Talk:Richard Beeching

Thomas Beeching?
I've always thought this chap was called Thomas, not Richard, so it took me a while to find this article. A quick google, whilst showing far more Richards than Thomases (that both refer to this guy), shows that I'm at least not the only one. What's the story here, has he been known by both names? Is one name a common misconception or what? It appears there was "another" Thomas Beeching also born in Maidstone in 1900 who became a cricketer, could this be the source of the confusion? Does a "Not to be confused with Thomas Beeching the cricketer" (or whatever the reason is) line need to be inserted? Cheers. --Benjitz 02:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, not really! Google "Thomas Beeching" reveals Thomas Beeching the cricketer, who only played 10 first class matches for Kent in the 1920 and 1921 seasons and isn't really notable enough for inclusion here, and various genealogy websites for completely random people who did nothing more than contribute to the next generation's gene pool.  It seems no-one else has thought that Richard Beeching was called Thomas Beeching at all! Dunc|&#9786; 13:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeh, since yesterday, the first "erroneously credited" Thomas Beeching has slipped off the first page of google it seems (was 10th result, today 11th). Check the second page, as i write, 5 of the 10 results seem to be referring to a "sir thomas beeching" who axed the rail network. Anyway a search for "thomas beeching" rail shows that there are only a handful of these, and maybe not a big a problem as i thought. --Benjitz 17:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well he was always known as 'Dr Beeching' - perhaps you're thinking of Thomas Beecham?


 * Quite possibly. My mum used to refer to a "Thomas Beecham" who axed the trains and trams. This is before the days of the net, so this could be a common mistake, or i might have misheard her. I guess her and these websites are confusing her with the conductor. --Benjitz 17:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Should there be an article about his "Reshaping the Railways" report, which is a seminal work in the modern history of the British Railways? Dunstan 18:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is. Its called the 'Beeching Axe' or similar.  (And what a total mash up was made of the UK's railways..!!)  Marcus22 14:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Beeching logic
I have always been told that Dr Beeching envisaged feeder buses to local railheads, which would then provide speedy connections to other railheads. The current article suggests instead that the public were to use cars (i find this less likely, considering the level of private car ownership in the 1960s in Britain). Would be interested to hear the input of others on this.

Assizes and Quarter Sessions
A much greater contribution by Beeching to life as it is lived today was arguably his Chairmanship of the Royal Commission on the organisation of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Set up after the new Crown Courts were established in Liverpool and Manchester in the mid-Sixties, the task of the Royal Commission was to investigate the system of Assizes and Quarter Sessions which dealt with serious criminal trials. The system was archaic, and not delivering either particularly good justice, or value for money. The recommendations were largely adopted in the early 1970s, as a result the old order was swept away and the current system of Crown Courts was established across the country (Courts Act 1971). Worth a mention in the article surely? Guy 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be a more important contribution and certainly less controversal, but it's not what he is famous for! 145.253.108.22 09:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On that note of retrenchment and reorganisation, my late father recalled that after Beeching launched his railway cuts plan there was speculation he might be offered the chairmanship of the Conservative Party organisation, giving rise to quips he would cut the Conservative clubs in Labour heartlands like the North East! (Such an appointment would not have been without precedent - a businessman and non-career politician, Lord Woolton, served for a time as chairman of the party after WWII.)Cloptonson (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Death
What did he die of? F W Nietzsche (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully of shame? (railway user)


 * Thats a fairly ridiculous comment isn't it. What he was asked to do was to reverse losses in the railways, which is what he did.  This may have resulted in a worse service, however, given that this happened in the early 1960s, the UK has had almost 50 years to reverse the changes if there really was any real appetite to do so, and it hasn't been done.  This, if nothing else should point the finger at the real root cause of the problem:  railways can work in one of two ways, either (a) government subsidised using taxation, or (b) market-price tickets, however expensive that might be.  As we have seen, nobody wants (a) because nobody wants to pay a penny more in tax for any reason whatsoever, and (b) doesnt work either because nobody wants to fork out for higher priced tickets.  So its a no-win situation trying to pacify a greedy skinflint public.  What Beeching did was to make a best of a bad job.  Most of those complaining would, if they had been given his job to do either been unable to do it at all, or would have come up with the same solution.  If most railways are making a loss because insufficient people are using them, you either have to get more people to use them (and if the railways serves a sparsely populated rural area then thats not going to be possible) or remove the under-used lines.  Thats what he did. StanPomeray (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Very intelligently written, Stan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.235.138 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Beeching died of? If not, can anyone find sources of what he died of and resting place? 86.29.64.45 (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Couldn't answer that question but both a source used in this article (East Grinstead Hall of Fame) and his sketch in the ODNB (neither of which give a death cause) state he died at Queen Victoria Hospital in East Grinstead. You're unlikely to get published information about a death cause unless it made it into news about him following his death in the press.Cloptonson (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Dr Beeching's take home pay
Will find the references to Beeching's actual take-home pay in The Times shortly - is there a useful link to taxation rates at various times? Having nearly 3/4 of the stated pay being taken in tax does seem rather excessive.(Though there may well have been allowances) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have difficulty in understanding the relevance of the reference to tax which has been recently added to the article, except insofar as it tries to justify his gigantesque salary. I would also be interested in your source for this "fact", which I haven't seen reported elsewhere. What I have seen, and what I think would be more relevant, is the comparison between a railwayman's average pay and that of Beeching. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

