Ian Hislop's " Off The Rails. "

Agency_Scum · Post by **Agency_Scum** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:35 pm

Anyone see this? Fascinating stuff and it's repeated a few times this week.

tugboatcharly2 · Post by **tugboatcharly2** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:06 pm

one of the contributors said that the railways prior to the 2 nd world war that they did not reach every where in the uk but he should have looked at the the prewar maps of the four companies and he would have noted there were very few places you not get to by train i have now in front of me the gwr map of 1936 and the places where there was no railway the gw ran a bus service like helston to the lizard in cornwall .as for beching i could have the job for nothing !!!

Splodge · Post by **Splodge** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:54 pm

tugboatcharly2 wrote: As for beching i could have the job for nothing !!!

Ãº24,000 a year they paid him & the Prime Minister at the time was on Ãº10,000!

First time i've seen film footage of Beechin... bloody ugly wasn't he!

tugboatcharly2 · Post by **tugboatcharly2** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:39 pm

you may be interested to learn that the labour goverment carried on with closures because their friends transport and general workers union insisted to protect the lorry transport industry .
the clevedon branch was not listed under beeching but was closed because of argument's in the ministry of transport which fund was to be used to the cost of the m5 overbridge the road lobby won and the railway lost even under the survey the branch met the criteria to stay in the br system and even to day this goverment is playing lip service the railway industry when a electrification plan should be now be being introduced

Agency_Scum · Post by **Agency_Scum** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:14 pm

As a HUGE fan of railways you know what makes me chirpy?

The price of petrol! That's where the re-birth of railways will come from.

stationcat · Post by **stationcat** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:35 pm

The man in charge of the railways had no railway background and relied on an army of bean counters. The government was stuffed with pro road ministers. My, how history repeats itself !!!

Agency_Scum · Post by **Agency_Scum** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:27 pm

Careful Cap'n, that IRONY DETECTOR can only take so much!

jules · Post by **jules** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:57 pm

Ãº24,000 a year they paid him & the Prime Minister at the time was on Ãº10,000!

I'm not defending Beeching in any way, but apparently he really didn't want the job and refused it several times. That's why they offered him such a huge salary for the time before he agreed to do it. Maybe he knew he was being handed a poisoned chalice - and would go down in history as the murderer of the UK railways. As always, it was the politicians and their business chums that were really behind it.

Some have said that had Beeching not done what he did at the time, a lot more of the railway would have eventually closed - and that's bearing in mind he didn't get anything like what he wanted in terms of closures.

Of course, looking back some 50 years on, the loss is now quite incalculable - if we had retained our *legacy* of the full network against the short term interests of the massively subsidised road industry, the face of Britain would be totally different today.

Agency_Scum · Post by **Agency_Scum** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:48 pm

I think what grates me is the wanton physical destruction of the lines. Why not just leave them there to rot and ( in the knowledge that economic climates change ) relay the tracks later?
If it wasn't for John Grimshaw ( of Sustrans fame ) then housing estates and by-passes would have covered the entire abandoned system like Japanese Knot Weed.

Post by **James** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:54 pm

Enough piecemeal development and "quick buck" selling-off of land/destruction of structures has taken place to render many lines impractical, if not impossible to reopen. I guess BR didn't want other people to prove them wrong about the viability of routes.

jules · Post by **jules** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:07 am

in the knowledge that economic climates change

I think back in the post-war 50's and 60's it was all "bright new future", "white heat of technology", "new personal freedoms" and "sweep away the old world".

Nobody back then ever stopped to think of what was being lost, nobody had any idea that economic climates change and nobody even stopped to think that one day, oil would run out and/or the world would heat up. They didn't want the old steam railway - they wanted shiny new cars and new roads to drive them on. And so did big business and the politicians, obviously $$$ ÃºÃºÃº!

I guess coming out of the second world war you can take it in context as to why people of the time wanted a bright new future - look at the "slum clearance" that went on in Bristol alone so new roads could be forced through local neighbourhoods. A lot of those houses would be treasured homes today.

And nobody, least of all the politicians, ever stopped to think of what was being lost. And of course, if a quick buck could be made selling off what was left abandoned and unwanted, then so much the better.

Agency_Scum · Post by **Agency_Scum** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:36 am

A bright new future where EVERYONE owns a car!

Right sunshine, done that.....now where are you going to park the buggers?

What happens when the oils states we practically own today in the 1950s in the middle east gain more independance in the distant future; say, even as far ahead as the 1970s?

Oops.

tugboatcharly2 · Post by **tugboatcharly2** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:36 pm

The long term debate about the GW mainline to Penzance between Exeter and Newton Abbot passing through Dawlish because of the sea walls and the problems in the future.Well in the days of railway engineers the GW built a diversionary route from Exeter to Newton Abbot in land the junction situated at Exeter City Basin and was routed a double red line meaning it was allowed to have the king class locos passing over it. The stations were as follows Alphington Halt,Ide halt.Longdown.Dunsford Halt.Christow Ashton.Trusham.Chudleigh, Chudleigh Hal,Heathfield, Teingrace Halt and Newton Abbot missing out any problems arrising with rough seas.

But the brains depart ment a group of waste the space humans did"t even see no further than the end of their noses.

And now they have no ideal how to get over the problem except knock down all the development on the old route.then rebuild.

Post by **James** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:33 pm

I was under the impression that the inland GWR alternative to the sea wall was engineered as a single track branchline, and it's winding route, sharp curves, and single platform stations would appear to back this up. I do remember reading of the partial construction of a planned mainline route further inland, but closer to the existing sea wall line, but if I remember correctly, this never progressed beyond marking out, and some cutting earthworks.

The Exeter end of the branch is totally blocked by development, and around Chudleigh, the dual carriageway A38 has obliterated a large portion of the trackbed.

tugboatcharly2 · Post by **tugboatcharly2** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:47 pm

it was only an alternative if the main line was ever blocked ,I do not know if ever it was used for that purpose. the alternative was also chopped up to Plymouth and beyond which was via Oakhampton which I personly worked over with the 11/35 Padd; to Plymouth parcels which was the first part of the double home turn at Bath Rd;

The Bristol Railway Archive

Ian Hislop's " Off The Rails. "

Ian Hislop's " Off The Rails. "

hislop. and the railway

Re: hislop. and the railway

railway closures

closed lines

the alternative line