Talk:Beeching cuts

Picture of report cover

Am I alone in thinking this article should start with a picture of the cover of the beeching report?Graldensblud 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, if such an illustration is available. The pictures presently at the head of the article could be moved to later in the page where they could help illustrate how the cuts left our railway infrastructure looking.Cloptonson (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the title appropriately NPOV?

I agreee with the tone of this article on a personal level, but I think it could benefit from the attentions of somebody wearing their NPOV glasses... quercus robur 00:23 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

A link to the Transport Act, 1962 might be in order.

The bit about "marginal constutituencies" appears definitely POV. Unless someone can come up with evidence - remembering of course that Wikipedia doesn't allow original research - that is you'll need to quote EXISTING research or literature on the subject! Exile 22:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Read enough regional histories covering the Heart of Wales Line and you'll find it. Tern 20:02, 30 Jul 2005 (BST)

But it has to be in the article, preferably in such a way that other people can verify it themselves. Too much of this article consists of "many commentators now agree" and "some people believe" and "others were of the opinion that" and "however, it was felt that", which is pseudoencyclopaedic, just like pseudoscience. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

" Where some lines would never have been profitable in 1963 they could well be profitable now, and could even have a major impact on reducing road congestion and pollution in those areas. However in many instances it would be prohibitively expensive for lines closed by the Beeching Axe to be reopened; although it was not stipulated in the report, since Beeching there has been a policy of disposing of surplus-to-requirements railway land. Therefore many bridges, cuttings and embankments have been removed and the land sold off for development; closed station buildings on remaining lines have often been either demolished or sold."

Since there are virtually no passenger railways either in the UK or elsewhere that are "profitable" this is clearly nonsense. The re-opened railways are certainly not profitable, although they carry more passengers than they did when closed originally. BR certainly had no interest in keeping vacant land they no longer needed just for the sake of it. Had the government wanted to retain old rights of way free of building they could have done so by converting them to roads or pedestrian routes - but in most cases they didn't. Recently the building costs of both road and rail infrastructure has knocked most big transport schemes in the UK on the head - although, curiously, other countries still manage it,some of them a great deal less wealthy than Britain. That was POV by the way and I wouldn't put it in the article!

Exile 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This will be a little bit off topic here, but I think quite relevant to a general debate. Given the cost of laying a new line against what the present Government calls the environmental creditials of the railways (I have not seen any facts to agree nor disagree with that) is it not interesting that the five proposed 'eco-towns' that the PM to be has proposed do not include railway lines? Obviously you can quotes Ashford etc. on High Speed Line 1 (correct?) but this is very much the exception to the rule. In essence it is a shame that the Government is not willing to spent a minute fraction of the annual budget to build a town with a railway. Adam To explain, before reading anything with a possible political element I like to read yje discussion first.

I've reworded that section to qualify the profitable bit, although I'm loathe to take it out completely as it's complex what is and isn't profitable in the modern world of the railway (c.f. Network Rail's current "profit" post massive subsidy, SWTrains, GNER etc make a "profit" and pay a premium to run services). Beeching had no crystal ball and recommended line closures that, with hindsight, a shifting, more mobile and growing population, and the passing of 40-odd years, was a mistake, however as you say, the real issue was not the closure but the subsequent wholesale disposal of the permanent way.BaseTurnComplete 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether the closures were a mistake in environmental or social terms is a good question, but in financial terms the whole network was losing money at a prodigious rate so it is likely that all but a handful of routes were not covering their costs. Some branch lines didn't earn enough to cover the enginemen's wages. The Banff branch carried an average of THREE passengers per train, they could have completed their journey more cheaply and faster by taxi! Of course other countries had loss-making rail networks and (with the exception of the USA) didn't take an axe to them in the 50s and 60s. France, as it happens, had its "Beeching axe" in the 1930s. Why other countries retained their rail networks more or less intact and the Anglo-Saxon countries didn't would make an interesting political and economic field of study.

Exile 19:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing this article doesn't cover too well are the often made accusations that the Beeching report was based on questionable data and understanding. I've read that it was based mainly on local ticket sales so branches that mainly took vistors to a place were screwed. And I've read the recollections of the campaign to keep Earlestown station open - the closure was based on "Earlestown" having a population of only about 3000, compared to 23,000 for Newton-le-Willows. However at the enquiry the BR officials were gobsmacked to learn that Earlestown, named after a railway director, is just a district within Newton-le-Willows (if even that at the time) and the station is much more centrally located. Timrollpickering 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Even today railway statistics are often prone to errors - for instance Dorking West railway station is currently listed as "4th least used", when it's actually "4th lowest number of tickets sold for this station" as it's almost impossible to actually buy a ticket specifically for Dorking West. Timrollpickering 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

comment on above - both Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown were in the Beeching closure list so I'm not sure how reliable the above information is. The plan was to close all stations between Liverpool and Manchester except St Helens Junction (retained as the railhead for St Helens as the main station in St Helens (Shaw St) was to be closed as well).

