On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:52:49 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:41:33 PM UTC+2, D7666 wrote:


Despite living within 1 km of the start of the guided bit of the busay,
and within 200 m n a straight line of the southern bus-only road but
unguided bit of the busway, I have yet to use any of it.



And I've not worked up any enthusiasm to go and do it.



I ought to really, since it was me who chartered the last passenger
carrying train that went along the Dunstable line, and, following out
of that, was invited on an H-B 20 operated weed killing train that did
the route, proving to be the very last train of all to traverse it
all of it.


I'm intrigued - what was the last train along it then? I had thought
it might have been the SBLC's "The Cobbler" railtour of Sept 1964.

Real tragedy to have lost this link, TBH. Could have run a Luton
Airport - L Buzzard - M Keynes service.

PP

Thameslink to Milton Keynes by way of Luton Airport would be a winner.
The nationalized railway with the butcher at the helm ensured that
this is unlikely ever to happen.
--

http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:15:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, 77002 wrote:

Thameslink to Milton Keynes by way of Luton Airport would be a winner.
The nationalized railway with the butcher at the helm ensured that
this is unlikely ever to happen.

To be fair, I doubt it would have made any difference had the Big 4
railway companies been left running the network after WW2 - when the
losses set in during the 1950s, they would all have gone bankrupt and
the same kind of wholesale axing of the network, and possibly something
much worse, would have been the result.

I do not disagree with you. However, this is worth analyzing because
the behavior of the nationalized railway made things worse.

The lack of good accounting practices, and lack of understanding of
its market led to the disaster of "modernization". At a cost of
GBP1.2 billion (or, as we called them then, milliard) Marshalling
yards were built for declining wagonload traffic, a plethora of
untested diesel locomotives were built, hot on the heels of a fleet of
newly designed steam locomotives.

It was not all bad. We had the new DMUs which were a true move
forward.

Remember, this was a period when families were recovering from the
war. Many families had lost husbands and fathers. Others had their
men come home minus limbs. Life was slowly returning to normal, but
money was short. No one should have had a license to waist taxpayer
funds.

As the debts and decline continued, the inept and scandal assaulted
MacMillan Cabinet, with the corrupt Marples at the helm of the DoT,
appointed Dr. Beeching.

Beeching deserves the benefit of the doubt. He was a brilliant
businessman with good analytical skills brought in to do a very tough
job. He gave it his best shot. And indeed some lines had to close.

Alexander Douglas-Home stood no chance of winning an election
following on from MacMillan, and so the UK had one of the most
brutally socialist governments she had ever experienced. In came tax
rates up to 95 percent, capital controls and punitive death duties.
When prices and incomes policies come in, you know that the governmant
is acting in desperation.

Wilson appointed the obnoxious Barbara Castle as MoT. The vicious
Castle set about implementing Beeching's proposals with a vengeance.
Then she went beyond Beeching closing entire main lines, hitherto,
only designate for reduction to secondary status.

It is only in the recent twenty years we see an expanding railway with
rapidly increasing passenger numbers.

Beeching was indeed a butcher
(and the Labour government who implemented his plan after winning power
by promising not to was worse), but nationalisation was not, of itself,
to blame.

Let's look at the alternative. We can never know what might have
been. However, we can take some educated guesses. So, in 1948 the
railways were not nationalized. We will assume that the big four
failed to receive grants needed to repair their networks from the
ravages of war.

It is not hard to envisage an ill equipped railway that would have
fought a losing battle against inexpensive road haulage, and mass
produced cars.

Britain's railways would almost certainly have followed the passenger
rail services of those United States into oblivion. US freight
survived and prospered because of their ability to haul very large
freight tonnages over great distances. Moreover, the US mainland
never suffered from enemy action.

So, I have to concede nationalization may have saved the UK's
railways. It is unfortunate that the ranks of its management were
filled with too many ex-military men. They had never had to consider
budgets when engaged in the war. Neither should they have.

But, the 1950s railway needed skill, discretion, and discernment. Its
management knew little of those qualities.

Selah.

--

http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno

On 2014\04\17 04:12, Aurora wrote:

Beeching deserves the benefit of the doubt. He was a brilliant
businessman with good analytical skills brought in to do a very tough
job. He gave it his best shot. And indeed some lines had to close.

