On 29/07/2021 09:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Yes. AIUI the demand for rail travel has risen over the decades. The
> problem is that the commercial operators use this as a reason to hike
> prices, and crowd trains, not expand rail coverage/provision.
>
> In effect, Beeching acted like a medic who examined the human body and
> decided: "There are loads of tiny capillairies and each of them only
> carries a tiny amount of blood. So we can remove them to save the bother."
> Blythly ignoring the way they connected into the larger conduits and the
> systematic role. And the reality that as population and activity grew, more
> people would have used what was lost.
>
> But it served those with a financial interest in road building and
> associated companies very well. So from then POV of the goverment of the
> day he was a 'useful idiot'.

Railway use has increased in more recent years but I think it was
declining rapidly at that time and much was completely uneconomic.

They could have easily decide to only keep the long distance express
routes and get rid of everything else so they could sell the land. I
think that was considered at the time.

On 29/07/2021 10:13, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The underlying picture is often that the same company manufactures the
> supermarket "own brand" produce on the*same production line* as their
> 'premium' version.

Not sure if I wrote this earlier but I read many years ago that (at that
time obviously) nearly all laptops were built in a handful of factories
in Taiwan. The same production line might be making for a whole range
of the big name companies. The only difference was that the big names
had their own Quality inspectors who made sure their branded ones were
designed and built to a higher standard than some of the others.

On 29/07/2021 10:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <595314e5afcharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>> Was Maudling the minister who (perhaps via close family) had a
>>> significant relationship with a large cement/concrete company and who:
>
>>> 1) Was enthusiastic about building motorways.
>
>>> 2) Fan of Beeching cutting the railways.
>
>>> If so, curious co-incidences, I guess...
>
>>> Jim
>
>> It was Ernest Marples - who was Minister for Transport who had interests
>> in road building
>
> Yes. Thanks. I got the 'M' right. :-) Might have called him 'Motorway', so
> got closer than that, anyway. :-)
>
> The key point was that he carefully chose a useful idiot as a means to
> distance himself from the pre-baked decision to take an axe to railways,
> thus 'encouraging' the public to move to what he and his chumocracy could
> profit from.
>

Round objects

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article <se0h2d$33m$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 29/07/2021 09:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Yes. AIUI the demand for rail travel has risen over the decades. The
> > problem is that the commercial operators use this as a reason to hike
> > prices, and crowd trains, not expand rail coverage/provision.
> >
> > In effect, Beeching acted like a medic who examined the human body and
> > decided: "There are loads of tiny capillairies and each of them only
> > carries a tiny amount of blood. So we can remove them to save the
> > bother." Blythly ignoring the way they connected into the larger
> > conduits and the systematic role. And the reality that as population
> > and activity grew, more people would have used what was lost.
> >
> > But it served those with a financial interest in road building and
> > associated companies very well. So from then POV of the goverment of
> > the day he was a 'useful idiot'.

> Railway use has increased in more recent years but I think it was
> declining rapidly at that time and much was completely uneconomic.

In itself it may well have been, but if it acted as a feeder to the trunk
lines, then it might not have been. If you have to drive 40 miles to a
railway station, you might decide to drive all the way.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 30/07/2021 11:05, charles wrote:
> In article <se0h2d$33m$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 29/07/2021 09:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> Yes. AIUI the demand for rail travel has risen over the decades. The
>>> problem is that the commercial operators use this as a reason to hike
>>> prices, and crowd trains, not expand rail coverage/provision.
>>>
>>> In effect, Beeching acted like a medic who examined the human body and
>>> decided: "There are loads of tiny capillairies and each of them only
>>> carries a tiny amount of blood. So we can remove them to save the
>>> bother." Blythly ignoring the way they connected into the larger
>>> conduits and the systematic role. And the reality that as population
>>> and activity grew, more people would have used what was lost.
>>>
>>> But it served those with a financial interest in road building and
>>> associated companies very well. So from then POV of the goverment of
>>> the day he was a 'useful idiot'.
>
>> Railway use has increased in more recent years but I think it was
>> declining rapidly at that time and much was completely uneconomic.
>
> In itself it may well have been, but if it acted as a feeder to the trunk
> lines, then it might not have been. If you have to drive 40 miles to a
> railway station, you might decide to drive all the way.
>