The initial survey that much of Beeching I was based on took place in 1961. Since it was based on ticket sales, rather than journeys and was taken outside the holiday period, then seaside resorts in particular were "undercounted". But - the holiday season in most resorts lasted something like 8 weeks out of 52. So what if in those 8 weeks the trains to Ilfracombe or Minehead were packed - given that another of Beeching's proposals was to scrap coaches that spent most of the year quietly rusting in sidings. There is a case that this was a mistake, given that old coaches had no real book value and required little maintenance when idle. No-one was in the mood to make this case at the time. There is probably more waste (fuel, wear and tear) involved in the modern practice of running fixed-length multiple units regardless of whether 20 or 200 passengers are on board.

Exile (talk)

Well yes - but short of employing someone full time to count people getting on and off at Dorking West - how are we ever going to know? For the vast majority of stations the statistics are reasonable - but there are well known issues concerning undercounting of "travelcard/zone" type tickets either not being to/from a specific station, or "multi-modal", or both, and the arbitary allocation of journeys to/from towns with more than one main station. Exile (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here).

A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria.

GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project.

-- LuciferMorgan 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

This article is currently under Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Result of the GAR

Explanation: This article was classed as a 'good article', but when it went through a 'Good Article Review' (GAR) it was unanimous agreed that it should be 'DeListed' by 5 votes to 0. Here are the reasons given by the people who voted:

Warned by me in December regarding lack of inline cites. Delist. LuciferMorgan 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question What do you mean by "warn", you warn the individual who wrote it, nominated it, or passed it? or you warned the article? where do you "warn"? Wooyi 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as "It must be realised that not all of the railway lines listed for closure were closed; a number were kept open for a variety of reasons, including political manoeuvring", it must also be realized that commanding readers to do something isn't a very good way to write an encyclopedia, Delist. Also, I know British spelling is a bit weird sometimes, but i'm having trouble swallowing "manoeuvring", is that really how its spelled? Homestarmy 03:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct spelling. Delist RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delist M3tal H3ad 08:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per Homestarmy. Teemu08 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per Homestarmy. Rlevse 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Sumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I WP:SNOWed this? I think the outcome is a bit obvious. Homestarmy 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

'British spelling is a bit weird' <--- I am sorry, but that line made me chuckle. 135.196.157.83 (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC) FW

Re: Prohibitive Cost

"However in many instances it would be prohibitively expensive for lines closed by the Beeching Axe to be reopened"

Whilst i respect the comment above about profitability it would be interesting if a comparison with cited sources could be made into any existing studies into this against the total cost of something like the M6 toll road - a "from scratch" development with a number of toll areas (comparable perhaps to rail stations in size, scope and continued upkeep/wage bill) and new bridges and cuttings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.108.42.194 (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately a 10 mile stretch of new motorway is likely to be busier than a 10 mile rebuilt Beeching branch line. It will also, as will the new rail line, generate benefits in reduction of journey times, accidents and pollution. So my comment still holds I think.

When it comes to high speed lines the benefits are obviously much greater - but so are the costs. 70m per mile for CTRL1 I believe, double the cost of the average motorway (due mainly to tunnels insisted on by NIMBYs no doubt)

Don't get me wrong - I am pro-rail - but politicians need to be able to demonstrate that when they put their hands in our pockets they're going to spend the money wisely - and building a branch line for a dozen people per day to use may not be obviously a sensible choice.

Exile (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Development of Trunk Routes (Beeching 2)

Having read this report it definitely does NOT recommend closure of the "not for development" routes (the question is left completely open as the Beeching report itself had dealt with closures per se). The focus of the report was on routes considered as duplicates (eg across the Pennines) and largely considered freight, not passenger traffic. Will reword this section unless someone else comments.

Exile 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It didn't actually say anything about closure per-se but that was taken as being the implication. At least this is how it has been interpreted in all of the books I have read on the subject. G-Man * 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Although it may not say specifically, the plans were to axe all lines except those for development. I have read this many times. The way that it is worded in the report is very misleading. Beeching obviously wanted to be careful- remember, 1/3 of the network had already been closed by him two years before, with masses of opposition. He was hardly going to state it clearly! Dewarw 08:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No London commuter lines were on the map - and yet it's very unlikely it was planned to close them. On the other hand, the wording of Beeching I made it clear that the closures in that report were not the final word. As long as the financial losses continued the BR board had no option but to keep cutting until such time as the government started to subsidise loss making services (which happened in 1968) - otherwise it would eventually have become bankrupt.

Exile (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Map for Beeching II.

