Beeching report

[PinzaC55]

The basic problem was that when the railways were the Big 4 - private companies - they needed to be careful about how they spent their money, since it wasn't a bottomless pit. So the LMS ordered one prototype , the NBL 800HP, to evaluate it. Fast forward to the nationalised railway controlled by the government and the funding (the taxpayer) is inexhaustible so they went nuts and ordered runs of 10-20 or more unproven locomotives. Its what I would call the "council" way of thinking - can't run an "etc" in a brewery.

[cambois]

Lots of talk about poor planning and the wrong assets under the Modernisation Plan (during the era of an under-funded BR) but are we sure the same mistakes are not being made now?

What life the very expensive Voyagers and 180s in the 2020s as electrification progresses - will they get 30 years of use? There seem to be a number of modern wagons roting quietly in sidings with little traffic for them.

And how long does it take to bring a project to fruition these days? Had we taken as long in the Modernisation Plan a lot of the projects would have been abandoned as not needed! - the benefits of inefficiency would have been considerable

So I am not that sure we have progressed that far in nearly 60 years

[strang steel]

Lots of talk about poor planning and the wrong assets under the Modernisation Plan (during the era of an under-funded BR) but are we sure the same mistakes are not being made now?

I don't know about now, but Mk3 sleepers do not seem to have been a huge success.

The main all round problem seems to stem from a road lobby bias by civil servants in the Treasury and other government departments. Maybe they commute to London every weekday and struggle to get a seat; therefore are determined to get revenge on the railways by approving all plans to turn them into roads, or guided busways.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[Mr Bunt]

The basic problem was that when the railways were the Big 4 - private companies - they needed to be careful about how they spent their money, since it wasn't a bottomless pit. So the LMS ordered one prototype , the NBL 800HP, to evaluate it. Fast forward to the nationalised railway controlled by the government and the funding (the taxpayer) is inexhaustible so they went nuts and ordered runs of 10-20 or more unproven locomotives. Its what I would call the "council" way of thinking - can't run an "etc" in a brewery.

Although it didn't have a "bottomless pit", by 1939 the Southern had invested £20.5m in electrification schemes and 60% of its services were electrically worked. In November 1946 the Southern board approved plans to convert all lines east of Portsmouth to electric or diesel traction, but nationalisation stopped that in its tracks and it wasn't implemented until 1959.

Money wasn't therefore a problem for all of the big four, and in the case of the Southern the 13 year deferral of the company's 1946 modernisation proposals by the Railway Executive and British Transport Commission suggests it was being used as Peter in a game of "Rob Peter to pay Paul": useless diesels were being bought with money that would've been better spent on proven electric units.

[strang steel]

Your probably right John. Didn't Thatcher dislike public transport and has suppose to have said something like-

''Anyone seen travelling on a bus who's 30 or over obviously HASN'T made it and is a failure in life'' or words to that effect?.

I wish it were true, Micky.

I have never heard that quote before, and I entered it into a search engine and it came up with

"Loelia Ponsonby, one of the wives of 2nd Duke of Westminster who said "Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life".



So maybe not a Thatcherism.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[sandwhich]

I think the problem goes back to 1830 when the Duke of Wellington was prime minister, he disliked the new trains because it encouraged workmen to leave their place of birth for work elsewhere, okay to join his armies though.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[sandwhich]

Andy W mentions government interference, it has always been there since day 1, no railway could run without an act of parliament and parliamentary trains soon followed (some still run), Government took over the railways in 1914 and did not give them up until 1920 then came the Railways Act of 1921 which led to the big four in 1923. The Southern Railways 1920/30s electrification plans were only carried out with the help of government loans for capital works to improve train services and to relieve unemployment in the construction industry. And it was a right policy. Government then took over the Railways again in 1939, nationalisation followed in 1948 and even under privatisation a minimum service requirement came into being. If the Southern Railways plans for further electrification and with some diesel traction was carried through after 1948 steam could have been cleared off the Southern by 1963 at the latest.

Government recently said that no more diesel trains should be built, electrification is the byword, but I think we all know that there will be many parts of the railway where the wires will not reach so dirty diesels will have to remain. The Pacer units are thoroughly unpopular but are very cheap to lease, recently I picked up that the owners of these units are planning a refurbishment of at least half of the Class 142 fleet, so passengers will have to put up with these trains for a few more years because of "government interference" has made sure that there will be no demand for new diesel units. There will come a time when there will have to be a new build no doubt with the help of future "government interference". Don't get me wrong I am certainly not complaining about electrification but like many times in recent history its not all being thought out properly.

[53C]

The main all round problem seems to stem from a road lobby bias by civil servants in the Treasury and other government departments. Maybe they commute to London every weekday and struggle to get a seat; therefore are determined to get revenge on the railways by approving all plans to turn them into roads, or guided bus ways.[/quote]

" In the early 60's Rail freight management made strange rulings, in effect turning work away from rail.
Our company ordered 50 x 10 tonne dry freight vans for a cargo with the destinations rail connected warehouse in Lancs. Local rail H Q rejected the order for 50 vans and advised only 25 = 250 tonne capacity would be available. The balance of cargo to go via alternative transport.!(Rail HQ's comment) The remaining 250 tons moved via Road. Plus future cargoes, the only explanation given was a shortage of common user freight vans with no increase expected in the foreseeable future.

From Memory the Road haulage people were overjoyed to have 20 odd easy loads handed to them on a plate.!

[Mickey]

Deleted

[sandwhich]

Mickey I think the company you are referring to is National Carriers, it was one of the first hive offs of what was termed non-railway activities, whats become of them I dont know, probably swallowed up by a bigger org.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[watcheronthebridge]

In the early 1990s I was a user of BR's Red Star parcels service. As I understand, Red Star and National Carriers after a number of take overs were eventually absorbed into the American owned UPS.