To set against those ifs:

a. Beeching famously found 30 per cent of the network accounted for only
1 per cent of traffic; and

b. before Beeching traffic was falling fast; after Beeching it fell a
little then stabilised. How come if there was all this "feeder" traffic?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59538c5e0anoise@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <sdra23$5g5$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 28/07/2021 10:27, Andy Burns wrote:
>> > Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> >
>> >> Was Maudling the minister who (perhaps via close family) had a
>> >> significant relationship with a large cement/concrete company and who:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Was enthusiastic about building motorways.
>> >>
>> >> 2) Fan of Beeching cutting the railways.
>> > Confusion with Ernest Marples?
>> >
>
>> Would there be any railway left now if Beeching had not trimmed them
>> down?
>
> Yes. AIUI the demand for rail travel has risen over the decades.

only recently

not in the 70/80s

you will recall that there was the Serpell Report (I check, it was 82) which
was an even bigger slimming down of the railways even after Beeching

It was eventually rejected as too draconian

But had Beeching not previously gone ahead it would likely have been
implemented, at least in part.

"Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59538dae3fnoise@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <imcuejF1lqgU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Nothing to do with advertising (and not every blue chip brand item is
>> advertised on its own merits anyway).
>
>> That's just the supermarket making as much on the look-alike as on the
>> blue chip because they can get it made as cheaply as they can buy the
>> known brand at wholesale prices.
>
> The underlying picture is often that the same company manufactures the
> supermarket "own brand" produce on the *same production line* as their
> 'premium' version.

Not always

I certainly haven't found an own brand Jaffa Cake that matches the original

Some are bloody awful

I have however found a brand which is OK at a much lower price.

"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:se0hku$6qa$1@dont-email.me...
> On 29/07/2021 10:13, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> The underlying picture is often that the same company manufactures the
>> supermarket "own brand" produce on the*same production line* as their
>> 'premium' version.
>
> Not sure if I wrote this earlier but I read many years ago that (at that
> time obviously) nearly all laptops were built in a handful of factories in
> Taiwan. The same production line might be making for a whole range of the
> big name companies. The only difference was that the big names had their
> own Quality inspectors who made sure their branded ones were designed and
> built to a higher standard than some of the others.

exactly the same with camera lenses

there are less than handful of factories who make (well made) these

However, what was different was the quality control, so if a glass didn't
match up to the specification of a named brand that same lens would be
fitted into a generic brand, virtually guaranteeing that the optical quality
of the generic product was lower.

On 30/07/2021 11:29, Robin wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 11:05, charles wrote:
>> In article<se0h2d$33m$1@dont-email.me>, MB<MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2021 09:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> Yes. AIUI the demand for rail travel has risen over the decades. The
>>>> problem is that the commercial operators use this as a reason to hike
>>>> prices, and crowd trains, not expand rail coverage/provision.
>>>>
>>>> In effect, Beeching acted like a medic who examined the human body and
>>>> decided: "There are loads of tiny capillairies and each of them only
>>>> carries a tiny amount of blood. So we can remove them to save the
>>>> bother." Blythly ignoring the way they connected into the larger
>>>> conduits and the systematic role. And the reality that as population
>>>> and activity grew, more people would have used what was lost.
>>>>
>>>> But it served those with a financial interest in road building and
>>>> associated companies very well. So from then POV of the goverment of
>>>> the day he was a 'useful idiot'.
>>
>>> Railway use has increased in more recent years but I think it was
>>> declining rapidly at that time and much was completely uneconomic.
>>
>> In itself it may well have been, but if it acted as a feeder to the trunk
>> lines, then it might not have been. If you have to drive 40 miles to a
>> railway station, you might decide to drive all the way.
>>
>
> To set against those ifs:
>
> a. Beeching famously found 30 per cent of the network accounted for only
> 1 per cent of traffic; and
>
> b. before Beeching traffic was falling fast; after Beeching it fell a
> little then stabilised. How come if there was all this "feeder" traffic?
>
A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
freight. After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the delight
of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.