With Beeching II. is map with year of editing 1984. I am not sure about correct it. Year 1984 should be more correspond with Serpell report from 1983. Please, can somebody check it? hydrolog

The year on the map is what the intended network would look like in 1984. Ie, the closures would take place between 1965 and 1984, until the network looked like that. It is definately from the Beeching II report. Dewarw 11:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1984 on the map comes from the fact that Beeching 2 was really crystal-ball-gazing: what should the network look like in 1984? Remember at this time long term economic planning was all the vogue - the problem was the all-knowledgeable planners consistently got their planning totally wrong, which was why governments nowadays operate on a much-bemoaned short-termist time frame. What goes around comes around, eh?89.243.35.37 (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-write

Someone has done a pretty good re-write with plenty of references. However they haven't got so far as to remove the old superseded stuff from the bottom of the article, so the article is left a bit of a mess.

I've now removed the old stuff where the re-written text better covers things, generally tidied up the article and removed the cite tag as this is now pretty well referenced. Maybe it's a big step on the road to getting good article status back?BaseTurnComplete (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have overdone it a bit. Parts of the Overview section were referenced and are now lost. Especially the part about bustitution. I think that should be reintroduced somewhere. I'll get round to doing more work on this sometime. G-Man ^? 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it's academic now, because most of the pruned text has been restored by someone, the article is once more rather messy and also the cite tag has returned. I'm not going to get into an edit war, but this a retrograde step if this is ever going to get its good article status back.BaseTurnComplete (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two things: the messiness and the lack of references. With or without the restored text, the article lacks adequate references, its has no chance of making GA without a lot more referencing (and cleaning up). I happen to think that the cite tag was removed too early - have a look at some other articles that have recently made GA.Pyrotec (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Copypaste or reference to deleted text?

From "Overview" section": a number of the stations which were closed (such as those on the Mansfield line, above). So what was there above ? Mansfield reappears well below "Overview". NVO (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

Does anyone have a map of the railways pre- and post- beeching that could be overlaid? Seems that it would be very useful to have a map in this article. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives to the Axe

Various commentators in opposition to the proposals at the time said that Beeching had fulfilled his remit as it had been defined by those who had appointed him and that the report within its limits was well done.

Perhaps the question should be - what else could, or should have been done (given the resources available at the time - political as well as economic)?

A number of the routes were no longer suited to existing needs, or could be replaced by alternatives (for example the route from West Drayton to Uxbridge High Street). Some of the routes should, probably, have been kept open, or arrangements put in place for their reconstruction or due replacement - the suggested bus networks etc.

There are also the benefits of hindsight and the Black swan theory - the 1970s oil crisis, the rise of the ecological movement etc. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's likely that without Beeching the railways would have been starved of investment and gradually become unusable as the maintenance and repair backlog increased. The end result may well have been the bankruptcy of the BR board and the total closure of railways other than commuter lines in the London area which might have been taken over by London Transport and the occasional tourist route and freight-only lines. Look at America to see the alternative future.

Exile (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Beeching didn't prompt an influx of investment or any improvement in the maintenance and repair backlog. It's also highly improbable the US would have been a model for what happened in the UK:

1. The US has never had a "passenger rail network" as such. Some small areas have had them (and there still exists one to some extent between NJ and MA), but as a whole the country didn't have the kind of integrated, goes anywhere, type system common in Europe. American railroads are, and were, largely independent entities, that remembled airliners more than European trains. The collapse of passenger rail in the US (and Canada) is pretty much unrelated to anything going on outside.

2. In the US passenger numbers were declining, and were declining since the 1920s. In Britain, even in 1962, passenger numbers continued to increase. I don't have the figure for 1962 handy, but 1960 saw an increase in passenger miles of 3.4% over 1959, and of 8% in ticket receipts, and everything was up over pre-nationalization. The issue with British Railways was that its costs rose far more quickly than its receipts.

Beeching went in with a view that the network was too large. That's why Marples appointed him. That's why he used the somewhat simplistic methodology (based on the notion that any mile of line with less than 15,000 passengers per week is unprofitable) he did.

The more I've read of the report, the more convinced I am - albeit with hindsight - that much of it was to justify an agenda of what Beeching already thought was wrong, rather than to find out what was wrong with an open mind. Beeching felt the network was too large. The reality is that it probably needed a mixture of fixes, from a rearrangement of the network to reflect population shifts, to massive cuts in staffing levels making use of improvements in technology, turning many stations into halts and making better use of railbuses and other light rail concepts.

