The LNER Encyclopedia

Railways have never figured very highly with politicians, this time around it was no different. So what might happen. Lets forget about re-nationalisation, the only way that might happen in some way is if the franchise system falls apart otherwise we should not waste any more breath on the subject. There are whispers that Network Rail having been nationalised is now being considered for selling off. It would not surprise me to see small franchises like c2c and Chiltern Railways also being considered for a full sell off in the not to distant future either. Politics will probably get in the way of any ideas of rail closures, but it might still rear its ugly head just to test the water.

Politics and religion are always sensitive subjects in these social forums, so without delving deeply into either:

1. There was in the last two years a recognition that transport infrastructure is a key component to support economic growth which brings fuller employment and income from a broader tax base. This will almost certainly not only continue but at an increased rate;

2. Apart from the still controversial and not necessarily fully justified HS2, commitments have been made to improved east-west rail links in the north of England, 'Norwich in Ninety [minutes]', Crossrail 2 and so on, plus refurbishment or replacement of existing trains and provision of more peak hour accommodation in commuter areas;

3. A much improved economy will provide more funding for the investment in rail infrastructure, rolling stock and passenger facilities, but that cannot all come from the public purse if the deficit is to be reduced;

4. It would be good for the UK's industrial and engineering base for government to negotiate out from under some of the EU restrictions on competitive tendering such that, provided the product and lifetime costs of British-built rolling stock and equipment is acceptable, to ensure that more comes from within the country rather than as imports. With a strong pound that does become harder to justify as imports become comparatively cheaper;

5. The fruits could and should be shared out amongst all those who build, operate or use the rail network - reduced fares, sensible pay structures obviating the need for industrial action, and returns on investment channelled into further investment and sensible dividends. It will not help if there is a move by the unions (but not necessarily their membership ) to disrupt any part of this from pure political spite.

Wasn't it political spite which privatised the railways?

Wasn't it private capital that built the railways in the first place?

Sawdust.

52A wrote:Wasn't it political spite which privatised the railways?

As Sawdust correctly points out, it was predominantly private capital that built the railways, with some government assistance during the 1930s following the Depression to help stimulate the economy. The two periods of wartime can be summarised as the government taking control but not paying the full costs following WW1, with political intervention then leading to Grouping, and taking control again but not relinquishing it following WW2, with political seizure by Nationalisation. In neither case did the government pay the railway companies or their shareholders the true costs of the services provided nor for the extensive repairs and renovations needed. Following Nationalisation unrealistic revenue targets were set and then the promised investment necessary to achieve those targets was subsequently slashed by government. And then there was the political intervention in the continued construction of coal-fired locomotives to aid the NCB, followed by the Modernisation Plan, under which government then brought forward expenditure of many £millions on diesel locomotives that were as yet unproven in service whilst scrapping nearly new coal-fired locomotives, and then Ernie Marples brought in Dr Beeching...

The first hint of salvation was Sectorisation, which worked sufficiently well to eventually lead to the franchising system. It was a Labour government that stole Railtrack back from the private investors - many of them railway staff - too.

The standard franchising model applied differently to Scotrail, which continued to receive substantial (Scottish) parliament subsidies.

IIRC jasd17 of this parish wrote a series of articles on Nationalisation for Backtrack which are well worth reading.

We actually have a very similar set up know to what was proposed by the Big Four as an alternative to full Nationalisation in 1948. The government will not want to make the mistakes Railtrack made by contracting out maintenance. There are of coarse some big voices in certain TOCs who would like to take infrastucture under there wings but i don't think this will happen. N.R is slowly re-learning how to run a railway B.R wise. Some things we are doing now are what we had in B.R days but they are the new idea.

Much is now happening on the railways at this time and it is good to see it come about, it is only much catching up because of many years of underinvestment (all governments), because of the enormous costs involved I think you will hear the treasury complaining that something must be done about these costs and many Tory MPs insisting that the risk should be moved completely to the private sector.
It is now an accepted fact that one of the bad things that Railtrack did was what has been termed as "hollowing out" of many experienced signalling engineers which now Network Rail has to sort out, that is why some re-signalling has been taking in some cases much longer than anticipated.
Network Rail was in fact fully nationalised by the last Conservative led government.

