header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 February 2023 / William Gibson
Issue: 8012 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Reflections on Beeching: beware the axeman

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
110007
Did Richard Beeching deserve the public vitriol he attracted for the closure of the railways? William Gibson examines the impact of the swingeing 1960s cuts

What do the Transport Act 1962 (effective January 1963) and the Courts Act 1971 have in common? Two things: they were both intended to make improvements by cutting, and the axeman in each case was Richard Beeching.

Beeching in charge

A scientist employed by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), he was seconded to the Civil Service for five years from June 1961 to be first chairman of the newly created British Railways Board, following abolition of the British Transport Commission (BTC). His proposed employment was disclosed to Parliament in March 1961 by the Minister of Transport, Ernest Marples. The announcement that he was to be paid a salary of £24,000 (about £470,000 today), which was more than twice as much as the outgoing chairman of the BTC, sparked an angry and extensive debate in the House. Labour opposition members en masse condemned his lack of knowledge

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll