Editing Beeching cuts (section)

==Critical analysis==

=== Disposals of land and structures ===
{{more citations needed section|date=August 2016}}
[[File:Standlynch - The Beeching Belle - geograph.org.uk - 938812.jpg|thumb|A demolition train during the dismantling of the [[Salisbury and Dorset Junction Railway|Salisbury and Dorset Line]] in 1965]]
[[File:Wednesbury Town railway station 2003.jpg|thumb|Both [[Wednesbury Town railway station]] and the [[South Staffordshire Railway]] were closed, and were still in ruins in 2003.]]

Beeching's reports made no recommendations about the handling of land after closures. British Rail operated a policy of disposing of land that was surplus to requirements. Many bridges, cuttings and embankments have been removed and the land sold for development. Closed station buildings on remaining lines have often been demolished or sold for housing or other purposes. Increasing pressure on land use meant that protection of closed trackbeds, as in other countries, such as the US [[Rail Bank]] scheme, which holds former railway land for possible future use, was not seen to be practical.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/route/ |title=Route Selection – East West Rail<!-- Bot generated title --> |access-date=17 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130728034956/http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/route/ |archive-date=28 July 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Many redundant structures from closed lines remain, such as bridges over other lines and drainage culverts. They often require maintenance as part of the rail infrastructure while providing no benefit. Critics of Beeching argue that the lack of recommendations on the handling of closed railway property demonstrates that the report was short-sighted. On the other hand, retaining a railway on these routes, which would obviously have increased maintenance costs, might not have earned enough to justify that greater cost. As demand for rail has grown since the 1990s, the failure to preserve the routes of closed lines, such as the one between Bedford and Cambridge, which was closed despite Beeching recommending its retention, has been criticised.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/route/ |title=Route Selection – East West Rail<!-- Bot generated title --> |access-date=17 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130728034956/http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/route/ |archive-date=28 July 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Acceptance of rail subsidies===
By 1968, the railways were still losing money and Beeching's approach appeared to many to have failed. It has been suggested that by closing almost a third of the network Beeching achieved a saving of just £30 million, whilst overall losses were running in excess of £100 million per year.{{sfn|Henshaw|1994|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}} However, the precise savings from closures are impossible to calculate.{{sfn|Gourvish|1986|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}} The Ministry of Transport subsequently estimated that rail operating costs had been cut by over £100 million in the wake of the Beeching Report but that much of this had been swallowed up by increased wages. Some of the branches closed acted as feeders to the main lines, and that feeder traffic was lost when the branches closed; the financial significance of this is debatable, for over 90% of the railways' 1960 traffic was carried on lines which remained open ten years later.{{sfn|Loft|2013|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}}

Whatever the figures, towards the end of the 1960s it became increasingly clear that rail closures were not bringing the rail system out of deficit and were unlikely ever to do so.{{sfn|White|1986|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}} Transport minister [[Barbara Castle]] decided that some rail services, which could not pay their way but had a valuable social role, should be subsidised. Legislation allowing this was introduced in the [[Transport Act 1968]]. Section 39 made provision for a subsidy to be paid by the Treasury for a three-year period. This was later repealed in the Railways Act 1974. Whether these subsidies affected the size of the network is questionable: the criteria for reprieving loss-making lines had not altered, merely the way their costs appeared in the railways accounts—previously their contribution to the railways' overall loss was hidden in the total deficit.{{sfn|Loft|2013|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}}

===Replacement buses and proposed alternatives===
The "[[bustitution]]" policy that replaced rail services with buses also failed. In many cases the replacement bus services were slower and less convenient than the trains they were meant to replace, and so were unpopular.{{sfn|Henshaw|1994|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}} Replacement bus services were often run between the (now disused) station sites (some of which were some distance from the population centres they served), thus losing any potential advantage over the closed rail service. Most replacement bus services lasted less than two years before they were removed due to a lack of patronage,<ref name=serpell/> leaving large parts of the country with no public transport.

The assumption at the time{{citation needed|date=May 2010}} was that car owners would drive to the nearest railhead (which was usually the junction where the closed branch line would otherwise have taken them) and continue their journey onwards by train. In practice, having left home in their cars, people used them for the whole journey. Similarly for freight: without branch lines, the railways' ability to transport goods "door to door" was dramatically reduced. As in the passenger model, it was assumed that lorries would pick up goods and transport them to the nearest railhead, where they would be taken across the country by train, unloaded onto another lorry and taken to their destination. The development of the [[motorway]] network, the advent of [[containerisation]], improvements in lorries and the economic costs of having two [[Break bulk cargo|break-bulk points]] combined to make long-distance road transport a more viable alternative.