Jim

On 30/07/2021 12:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 11:29, Robin wrote:
>> On 30/07/2021 11:05, charles wrote:
>>> In article<se0h2d$33m$1@dont-email.me>, MB<MB@nospam.net>  wrote:
>>>> On 29/07/2021 09:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> Yes. AIUI the demand for rail travel has risen over the decades. The
>>>>> problem is that the commercial operators use this as a reason to hike
>>>>> prices, and crowd trains, not expand rail coverage/provision.
>>>>>
>>>>> In effect, Beeching acted like a medic who examined the human body and
>>>>> decided: "There are loads of tiny capillairies and each of them only
>>>>> carries a tiny amount of blood. So we can remove them to save the
>>>>> bother." Blythly ignoring the way they connected into the larger
>>>>> conduits and the systematic role. And the reality that as population
>>>>> and activity grew, more people would have used what was lost.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it served those with a financial interest in road building and
>>>>> associated companies very well. So from then POV of the goverment of
>>>>> the day he was a 'useful idiot'.
>>>
>>>> Railway use has increased in more recent years but I think it was
>>>> declining rapidly at that time and much was completely uneconomic.
>>>
>>> In itself it may well have been, but if it acted as a feeder to the
>>> trunk
>>> lines, then it might not have been. If you have to drive 40 miles to a
>>> railway station, you might decide to drive all the way.
>>>
>>
>> To set against those ifs:
>>
>> a.    Beeching famously found 30 per cent of the network accounted for
>> only
>> 1 per cent of traffic; and
>>
>> b.    before Beeching traffic was falling fast; after Beeching it fell a
>> little then stabilised.  How come if there was all this "feeder" traffic?
>>
> A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
> freight.  After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the delight
> of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.
>

The 30 per cent/1 per cent figures above apply to freight as to
passengers. So again, if this 1 per cent was important feeder trafic
there should have been "a lot" less freight traffic after the Beeching
cuts. Was there? (IMHO numbers are rather important in an area where
there's an awful lot of emotion and 20/20 hindsight.)

Some of the numbers which faced Beeching are relevant too. Freight
accounted for over half of railway revenue. But even coal (40% of all
freight) only just broke even and coal traffic was falling at 5% per
year. All other freight categories made losses. And his report set out
the risible delays and uncertainties in the use of freight wagons
compared with road transport which meant that it simply could not compete.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 29/07/2021 10:13 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <imcuejF1lqgU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Nothing to do with advertising (and not every blue chip brand item is
>> advertised on its own merits anyway).
>
>> That's just the supermarket making as much on the look-alike as on the
>> blue chip because they can get it made as cheaply as they can buy the
>> known brand at wholesale prices.
>
> The underlying picture is often that the same company manufactures the
> supermarket "own brand" produce on the *same production line* as their
> 'premium' version.

I'm not so sure about that. Some name companies make it clear that they
do not supply their products to be be badge-engineered by retailers.

> Part of a wider picture where many of the 'different brand names and
> biscuit types' are all made by the same company, but branded and presented
> as 'competing' on the shelves. The makers profit either way. The
> supermarket profits either way. The 'competiton'is largely
> smoke-and-mirrors.

It is true that some top-level companies have acquired competitors over
the years. The obvious global one would be Hershey (though they don't
sell in the UK as far as I am aware) with Cadbury. Both are in
competition in the USA and maybe in other places.

Such companies don't always have an obvious brand-name in the company
name, though.

> Basically, this is a now-standard trick of 'segmenting the market' by
> presentation. People who may more for a nice brand name provide more profit
> per pack, but perhaps fewer of those packs get run off the same line.
>
> Coffee shops apparenty play the same tricks with what you want in your
> coffee. etc, etc.
>
> Free choice, eh? 8-]

You can choose any of them, all of them, or none of them. It's entirely
up to you.

