On 21/04/17 12:11, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/04/17 11:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Another
John wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case
someone need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You
knew they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in
the case of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service.
So people used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any
of those attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people
aren't using them. And saying you would use them if they were there
it what everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were
there.

This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change
the train times so that they are useless - don't make connections,
etc, and then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

But he didn't just close "tiny branch lines with no traffic". He
closed, for instance the only North-South routes in Wales, which had,
and have, very poor road competition.

But I don't think he needed to artificially reduce traffic. The policy
at the time was to just close even very busy routes, on the vague
grounds that road vehicles would turn out much cheaper and more
convenient.


Utter ********, Beeching, unlike his detractors, was not motivated by
ideology.

He was a pragmatic engineer with a remit to get the best benefit out of
a massively loss making railway system.

He wasn't even in power. He was commissioned as chairman of British Rail
to do a report as a consultant. He was closely allied with the Labour
party.


Like coal mining, the government found itself with a nationalised
legacy of failed private companies, that couldn't just be left to die,
because the ruddy things had been nationalised.


Like coal mining, adherents to this day refuse to understand the deep
structural problems of running the business in the face of alternative
and competing technologies.

Railways serve a niche market: when all you had were coal powered steam
trains or stage coaches, that was not the case.

Road maintenance to an acceptable standard is far cheaper per mile than
railways are.

mmm. A factory at which I was working in 1959, used to have 2 coal wagons
dropped off by a passing goods train each day, The branch line was closed,
It needed 8 lorries to deliver the same amount of coal.

At a cheaper price probably.









--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.