But if Beeching had understood the system better, and still been convinced the only way to make BR profitable was to cut lines, he'd probably have made a slightly different decision, and arguably one that would have been just as controversial. A smarter Beeching would have left most of the network (some redundant lines aside) alone in England and Wales. But as the branch lines didn't cover the costs of the trunk lines in Scotland, and had no effect on the trunk lines in England, he'd probably have removed British Rail from Scotland altogether. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

The following text was removed today (08:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)) as being in the wrong section ("Serpell Report") and for having other issues (reproduced here, indented for clarity, no other text changed):

Many of the lines that were closed to passenger traffic under Beechings axe still retained an amount of freight traffic that kept them open until the late 1970’s early 1980’s.

These lines were then recovered very quickly by British Rail. There are many towns of significant populations that would benefit from such lines, such as Stourport-on-Severn in Worcestershire - a town with chronic rush hour traffic - which had a railway line serving a power station until the 1980s. However, when the power station closed, the track was ripped up and several bridges were demolished on the route, making a re-opening prohibitabley expensive. The station site was sold off and now holds a housing estate. British Rails actions at that late date still remain a mystery to many observers in places like Stourport.

The first paragraph was in the wrong place, and the second -- written by a different author -- built on the first. The new paragraph has the additional problems of POV and OR.

I could not see where these paragraphs should fit logically within the text (besides, they are unreferenced) and hence moved them here for consideration by other editors.

EdJogg (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph is certainly true, many lines lasted as freight lines long after they had lost their passenger traffic, and some of those are now preserved and open as heritage lines. An example of this is the Kent and East Sussex Railway. Closed to passenger traffic on 2 January 1954 and lifted between Tenterden and Headcorn. Tenterden to Robertsbridge closed to passenger traffic from that date, apart from hop-pickers specials. Closed to freight on 14 July 1960 except a small section at Robertsbridge which remained open as a private siding until 31 December 1969. Line reopened between Tenterden and Rolvenden in 1974 as a heritage railway and subsequently extended to Bodiam. Long term plans to extend back to Robertsbridge. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I had no problem with the truth of the first paragraph, it was just in the wrong place and I couldn't work out where best to move it. Your comment may indicate that there's a rather larger 'missing paragraph' in the article?

EdJogg (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with the passage. The second paragraph has been expanded to include an example. Btline (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of any other problems with the text, neither paragraph belongs in the section titled "Serpell Report". EdJogg (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

I've removed some of the hyperbole in the "Aftermath" section, largely because the authors don't appear to have read the report itself. The report does, in fact, cover light railway concepts, specifically railbuses, indeed Beeching really covered six potential criticisms of his report within it, asking these five questions:

• (a) Why not decrease fares and attract more traffic?
• (b) Why not give people the opportunity to pay higher fares and preserve the service?
• (c) Why not substitute rail buses for trains and decrease the cost of the service?
• (d) Why not run fewer trains?
• (e) Why not close some stations?

and also, in other sections, disagreeing with the sixth view that there are social reasons to keep the lines open, Beeching arguing buses can easily take over the role the railway had taken.

Now, to add to that, I'd like to know where a couple of things in the aftermath section comes from:

• There are no assumptions stated in the report about people driving to railway stations, indeed the report talks in a language that appears to assume car drivers, and public transport users, are two different groups. Likewise, I didn't see anything about trucks going to mainline stations. Where is this assumed by Beeching?
• Beeching doesn't argue BR should supply substitute buses, he claims that virtually all of the closed lines are already well served by buses (see page 19.)

Much as I agree with the sentiments expressed in the section, it really needs to be a little more solid. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Urban truth!

A 2003 picture showing the remains of Wednesbury Town railway station on the South Staffordshire Railway, which was closed in 1964.

I added this inner city picture as proof that it did not just hit the countryside or suburbs as the plethora country images and the Rugby picture surgest.--Wipsenade (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Before and after maps?

Does anyone have or know of comparitive maps of the railway network before and after the Beeching Axe? I think it would be good for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, here is a free map that should be introduced into the article [1] 2020j (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that map is relevant: it's not a map of the railways either before or after Beeching, but a current map. The colours distinguish AC overhead electrified lines (blue) DC third-rail electrified lines (red) and non-electrified lines (green); thinner lines denote single track. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Beeching cut map

At the moment, there is quite a nice graphic of the proposed "Beeching II". However, as that was never implemented, what would be perhaps more useful would be a comparative map showing the actual cuts of the first wave (before and after, as it were). I don't know if such a map exists anywhere (?) Bob talk 10:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality check

I've nominated this page to be checked for neutrality because it's pretty obviously full of POV, especially in the Aftermath section. I note above that there's been some pretty passionate debate about whether or not Wikipedia articles should be NPOV, but I hope people can accept that it's not particularly relevant in the context of this article. DarkshineDF (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that this article needs attention, and this should happen before the centenaryfiftieth anniversary of the report which takes place in 2013. I have already worked on the lead recently and have also acquired my own copy of the original report with a view to doing more work on it over time. Lets have a stab at improving it. PeterEastern (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I really hope it's not the centenary next year Peter! I do very clearly remember the closure of Hutton Gate, Guisborough, etc and this would make me even older than I already feel ... :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so it was only 50 years then - I have corrected my contribution. Thanks! PeterEastern (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Phew. I thought I had had too much fortified wine ... :) DBaK (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Neutrality banner following recent work on the article and the move to 'Beeching cuts'. I am not saying the article is perfectly 'neutral' yet, but I don't think that the issues warrant a banner. Feel free to add it back if you feel it is still needed. PeterEastern (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move from 'Beeching Axe' to 'Beeching Cuts' (approved and actioned)