On 29/07/2021 09:59 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> In article <sdra23$5g5$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 28/07/2021 10:27, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>
>>>> Was Maudling the minister who (perhaps via close family) had a
>>>> significant relationship with a large cement/concrete company and who:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Was enthusiastic about building motorways.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Fan of Beeching cutting the railways.
>>> Confusion with Ernest Marples?
>>>
>
>> Would there be any railway left now if Beeching had not trimmed them
>> down?
>
> Yes. AIUI the demand for rail travel has risen over the decades. The
> problem is that the commercial operators use this as a reason to hike
> prices, and crowd trains, not expand rail coverage/provision.
>
> In effect, Beeching acted like a medic who examined the human body and
> decided: "There are loads of tiny capillairies and each of them only
> carries a tiny amount of blood. So we can remove them to save the bother."
> Blythly ignoring the way they connected into the larger conduits and the
> systematic role. And the reality that as population and activity grew, more
> people would have used what was lost.
>
> But it served those with a financial interest in road building and
> associated companies very well. So from then POV of the goverment of the
> day he was a 'useful idiot'.

Clearly, you don't see much point in the provision of the motorway and
trunk road network and would have preferred a bigger and
further-reaching National Train Set.

You even dream up and attribute political and financial motives (within
the UK) for that position.

But how do you explain the fact that other countries, all over the
world, have built motorway / freeway / expressway systems, without the
necessary benefit of ever having had British politicians in charge (and
usually to a greater extent and density than the UK's system)??

IOW, why would or should the UK have been an exception to that, with
traffic still trying to get by on the highways built by the Romans and
the 17th century Turnpike Trusts?

On 30/07/2021 12:48, tim... wrote:
> I certainly haven't found an own brand Jaffa Cake that matches the original
>
> Some are bloody awful

Probably even more so with whisky and wine, they are all virtually the
same and after one drink you cannot tell the difference whatever they
claim. But they will pay silly money for both.

On 30/07/2021 12:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
> A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
> freight. After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the delight
> of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.

Probably also the fault of the unions who would find anything perishable
good for putting pressure on management by threatening to delay it.

In article <e94ca290-546d-8da5-443a-e62c330554c8@outlook.com>,
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 12:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
> > On 30/07/2021 11:29, Robin wrote:
> >> On 30/07/2021 11:05, charles wrote:
> >>> In article<se0h2d$33m$1@dont-email.me>, MB<MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 29/07/2021 09:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>>>> Yes. AIUI the demand for rail travel has risen over the decades. The
> >>>>> problem is that the commercial operators use this as a reason to hike
> >>>>> prices, and crowd trains, not expand rail coverage/provision.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In effect, Beeching acted like a medic who examined the human body and
> >>>>> decided: "There are loads of tiny capillairies and each of them only
> >>>>> carries a tiny amount of blood. So we can remove them to save the
> >>>>> bother." Blythly ignoring the way they connected into the larger
> >>>>> conduits and the systematic role. And the reality that as population
> >>>>> and activity grew, more people would have used what was lost.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But it served those with a financial interest in road building and
> >>>>> associated companies very well. So from then POV of the goverment of
> >>>>> the day he was a 'useful idiot'.
> >>>
> >>>> Railway use has increased in more recent years but I think it was
> >>>> declining rapidly at that time and much was completely uneconomic.
> >>>
> >>> In itself it may well have been, but if it acted as a feeder to the
> >>> trunk
> >>> lines, then it might not have been. If you have to drive 40 miles to a
> >>> railway station, you might decide to drive all the way.
> >>>
> >>
> >> To set against those ifs:
> >>
> >> a. Beeching famously found 30 per cent of the network accounted for
> >> only
> >> 1 per cent of traffic; and
> >>
> >> b. before Beeching traffic was falling fast; after Beeching it fell a
> >> little then stabilised. How come if there was all this "feeder" traffic?
> >>
> > A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
> > freight. After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the delight
> > of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.
> >

> The 30 per cent/1 per cent figures above apply to freight as to
> passengers. So again, if this 1 per cent was important feeder trafic
> there should have been "a lot" less freight traffic after the Beeching
> cuts. Was there? (IMHO numbers are rather important in an area where
> there's an awful lot of emotion and 20/20 hindsight.)