Does anyone know why the decisions made in the Great Yarmouth area were
made? It seems to me that a loop from Ipswich to Lowestoft to Yarmouth
to Norwich should have been kept, and the rest should probably have been
got rid of, but what they've done instead is a dogs dinner, requiring
three trains and two hours to get from Saxmundham to Yarmouth, and why
Yarmouth needs two lines from Norwich I can not figure out.

On 17/04/2014 11:10, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\04\17 04:12, Aurora wrote:

Beeching deserves the benefit of the doubt. He was a brilliant
businessman with good analytical skills brought in to do a very tough
job. He gave it his best shot. And indeed some lines had to close.

Does anyone know why the decisions made in the Great Yarmouth area were
made? It seems to me that a loop from Ipswich to Lowestoft to Yarmouth
to Norwich should have been kept, and the rest should probably have been
got rid of, but what they've done instead is a dogs dinner, requiring
three trains and two hours to get from Saxmundham to Yarmouth, and why
Yarmouth needs two lines from Norwich I can not figure out.

Probably local politics.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:10:06 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2014\04\17 04:12, Aurora wrote:

Beeching deserves the benefit of the doubt. He was a brilliant
businessman with good analytical skills brought in to do a very tough
job. He gave it his best shot. And indeed some lines had to close.

Does anyone know why the decisions made in the Great Yarmouth area were
made? It seems to me that a loop from Ipswich to Lowestoft to Yarmouth
to Norwich should have been kept, and the rest should probably have been
got rid of, but what they've done instead is a dogs dinner, requiring
three trains and two hours to get from Saxmundham to Yarmouth, and why
Yarmouth needs two lines from Norwich I can not figure out.

Do not assume Castle applied logic to her decisions.
--

http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno

On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:20:01 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2014-04-14 15:15:43 +0000, said:

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, 77002 wrote:

Thameslink to Milton Keynes by way of Luton Airport would be a winner.
The nationalized railway with the butcher at the helm ensured that
this is unlikely ever to happen.

To be fair, I doubt it would have made any difference had the Big 4
railway companies been left running the network after WW2 - when the
losses set in during the 1950s, they would all have gone bankrupt and
the same kind of wholesale axing of the network, and possibly something
much worse, would have been the result. Beeching was indeed a butcher
(and the Labour government who implemented his plan after winning power
by promising not to was worse), but nationalisation was not, of itself,
to blame.

Predicting alternative history is always difficult, especially the
further in the past the decision point occurs so the number of possible
variables increase.

It is impossible to determine what would have happened if one variable
changed. The effect would have rippled thru subsequent events. We
can only speculate.

For example, if the railways had not been
nationalised then did that happen because the then Government decided
not to do so,

This is most likely. We would have to assume the big four were not on
the Labour party's nationalization shopping list.

or because a Government of another political persuasion
had been elected?

This is unlikely. Winston Spencer Churchill had the nation's
gratitude for his wartime leadership. With peace the national mood
had changed. It was time for a new government.

Did all other aspects of the social and political
framework remain as we know they did, or were there changes? If the
railways had /not/ been nationalised would they have been able to
continue to function as independent companies as they had done pre-war
or would they have been under central government control through the
Railway Executive of the Ministry of Transport in the same manner as
they had been during the war?

This is possible but unlikely.

The possible outcomes depend strongly on
which set of choices were made at the time.

If the Labour Party had not won the 1945 General Election what would
the economic and political landscape have looked like? In any event
there would certainly have been a difficult economic period as the
country tried to recover from the war with, at the same time, its
European export markets having effectively ceased to exist. The USA was
no longer a supporter but a competitor, so other markets around the
world would become more competitive.

My own take on the situation is that the biggest constraint on the
railways was the lingering 'Common Carrier' obligation which made it
impossible for the railways to compete with road goods transport
effectively. The 'Big 4' had campaigned for this to be dropped before
the war in the 'Square Deal' campaign and abolishing it immediately
after the war would probably have had made a bigger difference to the
attitude and organisation of the railways, by making it necessary to
have proper management accounts, than being nationalised per se.

