Marples and Beeching

Couldn't think where else to put this, its quite an interesting read..

https://twitter.com/TurnipRail/status/1214524091484528640

 

Thanks for posting. No surprises there, this is the standard economic history line really. It was under Watkinson that the decision was taken that the motorways would not be designed as toll roads. That was a crucial decision which reverberates to this day. Not saying it was wrong, but the terms of trade for the M1, 4,5 and 6 were determined at least five years before Marples came on the scene.

I expect @Bulleid Pacific knows Dr Turner, being of the York mafia.

 

Provides considerable evidence to a number of the charges discussed in the Thread I started on this last year.

Might one suggest a move to that thread Admins?

 

Indeed, I do.

 

Twitter really isn't the 1/
best medium for writing 2/
or reading a long, cohe 3/
rently stated argument. /ends

 

At least he didn't start it with something like "BUCKLE UP, BITCHES, YOU THOUGHT YOU KNOW MARPLES BUT GUESS WHAT"

 

Still think Marples is quite possibly the only man in the whole of world history who was even more bent than Sepp Blatter

 

Have you seen who's president?

 

Then you've yet to read one of Tom Bower's biographies - I recommend that of Ecclestone. Marples was a corrupt sh1t, but no more than a large scale spiv. You have led a very sheltered life if you think him that bad.

 

Can we please keep un-related politics off the rail areas of NatPres? Something relevant, e.g. rail funding, sure (hence the "un-related"), but if one political post is OK, more will follow, polluting the forum. Thanks.

Noel

 

I agree with Dr Turner's summary but as others say this is not new news to any half keen rail historian, and not sure why he felt the need to deal with it via the medium of Twitter! It reminds me of the Monty Python "Summarise Proust" game show in which contestants had to precis A La recherche du Temps Perdu in 30 seconds! Someone should tell the Doctor about blogs.

 

I think (I haven’t compared word for word) that that thread is identical to the (single!) thread he posted on Facebook. Slightly surprised he didn’t just use twitter to reference the FB article, but maybe he feels he has different followers or levels of engagement on the two platforms - I’m not a social media guru.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand rather than drift off into the uses of social media by academic historians!

Tom

 

Its worth pointing out that apart from EMU's on The Southern the first series production Inter City MU's - the Blue Pullman & HST's were effectivley loco & coaches but semi permanently coupled. It wasnt until the Voyagers came along that you got a true high speed multiple unit

 

High speed, yes, but there were some (TransPennine, cl. 126) underfloor DMUs in "inter city" use before then.

 

Class 124 IIRC.
And Swindon built some "Inter-City" dmu types - Class 126? - for use in Scotland and elsewhere. I don't think you could call them high speed though.

 

You'd have needed a very good crystal ball indeed to see that coming back in the 1930s. Even today, it's an observation still only applicable to passenger and (for now, at least, a few) parcels workings.

I do occasionally wonder that decarbonisation / electrification might mean for container, bulk minerals and other trainllad traffic. It may make sense for wagons to be capable of moving (and possibly shunting) themselves, under remote (centralised?) computer control. Were that to happen, would a locomotive (or even a driver) even be needed? My guess would be 'yes' to something akin to a loco, but effectively only a unit to access OHLE over the core rail network, manage the wagons' onboard systems, such as the recharge (OHLE or regen) of depleted cells on wagons.

Before throwing your arms up in horror. I doubt there's currently a suitable battery architecture to do this (though Toyota have now cracked commercial scale 'solid state' batteries*), consider ...... If it did eventually happen, certain classes of wagonload goods might even become viable again. That would change the economics of more than a few marginal routes.

*first solid state battery EV model from Toyota estimated to go on sale in 2024

 

We're going way OT, but some points are worth note:
1. there are already freight multiple units around, able to take container loads - Network Rail have used them for sandite/deicing for several years now
2. The economics of converting lightweight load carrying wagons into self propelled vehicles would be very questionable as axle loads rose and/or payloads reduced, and maintenance regimes had to change
3. There is a rule of thumb about loco haulage that suggests the break even point for cost efficiency is at about 5-6 carriages, with longer trains more cost effective as loco + LHCS rather than as a multiple unit.

 

Point zero: Yes, we are rather.
Point one: True, but a non-revenue funtion
Point two: Conversion wasn't mentioned, for the very reason you state. I actually had 'next generation' operations firmly in mind
Point three: Is that still the case? Over the last decade, more formerly hauled passenger services seem to have given way to MU operation, with the odd rake of strategically located carriages in reserve to cover failures. Even sleeper services seem to feature adapted freight loco designs.

This does actually lead us back to Gresley's options in the 1930s. Diesel railcar sets were one thing, multiple unit control another. The only full-blown pre-war "DMU" I'm aware of was the LMS's 3-car streamlined set, though with only that one set, the capability was less than useful! Open to correction on this point.

 

But using a design developed for revenue traffic

Noted, but that is a major change of model and cost base

The 92s that work the sleepers were built for mixed traffic (remember "Nightstar"?); I've heard the figure of 5-6 cars mentioned in the context of drift away from MUs on Trans Pennine and Chiltern, which use reasonably new class 68s.

No correction, but very valid - what were the available technologies?