> Some of the numbers which faced Beeching are relevant too. Freight
> accounted for over half of railway revenue. But even coal (40% of all
> freight) only just broke even and coal traffic was falling at 5% per
> year. All other freight categories made losses. And his report set out
> the risible delays and uncertainties in the use of freight wagons
> compared with road transport which meant that it simply could not compete.

I was working (as a student) at a big electrical engineers. A local freight
train dropped off 2 wagons of coal every week. That equated to over 10
lorry loads.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <imif0eF5v53U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 29/07/2021 09:59 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > In article <sdra23$5g5$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> On 28/07/2021 10:27, Andy Burns wrote:
> >>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Was Maudling the minister who (perhaps via close family) had a
> >>>> significant relationship with a large cement/concrete company and
> >>>> who:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Was enthusiastic about building motorways.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Fan of Beeching cutting the railways.
> >>> Confusion with Ernest Marples?
> >>>
> >
> >> Would there be any railway left now if Beeching had not trimmed them
> >> down?
> >
> > Yes. AIUI the demand for rail travel has risen over the decades. The
> > problem is that the commercial operators use this as a reason to hike
> > prices, and crowd trains, not expand rail coverage/provision.
> >
> > In effect, Beeching acted like a medic who examined the human body and
> > decided: "There are loads of tiny capillairies and each of them only
> > carries a tiny amount of blood. So we can remove them to save the
> > bother." Blythly ignoring the way they connected into the larger
> > conduits and the systematic role. And the reality that as population
> > and activity grew, more people would have used what was lost.
> >
> > But it served those with a financial interest in road building and
> > associated companies very well. So from then POV of the goverment of
> > the day he was a 'useful idiot'.

> Clearly, you don't see much point in the provision of the motorway and
> trunk road network and would have preferred a bigger and
> further-reaching National Train Set.

> You even dream up and attribute political and financial motives (within
> the UK) for that position.

> But how do you explain the fact that other countries, all over the
> world, have built motorway / freeway / expressway systems, without the
> necessary benefit of ever having had British politicians in charge (and
> usually to a greater extent and density than the UK's system)??

> IOW, why would or should the UK have been an exception to that, with
> traffic still trying to get by on the highways built by the Romans and
> the 17th century Turnpike Trusts?

This week's episode of "Yes, Minister" explains it all.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 30/07/2021 16:06, MB wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 12:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
>> freight.  After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the delight
>> of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.
>
> Probably also the fault of the unions who would find anything perishable
> good for putting pressure on management by threatening to delay it.
>

I didn't want to query everything but given that I wonder if there is
/evidence/ that Beeching was wrong to report:

"The average turn-round time between loading and loading for British
Railways' wagons is 11.9 working days. The average loaded transit time
is about 14-2 days, with an average journey length of 67 miles, but
individual transit times are bound to vary over a wide range, not merely
because of variations in distance but also because of variations in
route and in marshalling delays.

These slow and variable delivery times are quite unacceptable for many
forms of freight in these days, when road deliveries over comparable
distances can be made on the day of despatch. In addition, however, this
whole method of rail movement by the staging of wagons is far more
costly than movement by through trains."

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:11:08 +0100
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>On 30/07/2021 16:06, MB wrote:
>> On 30/07/2021 12:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
>>> freight.  After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the delight
>>> of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.
>>
>> Probably also the fault of the unions who would find anything perishable
>> good for putting pressure on management by threatening to delay it.
>>
>
>
>I didn't want to query everything but given that I wonder if there is
>/evidence/ that Beeching was wrong to report:
>
>"The average turn-round time between loading and loading for British
>Railways' wagons is 11.9 working days. The average loaded transit time
>is about 14-2 days, with an average journey length of 67 miles, but
>individual transit times are bound to vary over a wide range, not merely
>because of variations in distance but also because of variations in
>route and in marshalling delays.
>
>These slow and variable delivery times are quite unacceptable for many
>forms of freight in these days, when road deliveries over comparable
>distances can be made on the day of despatch. In addition, however, this
>whole method of rail movement by the staging of wagons is far more
>costly than movement by through trains."

