Railways

Investment, Disinvestment, Double - Dealing & Future Solutions


Navigating through this website is easier with the navigator frame which should be to the left of this window. If it is not there then click here to turn it on! Alternatively there is a system map at the foot of this page.

More information about this website & why it was created can be found by visiting this website's "front" pages (link opens in a new window) ..


Most images are "clickable" - run the mouse over them and if a "hand" appears then click & a larger version will open in a new window! .

This page was mostly written in the period 2000 - 2004 and since 2008 has only received cosmetic updates - the most recent of which was in October 2016 (for data, Ebbw Vale) and May 2015 (for images).

The contents of this page primarily refers to our mainline railways from after WW11 to privatisation and includes how some aspects of the system's retrenchment in the 1960's seem to have been performed with less than honourable intent, with (at times) cloak and dagger activities by civil servants, newspaper reporters, the police, government ministers plus more!

Some of the solutions promoted also include light rail (trams & streetcars)


Future Solutions.
Looking at a few ideas for growing the rail system to meet the requirements of the British people plus alternative solutions for quieter rural lines & other routes which are not reaching their full potential.


Investment, Disinvestment, Double - Dealing

After WW11...

After WWll the railways were in a bad state. Years of heavy traffic, bomb damage and little maintenance had left a severe backlog of necessary works resulting in slow journey times. The 'big four' private railways (LNER, LMS, GWR & Southern) put forward plans for reconstruction which, realising that the post-war environment would see increasing competition from both private motoring and air traffic could have successfully re-vitalised their rail services - for instance, the LMS was looking at using American style trains where even the third class was more comfortable than first class in British trains.

These private railways also realised that there was some wasteful duplication of lines which could be 'thinned' without adversely affecting the overall services, whilst some routes would never be economically viable but were of such strategic (or localised) importance - for instance: in rural areas where the railways were a community's lifeline with the outside world - that an advantage could be gained by striking a deal with national / local governments to provide financial support for them. (ie: subsidise!)

At the time these ideas were ignored because the newly elected Socialist government had other ideas and included the railways in its plans for national ownership. This led to many business-minded railway industry leaders leaving the industry and being replaced by (well meaning) civil servants whose primary aims were (and still are) their own careers. The net result of all this was that instead of the immediate postwar years seeing frantic action to rebuild and modernise the war-ravaged railways there was stagnation - firstly between 1945 & 1948 whilst nationalisation was in progress and then for several years more whilst the new owners took stock of their domain.

Nationalisation also afflicted our other public transports - even those already owned by local governments - for instance locally owned power stations powered locally owned urban electric street transports, but when the electricity was nationalised the tram & trolleybus operators found their energy costs increased considerably. With oil cheap and seemingly plentiful (and air pollution from exhaust fumes not an issue in the public awareness) this sudden hike in the cost of the electricity became another significant factor in the disinvestment - aka 'closure' - in our urban tramways & trolleybuses.

Meanwhile whilst the public transports stagnated private motoring, commercial road haulage and air travel did develop, taking much business away from the railways. Amazingly, in the name of 'transport integration' it became policy to encourage many types of freight to switch from rail to (government-owned but later sold-off) road transport. Not surprisingly these road services prospered with the extra traffic. The long term financial implications of this for the railways are not hard to guess...


The End Of Steam

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
In the mid 1930's the Great Western Railway found that diesel railcars were attractive enough to passengers to increase passenger loadings on quieter routes. This this example is AEC Railcar No.22, it was constructed in 1940 and has been preserved as a working museum exhibit at the Didcot Railway Centre.

Although electric services operated over a few routes, and trials with diesel powered trains had began in a small way even before WWll, not only were the overwhelming majority of services still operated by steam locomotives but even in the mid 1950's new steam locomotives were still being designed and built. Almost all the modernisation plans that the private railway companies had been contemplating before the war were dropped.

Admittedly there were some sound reasons for continuing with steam traction, including that it was a well tried, proven technology, the infrastructure to support it was in place & fully operational and that it used British sourced coal (ie: not imported oil). However steam traction was (and is) both dirty and very labour intensive. Plus, in an era when environmental issues were just beginning to come into the public consciousness the pollution caused by steam engines was becoming seen to be part of the problem, especially in urban areas. The pea-souper smogs of the 1950's eventually lead to the introduction of Clean Air which resulted in a significant reduction in urban coal-sourced pollution, although a generation later oil sourced air pollution had become - in its own way - equally life-harming... and this still remains to be tackled.

Before almost every journey a steam locomotive requires to be coaled & watered, the fire must be started and built up to create the steam that provides the motive force, two crew are needed to operate it (driver and fireman), at the end of the day's journey(s) the engine needs cleaning out, the clinker, ash etc removing from the fire box, plus many other tasks which can take much time both before and after journeys - - all these being tasks which might create much employment but in an era of rapidly rising pay rates also served to increase operating costs significantly.

It was as late as 1955 that a modernisation plan was finally launched which, amongst other things was going to see wholesale replacement of steam engines with diesels and, for a mere handful of routes, electrics. However by now it was too late - post-war fuel and raw material rationing was ending and road transport really taking off - so by leaving it so late to modernise the railways had virtually thrown away any advantage they had had in land transport. Worse still, partly because the modernisation had been provoked by spiralling financial losses into "doing something" "in a hurry" poor planning, a lack of overall vision of how to modernise plus insufficient fiscal controls and even - in some cases - the 'wrong' type of investment pushed up costs without always achieving the required (expected, hoped-for) results.

Named Evening Star the last mainline steam locomotive to be built by British Railways was constructed in 1960. It had a very short career, being withdrawn from regular use in 1965, which in a way was crazy as steam locomotives typically had working lives of at least 50 years - if not much longer. Although withdrawn Evening Star has been preserved and is sometimes steamed at railway preservationist living museums.

On the mainline railway the mainstream use of steam locomotives ended in 1968, although they continue to be used on a handful of leisure based passenger trains for nostalgic reasons.


Hurry, Rush; Long-term Planning Ditched

When looking back it is easy to take the view that the railways had become like an almost fossilised lumbering giant, or stuck in a time warp, and they were doing things in certain ways because thats how things had always been done - even though technology was changing and there were more advanced ways of doing things.

However it seems that the railway decision makers had been taking longer term strategic views and were planning modernisation to be a slower, more controlled process. For the mainlines it was felt to be better to electrify immediately - even if it had meant that the use of steam locomotives would have lasted a little longer. The decision makers wanted to avoid dieselising first and then electrifying later, because whilst this would have been cheaper in the short term the subsequent 20 - 30 year delay whilst the diesel equipment became life expired would effectively result in the task, and expense, being passed to the next generation. In addition, it was recognised that instead of using imported oil (which would negatively impact upon the nation's balance of payments) electric trains used electricity that was generated from home produced coal - something that helped create work for British coal miners.

Instead however there was the hurried dieselisation, leaving a legacy whereby some mainline routes which it was expected would have been electrified still remained diesel powered 60 years later. Two examples are Midland Main Line between London St Pancras & Yorkshire and the Great Western Main Line between London & South Wales / South West England.

As an aside, both of these lines make extensive use of the diesel High Speed Trains of 1975 which are now seen as becoming life-expired and - if investment plans published in 2012 come to fruition - both routes will be electrified by about 2020.

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
Rail closures were indiscriminate with even unprofitable lines in densely populated urban areas closed as an easy alternative to trying to attract more passenger traffic. What became a typical scene at many larger stations nationwide - empty, unused 'trackless' platforms resulting from rationalisation following the termination of services.
See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
Some closed railways have found new lives as footpaths / cycle ways - these examples are from lines which closed in the 1950's. Above left is Ebury Way in Hertfordshire (as seen in 2012) and right are the remains of Crouch End station (in 2014) which was originally destined to become part of the London Underground Northern Line but with electrification works temporarily halted during WW2 coal shortages and war-time economies saw the steam train service become so run down that it was then decided that diesel buses would suffice. Nowadays known as a Parkland Walkway this route is in a very densely populated part of London where one of the capital's most intense bus services must fight for space on overcrowded roads that are too narrow for any useful bus priority measures.

Return to top of page

The 1960's - The Axe Man Cometh

By 1961 the loss of traffic - and financial deficits - had become so serious that the civil servants (under the direction of a Government Transport Minister who owned a road-building company) appointed a new Chairman to the newly formed British Railways Board who was specifically given the task of making the railways pay. To do this a survey was undertaken of the British railway network designed to find out which parts were profitable and where the losses were being made. In 1963 a report was published (called "The Reshaping of British Railways") which for the first time gave what was said to be an accurate description of the state of the network.

The Government minister was Ernest Marples who was previously managing director of the road construction firm Marples Ridgway. As some of the links below suggest, he still retained his shares (ie: a financial interest) in his former company, even though his Government department was awarding road building contracts to it. When this became known and he was forced to sell those shares he did so by secretly selling them to his wife. His political career ended somewhat dramatically in 1975 when he took the Night Ferry to Monaco, apparently owing the Inland Revenue £10 million.

It had been suspected a lot of the rail network was under used and therefore uneconomic, and the report suggested that this was indeed so, revealing that only half the routes covered the cost of operating them, one third of the total route mileage carried about 1% of the total passenger miles and one third of the freight ton miles, When stations were looked at the figures suggested that less than 1% of ticket sales revenue came from one third of the 7,000 stations whilst at the other end of the scale half the stations produced about 95% of all the revenue and even more significantly, a paltry 34 stations produced 25% of the total fares revenue

Following this, a plan was finalised which recommended significant line closures, reducing the network from 17,800 miles to 12,800 miles - but also that about 3,000 miles of the remnant should be considerably upgraded.

Its not that line closures had never happened before - before WW1 the network had around 5,000 stations and 23,000 miles of track, of this 1,300 miles was closed between the two world wars and over 3100 miles*. of railway closed in 1950's, however that retrenchment was nothing compared with what was being planned now.

For the record, in the network consisted of 9,789 miles of track and 2,552 stations.

* The 1950's closure tally included most of the suburban branch lines in London which did not serve Central London termini, these were quickly rendered unsuitable for reopening - here too history suggests that these would have been very useful today.

