| home | about | academic| news | features | links |
What the papers said
excerpts from the railway press from the 1840s
to the 1990s
The purpose of this section of the IRS web site is to provide a glimpse of what the British railway press was saying about various issues in the past. Every month there will be a different selection of excerpts from the railway press from the 1990s to as far back as the 1840s, taken from the collections in the National Railway Museum Library here in York. Sometimes we will group the excerpts according to particular themes, but there will also be space for a more random selection of some interesting, entertaining, or just plain bizarre corners of the railway news of the past. We hope that you will find it interesting and illuminating. It's one way of finding out what has changed, and what has not, over the past century and a half of the railway press. As the months go by, the pages will be stored in an archive accessible from this page.
Next update: 30 June 2001.
June
2001
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Railways and general
elections, 1929-1997
With the tumult of Britain's General Election of 7 June
2001 dying down, we take a look at how the railway press has reacted to General
Elections from the 1920s to the 1990s.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1997: Modern Railways examines the priorities of the newly-elected Labour government in June 1997
The General Election will be over by the time this issue appears, but model railwaymen will have noticed with some interest how the re-organization of the railways has been dragged in both by the politicians and the press as an electioneering war cry. All kinds of remedies have been proposed by all kinds of amateur reformers, the abolishing of private-owner rolling stock and the construction of 40-ton wagons being very popular prescriptions. It would be interesting to know how far the advocates of the 40-ton wagon have considered the effects of these vehicles on the layouts at terminals and sidings, and to what extent the general freight of this country needs transport in such bulk. The long hauls necessary on the American continent, and the quantities of coal, ore, wheat, and other shipments in bulk, prevalent across the Atlantic, make the large wagon a desirable and economical proposition. But the transport conditions in this country are very different in character, and what may suit the U.S.A. may by no means be ideal over here. Our railway officials themselves are the people who know best the lines on which improvement should proceed, and they also know best the difficulties, financial and otherwise, which stand in the way. If the new Government, of whatever kind it may now be, decide to take any action in railway matters let us hope it will be in the nature of assistance and not of interference. If the 40-ton wagon became standard, model railway owners would be in a pretty fix if they desired to be up to date in the realism of their lines. They might even have to apply for a Government subsidy to enable them to relay and re-equip their systems. In any case, reform and re-equipment of the real railways is bound to move slowly, and model owners will have breathing time to keep pace with any alterations which are made.
One of the principal issues on which the forthcoming General Election will be fought will be the nationalisation of certain basic industries, including transport. An article in The Financial News by 'a well informed transport correspondent' points out that very few in any of the political parties have mastered the technical facts on which so important a decision should be made, or could debate the issue before an informed audience without being made to look ridiculous. If transport were owned by the State, it is pointed out, it would become a potent implement for controlling the entire national economy - for example by differential rates - and at the same time the voting power of over a million employees and their dependants could be marshalled on the side of complete socialisation by promises of higher wages. The article refutes any suggestion that transport under private ownership has been inefficient, and points out that between the wars the main-line railways spent £170,000,000 on new rolling stock alone; the desirability of electrification, for example, depends on whether the outlay could be justified commercially in relation to its cost - a point which is not mentioned by the Labour Party. In all, the railways spent £450 millions in the inter-war period in modernising their undertakings.
The problem of co-ordination of transport would remain, whoever the owner, but if any taxpayer believes that there could be co-ordination by socialisation, without an extra burden on himself, he would probably be disappointed. It is pointed out that there have been ominious examples during the war of political interference and anticipatory Labour claims are now being put forward in some sections of the industry which, if conceded, would make any commercial undertaking bankrupt, with no hope of recovery except at public expense. The day may come when, for technical transport reasons, the nationalisation of the industry may be desirable in the public interest, but the author of the article holds that there are at least 10 or possibly 20 years of work to be done before that issue is ripe for serious consideration. Premature action now, for political reasons, inevitably would have to be paid for by the taxpayer, and in this matter in the long run the interests of the present transport owners and the taxpayers are identical. Meanwhile, essential work is being held up while an issue is being put before the electorate on arguments which, for lack of knowledge, are not going to be exposed by any of the political parties.
The General Election has resulted in the return to power of a Socialist Government with an overwhelming majority over all other parties for the first time in the history of this country. Labour itself has a majority of 180 seats in the House of Commons over all opposition parties, and in total it would appear that the new Government can muster 414 votes against 212 of supporters of the Churchill regime. The new Government faces tasks of unparalleled magnitude in the rehabilitation of the life and trade of the nation and in achievement of lasting peace in international affairs. It has already made known that its approach to these matters is likely to be along lines which hitherto have been considered unorthodox. In the home field the Labour Party is known to favour an extension of State control and direction in its dealings with a number of basic industries, notably perhaps coal mining and transport. Of the need for adjustments to secure the greater productivity of the one and increasing co-ordination of the other, there is a wide measure of agreement, even though there may be strong divergency of view as to how these best can be obtained. In grappling with the great tasks which must be faced in the life of the new Parliament, the Government, which represents a very large majority of the voters of the country, will have an unequalled opportunity to prove the effectiveness of principles its spokesmen have long advocated.