The thing about the UK is its only just about big enough to make any kind of
rail freight viable. If this island were much smaller it simply wouldn't be
worth the effort to put anything on a train as it would simply take longer
by train than by road if you included loading times even for containers.

On 30/07/2021 04:04 pm, MB wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 12:48, tim... wrote:
>> I certainly haven't found an own brand Jaffa Cake that matches the
>> original
>>
>> Some are bloody awful
>
>
> Probably even more so with whisky and wine, they are all virtually the
> same and after one drink you cannot tell the difference whatever they
> claim.  But they will pay silly money for both.

Wine, I'll give you. The second glass of the £4.99 stuff is just as good
as one out of a £15 bottle.

But whiskey / whisky / whiskie... I'm finding that I can tell the
differences between the USA varieties.

In article <ba53f10d-ef5b-5367-be67-3cb0859a031e@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 16:06, MB wrote:
> > On 30/07/2021 12:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
> >> A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
> >> freight. After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the
> >> delight of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.
> >
> > Probably also the fault of the unions who would find anything
> > perishable good for putting pressure on management by threatening to
> > delay it.
> >

> I didn't want to query everything but given that I wonder if there is
> /evidence/ that Beeching was wrong to report:

> "The average turn-round time between loading and loading for British
> Railways' wagons is 11.9 working days. The average loaded transit time
> is about 14-2 days, with an average journey length of 67 miles, but
> individual transit times are bound to vary over a wide range, not merely
> because of variations in distance but also because of variations in
> route and in marshalling delays.

Of course, modernising the system never crossed his mind.

> These slow and variable delivery times are quite unacceptable for many
> forms of freight in these days, when road deliveries over comparable
> distances can be made on the day of despatch. In addition, however, this
> whole method of rail movement by the staging of wagons is far more
> costly than movement by through trains."

However, in late Victorian times a parcel coluld be handed in at a local
station in Scotland and be in London the folloing morning.

> -

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 30/07/2021 17:02, charles wrote:
> In article <ba53f10d-ef5b-5367-be67-3cb0859a031e@outlook.com>, Robin
> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 30/07/2021 16:06, MB wrote:
>>> On 30/07/2021 12:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>> A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
>>>> freight. After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the
>>>> delight of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.
>>>
>>> Probably also the fault of the unions who would find anything
>>> perishable good for putting pressure on management by threatening to
>>> delay it.
>>>
>
>
>> I didn't want to query everything but given that I wonder if there is
>> /evidence/ that Beeching was wrong to report:
>
>> "The average turn-round time between loading and loading for British
>> Railways' wagons is 11.9 working days. The average loaded transit time
>> is about 14-2 days, with an average journey length of 67 miles, but
>> individual transit times are bound to vary over a wide range, not merely
>> because of variations in distance but also because of variations in
>> route and in marshalling delays.
>
> Of course, modernising the system never crossed his mind.

Please share how you know that. And what opportunities for
modernisation he missed.

>> These slow and variable delivery times are quite unacceptable for many
>> forms of freight in these days, when road deliveries over comparable
>> distances can be made on the day of despatch. In addition, however, this
>> whole method of rail movement by the staging of wagons is far more
>> costly than movement by through trains."
>
> However, in late Victorian times a parcel coluld be handed in at a local
> station in Scotland and be in London the folloing morning.

I fail to see what bearing that has on freight.

And I'd also like to know if the railways made any profit from such a
parcel.