I suggest that this article should be moved from 'Beeching Axe' to a name that relates to the report itself and not the cuts directly. I suggest that the 'Beeching Report' or 'The Reshaping of British Railways' would be suitable than the current 'Beeching Axe' title (which is loaded with POV as has already been noted on this talk page a few times). A quick Google search shows the following usage of terms on the web in order of frequency:

• "Beeching Axe" - 125,000
• "Beeching cuts" - 96,000
• "Beeching report" - 78,000
• "The Reshaping of British Railways" - 21,000

Clearly 'Axe' and 'Cuts' are more common that 'report' or the formal title of the report. My current preference is therefore for 'Beeching Report'.

Any thoughts?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• On reflection I would actually support the title 'The Beeching reports' given that there were two! PeterEastern (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• On further reflection 'Beeching cuts' seems more appropriate! Having tried 'Beeching Reports' it now seems clear to me that the main subject is the cuts not the documents; for sure the documents are central to the story, but if it wasn't for the cuts then they would have been forgotten long ago. Input from others prior to a potential move would be very helpful. PeterEastern (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I like "Beeching cuts" - as you say, it's really about the whole thing and the effects, not just the actual reports; and "cuts" is rather more neutrally descriptive - they were, after all, indeed cuts! - compared to the oft-used but clearly emotive "axe". I also think your current try at the lead reflects this accurately and works well. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DBaK, I have now done the move. It was a bit scary because Wikipedia threw an SQL error at me in the middle, but I think it has worked and that all the watchers are now watching this one etc. I moved the talk page manually. Do let me know if there are any issues. PeterEastern (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to revert move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, not a wiki-neologism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Beeching cuts → Beeching Axe – Beeching Axe has vast currency with UK rail, either commercial or enthusiast. You can source this from Hansard if you wish, which is about as WP:RS as it gets for UK matters. Even uninterested pensioners in little villages with closed railways will still recognise it under just that name, 50 years on. Beeching cuts is some feeble wiki-neologism that confuses neutrality with a weak inability to make any statement whatsoever. Worst of all, it's an invented WP:NEOlogism. This term simply isn't in common use, compared to Axe. If Axe is unacceptable (because Axes sound nasty and we might offend poor old Dr Beeching), then there's always Beeching report. However that's a report, not the results of the actions taken upon it. It's also poorly recognised by the UK general non-gricer populace. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Andy, incorrect information in proposal: DB Scott - Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, in Concrete support for railway track: sleepers uses "Beeching cuts" already in 1979. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose move I don't think you can call a descriptive term a neologism, nor am I convinced that a more biting term used by a biased group of enthusiasts is the more neutral. Without more of a reason, I don't see this as a worthwhile endeavour - especially as my instinct is that Beeching cuts are far more easily understood by the majority of people and likely the more used term. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I hear where you are coming from Dingley :) Possibly I was a bit hasty in the move, but we have been discussing neutrality for 3 days and the move request was there for 2 days and resulted in only one comment, which was positive. As for 'Beeching cuts' being a new term (ie a WP:NEO) a quick search of the news archives on Google comes up with plenty on mentions as far back as 1963 - "Face lift for Beeching Cuts will have little impact" Glasgow Herald 1963. For the record, Hansard appears to refer to 'Beeching cuts' more often than 'Beeching Axe' (although Axe certainly appears). Your suggestion of 'Beeching report' seems odd, given that there seems to be a view that the article is primarily about the cuts, not the document. Regarding your comment that the term will not be understood by most people, we have already established that the term is common on the web, not as common as 'Axe' but common enough. Can I suggest that we dwell at this point, and see if any of the other 100 or so watchers, or anyone else for that matter, wishes to chip in. For the record I would oppose the revert based on your current argument. 12:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

re "cuts", then at least it ought to be "Beeching Cuts" as a proper noun phrase, rather than merely "Beeching cuts". The point is that this incident is treated as an eponymous proper noun, no matter which word is used. It's not just some mild efficiency measure that was tagged with the name of the report because no-one cared enough to think of a better name for it. Beeching was villified for his report, and that hostile response (even though it was mostly delayed for a decade) is an important part of the coverage.