The closures were often enacted against very bitter local opposition and in 1964, seeing the railway's popularity with the general public, the Labour Party (led by Harold Wilson) included in their general election campaign manifesto a promise to halt them. However, within a week of taking office his administration reviewed the issue and instead accelerated the closure program. It is very much a matter for dismay but such two-faced behaviour is typical for politicians.

It could even be said that the closures were forced upon an opposing population in spite of / with contempt for their needs and wishes. Many, many former rail users had no desire to learn to drive and buy a car but not seeing the replacement buses (where provided) as offering a viable alternative the railway closures gave them no other option. There is a lesson here which decades later politicians and British transport planners are yet to learn.

In 1965 Beeching produced a second report called "Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes". This report planned to reduce the duplication which existed from rival companies building their own routes between pairs of destinations - such as London and Birmingham. This explains the closure of the former Great Central Railway mainline route between London and Manchester via Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. The intended aim was to trim the network down to about 7,500 miles.

The closure program only slowed down when in 1968 Harold Wilson's government finally acted upon ideas similar to those of the private companies some 25 years earlier and created a framework for local transport authorities to offer financial support for socially necessary but financially unremunerative lines. Co-incidentally(?) this was just in time for another general election - which he lost. (Of course the ideas were re-packaged first so as make sure they looked different from the proposals of the private companies). However by this time much damage to the railway system had been done and although the wholesale closures had been stopped there were still more closures to come...

Among the last lines to close was a busy mainline linking Edinburgh and Carlisle which in 2000 became an urgent candidate for reopening§ and the 'Woodhead' line between Manchester & Sheffield which as recently as 1954 had benefited from very significant investment in both electrification and the building of a brand new tunnel under the Pennine Hills. (See below).

§ The 30 mile stretch from Edinburgh to Tweedbank, which is just south of Galashiels, is expected to reopen in 2015 after a 5 year rebuilding process. Whether the remaining 40 miles to Carlisle reopens depends on the success of the first section.

Information sources include these links which open in new windows .:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/16/newsid_2545000/2545597.stm
http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/features/on-this-day-in-1963-beeching-cuts/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/9948531/It-looks-like-Dr-Beeching-was-too-hasty-after-all.html
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2013/03/rail-717-beeching-guilty-as-charged-but-should-not-have-been-alone-in-the-dock/
http://www.rodge.force9.co.uk/faq/beeching.html ("The uk.railway FAQ")
Plus various paper-based publications.

Not all the lines which closed were even listed by Beeching, British Railways continued his policies long after he left the railways in 1965. One route which suffered this way linked the English university cities of Oxford and Cambridge, which succumbed in 1967. For many years plans to reopen this have been talked about but so far (2014) talk is all that has happened. The railway was much faster at closing than it is at reopening them!

Whilst changing demographics would have justified some of the closures the real question is why the rail industry just 'sat back like lambs led to slaughter'? In just a handful of cases were attempts made to save branch lines by introducing new cheaper - to - operate diesel trains, yet judging by the very successful results it seems that had this become policy a lot more lines would have survived.

Perhaps the reasons why so little was done to try to save more branch (and main) lines include:
a) an unwillingness on behalf of railway management (and their civil servant masters) to try out new ideas,
b) a perception that the railways were essentially unimportant,
c) that a government transport minister owned a major road-building company.
d) by not having any shareholders on the stock market or pro-rail user groups there was no behind the scenes lobbying to argue the case for investing in the new technologies that would have saved these lines, and
e) a paternalistic attitude of arrogance within the British psyche in that the authorities always know best / are always right which came from several centuries of global pre-eminence (Colonialism) and what amounted to an attitude of virtual contempt for the views (and needs) of people who were different by the great and the good.

As stated earlier, in some cases the trains were replaced by motor buses, but so few people transferred to the buses that they too were withdrawn, instead most people found themselves resigned to having to learn to drive, and going by car. There is a lesson here which even now politicians and British transport planners are yet to learn. (see below for possible alternative solutions to closure).

In addition to the closures some lines were just reduced from twin to single tracks, many of these actions have also been proven to have been mistakes and some have been reversed.


Flawed Reasoning

The closures were planned on the basis that a smaller network would yield a profitable railway. They did not take into account of the fact that the branch lines that were closed had often acted as feeder routes for the mainline trains - this was only appreciated later, when traffic on the mainlines fell disastrously and the losses continued to increase.

Also not taken into account was whether the trains (or stations) were still being used by many people - only profitability mattered.

In those days topics such as cost benefit analysis and the benefits to non users of the railway (for instance: road users benefitting from less busy roads) were not even thought of. Whilst the death rate from road accidents was known no connection was ever made between encouraging use of public transport as a way to reduce deaths on the roads.

Many years later independent analysis of the closures suggested that approximately 1,200 miles of railway lines which were either financially viable or socially necessary were wrongly closed.

As an aside, this was also the era when electric trams and trolleybuses were being replaced by diesel buses, which many passengers did not like and spurned. The only city to ever seek the public's views on transport types was San Francisco in the USA and their results were that the streetcars (trams) were the over-whelming first choice, even for routes where the cities' hilly nature meant they were not a viable option. The electric trolleybuses were also liked, even though the vehicles were older and did not have heating. Meanwhile the diesel buses were not just disliked (even though they were newer and had winter heating) but it was found that passengers actively avoided them and their noise and smells. It is likely that similar results would have been found here in Britain - if there had been passenger surveys which asked honest and open questions, rather than attempting to validate what the transport operators and civil servants wanted to hear.


Once closed, forever closed?

Once a line was closed the assets (trackbeds, etc) were often sold off, with the rapid building of housing (or commercial properties) over the former alignments even being quite deliberate and apparently often specified in the land sale contracts. This was done to stifle the possibility of the line being resurrected at a later date. The possible reasons why are explored below

Could local community - run operations have been profitable?

In some instances proposals were published by local people to create small private / independent railway companies which would take over lines that had been scheduled for closure and run them under local management. However, whilst it seems that "officialdom" were happy to allow railway preservationists to run operations as leisure / tourist lines the possibility of business-minded people actually trying to meet "real" transport needs - and doing so in a financially profitable way - was so abhorrent that every possible attempt was taken to stifle such enterprises before birth.

There would be several reasons for this, including:-
If local people ran a "real railway" and made it work, then not only would other people, the media, etc., start asking why they could do it but British Railways couldn't(!) but also why it was closed in the first place!!
Since many of the people taking the decisions on which lines would close had careers of their own, which they wanted to survive the downsizing, so they had vested interests in both re-inforcing the belief that the source of the problems lay in the lines being closed - and in making sure that nobody else would ever be able to prove them wrong or incompetent by making the doomed lines run profitably!.
The railway unions realised that if the new enterprises introduced more productive working practices which required fewer staff then the potential for similar being wanted for the main national system would potentially threaten their own power bases \ positions within the trade union hierarchy, etc.

The last point begs the question that whether despite their fine rhetoric the unions were really more interested in the politics of power (their own!) than the true well-being of their members, their members' jobs, or the railway system? If so this could be seen to suggest that their ulterior motives were even more self-serving than the politicians, who at least were accountable to Parliament and could be voted out of office.

Return to top of page

Financial sleight of hand?

Research for this section of this web page seems to have uncovered what could be described as financial sleight of hand, double - dealing, and even (perhaps unintended) potential corruption.

Already mentioned (above) are the facts that in the early 1960's there was a government minister for transport who also owned a road building company. It is left for readers to draw their own conclusions with respect to what decisions might have been taken in a less than wholly impartial manner - and what might have happened had the minister been someone who was not already involved in the road transport industry. Also already mentioned is the fact that the civil servants (etc) who decided which lines were to close had vested interests (ie: their own careers) in making sure that their decisions could never be proven mistaken.

However, it also seems that some of the decisions were taken using data / statistics which had been biassed (or even stage-managed) to give the desired information. For instance:-

Especially on branch lines where there was a lot of seasonal traffic which originated on busier lines, the crediting of the financial value of the fares to only the station of purchase meant that the branch line did not benefit from any financial value for through journeys which were part of journeys made using tickets purchased elsewhere (ie: at people's point of origin).
It seems that sometimes asset renewal dates were moved (brought forward) to just after the scheduled closure date, thereby making it seem that if the line stayed open there would be a massive financial liability / the line would make a big loss.
The financial calculations did not take into account any costs that would remain even if the line closed (e.g. upkeep of overbridges)
With a few exceptions, minimal, (if any) attempts were made to bring down running costs - such as by using single carriage diesel trains / railcars instead of locomotive plus several passenger carriages on quiet services, or at quieter times running branch lines on the "one train only" basis, which would have been cheaper as there would not have been any need for (a) signalman (signalmen).


The Sham Of The Public Consultations

Although the public believed that they were being consulted on the proposed closures the reality was that the public inquiries which often formed the consultation process were nothing more than mere "PR" exercises, or in other words, destined to be little more than Soviet / Nazi - style "show trials" where the decision (to rubber stamp government policy) was already a foregone conclusion.

At least one TUCC chairman is reported to have boasted how quickly he could get the whole thing buttoned up and the line shut, as if he was working on a factory conveyor belt where speed was of the essence.

Apparently the law actually assisted these nefarious "media circus publicity stunts" because under Transport Users Consultative Committee (TUCC) rules it was forbidden to cross-examine BR on its figures - so the public had no choice but to accept them as being 100% accurate, honest, truthful, etc. Anyone who did try to question the accuracy of the figures was told to sit down by the chairman, and if they refused to shut up they were ejected from the meeting. Admittedly similar rules applied to public enquiries for investment in (new) roads too, with it being forbidden to question the Ministry of Transport's figures justifying the need for the road improvements.

See caption for picture information. The new road scheme to which this sign refers was the controversial M11 link road through east London. In 1993-4 the construction project became the scene of massive protest actions. - as detailed at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M11_link_road_protest ..

In the Leytonstone area the road passes along an alignment where a new underground railway line is planned to surface and take over an existing railway branch - it would have been far cheaper to have completed much of the tunnelworks and station construction works at the same time as the roadworks except that government financial criteria were so very biassed against public transport that they made anything so cost effective impossible.