Many of the closed lines had run at only a small deficit. Some lines such as the [[Sunderland station|Sunderland]]-to-West Hartlepool line cost only £291 per mile to operate.{{sfn|White|1986|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}} Closures of such small-scale loss-making lines made little difference to the overall deficit.

Possible changes to [[light railway]]-type operations were attacked by Beeching, who rejected all proposals for cost savings that would not make a route profitable: "Similarly, consideration of the cost figures will show that thinning out the trains, or thinning out the stations, would not make a service self-supporting even if it had no adverse effect on revenue".{{sfn|Beeching|1963a|p=18}} There is little in the Beeching report recommending general economies (in administration costs, working practices and so on). For example, a number of the stations that were closed were fully staffed 18 hours a day, on lines controlled by multiple [[Victorian era]] signalboxes (again fully staffed, often throughout the day). Operating costs could have been reduced by reducing staff and removing redundant services on these lines while keeping the stations open. This has since been successfully achieved by British Rail and its successors on lesser-used lines that survived the cuts, such as the [[East Suffolk Line]] from Ipswich to Lowestoft, which survives as a "basic railway".{{sfn|Henshaw|1994|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}}

The [[Marshlink line]] between {{rws|Ashford International}} and {{rws|Hastings}}, threatened with closure in the Beeching Report, is now seen as important due to the opening of the Channel Tunnel and [[High Speed 1]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent-business/county-news/new-seaside-service-in-five-15153/ |title=High speed service to run between Ashford and Hastings from London after Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin attends rail summit |work=Kent Business |date=2 April 2014 |access-date=8 March 2015}}</ref> Traffic on the single-track [[Golden Valley Line]] between Kemble and [[Swindon railway station|Swindon]] and the [[Cotswold Line]] between Oxford and Worcester has increased significantly, and double track has now been reinstated on the Golden Valley Line, partly to facilitate a diversionary route during electrification and other works on the Severn tunnel line.{{citation needed|date=April 2022}}

===The people and the politics===
The Conservatives increased their Commons majority in the [[1959 United Kingdom general election|general election of 8 October 1959]], their first with [[Harold Macmillan]] as Prime Minister. [[Ernest Marples]], previously [[Postmaster General of the United Kingdom|Postmaster General]], was made Transport Minister two weeks later in a cabinet reshuffle; Macmillan noted that the Northern working-class boy who had won a [[scholarship]] to a [[grammar school]] was one of only two "self-made men" in his cabinet.{{sfn|Merriman|2007|p=153}}

