Main Edition
US
FR
July 17, 2024 - 7:00pm
The railway question has been bothering British leaders for well over a century. Clement Attlee’s nationalisation effort came into force in 1948, but the trains had been under de facto state control during both World Wars, and the 1921 Railways Act — though retaining the principle of private ownership — represented a level of government interference that would have been unthinkable just a decade earlier. Almost the entire national network was put under the control of a few huge concerns, the so-called Big Four. Even before 1914, there had been growing concerns about the sustainability of the Victorian-Edwardian status quo, with 150 separate companies operating throughout the country and a good deal of redundancy, inefficiency, and duplication.
In the Nineties came privatisation, of a sort, and there has been incessant tinkering over the intervening quarter of a century. Now it’s all change again, with Labour committing to a phased re-nationalisation in today’s King’s Speech.
Having once been a firm supporter of nationalised railways, I am now more agnostic. Supporters of state ownership tend to emphasise that the railways constitute a public service which promotes good health and social cohesion, and that affordable, reliable train travel is a vital tool against pollution and congestion. They note, rightly, that in most countries even nominally private train operators receive various forms of open or hidden subsidy, and that many shares in British railway companies are held by foreign state-owned firms.
Sceptics of nationalisation note that state ownership does not seem to guarantee good service or amicable industrial relations — the previously much-admired German railways have been plagued by delays and strikes in recent years — and that it tends to make levels of investment heavily dependent on political priorities rather than operational need. Certainly, this was a significant problem for British Rail during its half-century of operation. Critics also note that large proportions of the population barely use trains at all from one year to the next, and that the move to remote working has permanently reduced demand for commuting — traditionally the rail companies’ most lucrative market.
The arguments will run and run. Quite possibly, Great British Railways will be broken up again in a few decades’ time. In the meantime, however, when it comes to the rail network there is a broader and perhaps even more important issue than mere ownership, in this case the obstacles to getting new infrastructure built. The interminable barriers placed in the way of HS2 by the British vetocracy are well-documented, and they are symbolic of the difficulties faced by any organisation — public or private — that wants to get things done.
It doesn’t really matter who owns the railway companies if it’s almost impossible to build new lines, or new stations, or new depots, because every planning application takes multiple years and costs millions of pounds. If the UK continues to have some of the highest commercial energy costs in the world, then any rail company will struggle to operate effectively, whether or not the man in Whitehall knows best. I was once told by someone in a position to know that one of the main causes of HS2 cost overruns and delays is a severe shortage of qualified project managers, and a reluctance to learn lessons from countries which have built substantial high-speed networks at low cost.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeLook no further than Scotland where the railways have been in state’s hand for over two years.
A new *temporary* timetable has just been issued slashing services by 1/3. More strikes are on the horizon and trains in general don’t seem to be running any better than before. The only good thing has been the (temporary?) removal of peak fares.
Noted, but here in Fife we have just seen a new train line opened by the SNP government which connects Leven to Edinburgh, so not all bad news. Industrial relations is an issue UK wide irrespective of whether rail is public or private. I was on the train yesterday and a better service you couldn’t get, polite staff , clean train and service on time!
Well if you want to play that game how about we cast our gaze upon the case of Swiss Railways, arguably the most reliable and punctual train network in the world and boasting one of the most extensive rail networks in the world too (per square km), 100% electrified may I add. Their entire network is nationalised, the only exeption being a handful of tourist-oriented lines up in the alps, which are otherwise not of much general use. Now, the more observant amongst you may have noticed that not all services in Switzerland are operated by the same company, though the vast majority are indeed operated by SBB, which translates roughly to Swiss Federal Railways, a company owned entirely by the federal government. However, also all remaining companies, though sometimes differing in branding or rolling stock, are owned by either the cantons (comparable to the US states, though of course on a much much smaller scale) or the municipalities. The cantons also regulate timetables and fares and then co-ordinate services on a national level. This means that in Switzerland all forms of public transport are fully integrated with each other, both in terms of ticketing and timetabling. In other words, you can take a journey from point a to point b and your bus timetable will be adjusted to your tram timetable which will be adjusted to your boat timetable (yes there are many boat services in Switzerland) which will be adjusted to your train timetable. Everything works like clockwork and there’s a vast regional bus network to compliment the huge train network, so almost any location, no matter how small or remote can easily be reached by public transport. Not only that, but services are also frequent, so if you miss your train you rarely have to wait longer than 30 minutes for the next one to turn up, even on more rural routes or long-distance intercity lines. Plus, you can travel from a to b using whichever mode of transport you like, all whilst using the same ticket. Pretty much common sense if you think about it for more than a few seconds, but here in Backward Britain we of course think we can do better, when in fact the provision of public transport system outside London is really nothing short of a joke. Yes, that goes for Scotland too.
