In the days when railway traffic was declining fast, and it seemed
that railways might close altogether, I got the impression that BR developed
its London commuter market because whatever the economics, for political
reasons that network could never be shut down. Too many votes depended on
it.

Can anybody confirm this?

Michael Bell

--

Michael Bell wrote:
In the days when railway traffic was declining fast, and it seemed
that railways might close altogether,

Can't say I ever thought that was likely. What period did you have in
mind?

I got the impression that BR developed its London commuter market
because whatever the economics, for political reasons that network
could never be shut down. Too many votes depended on it.

Can anybody confirm this?

In what sense did BR "develop" the London commuter market? If you mean
things like the Shenfield electrification, that was largely the renewal
of worn-out infrastructure and trains by up-to-date technology. Such
investment was certainly not confined to the London commuter market.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
In the days when railway traffic was declining fast, and it seemed
that railways might close altogether, I got the impression that BR
developed
its London commuter market because whatever the economics, for political
reasons that network could never be shut down. Too many votes depended on
it.

Can anybody confirm this?


The London commuter market was very well developed before BR came into
existence, mainly by the Metropolitan and the Southern Railways.

The London commuter market was very well developed before BR came into
existence, mainly by the Metropolitan and the Southern Railways.

Were the 'Metropolitan' and 'Southern' private-sector companies? If so,
that's absolutely disgraceful, investing money in the hope of making a
profit at the expense of hard-working families. Investment in such things
should always be left in the hands of HM (that is, The People's) Treasury,
who make a much better fist of it. Look at the generous way they paid
for -sorry, funded - BR's plans in the post-war era.

S R

Were the 'Metropolitan' and 'Southern' private-sector companies? If so,
that's absolutely disgraceful, investing money in the hope of making a
profit at the expense of hard-working families. Investment in such things
should always be left in the hands of HM (that is, The People's) Treasury,
who make a much better fist of it. Look at the generous way they paid
for -sorry, funded - BR's plans in the post-war era.

S R

Are you kidding? If it hadn't been for the private companies there would be no
railways in this country. Lots of private companies ploughed in loads of money
to build networks often with very little return in the long run. And of course
they wanted to make profit, just like we all go out to work every day, not
because we want to do good but because we want to earn a living.

Its a fact of life.

Paul

"S R" wrote in message
...

The London commuter market was very well developed before BR came into
existence, mainly by the Metropolitan and the Southern Railways.

Were the 'Metropolitan' and 'Southern' private-sector companies? If so,
that's absolutely disgraceful, investing money in the hope of making a
profit at the expense of hard-working families. Investment in such things
should always be left in the hands of HM (that is, The People's) Treasury,
who make a much better fist of it. Look at the generous way they paid
for -sorry, funded - BR's plans in the post-war era.


Assuming you not attempting to be humorous, (but that you really do have a
pitiful lack of knowledge of British railway history) British Railways came
into existence on the 1st January 1948. Prior to that all railways had been
privately established and owned, although with significant government
interference.

"Moylanhome" wrote in message
...

Were the 'Metropolitan' and 'Southern' private-sector
companies? If so, that's absolutely disgraceful, investing
money in the hope of making a profit at the expense of
hard-working families. Investment in such things should
always be left in the hands of HM (that is, The People's)
Treasury, who make a much better fist of it. Look at the
generous way they paid for -sorry, funded - BR's plans
in the post-war era.

Are you kidding?

That would be my guess.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In article , Richard J.
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote:
In the days when railway traffic was declining fast, and it seemed
that railways might close altogether,

Can't say I ever thought that was likely. What period did you have in
mind?

I got the impression that BR developed its London commuter market
because whatever the economics, for political reasons that network
could never be shut down. Too many votes depended on it.

Can anybody confirm this?

In what sense did BR "develop" the London commuter market? If you mean
things like the Shenfield electrification, that was largely the renewal
of worn-out infrastructure and trains by up-to-date technology. Such
investment was certainly not confined to the London commuter market.

I am thinking of the period after Beeching, when it seemed that closures
would carry on til nothing was left. But Beeching himself had said that
commuter railways could always be made to pay if you raised the fares high
enough, and it seemed to me that the view in BR HQ after Beeching had left
was that profit may no longer be the objective, but political forces would
keep these routes open, so other business was neglected and effort put into
the commuter market. That was the impression I had at the time. That's hardly
the situation today of course, but time often turns things round in ways that
could not have been foreseen at the time.

Michael Bell
--

In message , Brimstone
writes
Were the 'Metropolitan' and 'Southern' private-sector companies? If so,
that's absolutely disgraceful, investing money in the hope of making a
profit at the expense of hard-working families. Investment in such things
should always be left in the hands of HM (that is, The People's) Treasury,
who make a much better fist of it. Look at the generous way they paid
for -sorry, funded - BR's plans in the post-war era.


Assuming you not attempting to be humorous, (but that you really do
have a pitiful lack of knowledge of British railway history) British
Railways came into existence on the 1st January 1948. Prior to that all
railways had been privately established and owned, although with
significant government interference.
I'm not entering into this debate, but I find it interesting, you recall
that when I started work on the railways in 63 a lot of the drivers were
employed by the private companies before becoming B.R. and all agreed
that the change was from chasing profit to chasing safety.
--
Clive.

Michael Bell wrote:
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote:
In the days when railway traffic was declining fast, and it seemed
that railways might close altogether,

Can't say I ever thought that was likely. What period did you have in
mind?

I got the impression that BR developed its London commuter market
because whatever the economics, for political reasons that network
could never be shut down. Too many votes depended on it.

Can anybody confirm this?

In what sense did BR "develop" the London commuter market? If you mean
things like the Shenfield electrification, that was largely the renewal
of worn-out infrastructure and trains by up-to-date technology. Such
investment was certainly not confined to the London commuter market.

I am thinking of the period after Beeching, when it seemed that closures
would carry on til nothing was left. But Beeching himself had said that
commuter railways could always be made to pay if you raised the fares high
enough, and it seemed to me that the view in BR HQ after Beeching had left
was that profit may no longer be the objective, but political forces would
keep these routes open, so other business was neglected and effort put into
the commuter market. That was the impression I had at the time. That's hardly
the situation today of course, but time often turns things round in ways that
could not have been foreseen at the time.

As BR was also developing the InterCity market, and new railways were
being planned for other cities (such as the Newcastle Metro) it seems
pretty certain that you're wrong. Anyway, London wasn't entirely free of
closures - the Broad Street line closed, and if there hadn't been a
change of leadership, Marylebone would probably have closed.