An article in The Times of 16 March 1961: Ernest Marples said that tax for a married man with no children earning £24k would be £17 463, 7s 6d and on £10k tax £5 275, 17s 6d. Does this suffice? The point is that, as always, the actuality can be more complex than the first claim. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article would seem to be referring to this debate in Parliament: . Although this proves the assertion, I don't believe it is notable enough to be included in the main text of the article (perhaps a footnote), given that everyone earning that salary would have paid the same tax. Furthermore, this does nothing to change the fact that he was earning a salary higher than that of the PM. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A footnote, link to the Hansard segment above or "any other preferred option" will suffice. It would also be useful to know the "additional allowances" that would accrue to senior managment such as Beeching, the Prime Minister (house in central London at Number 10, Chequers, "all the allocations complained of presently by the newspapers") and the railwayman (probably little more than travel allowances in the latter case). The point perhaps is why Beeching (or any other managing director/senior management) was able to command a salary much higher than the Prime Minister. The amount of taxation - >2/3 for Beeching, and >1/2 for his predecessor - is quite another matter (Is there a "list of historical tax rates" anywhere?). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The relevant information can be probably be found via The National Archives website - a number of documents are downloadable for free. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Will add that there was a letter to The Times in 1961 to the effect that perhaps the other chairmen of such boards should have #their# salaries increased into the range of equivalents in the private sector. A topic for 'the proverbial somebodies' to pursue further. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Again making reference to various articles in The Times: Ernest Marples stated various other top managerials etc would be brought in to the British Transport Commission for the reorganization: at Beeching's first press conference it appeared that pay for such persons was "an issue": while correspondents to the newspaper argued variously about whether "serving the state" was sufficient reward in itself, with some reference to pulling together as in wartime etc (paraphrasing somewhat).

Wikipedia "records what is", rather than the original analysis thereof - but sometimes it is useful to note on the talk page "pointers for Original Research to be pursued" (or, if already done, merely located).

It might be useful to have a talk page flag with a variant on Marx' comment on Feuerbach to cover such eventualities. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pursuing the matter further in The Times - it seems that workshop staff were earning "on the order of" £450-£550 per annum at this point (depending upon job, but not allowing for perks); and other directors of boards were earning up to £10 000 per annum (possibly in conjunction with other activities, possibly with perks). What Dr Beeching's equivalents were earning in the private sector would have to be researched further. There were also comments to the effect that the former attitude "public service being its own reward" no longer held. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem that Dr Beeching's salary in the private sector was 'within range' - and that 'the authorities' were at times having difficulty in recruiting other senior managerials from the private sector at the salaries being offered. How the pay of 'rank and file railway staff' and supervisory/lower management grades compared with their equivalents in the private sector could also be considered.

There are 'various places' where the text based on the Original Research required can be placed and linked to from here. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Name of article
I notice this article has been moved to Richard Beeching a couple of times and moved back again. Is it worth discussing this? The Baron Beeching seems unnecessary to me. No doubt there is a manual of style that will help us out! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. The current title is a bit odd as he is mostly known as Richard Beeching or Dr Beeching. WP:NCPEER is relevant here; there would seem to be a parallel with the Bertrand Russell example mentioned on that page. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on. He is certainly best known as Dr Beeching, but I think Lord Beeching (he is frequently referred to by his title) is actually far more common than Richard Beeching, so it seems we are following WP:NCPEER by titling the article Richard Beeching, Baron Beeching. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, dr beeching!
Is there a link with this series(?): Oh,_Doctor_Beeching!

nl:Oh,_Doctor_Beeching! De serie gaat over het kleine (fictieve) station Hatley, in de Midlands, gelegen aan zo'n bedreigde spoorlijn. De leiding van deze operatie was in handen van Richard Beeching, die door de Britse Conservatieve Partij benoemd was tot directeur van het Britse spoor. Hoewel de BBC-reeks vernoemd is naar Beeching en in de komedie voortdurend zijn naam valt, komt de overheidssaneerder als personage zèlf totaal niet in de televisieserie voor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.83.71 (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Doctorate - when awarded?
It would be helpful if this article states when he was awarded his PhD, as it only refers to him studying and researching for it. This would date his entitlement to be addressed Dr Beeching prior to his ennoblement. Some faculties (like medicine, which he certainly wasn't in) jealously guard the title.Cloptonson (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 1937 apparently. His thesis is open access via Imperial College London https://doi.org/10.25560/98448 2A02:C7E:4D80:2B00:A84C:B56E:5A63:9BA1 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)