🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:33:45 +0100 someone who may be Ross
<junk.trap@ross-mail.me.uk> wrote this:-

>> Had the railways not been regulated by government in Beeching's time, I
>> feel we would not have had the catestrophic slashing of services that
>> we had; it is as if they were on a mission of principle, not economics.
>
>No, it would have happened many years earlier instead.
>
>The Big 4 had been closing branch lines during the 1930s (and earlier)
>as road competition bit. WWII obviously meant other things took
>preference, but I think we can reasonably assume that post-war the
>closures would have recommenced as more and more people got cars,

They did recommence. I suspect that the private companies closed a
few in their last years and BR closed some in the 1950s.

However, the Beeching Cuts were entirely different. They were based
on financial dogma rather than proper analysis of the costs and
opportunities. The dogma was that the railways were losing a lot of
money and the cuts would restore them to profitability. However, the
cuts did not restore them to profitability.

The same dogma is being brought out yet again. There is actually
little to cut on deeply rural lines with minimal services, minimal
staffing and minimal maintenance.

If they actually want to save money the obvious place to start is
the highly subsidised suburban services around cities. Despite the
extension of rush hours in recent decades these services still
involve large amounts of equipment that stands idle most of the
time, especially around London.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54