeching left Britain's economy was in free-fall, cause by Conservative mismanagement between 1951 and 1964, ending with the devaluation of the Pound by 14% in November 1967, preventing Labour from reversing the Beeching cuts.
I don’t live in the UK but someone told me that Beeching “saved BR” meaning that BR was bleeding money and what would have happened if Beeching never existed? There would have still been cuts as was common in the ‘60s and later in Australia. Still, I get the impression that Beeching was over enthusiastic and had an agenda as I understand he was on loan from ICI which had vested interests.
Similar thing happened in Victoria in 1980s with the Lonie Report which he recommened that all railways close except for suburban and Geelong services. The Liberal (conservative) government realised that this was political suicide and moderated the cuts somewhat although many of his recommendations were carried out over the next 12 years instead of immediately. Some branchlines closed but inter-urban and outer urban services remained, such as Seymour Bairnsdale and Bacchus Marsh to name a couple.
Lonie was formerly from BHP which had vested interests in roads.
@@darylcheshire1618 ICI, Imperial Chemical Industries, was not involved with roads other than using them to move their products (they also used the railways). But you are correct someone was going to have to look seriously at how BR was operating. Marples, the Transport Mjnister, allegedly had vested interests coming from a road building company, he was MD of Matpkes Ridgeway until becoming a junior Minister under Churchill in 1951. He retained 80% of the company's shares. After becoming Transport Minister he eventually sold his shares to his wife, but not before Marples Ridgeway had won several contract. There is, however, no evidence of his involvement or more crucially lack of involvement in any of these decisions.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Marples resigned his directorship in Marples Ridgeway in Oct 1961 as he was required to do so by Parliamentary law. From that point he had no involvement in the day to day running or contract negotiations of his old firm. He was required by that same parliamentary law to dispose of his shareholding. This he did not do and it was revealed in the press in 1960, that he still had his shareholding in his old company. Whilst it is recorded in Hansard that he said" perhaps I should sell the shares to my wife." (sic) his wife stated in two newspaper interviews that she had received nothing in the way of shares from her husband. She said this in spite of being constantly harassed by newspaper reporters at the time. Equally no hard evidence or any proof has been forth coming as to where his shares went. It is assumed that they went into a blind trust as ministers and above use today. But equally they could nave gone into an overseas trust as Marples had interests in Lichtenstein. Again the jury is still out on this matter, certainly a research project for someone at companies house, if the info still exists. In the mid 1990s Dr Terry Gourvish an academic from the University f London was approached by BR to write a history of BR from Integration to Privatization. He and his team of researchers were give access to BRs private archive. Their research revealed that Marples was not influenced in any way by the road lobby.
@@michaelhearn3052 most sources say he resigned as Director of Marples Ridgway in November 1951 shortly after becoming a Junior Minister although he retained his shares. His first attempt to sell his shares was blocked by the Attorney General as he was using Reg Ridgway as an agent for the sale. Do you have the date for the Hansard report you mentioned? Most sources state categorically he sold his shares to his wife.
Wow. Who wrote the script for this? Obviously an enthusiast. It's so one sided!