This was one of the last major roads to be built under the old pro-roads / anti-rail thinking. Most of the other planned roads were cancelled - or left for local governments to fund and build.

Was The 1955 Railways Strike Relevant?

Conjecture.

In May 1955 a short strike by many railwaymen brought British industry to its knees. The nation relied upon the railways to transport both people and goods and with road transports unable to offer alternatives so after just a fortnight the situation became so dire that the British Transport Commission met the demands of the railwaymen. Then the trains started moving again.

However, it could be that the way this strike so quickly crippled British industry caused a step change in thinking amongst the politicians and Civil Servants, with them then starting to formulate plans that ensure that such could not happen again.

This was to be achieved by building roads and encouraging / coercing / forcing both goods and passengers to use them - whether they wanted to, or not. That way, if there was a rail strike at a future date then there would be sufficient alternative transport providers to ensure that the country would not be brought to its knees through being held to ransom, again.

The Department Of Transport's responsibilities includes the railways and other land transports - not just roads - but it uses a 'road' symbol for its logo;. The slogan investing in roads could be continued disinvesting in the alternatives. Maybe the 1955 rail strike lay at the heart of the thinking behind this policy?


The Civil Servant Who Quite Literally Saved The Railways.

In 2012 information entered the public domain about a civil servant who quite literally saved the railway system from a second round of closures which would have seen less than 50% of the already reduced network surviving.

Although the events occurred in the early 1970's this information and the identity of the civil servant only became publically known after his death in 2012. This was because he lived in fear of retribution and prosecution. We in Great Britain pride ourselves on our freedoms of speech (etc.,) which include saying things / revealing information that officialdom absolutely do not want to hear / do not want to enter the public domain (obviously there are some taboos - for instance, threats of physical violence are totally unacceptable); however the reality is such freedoms are only ephemeral. In an era when Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers have been releasing information about how our security services have been indulging in illegal surveillance of ordinary people (plus much more) and therefore have become seen - by those in power - as traitors, simply for telling the truth, so it should not surprise readers to learn that (often illegal) dirty tricks were also used to try to silence whistleblowers in the recent past.

At the time this was written (June 2014) both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have had to place themselves in locations beyond the reach of "Western Nation" jurisdiction, as otherwise they would likely have been killed by now. Fortunately Gary McKinnon - who in 2002 found evidence that the USA had access to space capable aircraft which patrol the solar system - has been told that since at the time of his actions he did not break any UK laws he will neither face prosecution in Great Britain nor extradition to the USA where (officially) he too could expect a very long jail term which would likely be cut short by his death when "trying to escape (in)justice".

Very briefly, they story is that Mr Dawson became aware of secret plans being drawn up by about 20 civil servants (some sources say that this was without knowledge of the Government officials for whom they worked) to go for yet another round of railway closures. Mr Dawson was actively involved in a preserved railway in Wales and he realised how important the national network was in bringing visitors to the areas served by the leisure-themed railway. He also saw how the simple expedient of introducing trains on 10 summer Sundays to one of railway route that their plans had doomed would not only result in the preserved railway benefitting from more passengers but how even other railway routes which had not been listed for closure would benefit as well. In addition, he realised that the closure of the doomed line would so reduce the number of people using the routes which were scheduled to remain open that in what could be called a domino effect they too would eventually fail as well.

His actions to prevent the closures included borrowing a highly confidential report which was lent to someone involved in the railway media who knew some journalists from major national newspapers which (at that time) were based in London's Fleet Street. Even though the report was marked in a way which would make it easy to trace it should it be copied, it was copied and eventually found its way to journalists who published headline news stories detailing the planned closures.

This enraged the civil servants and government ministers who treated the incident as if someone had been divulging ultra-sensitive military secrets to a potential enemy. The police became involved in the investigations to discover who leaked the information, it is reported that their detective work included the illegal tapping of telephones without first obtaining either a court order or a Government Minister's prior permission, and then they are said to have used some of the data learnt to blackmail someone, threatening him that if he did not tell them what they wanted to know then they would tell his employer that he was homosexual. The entire newspaper industry took fright when it was realised that some journalists were likely to be asked to reveal their sources of information to a court of law - or risk being jailed. This possibility was seen as a potential direct threat to the freedom of the media to investigate news stories which are (or could be) in the public interest.

Through bitter personal experience Mr Dawson also realised that the Department of Transport included many senior Civil Servants who rather than being impartial government employees actually held very strong anti-railway and pro-road points of view and were actively working to thwart the efforts of any Government Ministers who dared desire solutions which were contrary to theirs. This included David Serpell, the Permanent Secretary, who had been instrumental in Dr Beeching's recruitment as head British Railways and through his career was involved in authoring several reports for his political masters - all of which followed the same basic theme, this being that the only viable way to stem railway deficits would be to reduce services and close railway lines.

The above notes are extremely brief, significantly more information can be found at these links .:
http://www.transport-network.co.uk/Beeching-at-50-Forgotten-stories-of-protest
http://pocketbookuk.com/2013/12/05/reg-dawson-a-very-brave-and-determined-man/
http://englishrail.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/reg-dawson-unsung-hero/
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/civil-servant-risked-save-aberystwyth-2514301

More information about Gary McKinnon and his discovery about the USA having an unknown fleet of space capable aircraft can be found at the link below - look for comments about ship to ship transfers of non terrestrial officers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/jul/09/weekend7.weekend2


The Thatcher Years

Mrs Thatchers' government of 1979 prided itself in being vehemently pro-car / pro-road, equating private transport with freedom, people who use public transport (especially buses) as being failures(!!), and   totally   failing   to   appreciate   the   concept   of   freedom   to   choose   a   viable   and   affordable   alternative   to   having   to   drive.

So it is not a surprise that the rail closure / bustitution demon was resurrected when Mrs Thatcher was our Prime Minister. In 1981 David Serpell (of all people, the man who had been the senior civil servant behind the report that Reg Dawson had revealed some years earlier) was asked to prepare a report on railway finances and how to stem the losses. This was published in 1983 and included an option to reduce the railway network to a mere 1,630 miles. What it did not do was seriously examine the effects of trying to attract more passengers and revenue by improving rail services.

In the eyes of many people, had any of Serpells' options been fully enacted it would have considerably reduced the scope and effectiveness of the railways to a point whereby they would have been (almost) completely killed off. This was because apart from a handful of high profile lines the railways would have been reduced to little more than urban transport providers serving a few major cities only. This report repeated the suggestion in Beeching's 1965 report that the busy London - Edinburgh ECML (East Coast Main Line) should terminate at Newcastle-Upon-Tyne - as the end of a single track freight branch.

As an aside, such wholesale butchery of railway networks has become reality in many countries overseas, especially in South America.

What really prevented Serpell's reports from being enacted was not just electoral unpopularity but that it came out just a few months before a general election and that many of the loss-making lines listed for closure were in parliamentary constituencies that formed the heartland of Conservative Party supporters. Nevertheless Mrs Thatcher's government did close the Manchester - Sheffield route via Woodhead which only a generation earlier had been electrified with a new mountain pass tunnel constructed too (see below). But this was in 1981 and therefore predated the Serpell Report.

See caption for picture information.
Electric Locomotive 27000 Electra was part of a fleet of seven EM2 / Class 77 1,500v DC electric locomotives built to an LNER design for express passenger services between Manchester and Sheffield via the brand new Woodhead tunnel which opened in 1954. The entire fleet was withdrawn 15 months before passenger services were withdrawn from this line. In 1969 they were sold to Holland, where they provided sterling service until withdrawn in 1986.
See caption and main text for picture information.
Former EM2 British Railways No. 27004 Juno in Holland where it was known as No.1503.
See caption and main text for picture information.
Two of the fleet of 58 EM1 / Class 76 electric locomotives which were built for freight trains (and also used for passenger trains, especially after 1968) at Woodhead and about to enter the Woodhead tunnel.

When it opened in 1954 the Trans-Pennine Manchester - Sheffield overhead wire mainline railway electrification scheme was hailed as the most modern in Britain.

Also serving Wath freight yard, the line was routed via the 'Woodhead' mountain pass where it used a brand new 3 miles 66 yards long rail tunnel which was specially built after WW2 for the electric services. (Construction began in 1949, it opened in 1954).

In 1969 it was decided to withdraw passenger services from this line, and concentrate on freight traffic, but in 1981 - just 27 years after the very expensive investment works had been completed - it was completely closed and dismantled. The the reasons given for the closure of this line included:-

o   a fall in freight traffic so the other routes 'would be able to cope',
o   the 'advanced' age of the engines,
o   and that it was electrified to what had become a 'non standard' system which would have been too expensive to convert.

(Note the black text and blood red 'hollow' bullet points, specially chosen to match the reasons for closure).

The line was electrified at 1,500v DC, as were several other lines in Britain which have now been converted to the present standard of 25,000v AC. Also converted in the same way is the short western end of the route (as far as Hadfield / Glossup) that was kept open because it forms part of Manchester's local suburban electric rail system.

Perhaps the real reason why this modern, electric railway was even listed for closure is that it formed part of the high-speed London (Marylebone) - Manchester mainline railway which was itself closed in the 1960's.

There are several reasons why the official excuse about the engines being life expired was simply a lame excuse / load of rubbish designed to fob off the unknowing media and public. Firstly, at the time BR also had many other engines and passenger trains which were just as old - and there were no plans for their retirement. Secondly, as the illustration captions explain, some of the locomotives were only 16 years old when sold to Holland - where they lasted another 17(!) years before finally being withdrawn!

In 2001 a desire was announced to re-open this line because the existing Trans-Pennine road and rail routes can not cope with the amount of traffic trying to use them and it was felt that the Woodhead route would form the ideal basis for a high-speed line which would provide a much more attractive alternative to the congested M62 motorway.

Of course it could be argued that the line should not have been closed in the first place...

The National Grid plans to run cables through the Woodhead Tunnel which would prevent it from being reopened for railway services. This link leads to a campaigning organisation which would much rather that the line was restored to the use for which it was originally built. The page also includes links to other webpages of related interest.
http://www.savethewoodheadtunnel.blogspot.co.uk/ .

