Flanders and Swann - The Slow Train
Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (144)
-
@turnipfield In fairness, the railways were losing an awful lot of money which we simply couldn't afford - especially in the aftermath of WWII. Yes, the process was very heavy-handed, but at the same time there was an awful lot that simply wasn't sustainable and something needed to be done, otherwise the whole system could simply have collapsed.
-
@Inkyminkyzizwoz This is exactly correct: Marples was the evil scumbag who axed the railways to make his money out of road building - Was it called "Brit. Roadstone" or some such. However Beeching was just as evil - they were hand in hand. It was a terrible evil act to inflict on the country and between them they destroyed a national resource under the guise that it was "non profitable". It was but that could be fixed. They both profited from beating up their own country. scum.
-
Politics aside (ignore the stink), all progress entails destruction. Railways did for stage coaches & canals. Alas, now so many lines have gone, we have come back to realizing they are a vital part of any sane transport policy. I read recently, UK rail fares are up to ten (yes 10) times more expensive than on the (subsidized) continent.
When I've had a few beers, I listen to this lovely song with tears in my eyes. Try Youtube vid & poem 'Addlestrop' - same effect. The poet died in WWI. OGT
-
@Oldgittom Having a Minister of Transport who owned a road building company was never going to be good news for the railways irrespective of what party had been in power! Like I said, it wouldn't even be allowed today for obvious reasons!
-
OK, but British Railways was a nationalized company. At that time it used coal from the nationalized coal industry. The Tories were ideologically opposed to state industries, so attacked. Little effort was made to save useable lines. BR was switched to oil, all imported from 'nice' private oil corps. A golden inheritance from the Victorians was blown away. At vast expense, we got motorways & autos blocking every town & city. Enjoy? OGT
-
Windmill End. ... What next?
-
@andrea22213 Furthermore, many lines were built by different companies to compete with each other, which meant an awful lot of duplication that simply wasn't needed.
-
@andrea22213 What a lot of people seem to forget is that many routes DID close years before! The network's peak size was around 23,000 miles, but by the time Beeching was appointed it was already down to 18,000.
-
You're absolutely right. These were routes that were purely speculative, hoping that settlements and passengers would arise because there was a railway station.
When that hadn't happened by the 1960's there was no other option.
In fact they should have been alowed to wither many years before.
-
I was brought up with the more political songs of Flanders and Swann. My parents used to borrow long-playing records and put them on the reel-to-reel tape. But the tape was a bit shorter than the LP so always a song was sacrificed. This was one that as a child I never heard in its entirity. Til now. And it is such a good song.
@ArtyEffem People perhaps lay a bit too much blame on Beeching. The real villain was probably Ernest Marples - he was Minister of Transport but he also owned a road building company. That was never going to be good news for the railways - in fact, it wouldn't even be allowed today for obvious reasons! Beeching was only Chairman of the British Railways Board, so he only had the power to RECOMMEND closures - Marples was the one with the power to actually make them!
Inkyminkyzizwoz 6 months ago 5
It's at times like this I regret being born in 1991 and wish I was born closer to 1941 and would have got the chance to see Britians railway's before *he* came along.
DaveP1991 8 months ago 4