Sorry, Tories, but £500m isn’t enough to reverse the Beeching Axe

Richard Beeching. Axe not shown. Image: Getty.

It is, somehow, only a few weeks since the news broke in Pravda – sorry, the Daily Telegraph – that a Conservative government would “banish the shadow of Beeching”, as transport secretary Grant Shapps put it. Yes, it’s Corbyn in neutral, Beeching in reverse, and Britain going forward (CCHQ – you can have this one for free). All for the cost of, er, £500m. Half a billion pounds to reverse Beeching’s axe, which cut thousands of miles of track and associated infrastructure.

This manifesto announcement passed by relatively unnoticed. There were no briefings on its absurdity from Labour or the Lib Dems, meaning it is left to us, the train nerds, to talk about just how ridiculous it is. The costings seem to have been drawn from a hat; it would fail to address the problems that Shapps says have come about a result of the cuts; and if the number of details were the number of daily passengers, Beeching himself would have ripped up the tracks. 

That's because £500m does not buy you a lot of reopened railway. About 25 miles, give or take, according to railway engineer Gareth Dennis. He suggests that reopening railways costs around £20m per mile. Or there’s the cheaper option, converting freight lines into passenger lines. But, as Sim Harris of Railnews points out, you’ve still got to pay for new stations. In summary: “It would cost far more than that to really reverse Beeching.”

Before and after Beeching. Click to expand.

Furthermore, it is not £500m of new money. In fact, just half of it is new cash, pledged for 2020-21, with the other half coming from Network Rail. In a reversal programme, £500m barely gets you the “G” in “Gnihceeb”. 

For context, another programme that would receive £500m – in this case of actual new cash – is the Potholes Fund. And that’s £500m each year for four years, as opposed to the single year outlined in the Conservatives’ spending plan.


The Potholes Fund is something John Major would be proud to announce in his manifesto, albeit with a telephone hotline too. Both policies are concerned with endemic problems in the country’s infrastructure, and both fail to approach the root cause: years of “spending reviews” at cash-strapped local councils which have seen cuts to road maintenance and local bus services. So £500m may get you a bit of railway, but it won’t pay for the joined-up public transport infrastructure necessary to get people to the stations – although it could get you a lot more busses, increasing their frequency and extent.

Unfortunately, the clear problem with the figures doesn’t matter to the core audience of this policy. It’s an announcement for Telegraph-reading Boomers who nostalgically remember when you could take a train just about anywhere, not CityMetric-reading nerds. Of course, they drive now instead of taking the train, hence the potholes fund.

Even if a more sensible spending figure was found, this idea would still face significant problems. In the years since Beeching’s axe, many railways have been re-purposed, as bypass roads and cyclepaths. Sustrans, a walking and cycling charity, opened its first route on an axed railway line between Bristol and Bath converted into a tarmacked path for pedestrians and cyclists. “Rail trails”, as Claude Lynch wrote earlier this year for CityMetric, give people access to green spaces, to a safe car-free zone to become comfortable with cycling, and offer ideal routes for environmentally friendly commutes. What would happen to the heritage railways that have preserved stations and sections of track? And how would new lines connect with HS2? 

That’s all ignoring the elephant in the room as to the operation of the new lines. Who would run them? Would they be electrified? Or would reopened branch lines get handed down “refurbished” Pacers? 

This policy is the equivalent of a Parliamentary train: it’s only of real interest to nerds, it’s the result of lazy politicians, and it is tinged with irrelevant nostalgia. There is a genuine argument to be made in certain cases for lines to be reopened, such as the Portishead to Bristol line. But to claim Beeching’s work can be undone with £500m is ridiculous.

 
 
 
 

Home-working and uncertainty: How will coronavirus affect jobs around the country?

A quiet commute: the M8 motorway in Scotland. Image: Getty.

This week’s unprecedented announcement by the Prime Minister on how we need to live our lives over the coming weeks and months will have profound impacts up and down the country. The geography of this will vary depending on the structure of different local economies. This blog looks at three areas where this will play out – self-employment, the ability to work from home, and the rise of remote working.

Self-employed people in the North and Midlands are more likely to be in insecure, lower-paid roles at high risk from economic shocks

The economic impact of Coronavirus on self-employed people has received a lot of attention in recent weeks. And while the Chancellor stepped in to extend Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) to this group and people working on zero-hour contracts, they still stand to lose almost two-thirds of their current earnings.

Britain’s self-employed population is disproportionately located in London; of the almost 5 million self-employed people across the country, almost a million live in the capital. London accounts for just over 15 per cent of all workers in the UK, but for approximately 20 per cent of all self-employed people. Along with Worthing and Brighton, almost one in five people in work are self-employed in the capital. 

In contrast, self-employment is way less popular in other parts of the country: in Gloucester and Hull, for example, less than 7 per cent of people are self-employed.

But while cities in the North and Midlands might have lower rates of self-employment, those who are self-employed in these places are more likely to be in precarious situations. Of all the self-employed people in Burnley and Blackburn, only two in ten also have access to additional income as employees.

By contrast, four in ten do in Cambridge. In addition to that, they are also more likely to be in lower-skilled, lower-paid occupations, such as in the hospitality, personal care and transport sectors, meaning they are more vulnerable to economic shocks.

Share of self employed people that are self employed only. Image: Centre for Cities.

Cities in the Greater South East are more likely to be able to shift to working from home

The Prime Minister asked those who can work from home to do so. But how likely is this across the country?

The jobs that could be more easily done from home – such as consultants or finance – are concentrated in cities in the Greater South East (see the figure below). Assuming some sectors could completely shift to home working if necessary, up to one in two workers in London could shift to working from home. Meanwhile in Reading, Aldershot and Edinburgh over 40 per cent of workers could too.

On the other hand, less than 20 per cent of all workers in Barnsley, Burnley and Stoke could work from home, suggesting the economies of many northern cities are likely to be hardest hit by a complete lockdown. Manchester, Leeds, Warrington and Newcastle are the exceptions as they have a higher share of jobs that could shift to home-working, reflecting the slightly different structure of their economies compared to other northern cities.

Estimate of workers that could work from home 2018. Image: Centre for Cities.

Once Coronavirus has peaked, face-to-face interaction will continue to be more important than ever

The arrival of Coronavirus has sparked debate in the comment sections of newspapers about the benefits of home working.


This is nothing new. In the late nineties the death of distance was declared by many because of internet-driven improvements in communications. And yet, despite their further advancement since, jobs (particularly high-skilled ones) have continued to cluster in cities.

This is because of the benefits that cities offer – such as face-to-face interaction. While this might seem intangible, no doubt many readers who have been grappling with trying to communicate with colleagues working from home in recent days will now be all too aware of the benefits of being in the same room as their team. So, while technology no doubt makes this strange period a little easier than it would otherwise have been, by the end of it we are likely to be reminded of the value of face-to-face meetings to help us get things done.

Elena Magrini is a senior analyst at the Centre for Cities, on whose website this article originally appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.