London Marylebone Station: From Trains To Motor Coaches

Organisations such the the Railway Conversion League (RCL) had existed for some time and in a few locations had even been successful in seeing former railway rights of way converted into roads. Some examples of railways which became roads include the route to the former Blackpool Central Station and a closed railway line in north London which was partially reused as an access slip road to the M1 Motorway. In the 1980's the RCL and other similar-minded people almost succeeded in having London's Marylebone station closed and rebuilt as a long-distance express motor-coach terminus which would be accessed by converting the former railway route from Marylebone to Northolt (where a link to the A40 road would be built) to a busway. The plan also included diverting some of the trains which travelled to Marylebone station along the little-used New North Main Line of 1903 to reach Paddington station, and replacing the rest of them by re-extending the (then) London Transport's trains from Amersham to Aylesbury.

The route to Aylesbury had been built by the former Metropolitan Railway but soon after its 1933 forcible incorporation into the London Passenger Transport Board the management (who had previously been its commercial rivals) set out to close lines and hand over its outer-suburban services to other railway operators, a process which was delayed by WW2 and only fully realised in 1962, when Amersham replaced Aylesbury as the terminus of what by then was known as the Metropolitan Line.

These proposals caused a massive outcry and included action in a court of law (on the basis of flawed data) in the attempts to prevent their fruition. Unusually, the public inquiry - which had been scheduled for February 1985 - kept being delayed and eventually in April 1986 it was announced that the proposal to close Marylebone station was being withdrawn. Reasons for this about-face included concerns by British Railways as to the ability of London Paddington station to cope with the diverted trains and concerns by London Transport that its trains and London Baker Street station would not be able to cope with the extra passengers. Apparently since the busway conversion idea had first hatched in 1983 passenger numbers at Baker Street station had risen by 15%. This was attributed to the new Travelcard and Capitalcard pay once ride-at-will day and season tickets which covered both trains and buses and meant that passengers would no longer need to pay separate fares for each section of their journeys. In those days passengers had to queue to buy railway tickets, which was seen as a time-wasting nuisance. So the ability to buy one through ticket which would be valid for the entire journey was indeed quite revolutionary (even though such had been available in many European towns and cities for many years).

As an aside, in 2012 a fares briefing by Transport For London, the local government body which now controls most of London's transports and sets the fares, included little-known information about a planned replacement of the advance-payment ride-at-will Travelcard daily and period (season) tickets with a smartcard system which will still be multi-modal but will charge fares in such a different way that it is effectively a totally different and less versatile travel product. One of the principle changes is that whilst the older system sees passengers effectively buying what amounts to an advance purchase token that permits unrestricted unmetered travel within a predefined time period and guarantees that as long as the passenger stays within the areas served by their travel token then they can never be charged any more; under the new system fares are charged at the time of travel and that although the total amount payable within a certain time period is capped at a predesignated value, if someone enters or leaves a station which has open (or no) ticket gates and forgets to ensure that their smartcard ticket is read by the specialist card readers then the capping does not apply, they are financially penalised and they put themselves at risk of being treated as an intentional fares dodger. This can see innocent mistakes resulting in financial embarrassment and possibly even prosecution in a court of law.

Other new complexities include 1:) that fares capping also requires passengers to use the same payment card every time. So, if someone is using a credit card to pay their transport fares and they have two such cards (eg: one each Visa and Mastercard / Eurocard) then they MUST only use one of them - or the fares capping will not work! and 2:) passengers travelling on trains (not buses or trams) are subjected to time limits on the durations of their journeys and also on the time spent between journeys - especially at interchange stations which require them to leave the fares paid area and walk to another station. Breaching these time limits will see maximum fares being charged (and capping not working) and although these are not penalty fares (such as are charged to fare dodgers) when large amounts of money are unexpectedly removed from you it certainly feels like a penalty fare has been levied.

Further reading:
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/near-terminal-case-saving-marylebone-rail-road-conversion/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217062930/TfL-Fares-Briefing-Sept-2012

The Tide Starts To Turn Back Towards The Railways!

Instead of the significant closures advocated by Serpell's report and the bustitution of Marylebone station Mrs Thatchers government instituted some business-led reforms which did, in some cases, turn the tide. For instance: the 1986 creation of "Network SouthEast" and introduction of some "customer focussed management" led to an unexpected reversal of the steady decline in passenger levels. Some of the business units which were created through these reforms were even profitable. This created a new dilemma for the government - with passenger numbers increasing there was a renewed demand for investment to "grow the railway" and help it cope with the higher numbers of people travelling. Network SouthEast decided that it would use the services for which Marylebone was the London terminus as a showpiece to demonstrate how investment in new trains, signalling, etc., could totally transform the railway. What may also be relevant here is that whilst Marylebone station survived its tracks and platforms were reconfigured in a way which created space that could be sold off for other use. This raised much-needed investment funds.

Until this surge in passenger traffic in the late 1980's the whole rail industry was being run in a way which encouraged gradual decline, with it being policy for most routes to have only the absolute minimum in preventative maintenance as required for safety with the intention being that in time it would be cheaper to close the line completely.

As far as passenger services were concerned it had been policy that as an alternative to having to make massive investments to cater for passenger growth the government would try to stifle demand by larger than necessary fares increases. Of course pricing people off the trains in this way resulted in more road traffic, air pollution, congestion - & motor fuel tax revenues. A co-incidence??

Return to top of page

Railway Privatisation

The ruling Conservative party believed that ideally most (if not all) of investment finance for the railways should be sourced from private industry, and not wholly from government / taxpayer's resources. They also saw some merit in dispensing with the "dead weight" of central planning by people who had little (or insufficient) concept of - or regard for - the needs of passengers often many tens or even hundreds of miles away from central London. This, they hoped would "free-up" the railways and open up railway operations to greater "on-rail" competition. In an attempt to provide a level playing field for competition (both "on-rail" as well as against the roads) the government felt it desirable to (financially) separate the infrastructure from train operations. This latter action also complied with demands that the unelected, unaccountable European Commission was foistering on all national railway systems inside its fiefdom.

To achieve all this they included in the manifesto for the 1992 general election a proposal to return the state owned national railway system to private ownership. In pursuit of this, and immediately prior to the election some investment in the railways was announced. However whilst this timing was at least partly to be expected (pre-election 'bribes' such as this are not at all unusual) it was also done because there were very many old and worn out trains and government ministers felt that the system needed making attractive to future investors.

Privatisation began after the election. It was an exceptionally difficult and expensive process, carried out in the face of a very vocal and hostile percentage of the general population. It is assumed that there were also as many people who were in favour of privatisation, however these people were less vocal. During the privatisation process railway investment was halted with funds which might otherwise have been spent on the rail system being diverted to a multitude of very handsomely paid lawyers who were delighted to be at the receiving end of the government's largesse - with tax-payers money, of course!. (Some people described them as over-paid 'fat-cat' lawyers). Being a very complex task privatisation took several years to accomplish, and in the end had to be hurriedly completed just before the following election - which the government lost. It may just be co-incidence but at the same time there was a 1064 day period during which not one new train was ordered, resulting in the near wipe-out of the British train building industry, with the inevitable loss of jobs - not just in the factories concerned but also in the component supply industries.

After some internal debate the government decided that the best way to proceed would be by means of creating smaller more locally focussed Train Operating Companies (TOCs) which would be franchised out to any existing commercial organisations which wished to become involved. These would compete between themselves as well as against the buses, airlines and other road transports. Depending on the local specifics a TOC would either receive an annual subsidy or pay the government a premium for their right to operate the franchise, and to prevent arbitrary complete withdrawal of services the franchise agreements included a very basic minimum level of service frequencies (for which financial support would be provided). However, apart from availability of track space (and suitable rolling stock) there was nothing to stop a TOC from running more frequent trains, if it so desire(d)(s), on a solely commercial basis. The government also allowed for "open access" operators who would operate new services on a solely commercial basis, subject to availability of suitable trains, track space, and the agreement of a regulator. Railfreight operations were arranged differently so that all operators operated on the "open access" basis, for which they were given rights to run trains virtually nationwide, subject to pathing / timetabling agreements.

However the government soon found that the various commercial organisations which it had hoped would want to become involved and take on a TOC franchise (or two) saw the possibility of on-track competition based on cheapest fares similar to that which exists in the bus industry (outside of London) as being commercially unattractive, so to sweeten the pill and act as enticements the government rigged the system to limit such competition. This gave the TOC's the commercial freedom to raise fares - in some cases very significantly.

The rolling stock was sold to Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCO's) who lease the trains to the TOC's. The tracks and much of the physical infrastructure was vested in an impartial track authority (named Railtrack) which set the timetables, charged the TOCs for using the tracks, and (was supposed to) manage, look after & even expand the system to meet future needs. Everything was underpin by government money - which started to flow much more freely now that it was being used to look after commercial concerns with legally binding contracts, and not just "consumed" as investment in the physical things which define a railway system, such as new trains, stations, tracks, etc.

Once the order became settled the many train operators started making some investments designed to encourage more people to travel by train but unfortunately the company which controlled the infrastructure was less than successful (although it paid out good dividends to shareholders) and instead of making the hoped-for improvements in track capacity and reopening closed lines a bad situation became even worse culminating in several serious accidents which it is alleged were due to both fiscally-minded insufficient maintenance and poor maintenance. In the end that company was taken over as a government-owned not-for-profit company. However this organisation too is failing to "grow the railway" (re-opening closed lines, etc) claiming that costs are too high and that the expense of repairing infrastructure which has been allowed to decay whilst under the stewardship of the previous private owners (& the former state owners before them) and upgrading the West Coast Main Line for tilting trains has seen it being financially crippled. There is a problem in that since privatisation the basic cost of the day-to-day operations of the railway has sky-rocketed, as have costs involved in investing in new infrastructure. (see below)

Railway Privatisation 10 Years On

Privatisation saw the railway system become heavily fragmented, with most of the individual companies having their own cost centres, board of directors and shareholders earning dividends etc. Effectively this significantly increased operating costs - but not revenues - with the taxpayer having to "pick up the tab".