Marples had a background with a successful road construction company. When opening the [[M1 motorway]], he said: "This motorway starts a new era in road travel. It is in keeping with the bold scientific age in which we live. It is a powerful weapon to add to our transport system." His association with the high-profile construction company [[Marples Ridgway]] became a matter of concern to both the public and politicians. As is customary, he resigned as a director of the company in 1951 on becoming a junior minister, but he only disposed of his shares in the company in 1960 after the company won a contract to build the [[Hammersmith Flyover]], when questions were asked both in the media and also in the Commons on 28 January 1960;<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1960/jan/28/ministers-of-the-crown-private-interests#column_373 |chapter=Ministers of the Crown (Private Interests) |title=Hansard |publisher=House of Commons |date=28 January 1960 |at=Vol. 616 c. 372 |quote=Mr R. Mellish: ... Is [Mr. R. A. Butler] aware that there has been a Press report, which I am unable to confirm or deny, that the Minister of Transport was in fact the senior partner of a firm of contractors which has obtained a contract worth £250,000 and that we understand, according to this Press report, that the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to dispose of the shares he has. In a case of this kind, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it most improper, at any rate, that any Minister of the Crown should be associated with any company with which such a contract is placed?}}</ref> he made a statement to the House later that day confirming that the sale of shares was in hand and would be completed "very soon", noting that as part of the agreement he could be required to buy the shares from the purchaser at the original price after he ceased to hold office, if so desired by the purchaser.<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1960/jan/28/personal-statement#column_381 |chapter=Personal Statement |title=Hansard |publisher=House of Commons |date=28 January 1960 |at=Vol. 616 cc. 380–381 |quote=The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): ... When I became Minister of Transport, last October, I realised that there was a risk of a conflict of interest appearing to arise in consequence of my holding a controlling interest in the company. I immediately took steps to effect a sale of my shares. It has taken some time to arrange this as the company is a private one engaged in long-term contracts in civil engineering, but I hope that it will be completed very soon. Then I shall have no financial interest in the company. But I think that I should tell the House that the prospective purchasers have required me to undertake to buy the shares back from them at the price they are to pay if they ask me to do so after I have ceased to hold office. I myself have no option to buy the shares back. I have not, of course, had anything whatsoever to do with any tenders put in by the company while I have been a member of the Government.}}</ref> While it was reported that he sold the shares to his wife, she denied in a newspaper interview, that any transaction had taken place. It was reported that he had transferred his shares into an Overseas Trust.{{citation needed|date=June 2020}} In July 1964, Marples Ridgway and Partners Limited<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1964/nov/11/marples-ridgway-partners-limited |chapter=Marples, Ridgway & Partners Limited |title=Hansard |publisher=House of Commons |date=11 November 1964 |at=Vol 701 c. 64W}}</ref> were awarded a £4.1 million contract for the "Hendon Urban Motorway" extension of the M1,<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1967/apr/21/m1 |chapter=M1 |title=Hansard |publisher=House of Commons |date=21 April 1967 |at=Vol. 745 c. 173W}}</ref> in the same year that the company was taken over by the Bath and Portland Group.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1389135/Reginald-Ridgway.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1389135/Reginald-Ridgway.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title=Reginald Ridgway |work=The Telegraph |date=29 March 2002}}{{cbignore}}</ref> There was no evidence of any wrongdoing on anyone's part in this or any of the other contracts awarded to the company during his term of office, but it did lead to a sense of unease, not least within the railway sector.{{sfn|EcoLogics|2010|loc="A more critical interpretation is that after Macmillan named Marples as Minister of Transport, Britain’s transport policy swerved to the right, and became motivated by the kind of conflict of interest that Thompson notes can be loosely regarded as a form of corruption (9). Actually, in this case it may well have been a rather tight form of corruption. At the time that he was named minister, Marples owned 64,000 of the 80,000 shares of Marples Ridgeway, a civil engineering firm that specialised in building roads"}}

In April 1960, Sir [[Ivan Stedeford]] established an advisory group known as the Stedeford Committee at the request of Harold Macmillan to report on the state of the British Transport Commission and to make recommendations.<ref name=advisory>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1960/apr/06/british-transport-commission-advisory |chapter=British Transport Commission (Advisory Group) |title=Hansard |publisher=House of Commons |date=6 April 1960 |at=Vol. 621 cc. 393–394 |quote=In accordance with the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on 10th March, I have now appointed the body which will advise me and the British Transport Commission. It will be composed as follows: Chairman: Sir Ivan Stedeford, K.B.E., Chairman and Managing Director, Tube Investments Ltd. Members: Mr. C. F. Kearton, O.B.E., Joint Managing Director, Courtaulds, Dr. R. Beeching, A.R.C.S., B.Sc, Ph.D., Technical Director of I.C.I., Mr. H. A. Benson, C.B.E., F.C.A., partner in Cooper Bros., chartered accountants. The Treasury and the Ministry of Transport will also be represented. The task of the advisory body will be to examine the structure, finance and working of the organisations at present controlled by the Commission and to advise the Minister of Transport and the British Transport Commission, as a matter of urgency, how effect can best be given to the Government's intentions as indicated in the Prime Minister's statement.}}</ref> Sir [[Frank Ewart Smith|Ewart Smith]], a retired former Chief Engineer at [[Imperial Chemical Industries]] (ICI), was asked by Ernest Marples to become a member of an advisory group; Smith declined but recommended Richard Beeching in his place, a suggestion that Marples accepted.{{sfn|Hardy|1989|pp=44–48}} Beeching, who held a [[PhD]] in physics, had been appointed to the main board of ICI at the age of 43. The board consisted of senior figures in British businesses, and none of the board had previous knowledge or experience of the railway industry.<ref name=advisory/> Stedeford and Beeching clashed on a number of issues,{{sfn|Dudley|Richardson|2000|pp=48–49}} but the future size of the railway system was not one of them. For all the suspicion it aroused, the committee had little to say on this and the government was already convinced of the need to reduce the size of the rail network.{{sfn|Loft|2013|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}} In spite of questions being asked in [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]], Sir Ivan's report was not published at the time. In December 1960 questions were asked in the Lords about this "secret" and "under-the-counter" study group, criticising the continued withholding of the report and its recommendations.<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1960/dec/07/problems-of-transportation |chapter=Problems of Transportation |title=Hansard |publisher=House of Lords |date=7 December 1960 |at=Vol. 227 cc. 74–78 |quote=Lord Morrison of Lambeth: ... There has been appointed a highly secret, "under-the-counter" study group of the railways, the Stedeford Advisory Group. Now do not let it be thought that I have any prejudice against Sir Ivan Stedeford. I have a great respect for him: I think he is a very able business man. Indeed, I exercised some influence in getting him appointed as a Governor of the British Broadcasting Corporation, where he did good work. I have no prejudice; but I do not like the way the Government have handled it. They have never published the terms of reference, and I cannot believe that there are not any. They are refusing to publish the Report. In fact, they do not wholly admit that there is a Report; but there are recommendations, and they have not been published...}}</ref> It was later suggested that Stedeford had recommended that the government should set up another body "to consider the size and pattern of the railway system required to meet current and foreseeable needs, in the light of developments and trends in other forms of transport ... and other relevant considerations".{{sfn|EcoLogics|2010|loc="First, Marples decided to 'disappear' the Stedeford report—or at any rate, any recommendations he put forward (there appears to be some debate as to whether an actual report was produced). As noted by Henshaw, 'The findings of the Stedeford Committee remained such a well kept secret that even Barbara Castle was unable to see them on becoming Minister of Transport in 1966' (22). In fact, we now know that Stedeford actually proposed that the government should set up another body whose task it would be '... to consider the size and pattern of the railway system required to meet current and foreseeable needs, in the light of developments and trends in other forms of transport ... and other relevant considerations'"}}

