WI: No Beeching Axe?

For those who don't know, the Beeching Axe is the name given to the sieres of mass closures (aimed at cutting costs) on Britain's Rail network during the 1960's (more infomation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_Axe)

Although it's likely that some closures were inevitable, what would the impact on Britain today be if Beeching's ideas are not implemented and Britain's Rail netowrk is left largely intact? Disscus.

Apparently all the closures didn't save much money despite slashing services. Perhaps other alternatives could have been implemented.

I suspect the closures might come under the Thatcher government; in OTL, the Serpell report advocated an even more brutal hacking of the railway system than Beeching did in OTL; fortunately, the Thatcher government backed away from the ideas. ITTL, Thatcher may be more receptive to the idea of shutting uneconomical branch lines.

As regards B.R, there'll be some significant differences. It's unlikely that it'll be able to afford the electrification of the ECML, or the WCML north of Preston. We're unlikely to see the development of the HST, APT, or the Freightliner network, things that in OTL preserved BR from utter destruction and paved the way for the spectacular rail revival that began in the late 1980s and continues even today, despite the recession.

Steam traction will probably continue until the 1990s, that is unless, as I stated above, Thatcher gets involved, and coal is in distinctly short supply. Elements of the BR Modernisation plan that were in OTL quickly ditched despite no real problems, such as the Class 14, Class 35, and diesel railbus, will ITTL continue to be used on the BR network.

For around 25 years, this network will be hugely expensive and a weight around the neck of the British economy. However, if it is able to survive intact until about 1990, the benefits will be significant, as rail travel really begins to take off. If a Labour government is in power during the 1990s, then BR has the potential to become the envy of the world, with a vast, interlinked, thriving network. Even if the Conservatives are in power, the system's ever diminishing losses, and rising growth, may attract investment, and the delayed introduction of something resembling HST.

Basileus Giorgios said:

I suspect the closures might come under the Thatcher government; in OTL, the Serpell report advocated an even more brutal hacking of the railway system than Beeching did in OTL; fortunately, the Thatcher government backed away from the ideas. ITTL, Thatcher may be more receptive to the idea of shutting uneconomical branch lines.

Click to expand...

This is true, although by this point I suspect that a comination of factors would stand in the way:

the analysis tools available would allow the feeder effects of branch lines to be understood better
BR might have been forced into more piecemeal closures that demonstrate that subsitution of branch lines with cars as the feeder to mainline stations doesn't work
BR may well have continued its experiments with light rail on the branch lines
Modernisation would have made the branch lines much less expensive to run, replacing old-fashioned expensive steam engines and Victorian signalling. This was successful on some of the retained lines.

As regards B.R, there'll be some significant differences. It's unlikely that it'll be able to afford the electrification of the ECML, or the WCML north of Preston. We're unlikely to see the development of the HST, APT, or the Freightliner network, things that in OTL preserved BR from utter destruction and paved the way for the spectacular rail revival that began in the late 1980s and continues even today, despite the recession.

Click to expand...

I don't quite understand why this is necessary. The Beeching cuts didn't actually save that much money, so why would there be less available for investement. I could understand it that money spent on these high value projects could be diluted and spent on the modernisation of the branch network (as I mention above), but this should, in the medium/long term, make the main line upgrades more likely/required, as there would be substantially higher volumes of traffic being fed to them by the retained branch line network.

Steam traction will probably continue until the 1990s, that is unless, as I stated above, Thatcher gets involved, and coal is in distinctly short supply. Elements of the BR Modernisation plan that were in OTL quickly ditched despite no real problems, such as the Class 14, Class 35, and diesel railbus, will ITTL continue to be used on the BR network.

Click to expand...

If modern steam is introduced, possible. Otherwise, I suspect some analogue of the Clean Air Act 1968 will kill coal powered trains.

For around 25 years, this network will be hugely expensive and a weight around the neck of the British economy.

Click to expand...

I'd dispute the economic on this. The argument that the implementation of Beeching Report was a net cost saver over that 25 years is I think, unresolved.

However, if it is able to survive intact until about 1990, the benefits will be significant, as rail travel really begins to take off. If a Labour government is in power during the 1990s, then BR has the potential to become the envy of the world, with a vast, interlinked, thriving network. Even if the Conservatives are in power, the system's ever diminishing losses, and rising growth, may attract investment, and the delayed introduction of something resembling HST.

Click to expand...

I agree here.

Basileus Giorgios said:

Steam traction will probably continue until the 1990s, that is unless, as I stated above, ...

For around 25 years, this network will be hugely expensive and a weight around the neck of the British economy. However, if it is able to survive intact until about 1990, the benefits will be significant, as rail travel really begins to take off.

Click to expand...