For various reasons, including streamlining train operations at busy London termini served by multiple TOCS and a desire to reduce the cost of operating the railway, as some franchises have come up for renewal there has been a process of redefining and amalgamation with the aim of reducing the 20+ TOC's in number. However there are now so many profit centres that it remains impossible to return the railways back to anywhere near the (inflation adjusted) operating costs as existed before privatisation.

Although overall passenger numbers have increased quite significantly (see below) track mileage has remained virtually stagnant; indeed if the reopenings (& electrification schemes) which the former British Railways was considering were to be taken in account then it could be said that the railways are still in retrenchment.

The situation has become slightly different for Scotland and Wales, as their national Parliaments now have transport in their portfolios, and as a result they have been more pro-active and a more successful in growing the railway networks within their respective nations.

Reopening Success!

The re-opened lines are proving to be more popular than forecasters dreamt. How many other lines are there that would be equally successful - if only their trains were actually running?!

Passengers services on the Ebbw Valley line in south Wales re-commenced (after a 46 year gap) in February 2008. By May 2009 they were carying 55,000 passengers per month (ppm), significantly exceeding the 22,000 ppm that had forecast at the 2002 start of the reopening project. By October 2009 the line had already carried a million passengers - which was more than double the 2002 forecast of just 453,000 passengers - by 2012! At busy times overcrowding has become an issue. The final section of the Ebbw Vale branch from Ebbw Vale Parkway to Ebbw Vale Town opened in July 2015. At Ebbw Vale Town an inclined lift links the station with the town centre.

In Scotland so many rail reopenings have consistently exceeded passenger forecasts that the boffins have had to revise their forecasting methodologies. One example of this was for the Stirling-Alloa re-opening, initially when the business case was prepared it was expected that 85,000 people would use it, but following the experience of the Larkhall-Milngavie reopening and even before construction had begun the forecasted figure was raised to 155,000 people. When the line opened the initial use suggested that the estimated patronage should rise to 400,000 passengers, which experience later showed was also too low... There have also been concerns that some schemes have not gone ahead because the consultants have underestimated demand.

See caption for picture information.
Image: John Lord / Wikipedia / Wikipedia encyclopædia CC BY-SA 3.0
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Unit_150229_at_Risca_and_Pontymister_railway_station_in_2009.jpg
.
See caption for picture information.
Image: Stewart D. Macfarlane / Wikipedia encyclopædia CC BY-SA 3.0
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Merryton_station_(Partick_bound_train).JPG.
The one area where railway privatisation has truly failed is in reopening railway lines and stations for which there is universal agreement should not have closed. Instead the comparative few reopenings which have actually been achieved have mostly been the result of politicians in the devolved Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments.

Left: 150 229 at Risca and Pontymister station which was opened in 2008 and is on the Ebbw Valley Line in south Wales. As part of the London Government's main line electrification programme of the route between London and south Wales this line is expected to be electrified by 2020.

Right: 334 013 on a Partick bound working at Merryton station which opened in December 2005, along with several others, on a reopened portion of the Larkhall branch.

Further reading can be found at these links .:
http://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1291-Scots-success (Scottish re-opening success).
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/re-opening-rail-lines (A list of desired reopenings, mostly England and Wales).

However, even though it has failed in one area, to say that railway privatisation has been "all bad" would be both wrong and inaccurate. As with everything in life there have been some winners as well as losers.

Rail freight tonnage has increased by about 70% since privatisation - although nowadays the railways only carry about 11.5% of total UK freight. However, even though Britain is rapidly becoming a post industrialised nation with favourable treatment by politicians and other relevant bodies railfreight is expected to continue growing so that by 2035 it will have a 20% market share of British land transport freight tonnage.

Information sources .:
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2014/05/14-report-hails-27m-daily-savings.html
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2010/08/13-passengers-and-freight-set-to.html

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
A replica of Stephenson's "Rocket" from 1825 and the disused tilting gas-turbine APT (Advanced Passenger Train) developmental prototype make strange bedfellows at the National Railway Museum in York.

The railways originated in Britain, yet years later we gave up developing more advanced railway technologies and so that instead of exporting advanced passenger trains we must now import them from elsewhere.
It would be incorrect to suggest that the bank's vast profits
were solely from railway privatisation, but as one very
successful supermarket's advertising jingle suggests
"every little helps"!

Railway Privatisation Success Stories
1) The Financial Industry - Stock Market, Banks, etc...

Perhaps the biggest single winners from privatisation are the financial organisations (banks, etc) which own the ROSCO's, and therefore own all the trains, which they lease out to the TOC's at such eye-watering rates that it sometimes seems to be financially unattractive for train operators to run longer trains at seasonally busy times. An often quoted example of how much money they are raking in is that of the 2 carriage class 158 diesel trains which cost the former state-owned British Railways £1 million to purchase - and the ROSCO's lease out at £½ million pa. Steep leasing charges such as this are often blamed for increasing costs so significantly (especially on more marginal routes) that short trains and overcrowding are commonplace... for some routes this issue can even lead to suggestions of complete closure....

Since much of the money paid by the TOC's to the ROSCO's comes from the government, so effectively it is tax payers' money. To the casual observer it must seem that the lack of growth in the railway system mileage and new electrification (for many years) was because so much money is involved in this financial merry-go-round where the tax payer is forever paying out & the ROSCO's raking in that insufficient was left for actually "growing the railway".

It is understood that the banks claim that their charges include maintenance and other unspecified costs, however the figures, as they stand, still give the impression of financial organisations 'raking it in'. The Stock Market, of course is also benefitting from the massive profits being made by many global fossil fuel and pharmaceutical organisations - and not just from the banks.

Railway Privatisation Success Stories
2)   Chiltern Railways Services Out Of London Marylebone Station

Under Network SouthEast (ie: the state owned British Railways) the "Chiltern Line" which runs trains out of London's Marylebone Station received significant investment, including significant modernisation, with there being new trains and the first present-era use of "Automatic Protection Signalling". In this way it became a model for what it was intended to do to many other routes in South East England (and eventually was partially achieved - albeit only after privatisation.)

Since privatisation, and with management who are now solely focussed on that line - instead of seeing it as a small cog in a much larger wheel - the routes' fortunes have gone from strength to strength with services on the High Wycombe branch being extended to Birmingham and other new destinations even further away from London. In addition some sections of railway which had been reduced to single tracks were converted back to double tracks and the line speeds raised to 100mph.

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
A Class 165 Network Turbo train calls at Chorleywood Station on the section where it track shares with London Underground Metropolitan Line trains. Passenger numbers on Chiltern services have grown so much that it became necessary to reverse some of the "downsizing" which occurred under British Railways. This has included restoring some sections of track back from bi-directional single lines to twin track, and, as here, restoring platforms at Marylebone station.

Marylebone was once part of the mainline London - Aylesbury - Nottingham - Sheffield - Manchester Great Central Railway route. Nowadays passenger services terminate just to the north of Aylesbury. The pro-railway lobby groups suggest that more productive use of this rail line would see passenger services extended further north to link in with the West Coast Main Line at Milton Keynes and the entire route upgraded for services operating at 90mph - 100mph (this includes the section shared with Metropolitan Line trains). It helps reduce the costs involved by the route north of Aylesbury still being extant, albeit only used by freight trains.

Railway Privatisation Success Stories
3.   Hull Trains Services Between London And Kingston-Upon-Hull

The people of the east coast city of Kingston Upon Hull felt slighted because they no longer had through trains to London. So it was decided to try and "do something" about this and using "open access" rights operate such a service. In September 2000 Hull Trains was established, although so as not to provide too much competition with the principle East Coast Main Line (ECML) operator it is only allowed to serve a limited number of stations, most of which are beyond where the line to Hull diverges from the ECML. Being an open-access operator means that unlike a franchise there are no statutory minimum levels of service, and it is not entitled to a government subsidy.

In June 2002, the company was awarded 10-year access rights by the Rail Regulator. In making this decision the regulator said The Regulator does not believe that the primary impact of the additional service will be to abstract revenue from incumbent passenger train operators. (ie; other train service providers along the same route who could be looking to the regulator for financial support should too many passengers switch from their services to Hull Trains). The Regulator believes that the additional service is likely to generate significant new patronage and revenue, particularly since recent high levels of growth in the rail market between Hull and London suggest that this market is far from saturated. It will offer benefits to both existing and new passengers through increased frequencies of direct services between Hull, Brough, Selby and London. Passengers at Howden will also benefit from through journey opportunities to London for the first time. In more recent years permission to operate this services has been extended several times.

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
Image: Simon Edwards / Wikipedia encyclopædia
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:222102_at_Doncaster.jpg.
Hull Trains is one of the few examples of truly innovative new train operators creating new services that the established train operators did not provide in order to meet public demand. Having been awarded 10-year access rights by the Rail Regulator they increased service frequencies and ordered a fleet of these Class 222 Meridian trains which were introduced in to service in 2005.

However because of a lack of infill electrification and that the train manufacturers are not building (for the British market) twin system diesel-electric / straight electric trains, they have to wastefully travel 160 miles on diesel power over the fully electrified route between London and Doncaster - just so that they can then travel the 40 further miles between Hull and Doncaster, which is not electrified.

The trains actually work on the diesel-electric principle whereby (multiple) onboard diesel engines power an electric drive system. It is therefore most regrettable that they were not designed to also be capable of taking power from overhead wires (and the electrified third rails) on routes where such exist.

When in 2012 the government announced a massive programme of railway electrification of most major routes the line to Hull was not included in the list of lines to be electrified so the Hull Trains operator said that it would pay for this itself. In 2014 the government tentatively agreed to this and offered to contribute towards the cost of a detailed study of works involved.

The above images come from Brough left and Doncaster right.

Passenger numbers increase...

By 2003 passenger numbers had soared by 33% compared to 1995 and the trains were carrying one billion passengers. In 2004 passenger numbers increased by one million journeys per week so that by the end of the year overall rail patronage had risen to one billion 500 million journeys, this being the highest number of passenger journeys since 1959 - when the network was almost twice the current size. By 2006 the number of passengers had soared to 1.15billion - up by 6.7% on the previous year and the highest in 60 years, by 2014 the figure had reached 1.59 billion passenger journeys, and were rising at about 5.7% per year. How many more journeys would there have been if the option of travelling by train had still been a viable alternative choice?