I'm sure both "Axe" and "Cuts" are sourcable, but the corollary of that is that Axe is sourcable too, not just from gricers, and would be preferred under WP:COMMONNAME as the more common in use. This isn't just some pejorative time invented by a narrow campaign group, it's the general term for decades, across the board. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with that 'Beeching Cuts' may be preferred it 'Beeching cuts'. On the question of wikipedia guidelines, I believe that 'Beeching Axe' fails WP:POVTITLE (Non-neutral but common names) and/or WP:NDESC (Non-judgmental descriptive titles). No one can argue that there were cuts after all, so that is non-judgemental. Axe implies that it was willful vandalism rather than lifesaving unpleasant medicine. Lets stick to a non-judgmental title and then built the story to allow people to decide for themselves re vandalism or medicine. PeterEastern (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What POVTITLE actually says is, "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, which is actually saying that if 'Axe' was the dominant name by a long way that we should use it. However... if is not dominate by a long way, even with the 'Wikipedia echo' effect it is less that twice as common as 'cuts' on the web, and in Hansard it is less common that cuts. With respect, I suggest we get on with improving the article and leave the name as it is. If you feel strongly about capitalisation, I won't object, but anything more seems uncalled for. PeterEastern (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- The present title is sufficiently accurate. No stong view on capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The term "Beeching cuts" predates Wikipedia by several years, I was aware of it in the 1980s, so it's definitely not a wiki-neologism. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:Title doesn't seem to have much to say between these 2, but Google Books probably weights a little towards popular steam enthusiast books, wheras Google Scholar has more public finance and government policy sources. There isn't much in it, but the more generic and neutral term is a pip ahead and doesn't suffer the axe/Axe WP:CAPS problem:

GS Beeching cuts 79x

Beeching axe/Axe 77x

In that case go with the more generic/neutral title. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. See this ngram report: Beeching cuts,Beeching Cuts,Beeching Axe,Beeching axe. On this evidence, a move to "Beeching axe" (lower case) might be supportable, since the combined recent occurrences for "Beeching axe" and "Beeching Axe" exceed those for "Beeching cuts" (with none reported for "Beeching Cuts", note). Still no clear-cut case, though. Noetica^Tea? 01:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's neat, hadn't seen that Google service before. Can I suggest that the outcome of this proposal is now clear and that is has been opposed. Personally I think the discussion has been useful, but that we should now move on from it? PeterEastern (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Beeching Axe is widely used and sanctified by tradition in Britain. PatGallacher (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you mean by 'sanctified by tradition'. Personally I would suggest you provide clear references to support your claims. Also.. possibly you would like to review the evidence that 'cuts' has been in common usage and identify where it is in error. PeterEastern (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Beeching Axe was widely used by the media etc. 'Beeching cuts' is a wikipedia invention without any usage in the real world. G-13114 (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand how you can say it is a 'Wikipedia intervention'. There is plenty of evidence in this section already indicating the Beeching cuts has been used in books and Hansard predating Wikipieda by decades. Can you indicate what is wrong with the above evidence? PeterEastern (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'Critical analysis' section

I have created a new 'critical analysis' heading holding all the err.. critical analysis, much of which already exists. I think this is a good way to allow people to articulate the problems that the Beeching cuts created without unbalancing the article. I will strengthen his case in the reports section, which was that without major and urgent surgery the patient (the railway system in it entirety) would have died, or as he put it: The real choice is between an excessive and increasingly un-economic system, with a corresponding tendency for the railways as a whole to fall into disrepute and decay, or the selective development and intensive utilisation of a more limited trunk route system. PeterEastern (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis

I am aware that there is considerable danger on WP:SYNTH in relation to this article which is explained as being "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research".

I am being careful to only add content that I believe is notable and relevant. We may however have to then organise the content to avoid implying more that the facts can prove. In particular the content I have just added about Marples and his links to construction companies is I believe notable, but could easily become SYNTH if not integrated appropriately. I suggest that it will be a matter of organising the information appropriately under suitable headings rather than removing it.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much marginal text

I worry greatly about this article. There has been a lot of discussion and no doubt a lot of improvement, but if an interested newcomer came here looking for information, he would find it pretty unhelpful.

The report comes way down the page after a huge amount of background material -- my hypothetical reader would have lost interest before getting there. The Report section needs to come immediately after the summary.

The POV issues have been exhaustively debated, but the whole article still comes across as whingey, as if any rail closure is automatically some kind of conspiracy..

There is far too much marginal detail. After all, the government had to do something, (£300k a day losses!) and whether Marples was described as cocky or not is irrelevant. Incidentally, I see that he "would earn £X a year". Don't we mean he did earn it? (OK, he received it, if you prefer.)

In the section headed Closures we read that the Waverley route is going to be reopened.

Oh and how about: "3,318 miles of railway were closed between 1948 and 1962. Closures in this period included: the Charnwood Forest Railway, closed to passengers in 1931, the Harborne Line in Birmingham, closed to passengers in 1934".