But the conclusions you draw from the ScotRail nationalisation case are also very much flawed in my view. For one thing, the pay disputes are not a result of nationalisation, rather they are the remnants of the UK-wide cost of living crisis, largely brought about by the grave economic mismanagement by successive UK governments (Brexit and Covid anyone?). Workers fighting for a living wage is an inconvenience, but blaming the workers or nationalisation does not tackle the root issue of poor working conditions, neglect and lack of investment by successive governments. and you also seem to have already forgotten the countless strikes of English train operating companies from North to South that brought the entire nation to a halt two years ago. In fact, the Scotrail pay disputes seem almost modest by comparison. Bottom line, since nationalisation and despite economic challenges, as well as after receiving no extra funding from the Scottish government, Scotrail has operated rather well. I therefore reject your second assertion, namely that nothing had improved since nationalisation. In a recent survey conducted (late 2023), overall satisfaction with Scotrail services rose from 86% to 91% as compared to 2021 and there were modest improvements, but improvements nonetheless in the categories punctuality, cleanliness, crowdedness and frequency of service. Not to mention the recent fare freeze, which almost halved ticket prices for a lot of commuters all across the network has been a resounding success. So no, it would be incorrect to say that nothing has improved since nationalisation. More than anything though, what nationalisation did achieve is that everyone now (rightly) blames the government for Scotrail’s shortcomings. The railway has thus, once again, become accountable to the public, as indeed it always should be. Though all that allows us to realise is what we should have known all along, namely that the SNP government is making a right dog’s dinner of it all, though they are still governing better than the Tories and likely Labour would, but that goes without saying, does it not…
In what ways has the SNP governed better than the Tories: education, health, covid, law, addiction, …?
All without a mention of fare costs, levels of subsidy, taxation levels and national productivity.
You’re not correct that the entire Swiss railway service is “nationalised”. There are major private operators. Exactly the same applies in Japan by the way. The point is that the system is well integrated.
There are both advantages and disadvantages of politicians being ultimately responsible and accountable – because of course they can’t really be responsible for every train delay that goes on, any more than they can for every mishap in the NHS.
People have a tremendous tendency to copy one or other aspect of “what they do over there” but never look at the deeper differences between governance planning and many other factors. We don’t seem to be able to do trams well either in Britain. Costs are vastly too high both in terms of operations and infrastructure.
TBH the peak fare suspension has probably worked as a placatory measure, even if services have been reduced. The Scotrail services I use are usually on time and not too overcrowded, even early evening. Can’t speak for other services in other areas though.
Why not draw lessons from something that actually works spectacularly well ?
Inner London rail services were a catastrophe under both British Rail and the private companies. And then a visionary London mayor Ken Livingstone managed to bring together these neglected lines into the London Overground. The London Overground is a spectacular success because it is professionally planned by local transport experts in London Transport and fully integrated with buses, Underground, DLR and trams.
As it happens it is operated by a private company but under the tight control of London Transport. Every major British city needs a similar fully integrated public transport network but I don’t see Great British Railways providing it anymore than British Railways or the private companies did in the past.
The railways are already state owned, by Network Rail – or Notwork Fail as it might more appropriately be called.
Its the trains that run on them that are privately owned, and not by the companies that run the services; they merely lease them from the companies that own the rolling stock.
Merely allowing existing franchises to expire and the state taking over running the trains day to day won’t of itself change very much, nor introduce a simpler and clearer fare structure.
And let’s not overlook about half the franchises are already directly run by the state via DfT OLR Holdings Ltd, the Department for Transport’s train operating holding company. The state has already being allowing franchises to end and return to state management well before Starmer became leader of the Labour Party. And the public is none the wiser, as are the journalists whose job it supposedly is to inform said public about what’s going on.
Railways were a revolutionary means of mass transport in the nineteenth century. Large locomotives that run on fixed tracks in an inflexible network and never to your door seem a rather antiquated personal transport concept. As for rail freight, except for the short distance of the Chunnel, it has surely had its day in the U.K. surely even mass commuter transport could be better and much less “ clunky” if the tracks were turned into new roads. Shouldn’t we think outside the British Rail box in the 21st century??