If judged by this growth of passenger numbers than it could be said that railway privatisation has been a phenomenal success.

To a certain extent some of this growth will be because with the partial relaxation of the previously very restrictive government financial restrictions many of the now locally focussed TOC's were able to afford to introduce new trains, and that most of them at least tried to increase passenger numbers ('grow the railway') by operating more frequent services too.

Unfortunately in some cases they almost tried too hard, resulting in some services becoming overcrowded, plus, on some routes, a situation whereby the sheer number of trains trying to use railway infrastructure which was insufficient in capacity (typically because of too few tracks, too few station platforms or inadequate signalling) resulting in on-track congestion which to resolve saw backward facing solutions being utilised - such as a curtailing of formerly proposed expansion and / or some services being reduced in frequency / downgraded in other ways.

At least in part these problems were caused by previous over zealous line closures and "rationalisations" - aka: simplifying / reducing track layouts and introducing signalling systems in ways which also reduced the total number of trains which could travel over them.

Another legacy from state controlled days which seriously curtailed growth in rail services that privatisation (at least temporarily) ended was the policy of "over the top" fare rises designed to limit growth and reduce the need for investment in railway infrastructure. However with some of the latest franchises requiring very large premium payments for the right to operate the franchise so this demon is returning, along with a penny pinching policy of running shorter trains (mostly on routes but not wholly away from the major London commuter flows), albeit with revenue generation - to pay the premium - being the aim.

Unfulfilled Potential...

So history has shown that despite all the interference by the government, hostile activity by the civil servants (both Department for Transport and the treasury lizards who only want to know how cheaply something could be done, not how well or whether by going for a cheaper scheme now it will result in further future investments ending up costing more than would otherwise have been the situation), the generations of sporadic & grudging under-investment plus the blatant disinvestment the railways are still essential and popular modes of transport. The rise of both the aviation and motor industries may have partially eroded the rôle of the railways but without the fully functioning nationwide railway network these other modes would be so overwhelmed that they would either seize up or to cope with demand would need far greater investments than the railways themselves received. That there still exists a massive pent-up demand for rail travel is undeniable - - all that is now needed is a new spirit of pro-active enhancements designed to allow the railways to comfortably carry all these willing customers / passengers and therefore truly provide a truly viable & affordable alternative choice to going by either car or airplane...

A very crowded platform on London's Docklands Light Railway eagerly anticipating the imminent arrival of the approaching train. Passenger and freight trains pass.
Railways are essential for our cities - imagine the congestion if this crowd tried to go by road? To cope with the ever-increasing number of passengers London's Docklands Light Railway has frequently had to increase capacity and train lengths. However it is essential that investment in passenger services is not at the expense of freight trains. (see below).

Yet The Failed "Solutions" Are Still Being Revisited

NB: this section was written in the mid 2000's!

The one thing that railway privatisation has failed to achieve is the stanching in the relentless growth of road traffic. Maybe this was never intended - certainly it is not surprising when one takes into account the fact that in the two decades prior to 2007 the cost of going by car had fallen by 10%, whilst the cost of travelling by public transport had soared by 50%. (inflation adjusted figures).

Road traffic levels have now risen so much that many of our roads can barely cope - and many of the remaining rail lines are at saturation point too. But instead of re-opening any of the many rail lines which it could be said should never have been closed (eg: Manchester - Sheffield "Woodhead" to relieve pressure on the M62 motorway & the many local communities on the A57 "Snake Pass" route which are now plagued with heavy lorries) and building new high speed deviations around the most serious bottlenecks the rail industry and government want to re-visit the failed policies of the past, especially...
  Replacing trains on quieter routes with buses (they have still failed to learn the lessons of the 1960's)
  Stifling demand by means of yet more over-the-top fare increases which will send travellers back to their cars (even though our rail fares are already amongst the most expensive anywhere - globally).
  Introducing surcharges for travelling at busy times (the opposite of the "workman" fare which used to see reduced fares in the early mornings).
  PLUS introducing devious new ways to turn away passengers by abolishing most of the off-peak walk-on discounted rail fares.


Meanwhile, whilst not only is the government rubbing its hands with glee at the expected boost in fuel duty taxation (from displaced rail passengers now going by car) it is also looking at new ways to fleece the long suffering hard working public by bringing back the age-old concept of charging road users tolls at point of use ("ye olde turnpike", resurrected from the museum) and to expand the concept via a new tax in the shape of urban (& intra-urban) electronic road pricing.

So, yet again, the er, um "solution" is seen to be to financially penalise the public for having the temerity of wanting to travel by mechanical means - - not just on the rails but this time on the roads too. Looking back over 50 years of transport er, 'policy' it is almost as if "screwing the general public" is what had always been intended, with the run-down and closure of much of our railway (& electric street transport - tram and trolleybus) networks being part of the way in which it was to be achieved, but (at present) this cannot be proven.

More information on road pricing is looked at on the Road User Tolling & Congestion Charging page.

2006 Government "Back-Room" Deals See Fares Double
Was There Fraudulent Intent?

One would think that especially in the rush hour commuter trains serving London and other major cities would be long enough (or as long as physically possible) to carry the passengers who wish to travel. BUT...

According to media reports a TOC franchise renewal where the franchisee changed too included an agreement between the Department for Transport and the new franchisee to prohibit certain types of tickets from being used in the evening rush hour. Effectively this has resulted in many passengers seeing their fares almost double! It seems that the train operator and the government saw this option as being the cheapest way of reducing overcrowding, with a spokesperson for the transport company which won the franchise suggesting that a 13% reduction in passenger numbers was expected.

Further investigation revealed that this policy of pricing passengers off the trains was also to allow the operator to save money by shortening trains (because leasing trains costs money)!

One newspaper article included this quote by a most disgruntled regular rail user of the affected line... (the transport company's name has been deleted from the quote)

"had not only reneged on promises to lengthen trains but also had reduced some services from eight carriages to four.

On looking up the word "fraud" in a dictionary the following definitions were found... intentional deception resulting in injury to another person and deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage. Because of way in which this agreement seems to have been brokered and that it was deliberately designed to disbenefit fare paying passengers and benefit a commercial concern it could said that at a minimum some decisions were taken with devious intent - it could even be asked whether there was activity which could be classified as fraudulent?

British Railway Passengers Pay High Fares To Subsidise Overseas Passengers

This was added in 2014.

In 2013 the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers publicised a 2012 study by the Campaign for Better Transport which found that with the franchises for 17 out of 26 British TOC's having being awarded to organisations which are at least partly foreign owned the profits earned by the TOC's are being used to help subsidise railways in Germany, France, Holland and Hong Kong.

In addition to expensive ticket prices, the overseas companies received a share of the £2.7 billion net subsidy received from taxpayers via the British Government.

Contentious story at links .:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/jul/09/weekend7.weekend2
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/410039/The-great-train-robbery-How-we-subsidise-foreign-rail-fares

Return to top of page

Future Solutions

This list of visionary ideas for the future which it was hoped would be implemented was compiled in circa 2005 - 2007, since when many of the ideas have seen the light of day and received official approval. By this 2014 page update some of them were even being implemented.


A network of high speed (150mph+) rail services would help both reduce congestion on the motorways and alleviate congested domestic air corridors. Of course these high speed rail services should not result in disbenefits for local and freight services - so if need be new high-speed-line deviations should be constructed around any bottlenecks. This may sound heretical to some people but perhaps magnetic levitation trains should be investigated too? Since 29th December 2003 a high-speed maglev line has been carrying passengers between the new Pudong International Airport and Shanghai, China, taking less than eight minutes to travel over 30km. Bearing in mind that this journey time includes acceleration and braking this is very fast! The "Transrapid" system uses German technology and is capable of cruising at 300mph+. At this sort of speed Manchester would be less than an hour away from London; Newcastle-Upon-Tyne 75 minutes, Glasgow / Edinburgh 90 minutes (etc.,) For more information visit http://www.transrapid.de . or http://www.transrapid-usa.com ..

In February 2005 a consortia put forward proposals for a variant on this theme with Maglev trains linking 75% of the British population along the London - Birmingham - Liverpool - Manchester - West Yorkshire (Leeds) - Teeside - Tyneside (Newcastle-Upon-Tyne) - Edinburgh - Glasgow corridor. Although travelling via the West Midlands and Lancashire increases journey times to Yorkshire / Tyneside and Scotland the overall journeys would still be considerably faster than nowadays - plus the one (longer) line would be cheaper to construct than two lines effectively exactly duplicating existing railway routes. More information on these proposals can be found at their website http://www.500kmh.com

The benefits of electric traction are such that all our major rail lines should be electrified - not forgetting the 'infill' lines which link the main lines and reduce the need for diesel trains to operate over electrified routes. Even if the Maglev line (above) is built the existing railways will still have an important rôle to play in our land transport system. With the very high speed trains travelling via an alternative route there will be more track capacity for local, regional and freight trains.

To further increase overall network capacity, reduce road congestion, plus add value to our lives by enhancing our freedom to choose how to travel some disused rail lines should be re-opened, whilst under-used rail lines (especially in urban areas) should be investigated to see whether the stations are best located to attract most passengers, are attractive places to be, and whether the train (in)frequency is passenger enticing - or repelling. For some urban lines a solution could be found in converting them to light rail - experience both overseas and in London has shown that the latter can increase rail patronage by as much as a staggering 900% - whilst experience in Germany has shown that conversion to community railway format under local community management can help revitalise socially necessary (but uneconomic) rural lines. It is important however that nothing is done which negatively impacts on any freight services which also use the lines. (see below)

For London, to reduce overcrowding / congestion both on the existing underground rail system and roads (such as the M25 Orbital Motorway) there is a real need for an east-west rail service which travels through the heart of the city linking towns to the east with towns to the west, so that passengers can travel without having to change trains. CrossRail has been on the drawing boards for over 100 years - will it ever actually happen? Admittedly in recent decades the cost of building CrossRail has sky-rocketed from £2 billion when Mrs Thatcher was in power to £10 billion now, however this is not due to the scheme being over-ambitious but rather at least partly because the safety people have significantly changed (increased) their minimum specifications. Private discussions about this have been known to include the term "gold-plated" - OK Britain is a rich country but many people would question why safety standards which were acceptable in the 1980's & 1990's are not acceptable nowadays?
Incidentally, a variant of CrossRail operated in the late 1990's using the orbital North London Line but with just 5 inconveniently timed trains a day and painfully slow journey times it is almost as if this was done half-heartedly, under sufferance, with failure the intended end-result.

