Strangely, while the railways remained ostensibly privatized, the running of the new system actually resulted in more interference and involvement of civil servants than at any time in the industry’s history, as they were required to, for example, specify timetables, think about future strategy and rolling stock needs, such as a replacement for the High Speed Train, and let the franchises out. Even the Tories who devised the system have admitted they made mistakes18 but oddly Labour has soldiered on and has made few changes of substance. The one success has been the vast numbers of extra passengers, a 40 per cent rise in a decade, but that has been largely a result of external factors such as the booming economy and congestion on the roads. The publicly-run London Underground has also seen a 25 per cent rise in the same period. Needless to say, this continued growth is putting a strain on the railway and, as punctuality finally returned to pre-Hatfield levels in 2006, overcrowding has become the most pressing problem facing the industry. Unfortunately, the harsh truth of railway economics – the golden rule as it were – is that any extra investment in the network has to be funded largely from the taxpayer as it rarely earns a sufficient return to pay for itself.
Privatization did somewhat better for freight. The Treasury insisted on breaking up BR’s principal freight companies into three regional divisions – a daft idea since most journeys involved long distances – and all three were bought in 1996 by the same US railroad company anyway, Wisconsin Central, headed by Ed Burkhardt, a renowned railwayman with a good track record in buying up and improving small, financially stricken railways. The sale included not just locomotives and wagons but also vast tracts of railway land with the potential for significant development rights. The new company, called English Welsh and Scottish (EWS), invested substantially by buying 300 new locomotives to replace the failure-prone fleet inherited from BR. Privatization changed the rules of the game, getting rid of BR’s old restrictive practices, which effectively prevented new operators entering the market. Railtrack was obliged to accept requests for track access from freight companies on the same basis as passenger operators, which encouraged new hauliers to enter the market. Therefore, several new smaller operators appeared, but the decline in the amount of freight carried was halted – mainly because coal is being transported for longer distances, a result of the government’s energy policy. Drax Power Station, at Selby in North Yorkshire, for example, receives its coal from the port of Hunterston in Scotland and not from the local coalfield. But there are still severe constraints and bottlenecks, not least because of the extra passenger trains crowding on to the tracks. The Beeching era and the mind-set it engendered reduced capacity so much that it is very difficult – if not impossible – to carve out many more paths for freight trains.
As virtually every page of this book demonstrates, the railways transformed Britain. They made possible journeys that a generation before would have seemed completely implausible. They boosted all kinds of trade, stimulated economic development, brought in their wake a whole host of social and political changes, and played a vital part when the country went to war. Yet we have taken the railways for granted and failed to realize what a very special invention they were.
There is a neat arithmetical pattern in the timeline of the railways. The purely private and fragmented system survived for nearly a hundred years from its creation until 1923, while the Big Four, created by amalgamation, lasted precisely a quarter of a century, and British Rail almost reached its golden jubilee. In the decade since the demise of British Rail, the railways have undergone more upheaval than at any time in their history and there is further change ahead. The railways, it seems, can never be allowed to stand still and arguments about their structure, with constant tinkering at the margins, continue to occur in between major politically inspired reorganizations.
At root there is the fraught relationship between railways and government – and it was rather inauspicious that at the opening of the first railway, a government minister was killed. Government cannot stop meddling with the railways because they are such an important part of the infrastructure and decisions cannot be left entirely to the private sector because the system always requires subsidy. Therefore privatization was always going to be partial and tightly regulated since the government was not going to let go of the reins entirely. The notion, enshrined in the Tories’ initial privatization plan, that the private sector would be allowed complete freedom, was always going to be fanciful; now, with the collapse of Railtrack and the abolition of the SRA, the railways are in a strange limbo between the private and public sectors. But government interference has by no means always been negative and, indeed, it could be argued that there should have been more in the mid-nineteenth century when the railways were killing far too many of their passengers. But it has been inconsistent and, most important, the railways have often been poorly treated, especially in relation to the roads which seem to be funded without any of the hand-wringing and parsimony that accompanies any investment in the railways.
While this relationship remains fraught as the privatized structure is still bedding down, rather more happily the railways are booming. The consistent economic growth, together with the crowded roads and growing environmental awareness, means that the railways are carrying more people than at almost any time in their history. The doubts about whether the railways have a role in the twenty-first century have long been buried, but the shape of that future remains shrouded in uncertainty. The railways were a quintessential nineteenth-century invention, reliant on heavy engineering and private capital. They seem ill-suited to the individualism of the twenty-first century where collective travelling on public transport was perceived as being for those who cannot afford better, as Mrs Thatcher suggested. In spite of this, the railways are not just enjoying a renaissance with the old network being revitalized with investment in both track and new rolling stock, but there is now a serious debate about expansion and new lines.