I live in NZ which decided to scale down any input into rail and increase the size and volume of lorries to transport goods. The result was massive damage to the roading network that will now cost billions to fix.
I think railways are still essential, especially for transporting heavy goods around a country and should be viewed almost as an extension of the roading network rather than something that has to turn a profit.
NZ does have a few “bottlenecks” in roads. When I was last there (about 18 months ago), the major North-South Highway on the South Island dropped to one lane when it crossed the Hurunui River. I don’t mean one lane each way, I mean one lane with traffic lights switching between Northbound and Southbound. It may have changed now though.
I’m in Christchurch so not a million miles from where you’re describing. It’s an absolute shambles (although better than it was a few years ago when we were down to a single road heading north due to an earthquake closing the main one)
If the railways fail to turn a profit, who pays?
You didn’t mention it, or even give a hint.
Taxpayers, the same people who pay to keep the roads operational. As I said above, if you do away with the railways and move the bulk of goods by road you can expect to see road maintenance costs soar and put up with endless delays as they’re clogged up or closed to be repaired. Given the choice I think most motorists would rather pay a few quid to keep the railways going
Had its day ? There are about three goods trains every hour on the railway passing my place.
Were they to be pushed onto road, each aggregate train of 22 wagons would probably result in 33 extra semi-trailers on the road.
I’m assuming you’re joking.
It’s the land usage that made railways cheap to build then and makes railways essential to urban and inter-urban travel today. A 3.5m wide transport corridor used as a lane for cars can carry up to 2,500 people per hour, used for buses can carry up to 20,000 people per hour, a heavy rail track up to 40,000 people per hour, and metro light rail up to 90,000 people per hour. Yes, rail is complicated, yes it is only suited to advanced societies. The fact we find railways so difficult is more a commentary on the decline of the UK and Europe than the obsolescence of railways.
Fascinating facts. Thanks.
Well this is shaping up to be a proper British pig’s breakfast isn’t it?
The answer to bloated transport infrastructure costs: outsource to another country. Norway comes to mind.
One of the biggest intrinsic problems with railways is that there is never going to be a true market. Another problem with public transport is that it is very hard to make a good service profitable and still accommodate everyone. Add those two together and you have the poor public transport so many countries are suffering from.
But like many other public services like energy, internet and infrastructure in general, it can help the economy a lot if it does work well. There are many examples of railways that have always remained in public hands and work quite a bit better, like the Dutch railways.
Also markets are usually not very interested in long term innovations. It’s bit humiliating that Chinese megacities are full of maglevs and modern rapid transport, while Western public transport seems, sort of, stuck in the 20th or even the 19th century.
The humiliation is lessened when you remember that some of those megacities are famous for having large swathes of empty apartment blocks
Not too much after seeing the swaths of tents and homeless people all over a typical city of the American west coast. It’s not good to have too many houses but it’s still a lot better than having massive shortages.
Japan has private companies running a safe, efficient, railway system widely used by almost everyone in Japan. Unless you subscribe to the view that the Japanese are somehow “different” from the rest of humanity, public transport systems elsewhere in the world can also be both profitable and good. The problem is us. The collective “us” in the UK are increasingly unable to create and manage modern infrastructure of all kinds. We have less and less of the intangible capital (as well as technical skills in sufficient quantities) needed to make complex systems work. It isn’t capitalism versus socialism, it’s competence versus incompetence.
Well, I’m not sure how different the Japanese are but Japan is certainly something else with its capital three times the size of New York. I haven’t really looked into it but I think I remembered that the privatization of the Japanese railways is surrounded by some persistent myths, and that outside of the mega cities of Tokyo and Osaka the system still requires substantial subsidies. In general I believe that many east asian ‘free markets’ are much more centrally planned than we generally think. In any case, I do agree with your last sentence.
That’s the key. Being able to build, well, anything. Scrap the Town & Country Planning Act. Reform judicial review so the Supreme Court can’t come along 5 years after the planners have given permission and say sorry, you should have asked about x. The environment impact assessment for the new M25 tunnel is over 50,000 pages!
Almost every rail system in the world is subsided to some degree. The only question is what percentage of the cost of running the network is met by fare payers and what percentage by taxpayers. In the UK, more than half the population doesn’t set foot on a train from one year to the next and fare payers accordingly are required to pay more than half the cost.
All Labour will achieve is to make taxpayers pay more so that passengers can pay less.