Simply closing under-performing lines because its quick, apparently cheap. and easy is a short-term non-solution which equates to dis-investing in future generations.

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
Under Dr Beeching's proposals London's North London Line was to be closed and converted into a new road. After much campaigning the line was saved and nowadays as part of the London Overground network it is a very busy electric urban railway carrying both passenger and freight trains.

These images date from the early 2000's.

Return to top of page

Autumn 2004, Yet another restructure of the railways...
The emergence of Community Railways.

In November 2004 the government announced plans to restructure railway operations (yet again)....
included in this reorganisation were proposals to...
abolish the Strategic Railway Authority which had only been created four years previously, and transfer its strategic planning to civil servants - even though their historic "track record" suggests that they will be more interested in "contracting" than "growing" the railway... especially as this reorganisation also...

left out the requirement (as contained in previous railway legislation) to promote railway transport...
diluted some PTE (ie: locally accountable Passenger Transport Executive) powers in respect of rail franchises...
abolished regional passenger councils...

and most ominously...
simplified the closure process to make it much easier to close any rail line regardless of the impact on the local communities they serve.

Also included in the re-structuring was a proposal to significantly reduce financial subsidies for 56 socially necessary but uneconomic rural lines. This is to be achieved by:-
Designating them as "Community Railways" and placing them under local community management,
Seeing if they can be operated "more cheaply".
By attracting local government and local business interests to invest and generally become actively involved in the line, its management, its future, and in attracting increased passenger numbers.

Apparently these 56 routes represent about 1,200 miles of railway with about 390 stations. They absorb approximately 12% of the total "subsidy" given to the railways but only represent 2% of passenger traffic.

The coming of the Community Railway has pleased some British transport campaigners and experts who cite the situation in Germany where it has been found that when quieter lines running just a handful of trains each day were put under local authority ownership their operation and management was totally transformed. In the first instance and by way of an experiment (to prove that the model can be viable in Britain) a handful of British lines are to be operated as community railways.

British Government's Office of Fair Trading
Needs To Stop Actively Stifling Integrated Public Transport

One possible problem which might be faced here in Britain is that whilst in some European countries (such as Switzerland, which has one of the most successful railway systems anywhere globally) it is usual to plan rail and bus operations together - so that they dovetail with each other for the benefit of the travelling public - here in Britain it is more usual for buses and trains to compete against each other - often to the disbenefit of the travelling public. So it is *very* important that any British attempts at transport integration, joint timetabling, multi-modal AND multi-operator through ticketing etc., are NOT stifled (thwarted, killed off, etc) by the pen-pushers at the "Office of (un)Fair Trading" as being a "cartel working against the best interest of consumers" (this being the excuse they usually use by way of explanation for their decisions).

Freight Trains Must Be Encouraged Too
Beware Treasury Financial Shenanigans

It is also *very* important that nothing is done which negatively impacts on any freight services which also use the lines - plus there must be a careful watch on the finances to make sure that the national treasury does not use local accountability as a back-door way of switching any financial burden onto already over-burdened local council-tax payers. (ie: dumping this onto people who it knows cannot afford increased financial responsibilities so that the lines will wither - even more - from lack of funding).


The images below show examples from overseas systems in order to demonstrate some of the solutions which could also be adopted here in Britain too


Lighterweight trains such as these are used by train operating companies on contracted-out services mainline railways on suburban and regional workings in Norway, Germany, Austria, Canada, Switzerland, etc. Designed for regional and suburban services they provide the modern ambiance which passengers expect nowadays and a host of other features including...
wide doors and a lower floor that (depending on location) often provides platform-level access,
multi-purpose areas with tip-up longitudinal seating as this makes space for "personal wheeled transports" ie: pushchairs, bicycles, etc,
a fully walk-through design (within the train)
air conditioning,
a choice of electric, diesel-electric, diesel-mechanical or even dual transmission systems depending on local operator requirements,
a contrast to some British trains of incomparable magnitude - - eg: "Pacer" railbuses - which are more akin to ancient stagecoaches than transports fit for the 21st century..

See caption and main text for picture information. See caption for picture information.
Above & below - modern lighterweight trains providing a more attractive & passenger enticing ways to operate railways... with multi-segmented trains such as these often the small centre section will contain the traction package as required for the specific lines being served (electric or diesel). Modular construction also allows for easier / more cost effective fine tuning of train lengths to suit expected traffic flows.
See caption and main text for picture information. See caption for picture information.

In Germany local accountability and a "can do" attitude has also seen both the introduction of new passenger services over little used freight lines and the replacement of some life-expired local mainline trains with street-compatible lighterweight trains / railcars / trams. One of the first cities in the modern era to implement this solution was Karlsruhe. The Track & Route Sharing page looks at some of the history behind what in the transport industry has become known as the Karlsruhe Model. This page also explores other examples of track sharing, including some British examples which are not shown here.

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
Karlsruhe light rail vehicles on a former suburban (steam) railway which instead of closing was electrified and incorporated into the cities' urban transport system. Due to a shortage of mainline suburban trains some Karlsruhe light rail vehicles were used on the route to the nearby town of Pforzheim, sharing tracks which were (and still are) also used by international express passenger & heavy freight trains. All services continued as if nothing special was happening, nevertheless much to the various transport authorities' surprise an increase in patronage was noticed that could only be attributed to the nicer environment of the more modern rolling stock.

In Kassel Germany two under-used freight lines in different parts of the city have seen the introduction of very successful passenger services as extensions to the existing tram system. Britain has many rail routes which are within urban areas and their close hinterlands that are only served by freight trains - some once carried passenger services as well and perhaps experience in Kassel points to a way in which passenger services could be restored to these lines too...

Kassel has also adopted the Karlsruhe Model using two fleets of light rail vehicles (marketed under the banner of RegioTram) which provide through services between mainline railways and street tramway. However, whilst some of the new tramcars are dual voltage (600v dc for street tramway and 15,000v ac for when on the mainline railway) there are also some vehicles which feature on-board diesel engines so that they can be used on a mainline railway route which is not being electrified.

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
Kassel tram operating on a former freight-only line which now carries passenger services too. Kassel light rail vehicles on a regional working at the main railway station. In early 2006 these tramcars will start being used on services which include both mainline & street tramway operation.

In Nordhausen, Germany, the tramway system includes some diesel-electric tramcars which provide through services linking the city streets (where they are powered from their overhead wires) with the semi-rural HSB's (Harz Narrow-Gauge Railway - Harzer Schmalspurbahn) tracks to Ilfeld where they supplement services already provided by the HSB's diesel trains.

The HSB also operates freight trains and leisure-orientated steam services - in a British context this operating of services aimed at tourists - as well as local people - is an already proven successful way in which the leisure industry can generate income which both benefits the local economy and helps to keep the transport system financially viable. eg: Rhomney Dymchurch and Hythe Railway in Kent; the many leisure orientated services which are run in scenic areas of Britain - especially mid Wales, Scottish Highlands, Settle - Carlisle, etc

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
HSB passenger services are shared between diesel trains (left & centre) and diesel-electric trams (right). One of the special trams travelling along the pedestrian precinct, note the raised pantograph.
See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
The HSB also operates leisure-orientated steam services... ...and freight trains.

In Zwickau, Germany the same issues apply as with Karlsruhe (ie: main railway station a short distance from the town centre) but they have adopted what could be described as the opposite solution.

The Zwickau Model sees lightweight diesel TrainTrams (also known as RegioSprinter in the railway / railroad industry) being extended from the mainline railway through urban streets just like a regular tram (streetcar).

These TrainTrams are operated by the VogtlandBahn railway which is a regional train operating company that runs its trains over existing mainline railway tracks - and, in Zwickau, over part of the pre-existing street tramway. Because the trams are metre gauge and the trains are standard gauge so where the trams and trains share tracks they use a three rail system featuring one shared rail and one exclusive rail each.

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
Trains really do travel on paved track along urban streets At the main railway station - Zwickau (Sachs) Hauptbahnhof.
See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
Inside one of the modern RegioSprinter TrainTrams - as with many modern trams the low floor section is in the centre, with higher floor sections over the bogies (wheel units) at each end of the vehicle. Just out of view on the left is a self service ticket machine and ticket validator. At Zwickau Zentrum, which is the terminus in the (partially) pedestrianised zone in the town centre.

Proven Solutions Which We Have Even Started Using Here In Britain...

The concept of putting mainline railway lines under local management (all assets, including tracks, etc) is already well-proven here in Britain. Railway routes involved include the eastern part of London Underground's Central Line, the High Barnet branch of the Northern Line and much of the Tyne & Wear Metro. For many years these routes continued to carry freight trains too.

In the modern context there might be issues with the loss of the "network" effect, especially in respect of things such as loss of through ticketing and a new inability to use national railcards (senior citizens railcard, etc.,) which could lead to significant fare increases for some passengers. These are issues which would need taking into account, although simply discontinuing the train service per se would be a worse alternative option.

In the British context the conversion of two suburban railway lines in Manchester to light rail, plus more recent experiences with secondary routes in south London, hints at what can be achieved on urban rail lines which are not reaching their full potential. Although it is true that these routes are now dedicated to their new owners alternative routes are available for mainline rail services.

See caption and main text for picture information. See caption for picture information.
The success of Manchester's Metrolink light railway (with services extended beyond the extent of the former railway operations into the heart of the city centre) suggests that even here in Great Britain it is possible to revitalise under-performing mainline rail services, although due to funding issues there was a long period of time in which there are not enough rolling stock and the resulting rush hour overcrowding saw some would-be passengers switching back to their cars.