Marples then appointed Beeching as Chairman of the British Transport Commission in March 1961.<ref name="Chairman" /> He would receive the same yearly salary that he was earning at ICI, the controversial sum of £24,000 (£{{Inflation|UK|024|1961}},000 in {{Inflation-year|UK}} terms), £10,000 more than Sir [[Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge|Brian Robertson]], the previous chairman of the BTC, £14,000 more than Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, and two-and-a-half times higher than the salary of any head of a nationalised industry at the time. At that time the government was seeking outside talent to sort out the huge problems of the railway network, and he was confident that he could make the railways pay for themselves, but his salary, at 35 times that of many railway workers, has been described as a "political disaster".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/rear-window-fat-cats-the-man-who-was-paid-pounds-24000-a-year-1593954.html |title=The man who was paid £24,000 a year |work=The Independent |quote="Is ''this'' man—or any man—worth £450 a week?" the Daily Sketch demanded to know. The Daily Express asked: "Is ''this'' the way to run a country?". The Daily Mail reassuringly observed "Dr Beeching rides the storm", while the Mirror calmly stuck to the facts. These were that Dr Richard Beeching, technical director of ICI, had been appointed head of the British Railways Board at a salary of £24,000 per annum ... Whatever the logic, politically it was a disaster. |first=M. |last=Celmins |date=30 July 1995}}</ref>

The [[Transport Act 1962]] dissolved the [[British Transport Commission]] (BTC), which had overseen the railways, canals and road freight transport and established the [[British Railways Board]], which took over on 1 January 1963, with Dr Beeching as its first chairman. The Act put in place measures that simplified the process of closing railways by removing the need for the pros and cons of each case to be heard in detail. It was described as the "most momentous piece of legislation in the field of railway law to have been enacted since the [[Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854]]".{{sfn|Kahn-Freund|1963|p=174}}

The [[1964 United Kingdom general election|general election in October 1964]] returned [[Labour Government 1964–1970|a Labour government]] under Prime Minister [[Harold Wilson]] after 13 years of Conservative government. During the election campaign Labour had promised to halt rail closures if elected, but it quickly backtracked, and later oversaw some of the most controversial closures. Tom Fraser was appointed Minister of Transport, but was replaced by Barbara Castle in December 1965. Castle published a map in 1967,<ref>[http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRB_NetworkForDevelopment1967.pdf 1967 Network for Development report and map]</ref> ''[[Network for Development]]'', showing the railway system "stabilised" at around 11,000 route miles (17,700&nbsp;km).{{sfn|Loft|2013|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}}

Section 39 of the [[Transport Act 1968]] made provision for grants to be paid in relation to loss-making lines and services,<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Section 39: Grants for unremunerative passenger services |title=Transport Act 1968 |publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office |place=London |pages=58–60 (in work pp. 66–68) |chapter-url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/pdfs/ukpga_19680073_en.pdf#page=66 |id=1968 c. 73 |quote=If, in the case of any place or places to and from which railway passenger services are for the time being provided by the Railways Board, the Minister is satisfied (a) that those services are unremunerative; and (b) that it is desirable for social or economic reasons that railway passenger services to and from the place or places in question should for the time being continue to be provided either in the same or in some different form or manner; and (c) that because of the unremunerative nature of the services which the Minister is satisfied are desirable for those reasons (hereafter in this section referred to as "the required services") the Board cannot reasonably be expected to provide them without assistance under this section, then, subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may from time to time with the consent of the Treasury undertake to make grants to the Board in respect of the provision of the required services for such period not exceeding three years at a time as the Minister may think fit.}}</ref> but many of the services and railway lines that would have qualified had already been closed. A number of branch lines and local services were saved by this legislation.<ref>{{cite magazine |title= |magazine=The Railway Magazine |date=January 1969 |volume= |issue= |page=}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=June 2023}}

After 1970, when the Conservatives were [[1970 United Kingdom general election|returned to power]], serious thought was given to a further programme of closures, but this proved politically impossible.{{sfn|Loft|2013|p=}}{{page needed|date=June 2023}} In 1982, under the government of [[Margaret Thatcher]], Sir [[David Serpell]], a civil servant who had worked with Beeching, compiled the [[Serpell Report]] which said that a profitable railway could be achieved only by closing much of what remained.<ref name=serpell>{{cite web |author=Garry Keenor |url=http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=29 |title=Railway Finances – Report of a Committee chaired by Sir David Serpell KCB CMG OBE |publisher=The Railways Archive |access-date=25 July 2010}}</ref> The report's infamous "Option A" proposed greatly increasing fares and reducing the rail network to a mere {{convert|1630|miles}}, leaving only {{convert|22|miles}} of railway in Wales (a section of the [[South Wales Main Line]] from the [[Severn Tunnel]] to {{rws|Cardiff Central}}) and none in Somerset, Devon or Cornwall. The [[Midland Main Line]] was planned to close, leaving Leicester and Derby without a rail link, while the East Coast Main Line, part of the key London/Edinburgh link, was intended to be cut north of Newcastle. The report was published on 20 January 1983 and received an immediate backlash from the media. It was quietly shelved in the run up to the [[1983 United Kingdom general election|1983 election]].<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://railuk.com/rail-news/the-fall-and-rise-of-britains-railways-part-5/|title=The fall and rise of Britain's railways: Part 5|magazine=Rail UK|date=2 October 2013|access-date=20 December 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=The 'bad news' report that helped build today's railway|url=https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2008/09/01-serpell-report-feature.html|magazine=Rail News|date=1 September 2008|access-date=20 December 2021}}</ref>

[[Ian Hislop]] comments that history has been somewhat unkind to "Britain's most hated civil servant", by forgetting that Beeching proposed a much better bus service that ministers never delivered, and that in some ways he was used to do their "dirty work for them". Hislop describes him as "a technocrat [who] wasn't open to argument to romantic notions of rural England or the warp and weft of the train in our national identity. He didn't buy any of that. He went for a straightforward profit and loss approach and some claim we are still reeling from that today".<ref name=Hated>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7644630.stm |title=Britain's most hated civil servant |work=BBC News |date=1 October 2008}}</ref> Beeching was unrepentant about his role in the closures: "I suppose I'll always be looked upon as the axe man, but it was surgery, not mad chopping".{{sfn|Davies|1982|p=11}}

On 7 June 2019, former Minister for Transport [[Andrew Adonis]] delivered a speech on "Reversing Beeching".<ref>{{cite web |title=Andrew Adonis – 2019 Speech to the IPPR on Reversing Beeching |url=http://www.ukpol.co.uk/andrew-adonis-2019-speech-to-the-ippr-on-reversing-beeching/ |website=UKPOL |date=7 June 2019}}</ref>