Programme on the British rail cutbacks (beeching report-1963) tomorrow night on BBC4

[ThomasJ]

Something maybe for you to watch out for tomorrow night On BBC4. an insight into what irish railways may have been like if we followed Dr Sean Barretts advice

Next on:
02 Oct 2008 21:00 BBC Four
Ian Hislop brings his customary humour, analysis and wit to the notorious Beeching Report of 1963, which led to the closure of a third of the nation's railway lines and stations and forced tens of thousands of people into the car and onto the road.

Was author Dr Richard Beeching little more than Genghis Khan with a slide rule, ruthlessly hacking away at Britain's rail network in a misguided quest for profitability, or was he the fall guy for short-sighted government policies that favoured the car over the train?

Ian also investigates the fallout of Beeching's plan, discovering what was lost to the British landscape, communities and ways of life when the railway map shrank, and recalls the halcyon days of train travel, celebrated by John Betjeman.

Ian travels from Cornwall to the Scottish borders, meeting those responsible and those affected and questioning whether such brutal measures could be justified. Knowing what we know now, with trains far more energy efficient and environmentally sound than cars, perhaps Beeching's plan was the biggest folly of the 1960s?

There is also an article on this here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7644630.stm

[Thomas J Stamp]

yeah, I'll be watching it. problem that we have in modern railway revisionism, esp in this country, is that we dont remember how inefficent, expensive and redundant the railways were becoming back in the 50's.

all the WRC ever did was bring people to the boat to leave, that was Albert Reyonds first job, on the sligo line. He used to issue one way tickets to Dublin for the youth of Longford and Roscommon.

all those who say "we should have left the Dundrum line open" should really have a word with their mothers and fathers for not using the dammned thing when it was open.

This country is just coming out of a two phased economic period - the first was our finally cathcing up with the modern world, from about 1994 till 2002, the second was a property and construction bubble. With proper planning in place we actually would not need a Luas to Bray, a Metro to Swords, a regular commuter service by bus or rail to Portlaoise, Navan, Ashbourne, never mind a Dart to Maynooth, Hazelhatch and Balbriggan. We only need these things because the polititians and the planners made a total balls up of phase one, leading to the need for phase two and for rail links which, lets face it, we should never have needed.

Well, we do need them but only because they made a balls of things, not because a cash strapped government in the 1950's through to the 1970's decided to draw a few lines.

[ThomasJ]

problem that we have in modern railway revisionism, esp in this country, is that we dont remember how inefficent, expensive and redundant the railways were becoming back in the 50's.

Has it cost us today though for that oversight though?

[Thomas J Stamp]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

Has it cost us today though for that oversight though?

only because the planners decided on a doughnut effect planning solutiuon in Dublin and then allowed massive building of houses to take place 20-50 miles out from the city. There was no need for people who work in Dublin city centre to have to live in Portloaise, or Arklow, or Navan. Had we had proper planning and had we had a transparent and open planning process then we would have had no need for massive heavy rail projects.

One thing we could have kept were the tram systems, but thats another story.

[Laois Commuter]

Originally Posted by Thomas J Stamp

only because the planners decided on a doughnut effect planning solutiuon in Dublin and then allowed massive building of houses to take place 20-50 miles out from the city. There was no need for people who work in Dublin city centre to have to live in Portloaise, or Arklow, or Navan. Had we had proper planning and had we had a transparent and open planning process then we would have had no need for massive heavy rail projects.

One thing we could have kept were the tram systems, but thats another story.

The thrust of that I agree with. However, with the Dublin-centred economy we have (created by Dublin centered politicians), caused the land price rise which ruled out significant "family friendly" housing development near to the city centre. Tower blocks may be a planners' (and developers'!) dream (low land take, high density housing) but are a nightmare to live in, especially with kids. The outward movement of population is not unique to Ireland. In the UK for example, there are (thanks to 125mph services) daily commuters from Grantham and Newark, 105 and 120 miles from London respectively. Peterborough and Swindon (both about 70 miles out) are virtually outer suburban in terms of service pattern.

Whether it can ever be reversed is doubtful. I am 40 miles out, but would not want to live in Dublin even if house prices were sensible (and depsite recent drops, they are nowhere near so to my mind). Despite the whinges of the commuter, the quality of life further out in the Pale is much better overall, and I certainly would not wish to live in a flat - sorry, apartment - with people living above, both sides, and below me. Done it before - never again.

Going back to Beeching, while he is reviled by the many, he was only doing what was requested of him by the politicians of the day - the Transport Secretary at the time having previously been in charge of a major motorway builder. Sound famliar? Of course, he disposed of his holdings when made a minister, and that past had no bearing on his outlook whatsoever The methodolgy was poor, and the statistics used of dubious quality, and some old pre-nationaisation scores being settled at officer level, but there is no denying that there were many basket case lines which should have gone.

It should also not be forgotten that most of the closures were actually authorised under the successor Labour government until the introduction of the Public Service Obligation grant in 1968, depsite their protestations before and since. The simpe rule is never, ever trust or belive any politician is doing something on principle for the common good.

LC

[dermo88]

Its been a while since I posted, but heres how it goes

Beeching was the saviour of the railways. Misty eyed revisionism and romance have no place in the operation, and management of a customer focused, profitable, effective transport organisation. I am reviled for saying what he did was correct. There were two phases, first came the cutbacks, next the investment proposals. Well....the tree needed pruning, and there was no choice. It was change or die.