The whole article still comes over, despite a lot of hard work, as full of political bias and amateurish drafting.

Is there support for some major work along these lines?

-- Afterbrunel (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. Let's have a go. Especially as the 50 anniversay is coming up in March next year. I do agree that it would be good to promote details of the report and cover the official thinking and only then cover the response and try to remove some of the whinging. I do agree that something needed to be done about the railway system of the time, and that the 'network' was in a ridiculous state, if it could be called a network at all. I have been working on adding details of OpenStreetMap showing the lines of the period and what has happened to them since. You can see the result on this map (click on features to find out more). Fyi, I also worked on the General Motors streetcar conspiracy which has a similar narrative and the same risks of bias given the strong feelings it evokes to this day. The difference between the UK and the USA was that the rail closures in the UK were cut back by policy and there are no secrets (other than Marples tax affairs that is). PeterEastern (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have now reorganised the sections to put the reports first and adjusted the order of some of the rest. Personally I think that already helps a lot. PeterEastern (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Broad Street to Dalston Junction was not a Beeching closure

In the section detailing closed lines that have been brought back to use, it mentions the recently opened Crossrail project making use of the former North London Railway's Kingsland Viaduct. Whilst it is certainly true that this is an example of a 'closed' line being brought back to use, I do not see how it is relevant to an article on the Beeching Report/Cuts/Axe. 'Beeching' was published in 1963. Broad Street and the line to Dalston Junction didn't close until 1986, so I don't see how this can be attributed to teh Beeching Report in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.82.28 (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention either Crossrail or the Kingsland Viaduct. It does mention "the line that once connected Broad Street and Dalston Junction", but this relates to the East London Line, which is part of Overground, not Crossrail. That aside, London Broad Street-Richmond is listed as a passenger service to be withdrawn on p. 105 of the Beeching Report, although the line was not subsequently closed as a result of that report. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Article title

I realise that the issue has been raised before but the title "Beeching cuts" seems quite inappropriate for this article. Beeching never in fact "cut" anything, all he did was make recommendations to the Minister of Transport who took the decisions. Going back over the sources given above, Hansard shows seven instances of the term "Beeching cuts" during the 1960s, compared with eight for "Beeching axe". Google Books also shows "Beeching axe" (2,030 results) more than double "Beeching cuts" (1,040 results). Given that "Beeching axe" has pejorative overtones, I would propose "Beeching plan", 2,820 results in Google Books and 204 in Hansard. As a comparison, "cuts" has 70 results in Hansard and "axe" has 43. If we are going to get this article up to scratch, the first step would be to get the title right. Comments? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose... based on this Google Ngram Viewer plot for the tree terms:[2] which shows 'Beeching plan' being the most common term by far into soon after 1960 when the cuts started, at which point 'Beech axe' became the most common by a very large margin until 1990 when, for some reason, 'Beeching cuts' overtook it and has maintained the top position ever since. 'Cuts' has been the clear favourite margin even since 1995 and has now been equal to 'plan' and 'axe' combined for the past 30 years. I would also argue that 'cuts' is also more appropriate because the plan is not really that notable, it is the resulting cuts to the railway lines that were notable. I do however note that Google Books does show 'plan' as the most popular overall, and cuts as the least popular overall, but changing popularity over time appears to explain that. (2,800 results for a Google Books search of '"Beeching plan"' (in double guotes)[3], 2,000 for 'Beeching axe'.[4] and 1,040 for 'Beeching cuts'[5]). PeterEastern (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME doesn't give priority to "newer" results over older ones. "Beeching plan" having more than double the results of "Beeching cuts" in Google Books and Hansard, it is de facto the more common name. I disagree that the Beeching plan is not notable and suggest that this article should be first about that plan and then its consequences, not the consequences with the plan as context. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• You may notice the section above where I propose to move the article from 'Beeching Axe' to Beeching plan' and then on reflection opted for 'Beeching cuts' when I got stuck into the rewrite. I am not disputing that there are more references to 'plan' than 'cuts' overall, however today, more people talk about cuts, and I assure you, if the plan had not resulted in the canabolisation of the railway they very very few people today would have heard of either Beeching or his plan. I think we should wait a reasonable length of time to wait for other views on the proposal. PeterEastern (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Also.. with respect, I do note that WP:COMMONNAME recommends that "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize." Personally I think that supports the use of the most commonly-used name for the subject for the past 30 years, rather than the one that was most common before 1963. PeterEastern (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Growing Demand for railway travel since Beeching

The page states (under subsection Disposals of land and structures) demand has grown for rail over the past twenty years. It would make better chronological sense to give the year demand started to grow again, as we might be more than one year on from the time the statement was written on this page. I notice the citation is undated.Cloptonson (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Full list of lines closed