Across the world the railways are expanding, with metro and tram systems popping up in even quite modestly sized towns and cities, and high speed networks, first seen in France and Japan, now being built in countries as diverse as Spain and Italy, Taiwan and South Korea. Yet, here in Britain, we have just sixty-two miles of high speed line – the £5bn Channel Tunnel Rail Link between London St Pancras and the Channel Tunnel, which opened finally in the autumn of 2007 – and no firm plans to build any more. Moreover, in recent years, dozens of tram schemes that would have brought untold benefits to many provincial towns and cities have been scrapped, often after millions had been spent on preparatory work. Outside the densely populated areas of the Far East, railways are rarely able to pay their own running costs, let alone the investment needed to build them. They require subsidy for construction and often to keep running. They sit unhappily in the private sector because of this need for government support. But that does not mean they are a waste of money. They generate economic growth, enable people to travel comfortably, and cause much less environmental damage than the alternatives. Those benefits cannot be captured by the fare box but they help make societies viable. It is sad that this seems to have been understood in so many parts of the world but not in the land of Stephenson, Hudson, Watkin, Gresley, Sir Bob Reid (the first of the two BR chairmen of that name) and so many other heroes of this history. The railways may be flourishing, but in Britain their development is still constrained by a refusal to recognize their value.
The opening of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, which reduced journey times from London to Paris and Brussels to two hours fifteen minutes and two hours respectively, may prove crucial as a catalyst to inspire the government to support further high speed lines, especially as part of the line is being used to deliver spectators to the 2012 Olympics. The building of High Speed One, as the Link is now called, was an engineering success, with few problems despite the large proportion of the line that had to be placed in tunnels as a result of environmental protests. But at the same time it was a financial disaster,
predicated as it was initially on being entirely privately funded through the profits from the Eurostar service. The project had to be rescued with a bit of financial wizardry in 1998 which turned it into a public sector project backed by government bonds. Despite these difficulties, it could open the way for further lines to be built to the north, but the Treasury-commissioned review of Britain’s future transport infrastructure needs by Rod Eddington, the former head of British Airways, published in December 2006, was sceptical of the idea and the opportunity to build such lines may have been lost given the lack of space and the high cost.
The dilemma for the politicians, then, is that on the one hand, the railways eat up lots of taxpayers’ money which could be spent on what they consider as more useful alternatives such as hospitals, schools and prisons; on the other, they provide a lot of benefits that cannot be captured through the fare box, ranging from relative environmental friendliness to economic regeneration. They have powerful supporters because, unlike buses, they are used by the affluent as well as the poor. Brian Souter, the boss of Stagecoach, once suggested that while dissatisfied bus passengers would throw bricks through the garage window, rail passengers would write to their MP.
But it is unclear whether the government will support the improvements that are necessary to cope with the ever-increasing numbers of passengers. There is, for example, no programme of electrification, even though Britain has a far lower percentage of electrified lines than other European countries. And while minor enhancements such as restoring sections of double track and improving junctions are being undertaken, there is no clear plan to deal with the overcrowding that is now making rail travel intolerable for many passengers. Progress has been painfully slow on initiatives such as double-decker trains and extended platforms to cope with demand. Plans for major schemes such as Crossrail, which involves building a tunnel under London between Liverpool Street and Paddington in order to relieve the overcrowded Underground system, have been repeatedly stalled through lack of money and, more importantly, political direction.
Despite the reluctance of governments to commit more resources, the railways are no longer seen as a dying industry: the days of Beeching and Serpell are long gone. The new focus on the environmental damage caused by road and air transport strengthens the case for investment.19 Indeed, there are powerful economic, social and environmental reasons for its continued expansion. A report into ways of reducing carbon emissions by the respected Tyndall Centre for Climate Change suggests that railways have a key role: ‘Trains are the cleanest form of mass transport, producing on average only a quarter of the carbon dioxide that cars emit for the same distance and just over 10 per cent compared to domestic aviation. Investments in train infrastructure, such as longer platforms for longer trains, could make an important contribution to meeting emissions targets as could investing in infrastructure for double-decker trains.’20
It is very difficult to predict future rail demand but further growth is inevitable. Fares are being allowed to rise, which may choke off some demand but the number of rail travellers is highly dependent on the state of the economy. A host of policies are being discussed which could dramatically increase passenger numbers – a shift away from funding roads, road pricing, restricting airport development and higher taxation of both flying and motoring on environmental grounds among them.
It is therefore possible to have confidence that rail travel will survive into the twenty-second century. All kinds of technological developments are in the pipeline. Maglev trains, a kind of monorail propelled by powerful magnetic forces that lift the train a few centimetres above the tracks, have been in development for many years and have been successfully tested at speeds of over 400 mph. There have been suggestions for a network of Maglev trains linking the major British cities, but the advantage over conventional trains in terms of speed is more than negated by the disadvantages, such as the unproven nature of the technology, the impossibility of connecting them with the existing rail network, and doubts about safety, heightened by an accident on a test track in Germany in September 2006 which killed twenty-three people. In any case, conventional high-speed trains are getting quicker, with speeds of 320 kph (200 mph) on the new TGV Est in France, and even 350 kph (220 mph) being mooted, which, given the difficulty of building Maglev stations in city centres, will weigh in favour of the conventional technology.
