Britain invented the railway system with the Liverpool to Manchester Railway completed in 1830, and thus started the modern world .....
.... in fact without the modern transport systems that evolved from the railways through to the aeroplane ... the Coronavirus would probably never have left China.
In the modern context, we can't really do without trains in the UK or elsewhere. Even the USA, which nearly became a road only culture, has retained the rail system although primarily freight, and surprisingly for such a vast country, no national high speed system. But as we face the reality of global warming, and the death of the internal combustion engine (at least on the roads), many countries will turn back to the rail system (especially large countries such as the USA).
They bestow benefits on the community which cannot be recouped solely from the fare receipts - such as less traffic and therefore less pollution on our roads. Better return on fuel v passenger numbers (economies of scale). These are factors which, ecologists, economists and politicians around the world will increasingly agree are important. We will need yet more railways, more trains, and more stations for both better connectivity, and lower greenhouse impacts and prosperity going forward.
So its always been something of a mystery that we have never been able to run them at break even levels, let alone make a profit after the needed investments ... certainly since the late 1920's. They have struggled since the invention of the delivery lorry, and wider car ownership in the 1930's, derailed the profit structure of the old big four created by The Railways Act of 1921 (Great Western Railways, London North Eastern Railway, Southern Railway, and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway).
After that, World War II, the Nationalisation of the whole rail system (with no Government investment on the levels needed) in 1947, and then the Privatisation (approx 2,400 companies both large and small, are now involved in providing the UK’s railway service), in the mid 1990's, all added to the problems .... certainly none of these returned the railways to a self-sustaining, self-investing economic model. The Beeching cuts of 1963 were a very short sighted attempt to restructure, but just resulted in even more chronic underinvestment over three more decades, and thus the over filled commuter and long haul train carriages, that characterise rail transport.
Fundamentally the problem is that the railway system in the UK has not been able to generate sufficient revenues or profits to guarantee the heavy self investment it needs to keep operating, for at least a century, and worldwide, railways, without state subsidies, usually lose money, whoever owns or operates them ..... and despite the multiplicity and complexity of the UK's rail ticket system, which is designed to squeeze the maximum out of both the confused local, and the bemused tourists, our rail system would lose money without subsidy.
Now there are calls to "Re-Nationalise" as the franchise system collapses, or fails to produce a system that is at least punctual and able to provide seats for all. Many who call for this (especially the rail unions), hanker back to some misty eyed "golden age" in the 1980's - but I can remember this time, and recall British Rail as being notorious for poor service, over-mighty unions, government interference, and even inedible sandwiches. On the plus side, it ran football specials to Wembley, something we have lost.
There is some suggestion by these groups that from 1976 until 1992, gradual reform and restructuring of British Rail, meant that by the late 1980's, it was efficient and delivering continually improving services. I can neither agree or disagree with that, I don't recall it, but that don't make it not true.
When questioned, the general public have generally support the idea of rail renationalisation (by a margin of 60% - 20%. in 2014 for example): Re-nationalisation in itself is easy enough to achieve at no great expense, after all Network Rail, which manages the track, is already in public hands. While one simply has to let the rail franchises run down, and once expired the government could get them back at no cost to the taxpayer. The franchise holders all take profits, and its thought to be £250m or about 3% of turnover, which immediately could be reinvested in to the newly nationalised system.
But would it tackle the historic issues of under investment, political interference, lack of track and carriages (You can't double the train numbers, as there is no more track to run them on), and lets be honest, the fact that the rail workers unions refuse to modernise old mid 20th century work practices doesn't augur well for this model. Supporters say yes, to all these issues, and point to the fact that Directly Operated Railways (DOR), a state-run body, rescued the East Coast main line and not only got it running again, but they also handed a billion pounds in premiums to the Treasury during its period in charge.
However, the privateers (mainly Tory supporters and free marketeers), argue that levels of investment are actually at record levels, with passenger numbers doubling, and punctuality rates at record levels. They add that since privatisation, passenger journeys have shot up from 761 million passengers in 1995/96 to 1.46 billion in 2015/16, and that the passenger statistics are also doing well in comparison with Europe too. Since 2008 the UK has seen a 17% growth in passenger kilometres, the second highest behind Austria. They put the East Coast main line back in to private hands, despite the apparent success of the DOR administration.
Of course, the big stumbling point is that whether in public or private ownership, the railways are subsidised ... and many think that only those who use it, should pay for it (after all if I never use the airlines, I don't pay for their existence, nor subsidise those who do). But despite the 1.46 + billion passengers, if the railways relied on them solely for funds, they would go bust. But we do need them, and will need them more in the future.
So perhaps the answer lies in abandoning the old tracked railways, that were created in the Victorian era with their needs in mind, and invest in new innovative transport systems - Monorail, Maglev Technology or Hyperloop (a sort of vacuum tube) - and if we went all out for it, the first services could be implemented for less than the price of a Channel Tunnel or HS2.