Would it be possible to have a list of all lines closed under the Beeching Axe? I realise this may not be an exact science, but it would be a useful list. And from my pottering about Wikipedia, most if not all lines seem to have an article to link to. 5.148.89.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this - could we start it in a sandbox somewhere though rather than adding the beginnings of a list to this article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beeching cuts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014033802/http://www.ndad.nationalarchives.gov.uk/AH/37/detail.html to http://www.ndad.nationalarchives.gov.uk/AH/37/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beeching cuts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130916055454/http://ecologics.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/financial-scandal-corruption-and-censorship-part-3/ to http://ecologics.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/financial-scandal-corruption-and-censorship-part-3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-openings section is disproportionatly long

I'm sure that most editors of this article are well aware of the scale of the closures of lines and stations (too large to list in article) when compared with the carefully detailed re-openings, but someone reading this (especially internet skim reading) without background knowledge and maybe informed by recent news, might think that a third or so of the closures had been reversed or were planned to be. I think that this part would be better summarized in a few sentences here and the detailed discussion of individual stations and lines to be moved to a separate article. --FDent (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes I would support a separate article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that splitting off the list element would be the best approach. --FDent (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed title List of Beeching Cuts service reopenings --FDent (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems a fine title to me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Great Train Robbery (1963)

Apart from the first proper railway, two events more than any others are known in Britain as part of British railway history. They are Beeching cuts and the Great Train Robbery (1963) a mere five months later. It ought to appear in the See also section for this reason, especially if American events such as General Motors Streetcar conspiracy appears.--Darrelljon (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In so much as it too is one of the most notable events related to the nationalised era of the system, yes, I'd keep it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there some claimed connection between the two? Was the decision to carry out the robbery somehow influenced by the threat of railway closures? Did one of the robbers work at a station which was closed by Beeching? Did the Beeching cuts bring about a lapse in security which the robbers exploited? I fail to see any connection other than coincidental. From MOS:SEEALSO:

... links to related Wikipedia articles. ... One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article. ... The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic

The articles have only two things in common: they both occurred in 1963, and both were on British Railways. That's all. On the same grounds we could also list British Rail Class 29. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have re-added this to see also with references in FT and the Times connecting the two events.--Darrelljon (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't get to the Financial Times article, it's subscription only. Whilst the other two both use the phrase "the greatest train robber", they don't mention the Great Train Robbery at all. Your connection is tenuous, and WP:SYNTH applies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd have gone for the Class 310 myself. At least it went past the site. But no, not really. Britmax (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Leaked document

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0015kqr gives details about the leaking of a secret report:

The extraordinary untold story of a very British hero. A man called Reg, who risked his life and liberty to save Britain’s railways. The secret document he leaked became known as Britain’s Pentagon Papers - and what started out as an attempt to expose the truth soon became a fight for the freedom of the press.

Fifty years on, Lines of Duty tells the incredible story using the whistleblower’s own unpublished account, brought to life by actor Toby Jones, alongside interviews with many of those involved.

--Brian Josephson (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it would a great idea to tell something about the economy of the places that got their "town-scale" railways saved, undemolished thanks to Reg. In the end, I don't like Beeching's cuts' initial idea to "improve own thing". In fact, I would like to add a similar story. This whole "cuts" thing reminds me of my city's public transport. One mayor would build a proper tram network. Another mayor would chop it, demolish it, and claim it to be "unprofitable". Then, the current mayor of my city decided to pour new funds into the trams. IMO, a cheap, subsidized, "unprofitable" per se system of transportation is good for the overall economy (and the taxes) because it ... well, connects people. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

This Talk page is meant to be about changes or improvements to the page on the Beeching Cuts, not about generalised views on public transport economics.Sbishop (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Caution - about Sir Frank Smith

I note that the name of the retired ICI chief engineer who was offered a role on the transport advisory group but stood aside in favour of Dr Beeching is wikilinked to the physicist Sir Frank Edward Smith, whose wikipedia article makes no mention of involvement with ICI or Beeching. I am also suspicious of the correctness of wikilinking because FES - born 1876 - would have been reaching his mid 80s in the early 1960s so would have been rather elderly to hold such a post. I contend it is possibly another Frank Smith who stood aside for Beeching and if so, the name should be de-linked.Cloptonson (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Just found answer to my own question, from checking the disambiguation - the name should have been wikilinked to Sir Frank Ewart Smith who preferred to be publicly addressed as Sir Ewart Smith. I will correct the designation and linking accordingly.Cloptonson (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

How many piped links

At Sturminster Newton we have Beeching Axe. How many other articles prefer this name? If the vast majority use "Beeching Axe", doesn't that suggest the need to move? Would it matter if it was "Beeching Axe" in every instance? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)