This is Dane Road station on the Altrincham Line, seen on quiet weekend evenings just weeks before services by British Railways ceased and shortly after Metrolink services had commenced. Since these photographs were taken a trading estate was built here and many lineside trees were planted, so therefore a similar 2014 view is no longer possible.

For routes where electrification is less likely to happen then bio-diesel powered (light) rail vehicles could provide a viable and very affordable alternative option, especially if it results in not having to pay the very steep rental costs the railco's must pay for hiring mainline trains (this ultimately being taxpayers money which goes straight into the pockets of the banks) and also results in lower track access charges, this being yet another new financial burden which did not exist before railway privatisation.

Another option for local branch lines are "lightweight rail" vehicles such as the Parry People Mover, providing a viable and very affordable alternative option.

Following trials on the Stourbridge branch in the West Midlands, June 2007 saw the granting of a train operating company franchise which specified the use of lightweight PPM railcars to operate on the short branch line between Stourbridge Junction and Stourbridge Town. Two new PPM 60 railcars were specially constructed for this service, with the aim of replacing the single carriage 'heavy' rail diesel trains which at the time were used on this route.

The lightweight rail service was planned for introduction before the end of 2008, in the event however it was in June 2009 when they eventually took over branchline duties.

Within months of their introduction in to full scale public service they proved the concept as being both viable and cost effective, with significant savings in liquid fuel use. Passengers also appreciate the more frequent service, which at every 10 minutes is now regarded as being a turn up and go service.

See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
Both PPM 60 Community Railcars in high floor format for railway branch lines plus a London Midland 'heavy rail' working to Birmingham Snow Hill (and beyond) at Stourbridge Junction station in April 2010. Side elevation of 139 001 showing the platform edge gap filler which helps improve accessibility.
See caption for picture information. See caption for picture information.
En route to Stourbridge Town. 139 002 at Stourbridge Town station.
More information about these vehicles can be found on the Parry People Mover website http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com.

click me for video A video showing various different types of Parry People Mover vehicle on demonstration and in public service in Stourbridge has been placed on the ‘YouTube’ film / video website and can be watched (in a new window) by clicking either the projector icon or this link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28tGs253NM

Return to top of page

To fund all this?

Britain is one of the richest nations on the planet. We have vast mineral reserves (oil + gas) which should be benefiting everyone. These mineral reserves will not last forever - we should not squander the wealth generated from their exploitation on short term expenditure.

Whilst some people suggest that we should not be extracting fossil fuels from below the ground the fact is that this is happening so at a very minimum the financial rewards should be benefiting all of us - and not just a few very wealthy multinational companies and / or family groups who represent a small percentage of the total number of people who live on the British Isles. The arguments against extracting fossil fuels extend beyond (air) pollution to the vast subterranean caverns it causes and that the oil (is claimed to) lubricate the crustal "plates" where they meet - some people suggest that one day the lack of this lubrication will result in a tectonic pay-back with horrific results. Nikola Tesla and Viktor Schauberger (amongst several others) both developed non-polluting clean energy systems which we would do well to be using, perhaps the main reason that these are little known is that fossil fuels are good for the stock market - unlike the technologies of these two far-sighted gentlemen.

It is true that the government is spending some money on the railways - but too much seems to be falling down a series of "black holes". In July 2004 the SRA published figures which showed that whilst the railways are carrying 33% more passengers compared to when they were privatised costs have risen by a whopping 500%!!! So fares only account for 42% of costs, compared to the 76% achieved by the former British Railways (BR) in the 1980's.

Of course it is also important that we, the taxpayers receive good value from the monies which are extracted from us. The principle constraint to achieving the needed investments is what has come to be known as the "boiling frogs" phenomena. A frog placed in a pan of cold water which is slowly heated will happily remain there until the water becomes quite hot and the frog is cooked. As a contrast, if placed into the water when its already warm the frog will try to escape. Since privatisation railway costs - whether maintenance or upgrades - have been represented by that slowly warming water with no-one really being aware of the ongoing situation - until now, by when the situation has become so severe that it has already seriously compromised the funding of much needed reopening / expansions of the rail network.

Part of the problem is that railway privatisation created new expenses which did not exist previously - for instance the former BR owned its trains but now they have been transferred to privatised rolling stock companies (ROSCO) which rent them out to the train operating companies - who mostly receive the money they pay the ROSCO's from the government. Many people question whether these rental fees are too high - especially for older trains which have been fully 'paid for'. They also resent the ROSCO's paying their shareholders dividends from what effectively is taxpayer's money, claiming that this money should be spent in investments which grow the railway!

Another "new" expenditure / burden on taxpayers is that whenever a railway line has to be closed (for either maintenance or upgrades) the infrastructure company must pay the train operating companies compensation for possibly lost income. This figure can be quite substantial! As an aside, this is in direct contrast with the situation on the roads were road works usually sees road users suffering a triple whammy of longer and slower journeys with speed cameras for those who do not want to suffer the inevitable "time-theft" plus a financial penalty from increased fuel consumption caused by sitting in traffic and / or using a longer diversionary route - the latter also means the government benefits from increased fuel duty tax revenues.

These issues are indicative of the wider problem the railways face since the former BR was split into a multitude of businesses, each of which has its own profit centre, shareholders, etc. driving up overall costs. There is an urgent need to force those (and train rental) costs down to more realistic inflation adjusted figures, plus for very strict controls on how the money is spent.

The question as to whether some organisations are profiteering at the taxpayer's expense also extends to the cost of new works - for instance for the cost of third rail electrification of the Ashford - Hastings and Edenbridge line one contractor quoted just 27m compared with the 156m quoted by the strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail. Information source - a report entitled "Reducing the costs and the causes of costs of the railway" by The Rail Freight Group http://www.rfg.org.uk/ftp/r30714%20reducing%20the%20costs.7.rtf .

See caption for picture information.
A 1967 Tube Stock Victoria Line train arrives at
London's Kings Cross St Pancras Underground Station.

London's Underground was privatised in a different way. In March 2005 a damning report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee slammed the government for choosing a method for its partial-privatisation which represented poor value for money - costing upwards of £1 billion of taxpayer's money just to set up & finance - when there were far cheaper alternative options that could have been used.

So, there was no shortage of funds for anything that boosted the financial industry! By way of contrast, the government's financial criteria for railway investment (in 2005) was so restrictive that had it applied when the extremely successful London Underground Victoria Line was built in the 1960's then the line would have been seen as being "uneconomic" and therefore not justified the cost of its construction.

There are many transport investments on which that £1 billion of taxpayer's money could have been spent far more usefully!

According to media reports it is more than 12 years since auditors passed the accounts of the European Union. Yet we still let them take taxpayers' money! In 2005 they received a whopping £15 billion of British taxpayer's hard earned money. Would any other organisation be allowed to operate like this??? Apparently horrendous amounts of money are "going astray" and despite attempts to plug the leaks the money is still being siphoned off... where to, I wonder? (a rhetorical question - this is far larger an issue than either a few unscrupulous people or organised crime could account for... this may sound like a 'dumb' comment but as its not as if the very survival of humanity depends on it - nor is it about TEOTWAWKI - anyway as this site is about [urban] transport, pollution, traffic congestion, etc., so perhaps this is not the best place to explore the possible answers). As most countries in the EU receive far more money than they contribute they wont want to "rock the boat" too much in case the resulting waves sees them losing out. Britain is one of only three countries which actually contributes more than it receives and if we stopped the flow of money until the leakages were plugged then we could reduce our contribution (without any financial loss to official schemes) - resulting in even more money to invest in our domestic transport systems.

It is time that the British Taxpayer's money and the British nation's windfall fossil fuel wealth stopped being "cash cows" for the few...

Passenger transport should be about public service - not shareholders earning dividends - aka taking money out of the system - especially when so much of that money originally came from taxpayers!!

Time passes, yet some things do not change - in November 2013 it became known that it was the 19th consecutive year that the auditors were refusing to give the EU's accounts a clean bill of health, with it also being revealed that spending errors rose 23% on the year before. The cost to British taxpayers is said to be £832m - which is not far short of £1bn.
More information .:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487670/Auditors-refuse-EU-accounts-clean-health-19th-year-row.html#ixzz34RQ9Y0Os

Return to top of page

Direct link to other Railways pages...

Return to Main Railways page.

This page was mostly written in the period 2000 - 2004 and since 2008 has only received cosmetic updates - the most recent of which was in October 2016 (for data, Ebbw Vale) and May 2015 (for images).

Easy access for all! About Railways Transport Integration - making it all mesh together as one seamless entity. Its high time we stopped polluting our cities - we have the technology, but not the willpower
The importance of well designed, functional stops and stations.
Site index
A look at bus transport. Roads
Welcome to this site. NB: this link opens in a new window.
Fares and ticketing systems.
Nostalgia, Heritage & Leisure.
What needs doing to entice people out of their cars - and how to fund it!
Road pricing, road-user charging, motorway / expressway tolling, cordon charging and urban 'congestion' charging.
Bus priority systems
Feeders for mainstream transports and specialist transports meeting different needs.
About light rail - modern trams and streetcars.
The importance of freight trains.
Specific examples of how tram stops fit in the street scene and that trams and parked vehicles can coexist!
The bus gets a stylish makeover.
Railway electrification. Ideas to make roads safer.
Often overlooked alternative transports
Traffic free pedestrian zones and transit malls.
Does speed kill - or is it only inappropriate speed that kills (too fast / slow)?
Different types of passenger train as defined by the type of service they provide.
Create urban green corridors.
Quiet, clean buses that won't give you lungful of noxious exhaust fumes. Vehicles need to go somewhere at journey's end.
Let traffic congestion make you the unwilling victim of the crime of time theft!
Where different types of guided transport operate over shared infrastructure.

Google
 
Web citytransport.info

citytransportinfo is also here:


share this page with your friends!

This page last updated 31st December 2016.
E & OE.
© Copyright 2001-2017 Simon P Smiler and named image sources.
Privacy Policy.