Trains controlled by radio waves, obviating the need for drivers to see outside signals, are already in use on high-speed lines and metro systems, and the European Commission aims to make these the norm, though the sheer expense and the difficulties of synchronizing systems around the Continent may prove to be an insuperable barrier. Trains propelled by engines powered by fuel cells which burn hydrogen are also being discussed, but are not a realistic proposition for a couple of decades. While trains are indeed more environmentally friendly than any other form of transport, their record in that respect has deteriorated in recent years as rolling stock has become heavier and consequently less fuel-efficient due to safety and disability legislation, as well as the routine fitting of air conditioning. In order to retain its environmental advantage, rail transport must improve its fuel efficiency. In particular, the electrification programme needs to be revived, as electricity can be generated from non-carbon sources such as nuclear, wind and hydro, which reduces the carbon footprint. Technological developments on the track, too, may be significant in improving performance. It is quite remarkable that the same basic method of constructing railways – using rails laid on sleepers resting on ballast – that was used on the Liverpool to Manchester railway, opened in 1830, was also used on High Speed One, completed in 2007.
For passengers, train journeys could be made much easier by provision of better information and easier methods of paying fares. Tickets sold through the internet or the mobile phone will make queues at booking offices a thing of the past and already it is possible to track the progress of individual trains on the internet or via a mobile phone.
Even though the people who saw the first train on its journey from Liverpool to Manchester in 1830 would be able to recognize today’s railways as direct descendants of Stephenson’s construction, the industry has come a long way in its near two centuries of existence. Most importantly, it has survived and flourished despite the competition from roads and air transport. Rail will continue to provide the best and safest21 form of transport throughout the twenty-first century. Trains are here to stay, a remarkable testimony to the prescience of Stephenson and all the subsequent pioneers.
NOTES
Introduction: Why Railways?
1 A. F. Garnett, Steel Wheels, Cannwood Press, 2005, p. 6.
2 The Newcomen engine was not like later steam engines as it was driven by air pressure operating against a vacuum created by spraying water into low pressure steam. The first mention of a steam engine was made by an Alexandrian, Hero, writing in the first century after Christ.
3 Garnett, Steel Wheels, p. 15.
4 Frank Ferneyhough, Liverpool & Manchester Railway, 1830–1980, Robert Hale, 1980, p. 12.
5 It can still be seen in the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers in Paris.
6 As with several elements of this brief early history, there are differing accounts and some suggest that this engine never ran on rails.
7 It is surprising how many people are unaware that train drivers do not actually steer their vehicles but are at the mercy of signalmen setting the correct route at every junction and points.
8 The clever devices in the middle of the back axles of cars which enable them to corner easily by ensuring the inside wheel travels just a bit more slowly than the outside one, which has to cover greater distance.
9 Francis T. Evans, ‘Roads, Railways, and Canals: Technical Choices in 19th century Britain’, Technology and Culture, Vol. 22, 1981.
10 There is some evidence that there were earlier ones on private land which, therefore, did not require an Act of Parliament.
11 Few
passengers on the Croydon Tramlink will be aware that part of its track is the original route of the world’s oldest public railway.
12 Historians are rather hesitant on this point, suggesting there may have been other now-forgotten services.
13 The railway had various other names and was originally called the Oystermouth Railway and it originally only ran to Oystermouth. In one of the acts of vandalism on the railway heritage, of which there are several other examples in this book, the track was ripped up in 1960 with scant regard for its role in history.
14 Quoted in various places including
15 Richard Ayton and William Daniell, A voyage round Great Britain undertaken in the year 1813, Longmans, 1814.
16 His book, Observations on a General Iron Railway, first published in 1820 by Baldwin, Cradock and Joy, went through four more editions by 1825.
17 B. G. Wilson and J. R. Day, Unusual Railways, Frederick Muller, 1957, p. 163.
18 The original main line actually ran from Stockton to Phoenix Pit, Wilton Park City.
19 For those who have wondered why trains no longer go ‘tagadada, tagadada’ as they used to, the reason is that most main line routes, and indeed many others, such as sections of the London Underground, have continuous welded rails with none of the gaps between rails which caused that evocative noise. Stephenson’s early lines, though, had far too many such gaps!
20 Quoted in Garnett, Steel Wheels, p. 26.
21 The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 477.
22 It was by no means the first railway bridge. That was the Causey Arch in County Durham, built to carry the Dunston railroad. It was completed in 1726 and survives to this day.
Fire and Steam Page 39