IMO the only other chioce to The Axe is cost cutting by modernisation. Away with the steam engines, get diesel MU for the smaller lines, electric trains for the larger ones, increase the speed -especially on the minor lines- make sure trains run regular like every one or two hours at the same minute and automate the signalling as mechanical signal boxes at every station require a lot of costly manpower. The unions won´t like that but they need to get the message that it´s either a considerable but gradual reduction of the workforce or an even larger one over a shorter periode. And that the modernisation ensures they keep the original passengers and gain many new ones.

See "Green and Pleasant Land"

Alratan said:

If modern steam is introduced, possible. Otherwise, I suspect some analogue of the Clean Air Act 1968 will kill coal powered trains.

Click to expand...

The great tragedy of Beeching is that by the mid 1960s, BR had just invested in a vast fleet of new steam, diesel, and electric locomotives that saw all of their intended work snatched away from them. The last of the B.R Standard steam locomotives were withdrawn in 1968, giving the entire batch a working life of seventeen years (1951-1968). BR's diesel hydraulics did marginally better, with a working life of twenty years (1957-1977). And the Woodhead electrics, at the time the most modern railway in the country, enjoyed just under sixteen years as a main line passenger route (1954-1970) followed by eleven years of decline as an increasingly neglected freight line (1970-1981). What I'm trying to put across is that BR in 1963 was in no way short of modern motive power.

There was one alternative which I dont think was ever explored.
Axe the small branch lines, but turn the rails into a road (not that expensive, all the expensive work has been done for the railway.).
Now run coaches and lorries ONLY as the feeder into the bigger stations. These would be a lot cheaper than small trains, and far more scaleable than trains.
And now you have a load of lorries off the roads, the load on them is reduced.

Astrodragon said:

There was one alternative which I dont think was ever explored.
Axe the small branch lines, but turn the rails into a road (not that expensive, all the expensive work has been done for the railway.).
Now run coaches and lorries ONLY as the feeder into the bigger stations. These would be a lot cheaper than small trains, and far more scaleable than trains.
And now you have a load of lorries off the roads, the load on them is reduced.

Click to expand...

Actually , in a vast number of cases , this was exactly what happened. Railways were turned into A-roads and bypasses , usually with a replacement bus service run by the local council.

Sir Scott said:

Actually , in a vast number of cases , this was exactly what happened. Railways were turned into A-roads and bypasses , usually with a replacement bus service run by the local council.

Click to expand...

Only a few of the permanent ways were turned into roads and many are now overgrown ribbons of land. They are still rights of way and some are used as footpaths or bridleway/cycle tracks and the Croydon Tram-link does use a lot of them.

Case histories

My uncle Chris Edkins told an influential councillor to secure the Bridgewater to Minehead branch line. This was done and the North Somerset line is doing very nicely. As for the old Paddy line from Dumfries to Stranraer, this was lost just before the Northern Ireland Troubles. The local people were very angry at losing the service. It also destroyed the businesses in the town of Dalbeattie - cattle market, cream/cheese factory, some others - which had made it the industrial centre of the Stewartry.

When rail lines were turned into roads, people got into their cars and stayed in them rather than get onto a train. Frieght was the same, once it was loaded onto a truck it was easier/cheaper to keep it on the truck that offload it onto a train.

Riain said:

When rail lines were turned into roads, people got into their cars and stayed in them rather than get onto a train. Frieght was the same, once it was loaded onto a truck it was easier/cheaper to keep it on the truck that offload it onto a train.

Click to expand...

As I said, if anybody bothered to look, rail lines were NOT turned into roads in the UK. Also it was a lot LESS fuel and manpower efficient to transport goods by road. It did however act as a job creation scheme for the government of the day.

My two pennies worth...

- There's no guarantee that any Labour government is going to reverse the Beeching Axe. Indeed, the cuts continued under Labour.

- Find a way to get rid of Ernest Marples. Maybe his fraud cases is rumbled earlier. Strange chap, Marples, came from the next town from my home town as well. He had huge interests in road transport and divested them temporarily to his wife, if I recall.

SteveW said:

My two pennies worth...

- There's no guarantee that any Labour government is going to reverse the Beeching Axe. Indeed, the cuts continued under Labour.

- Find a way to get rid of Ernest Marples. Maybe his fraud cases is rumbled earlier. Strange chap, Marples, came from the next town from my home town as well. He had huge interests in road transport and divested them temporarily to his wife, if I recall.

Click to expand...

You've got that in one!

At some point, cuts would be made. If not Beeching, then someone else. It was inevitable that many of the branchlines would close. The company can't keep bleeding money away. Modernisation was requiring considerable capital in new equipment and rolling stock with the original plan blowing out in cost.

Discarding common carrier status as soon as its nationalised and introduce competitive charges to slow down erosion from road haulage. Also make investment in containerisation and block haulage of commodities, like most other places.

Most of the British Rail standard steam locos were perfectly sound and there was nothing wrong with them, they could have had another good fifteen years service in them, for the most part.

Yet in other parts of the world, modernisation of large rail systems, often involving cuts and 'modernisation' were significantly smoother.