You are correct in your analysis. But would dropping the common
carrier obligation gel with Labour's statist style of management?

By having to have proper accounts and sales teams, rather than just
'Goods Agents', would have meant that the railways would have been
converted into a modern industry 15 years earlier than was in fact the
case. These 15 years would have given the railways a fighting chance to
have adapted to cope with the changes in the structure of British
industry and the moves towards a more mobile society. Although many of
the branches and some of the duplicate lines may have still closed, the
manner of operation of the rest of the railways is likely to have
changed greatly and the costs of operation reduced. Don't forget that
pre-war the railways were experimenting with diesel traction and
planning electrifications - there is no reason to suppose that
operating procedures would not also have changed to improve the service
and reduce costs.

As it was the closures were inevitable as the railways in 1962 were
stuck in a timewarp which started in 1939 - a period of over 20 years
with no changes in attitudes, revenue or cost attribution, products or
production methods. In the meantime the world had moved on.

London had had a transport plan for some time. Rail was seen as
critical to moving London's workers. It is hard to see the lack of
momentum that gave us the Victoria Line. So, perhaps that would be
the birth of the idea of the socially necessary railway in other
conurbations.

However this assumes that the Government would not have tried to get
involved in the railways' affairs in the name of 'social cohesion' or
'the railway as a lifeline' or 'bringing jobs to depressed areas' or
some such by the back door. If such aims were politically desirable
then the concept of the 'social railway', funded by explicit subsidies
to the private companies, would have pre-dated the 1968 Transport Act
by fifteen to twenty years.

By the 80s Britain may have been re-opening main line and creating a
system for the future. It is so hard to tell. But, one has to think
that by that point the need would be obvious. By then London may have
becoming a British Los Angeles with giant clogged motorways and severe
smog. So, like LA the return of rail would be welcomed.

Even more. If there had been a series of individually small changes in
the UK during the Forties, Fifties and Sixties matching the political
landscape to the evolving world economic landscape, would Mrs. Thatcher
have been elected in 1979? Would there indeed have been the perceived
need for Mrs. Thatcher - or somebody much like her?

The Baroness? a woman of destiny.

--

http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2014 11:10, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\04\17 04:12, Aurora wrote:

Beeching deserves the benefit of the doubt. He was a brilliant
businessman with good analytical skills brought in to do a very tough
job. He gave it his best shot. And indeed some lines had to close.

Does anyone know why the decisions made in the Great Yarmouth area were
made? It seems to me that a loop from Ipswich to Lowestoft to Yarmouth
to Norwich should have been kept, and the rest should probably have been
got rid of, but what they've done instead is a dogs dinner, requiring
three trains and two hours to get from Saxmundham to Yarmouth, and why
Yarmouth needs two lines from Norwich I can not figure out.

Probably local politics.

From memory, there was a legal covenant on the Berney Arms line that would
have made it expensive/difficult to close. As the line as far as Reedham
was staying open anyway, it was a fairly minimal extra expense to send a
couple a day that way.

Incidentally - on approach to Yarmouth, I understand it's actually 2
bi-directional single lines not double track!

James

In article , lid
(James Heaton) wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2014 11:10, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\04\17 04:12, Aurora wrote:

Beeching deserves the benefit of the doubt. He was a brilliant
businessman with good analytical skills brought in to do a very tough
job. He gave it his best shot. And indeed some lines had to close.

Does anyone know why the decisions made in the Great Yarmouth area were
made? It seems to me that a loop from Ipswich to Lowestoft to Yarmouth
to Norwich should have been kept, and the rest should probably have
been got rid of, but what they've done instead is a dogs dinner,
requiring three trains and two hours to get from Saxmundham to
Yarmouth, and why Yarmouth needs two lines from Norwich I can not
figure out.

Probably local politics.

From memory, there was a legal covenant on the Berney Arms line that
would have made it expensive/difficult to close. As the line as far
as Reedham was staying open anyway, it was a fairly minimal extra
expense to send a couple a day that way.

Incidentally - on approach to Yarmouth, I understand it's actually 2
bi-directional single lines not double track!

True, except in the Great Yarmouth station area. I was on a visit to the
signal box there recently.

--
Colin Rosenstiel