In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/04/17 12:53, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/04/17 12:11, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher

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.

but at an increased cost to the environment, roads, etc.

So, how did the coal get from the railhead to the factory?

The wagons came directly into factory = the rails ran stragiht to the
bolier house.

Men trundled it in barrows did they?

And actually you have no evidence that rail transport overall is more or
less polluting than road.

8 x 10 ton capacity lorries per day would certainly have an effect on the
roads and - to get on topic, they'd have been diesel engined lorries, too.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England