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.