The future of public transport beckons, but only if we choose to embrace it .....
 |
| Britain Led The World In Railways ....... |
.... in fact without the modern transport systems that evolved from the railways through to the aeroplane ... the Coronavirus would probably never have left China.
In the modern context, we can't really do without trains in the UK or elsewhere. Even the USA, which nearly became a road only culture, has retained the rail system although primarily freight, and surprisingly for such a vast country, no national high speed system. But as we face the reality of global warming, and the death of the internal combustion engine (at least on the roads), many countries will turn back to the rail system (especially large countries such as the USA).
They bestow benefits on the community which cannot be recouped solely from the fare receipts - such as less traffic and therefore less pollution on our roads. Better return on fuel v passenger numbers (economies of scale). These are factors which, ecologists, economists and politicians around the world will increasingly agree are important. We will need yet more railways, more trains, and more stations for both better connectivity, and lower greenhouse impacts and prosperity going forward.
So its always been something of a mystery that we have never been able to run them at break even levels, let alone make a profit after the needed investments ... certainly since the late 1920's. They have struggled since the invention of the delivery lorry, and wider car ownership in the 1930's, derailed the profit structure of the old big four created by The Railways Act of 1921 (Great Western Railways, London North Eastern Railway, Southern Railway, and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway).
After that, World War II, the Nationalisation of the whole rail system (with no Government investment on the levels needed) in 1947, and then the Privatisation (approx 2,400 companies both large and small, are now involved in providing the UK’s railway service), in the mid 1990's, all added to the problems .... certainly none of these returned the railways to a self-sustaining, self-investing economic model. The Beeching cuts of 1963 were a very short sighted attempt to restructure, but just resulted in even more chronic underinvestment over three more decades, and thus the over filled commuter and long haul train carriages, that characterise rail transport.
 |
| A Golden Age, Or Misty Eyed Nonsense? |
Fundamentally the problem is that the railway system in the UK has not been able to generate sufficient revenues or profits to guarantee the heavy self investment it needs to keep operating, for at least a century, and worldwide, railways, without state subsidies, usually lose money, whoever owns or operates them ..... and despite the multiplicity and complexity of the UK's rail ticket system, which is designed to squeeze the maximum out of both the confused local, and the bemused tourists, our rail system would lose money without subsidy.
Now there are calls to "Re-Nationalise" as the franchise system collapses, or fails to produce a system that is at least punctual and able to provide seats for all. Many who call for this (especially the rail unions), hanker back to some misty eyed "golden age" in the 1980's - but I can remember this time, and recall British Rail as being notorious for poor service, over-mighty unions, government interference, and even inedible sandwiches. On the plus side, it ran football specials to Wembley, something we have lost.
There is some suggestion by these groups that from 1976 until 1992, gradual reform and restructuring of British Rail, meant that by the late 1980's, it was efficient and delivering continually improving services. I can neither agree or disagree with that, I don't recall it, but that don't make it not true.
When questioned, the general public have generally support the idea of rail renationalisation (by a margin of 60% - 20%. in 2014 for example): Re-nationalisation in itself is easy enough to achieve at no great expense, after all Network Rail, which manages the track, is already in public hands. While one simply has to let the rail franchises run down, and once expired the government could get them back at no cost to the taxpayer. The franchise holders all take profits, and its thought to be £250m or about 3% of turnover, which immediately could be reinvested in to the newly nationalised system.
But would it tackle the historic issues of under investment, political interference, lack of track and carriages (You can't double the train numbers, as there is no more track to run them on), and lets be honest, the fact that the rail workers unions refuse to modernise old mid 20th century work practices doesn't augur well for this model. Supporters say yes, to all these issues, and point to the fact that Directly Operated Railways (DOR), a state-run body, rescued the East Coast main line and not only got it running again, but they also handed a billion pounds in premiums to the Treasury during its period in charge.
However, the privateers (mainly Tory supporters and free marketeers), argue that levels of investment are actually at record levels, with passenger numbers doubling, and punctuality rates at record levels. They add that since privatisation, passenger journeys have shot up from 761 million passengers in 1995/96 to 1.46 billion in 2015/16, and that the passenger statistics are also doing well in comparison with Europe too. Since 2008 the UK has seen a 17% growth in passenger kilometres, the second highest behind Austria. They put the East Coast main line back in to private hands, despite the apparent success of the DOR administration.
Of course, the big stumbling point is that whether in public or private ownership, the railways are subsidised ... and many think that only those who use it, should pay for it (after all if I never use the airlines, I don't pay for their existence, nor subsidise those who do). But despite the 1.46 + billion passengers, if the railways relied on them solely for funds, they would go bust. But we do need them, and will need them more in the future.
So perhaps the answer lies in abandoning the old tracked railways, that were created in the Victorian era with their needs in mind, and invest in new innovative transport systems - Monorail, Maglev Technology or Hyperloop (a sort of vacuum tube) - and if we went all out for it, the first services could be implemented for less than the price of a Channel Tunnel or HS2.
The future of public transport beckons, but only if we choose to embrace it .....
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.