London Banter - View Single Post

Aurora

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