65447 wrote:It will not help if there is a move by the unions (but not necessarily their membership ) to disrupt any part of this from pure political spite.

That didn't take very long, did it?

65447 wrote:2. Apart from the still controversial and not necessarily fully justified HS2,

It is interesting that, for the most part, it is professional railwaymen that understand that the most cost effective way of dealing with the current capacity problems is to build a completely new railway.

Bill Bedford wrote:

65447 wrote:2. Apart from the still controversial and not necessarily fully justified HS2,

It is interesting that, for the most part, it is professional railwaymen that understand that the most cost effective way of dealing with the current capacity problems is to build a completely new railway.

Isn't that what the Chairman of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire thought too? A brand new railway down the centre of the country to a larger loading gauge clearance and with the eventual intention of being able to reach France and the Continent through a tunnel?

HS2 is still controversial and the economics and rate of return on investment are still unproven with various parties, including professional railwaymen, not yet convinced. East-west communications have always been the poor relations in the UK and HS2 does nothing to improve them. More radial routes from London may be required, but others are more probably needed first and will give a much-needed boost to those many other areas that do not demand (in the transport planning sense) that being able to reach London quicker is the be all and end all - all that mind-set is likely to achieve is to further expand the diameter of the greater south-eastern commuter belt.

I am tempted to comment on this but all I will really say is that this is a politically charged issue and I think such threads usually end with bad feelings.

To base the case for HS2 or HS anything on capacity rather than speed has an unfortunate drawback: that halving the speed would double the capacity.

Kudu

kudu wrote:To base the case for HS2 or HS anything on capacity rather than speed has an unfortunate drawback: that halving the speed would double the capacity.

... which would be disastrous if the competition where to be short-haul airlines and constant speed (i.e. driverless) trucks.

65447 wrote:Isn't that what the Chairman of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire thought too? A brand new railway down the centre of the country to a larger loading gauge clearance and with the eventual intention of being able to reach France and the Continent through a tunnel?

<sigh> Here we go again with old "the London Extension was built to continental loading gauge" myth.

If there was any intension to run trains from the MS&L to the continent then the major market would have been from Manchester to Paris. This meant that there was no point in building the LE to anything other than the old MS&L loading gauge set by the tunnels on the Woodhead line, built in the 1840s. Added to that the Berne Gauge, which standardised continental loading gauges, was not agreed until 1912 and didn't come into force until 1914, some 19 years after the LE was completed. The lines in northern France were not brought into to line with the Berne Gauge until the 1920s.

If people prefer to cling to their myths and mis-information, that is really up to them, but for my part I am not going to take anything they say about more complex subjects, like the HS2, very seriously.

Bill Bedford wrote:

65447 wrote:Isn't that what the Chairman of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire thought too? A brand new railway down the centre of the country to a larger loading gauge clearance and with the eventual intention of being able to reach France and the Continent through a tunnel?

<sigh> Here we go again with old "the London Extension was built to continental loading gauge" myth.

Since when did 'larger loading gauge' clearance translate to Berne loading gauge, except in your misinterpretation?

There is absolutely no doubt that the GC main line was constructed to a larger loading gauge than most if not all other British railways and consequently Gresley was then faced with modifying the Robinson locomotives built to fill it by reducing the height of boiler fittings etc. whilst the (Civil) Engineers had to apply route restrictions to certain classes and to certain coaching stock also built to the limits of the same loading gauge. Even the composite loading gauge was not as generously proportioned.

And are you denying that Sir Edward Watkin, as one time chairman of the GC, Metropolitan and SER and with interests in the Channel Tunnel, did not harbour those historically documented ambitions?

And if we all believe that future developments should be restricted by past constructions - in your instance the Woodhead tunnel - then the last 200 years of industrial progress would never have happened.