How many trainspotters have actually physically read the Beddy and Beeching reports? I read them as a student for a college assignment, and they were an excellent piece of analysis, still relevant in some ways today.

As for the likes of the Dundrum line....when it closed, it was hardly effective. There were some closures that in hindsight were mistakes.

1. Harcourt Street line.
2. Navan line (well...Navan in 1960's had only 5,000 population anyway)
3. Portadown-Derry (Derry Road) (not directly relevant to Railusers.ie, but WOULD be in terms of a cross border service HAD it survived)
4. A few others in Northern Ireland.

Otherwise, in Ireland, its pretty much the network needed for the population served today

[Sealink]

Originally Posted by dermo88

Beeching was the saviour of the railways. Misty eyed revisionism and romance have no place in the operation, and management of a customer focused, profitable, effective transport organisation. I am reviled for saying what he did was correct. There were two phases, first came the cutbacks, next the investment proposals. Well....the tree needed pruning, and there was no choice. It was change or die.

It's fascinating reading, but Beeching's plan was blinkered, and it's implication did nothing to save money. It's an excellent textbook on how not to 'fix' something.

[Colm Moore]

Originally Posted by Laois Commuter

The thrust of that I agree with. However, with the Dublin-centred economy we have (created by Dublin centered politicians), caused the land price rise which ruled out significant "family friendly" housing development near to the city centre. Tower blocks may be a planners' (and developers'!) dream (low land take, high density housing) but are a nightmare to live in, especially with kids.

The problem with the Brithish and Irish manifestations of "tower blocks" has been in suburban areas in parkland setting and are no more densely populated than semi-detached houses. The lack of facilities in these areas and the ghettoisation of their residents led them to be what they eventually became.

The most densely populated area of Ireland is the Rotunda A electoral division (the area north east of the Rotunda Hospital) - I doubt if there is a building over 6 storeys in the area. Of course it has its social problems, but they aren't as bad a some neighbouring areas.

[Thomas J Stamp]

Originally Posted by Laois Commuter

The thrust of that I agree with. However, with the Dublin-centred economy we have (created by Dublin centered politicians), caused the land price rise which ruled out significant "family friendly" housing development near to the city centre. Tower blocks may be a planners' (and developers'!) dream (low land take, high density housing) but are a nightmare to live in, especially with kids. The outward movement of population is not unique to Ireland. In the UK for example, there are (thanks to 125mph services) daily commuters from Grantham and Newark, 105 and 120 miles from London respectively. Peterborough and Swindon (both about 70 miles out) are virtually outer suburban in terms of service pattern.

Whether it can ever be reversed is doubtful. I am 40 miles out, but would not want to live in Dublin even if house prices were sensible (and depsite recent drops, they are nowhere near so to my mind). Despite the whinges of the commuter, the quality of life further out in the Pale is much better overall, and I certainly would not wish to live in a flat - sorry, apartment - with people living above, both sides, and below me. Done it before - never again.

Going back to Beeching, while he is reviled by the many, he was only doing what was requested of him by the politicians of the day - the Transport Secretary at the time having previously been in charge of a major motorway builder. Sound famliar? Of course, he disposed of his holdings when made a minister, and that past had no bearing on his outlook whatsoever The methodolgy was poor, and the statistics used of dubious quality, and some old pre-nationaisation scores being settled at officer level, but there is no denying that there were many basket case lines which should have gone.

It should also not be forgotten that most of the closures were actually authorised under the successor Labour government until the introduction of the Public Service Obligation grant in 1968, depsite their protestations before and since. The simpe rule is never, ever trust or belive any politician is doing something on principle for the common good.

LC

Oh it'll never be reversed. I'm not advocating anything like high rise development on a massive scale, but you look at how massive land banks have been amassed and sat upon by developers just on the fringes of Dublin, with the connivance of the various local authorities. Going home tomorrow just look at the large acres of land from city west out towards Adamstown which has laid idle while your gaff 40 miles out was being built instead of beside the railway line in citywest. Why did it take a whole heap of legislation and designation to get Adamstown started? There is plenty of land within the city boundaries which has never been developed - mostly on purpose - to allow many vested interests to amass wealth. Hopefully (what am I saying!!) the Government may carry out a detailed audit of the loans out to developers which caused all the fun last week.

Actually, that real fun will kick off when the banks auditors get started for their next years accounts.

We're still getting away from the programme in hand. Was what happened in the UK are Ireland at the time folly or not? My view is that at the time is must have looked like the right decision. I know there was also some odd nationalist stuff wrapped up in it here, and 20/20 hindsight and all that, but in a time of rising oil prices providing a real impetous to car companies to give us real alternative fuel effeceint cars and trucks we might see our new rail fleet as hopelessly expensive folly in say 30 years time.....

[Oisin88]

Originally Posted by dermo88

As for the likes of the Dundrum line....when it closed, it was hardly effective. There were some closures that in hindsight were mistakes.

1. Harcourt Street line.

What's the difference between the Dundrum line an the Harcourt street line?

[Mark Gleeson]

Originally Posted by Oisin88

What's the difference between the Dundrum line an the Harcourt street line?

Same

The vast bulk of the business on the Harcourt Street line came from Dundrum inwards, it was farmland beyond Dundrum back then.

The Harcourt line was a sacrificial lamb, really. It closed in 1958, but the mass closures that followed where in 1963. It was Andrews making a statement that he would close anything.

If the Harcourt line had held on into the 1970's we would probably have seen retained and brought to DART standards and today we would be discussing the merits of a tunnel between Broadstone and Beechwood