So, why exactly did....................

Given the number of industrial steam pics posted on the photo challenge thread which are dated in the 1970s I think the impact of the BR sell offs is being overstated.

 

Went with a TEFS group to GDR in 1975 and visited the NWR. Recall a rather sharp curve by Elend where someone went round a curve a little bit too fast and managed to get a standard gauge van shot off a transporter waggon..........

 

Well, maybe not exactly. It may be true that they commissioned the Beeching report, and the lack of scrutiny of Marples' conflicts of interest seems extraordinary by today's standards (shame there was no Paxman back then!).

But Harold Wilson recognised how unpopular the rail closures were, and the labour party went into the 1964 election with a promise to put a stop to them. It was a barefaced lie. Once elected they simply allowed the closures to go ahead.

Dave

 

Steam locos in industry lasted only for those industrial locations where a short term future was envisaged and a change to diesel traction was uneconomic. The class 14s for example were bought in large numbers by both NCB and BSC as they had no reason to expect any change to their future; the NCB didn't expect Arthur Scargill to initiate the destruction of the coal industry and BSC didn't allow for cheap steel (dumping ?) from the USA in the 1970s.

 

IIRC, Barbara Castle closed more miles of line than Marples. Let's not forget though that lines a-plenty were closing even before the Beeching report - the whole of the M&GN for example.

To try and drag this back on-topic though; wouldn't the Clean Air Act also have played its part?

 

True, although one would hope that the pre-Beeching closures were actually justified? No political party comes out of running the railways with any credit IMO, but I just wanted to correct the perception that "it was all down to the Conservatives".

Yes, back on topic, I'm sure that the Clean Air Act must have been a factor, although diesel is hardly a clean technology. What is frustrating is the ham-fisted way the changeover was handled in this country. As many have already said, steam should have been phased out as electrification was phased in.

Dave

 

This is absolutely what should have happened. We had access to an excellent domestic electrical industry, and the ability to make what we needed for electrification although I am aware that there were acute shortages of copper post-war for wire. Which kind of makes you think "so why didn't we press on with it?". Hindsight however, is always 20/20!

The major problem IIRC was that there was insufficient electrical power available (a huge programme of power station building occurred after the war); plus the winter of 1947 caused widespread power cuts as coal could not get to the power stations or for domestic consumption, and this then led to a rise in people buying electric fires to keep themselves warm. This added to the problem.

As a result, the Attlee government subsequently introduced a punitive 125% purchase tax on electric fires!

 

I would have thought that, over a decade or two, the projected additional demand due to railway electrification could have been provided for in the plans for expanding power generation capacity. In the same way, today's planners should be factoring in the rise of electric vehicle ownership, whether battery or hydrogen powered.

I hadn't heard the story about the electric fires before. Pay up or your family freezes!

Dave

 

Two reasons I suspect. Firstly, Britain was essentially bankrupt after WWII, and even when money did become available the Attlee government preferred to prioritise the creation of the welfare state.

But more importantly I think, as several posters have noted, there was an overwhelming pro-road bias among the politicians of the time, particularly Marples! Why bother to modernise the railway when cars were obviously the future? Ideas like "pollution" and "congestion" didn't seem to occur to them, and we are paying a price for that now.

Yet the anti-HS2 lobby still make ridiculous claims such as "driverless cars will make HS2 redundant"...people just don't learn. (Or rather, they can't be bothered to find out facts that don't suit them! )

 

I don't want HS2 and think it's a complete white elephant that will blight the countryside and peoples lives for very little but equally I think driverless cars are in a similar blind ally. How can you program a car for a day out where you are not sure where you are going and most people will take a lot persuading to allow a computer to take over what their Mk1 human brain is quite capable of doing

 

HS2's biggest problem is rampant NIMBYism as it goes through some well-heeled areas. And I would venture to suggest that the needs of the UK's infrastructure and economy outweigh a few whiny NIMBYs.

 

It came as quite a shock (no pun intended) to me too - I bought a large number of radio and electrical traders magazines from a very good friend of mine, which covered the period 1946 - 1953. This is one of the reasons I get narked when people bang on about "austerity" in the modern idiom; you can still walk into shops and buy any telly you like, any food you like - but an example at random from those magazines is "Mr. Smith has just taken delivery of his brand new delivery van for his radio shop. He has waited three years for it, having placed the order in 1946."

 

i'm expecting HS2 to at some point get shelved because as it has been pointed out it goes through Tory heartlands and local councils etc and local MP's will see their majorities being slashed, and will be putting pressure on whitehall to quietly let it drop , either that or their local councillors to be paid off, extra funding etc for local things to buy the locals to not rock the boat .

 

I think the NIMBYs had better get used to it.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...d-to-block-long-awaited-project-a3454726.html

 

Sounds like in a former life you walked in front of cars with a red flag. Driverless cars are already here.

 

SO , with driver less cars, will you still need to hold a licence ? after all it could be argued that the cars computer does the driving

 

That's assuming you believe that it is a need, I don't

 

It won't happen, would you not want to be in control,of your vehicle?