But yes, nostalgia is a wonderful basis for subsidising nationalised
industries.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 30/07/2021 17:30, Robin wrote:
> On 30/07/2021 17:02, charles wrote:
>> In article <ba53f10d-ef5b-5367-be67-3cb0859a031e@outlook.com>, Robin
>> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/07/2021 16:06, MB wrote:
>>>> On 30/07/2021 12:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>> A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
>>>>> freight.  After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the
>>>>> delight of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.
>>>>
>>>> Probably also the fault of the unions who would find anything
>>>> perishable good for putting pressure on management by threatening to
>>>> delay it.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> I didn't want to query everything but given that I wonder if there is
>>> /evidence/ that Beeching was wrong to report:
>>
>>> "The average turn-round time between loading and loading for British
>>> Railways' wagons is 11.9 working days. The average loaded transit time
>>> is about 14-2 days, with an average journey length of 67 miles, but
>>> individual transit times are bound to vary over a wide range, not merely
>>> because of variations in distance but also because of variations in
>>> route and in marshalling delays.
>>
>> Of course, modernising the system never crossed his mind.
>
> Please share how you know that.  And what opportunities for
> modernisation he missed.
>

As I'm going to be tied up for a while I'll add now I asked as it seemed
to me a rather odd comment to make given Beeching's report proposed
intermodal freight transport using the (then newly recommended)
international containers carried on on fast, scheduled services between
major centres of population and industry.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:imilupF7c2tU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 30/07/2021 04:04 pm, MB wrote:
>> On 30/07/2021 12:48, tim... wrote:
>>> I certainly haven't found an own brand Jaffa Cake that matches the
>>> original
>>>
>>> Some are bloody awful
>>
>>
>> Probably even more so with whisky and wine, they are all virtually the
>> same and after one drink you cannot tell the difference whatever they
>> claim. But they will pay silly money for both.
>
> Wine, I'll give you. The second glass of the £4.99 stuff is just as good
> as one out of a £15 bottle.

15 pound is still at the "affordable" level. My niece likes to show off
with 30-40 pound bottles and it still doesn't taste any better

"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:595436e943charles@candehope.me.uk...
> In article <ba53f10d-ef5b-5367-be67-3cb0859a031e@outlook.com>, Robin
> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 30/07/2021 16:06, MB wrote:
>> > On 30/07/2021 12:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> >> A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
>> >> freight. After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the
>> >> delight of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.
>> >
>> > Probably also the fault of the unions who would find anything
>> > perishable good for putting pressure on management by threatening to
>> > delay it.
>> >
>
>
>> I didn't want to query everything but given that I wonder if there is
>> /evidence/ that Beeching was wrong to report:
>
>> "The average turn-round time between loading and loading for British
>> Railways' wagons is 11.9 working days. The average loaded transit time
>> is about 14-2 days, with an average journey length of 67 miles, but
>> individual transit times are bound to vary over a wide range, not merely
>> because of variations in distance but also because of variations in
>> route and in marshalling delays.
>
> Of course, modernising the system never crossed his mind.

It was specifically NOT part of his remit

"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:c0ab454b-329c-8a0e-d37d-dc37498d7897@outlook.com...
> On 30/07/2021 17:02, charles wrote:
>> In article <ba53f10d-ef5b-5367-be67-3cb0859a031e@outlook.com>, Robin
>> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/07/2021 16:06, MB wrote:
>>>> On 30/07/2021 12:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>> A lot of the feeder traffic was freight, particularly perishable
>>>>> freight. After Beeching the freight either went by road (to the
>>>>> delight of Marples no doubt) or it stopped being produced.
>>>>
>>>> Probably also the fault of the unions who would find anything
>>>> perishable good for putting pressure on management by threatening to
>>>> delay it.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> I didn't want to query everything but given that I wonder if there is
>>> /evidence/ that Beeching was wrong to report:
>>
>>> "The average turn-round time between loading and loading for British
>>> Railways' wagons is 11.9 working days. The average loaded transit time
>>> is about 14-2 days, with an average journey length of 67 miles, but
>>> individual transit times are bound to vary over a wide range, not merely
>>> because of variations in distance but also because of variations in
>>> route and in marshalling delays.
>>
>> Of course, modernising the system never crossed his mind.
>
> Please share how you know that. And what opportunities for modernisation
> he missed.

de-manning of stations and selling tickets on trains on rural routes