The published programme of the Labour Party has emphasised that in the event of its return to power it would give early attention to bringing about State control of the Bank of England, coal mines, transport, and the iron and steel industry. Obviously, the change in Government has been viewed with concern by those who are known to be directly concerned. So fundamental a change in the outlook necessarily must have the effect of producing uncertainty into the plans which these industries have in hand. The railways have announced their plans for the post-war period. The coal industry also has made known its intention to pursue a progressive policy based on the Foot and Reid reports. The iron and steel industry quite recently has announced a plan of re-equipment and development involving the expenditure of £120,000,000 over the next five years. It is unlikely that any of these schemes involving considerable expenditure by the industries, will be undertaken while the likelihood of Government ownership or control remains. In the interests of all parties, therefore, it is essential that the Government should make known its intentions as soon as possible, and also the means by which it intends to implement them. The repercussions throughout industry of the indefinite deferment of large-scale plans such as the basic industries have evolved undoubtedly will be serious. The sooner the future can be seen with clarity, the better.
Although there will be no lack of sympathetic consideration accorded any proposals which the new Government may bring forward, and a widespread appreciation of the magnitude of the tasks with which it is faced, it cannot be denied that its early days have been attended by unfortunate conditions. Apart from the brake which its advent has placed on the constructive plans of a number of industries, the election of the Labour Government has been the signal for a considerable selling of securities of many kinds and for falls in stock prices, which cannot fail to cause concern. Both these occurrences reflect apprehension as to the intentions of the Socialist Party and also lack of confidence in the outcome of principles as yet untried. The critical railway labour negotiations, with the threat of a strike to paralyse the movement of travellers over the Bank Holiday weekend, and the "go slow" working by dock workers, have also helped to make inauspicious the Labour Party's entry into power. The claims of the railwaymen, if conceded, would add many millions of pounds yearly to the already greatly swollen labour bill of the companies, and would make practically inevitable the bankruptcy of the companies under normal conditions. Under a nationalised railway system they would represent a charge on the taxpayer.
The outcome of the General Election, whichever party wins, is unlikely to have an immediate or drastic effect on the nation's transport system, certainly nothing like the upheavals that followed the 1945 and 1951 results. Around the immediately contentious issue, Dr. Beeching's Re-shaping Plan, differences between the parties have already narrowed. Conservative enthusiasm for the ruthless application of the plan has dwindled noticeably in the past few months, as the refusal to allow the closures in the North of Scotland and Manchester-Buxton illustrate. Nor, in spite of the pressure from the constituencies and the National Union of Railwaymen, have the Labour Party committed themselves to outright opposition to it. Mr. Marples now seems more convinced of the need for planning transport than would have seemed possible from a Conservative Minister a few years ago, while no Labour leader contemplates a return to the all-embracing rigidity of the 1947 Act.
This is not to say that there are not some big differences in attitudes to transport between the two parties, which would be bound to have a significant cumulative effect in the event of a Labour victory, and certainly not to suggest that transport will be out of politics in the next five years. But the immediate preoccupation of both parties is likely to be with the road sector, with the future shape and structure of the road haulage industry and road problems generally, as they face the implications of the Buchanan Report and the forthcoming Geddes Report on road haulage licensing. In the long run, however, the second phase of the Beeching plan, dealing with BR's duplicate trunk routes, may well prove even more controversial than the first phase.
Since Conservative Party policies will be largely an extension of these that are already familiar - although it would be surprising if Mr. Marples after five years in the office would wish to continue as Minister - there is less speculation or interest in what a Conservative Government might do. Labour's plans, on the other hand, are far from clear, although a great deal of thought has been given to the problem by various working parties and groups, one at least of which has been working closely with senior railway and other transport experts. But there is no preconceived blueprint - a welcome reflection of the pragmatic approach that Mr. Wilson has encouraged among his colleagues over a wide field of policy-making and which has the advantage of leaving an incoming Government's hands largely free from embarrassing ties. In the absence of this one can do no more than give an informed impression of the general direction along which Labour thinking is moving, starting from the statement of general policy which Mr. Wilson outlined at Liverpool in March, 1964:
"We shall halt the main programme of rail closures - allowing, as we have said, individual closures to take place in one or two clear cases - pending a national transport survey, relating the railway programme to the needs of national and regional expansion and to the requirements of a national integrated transport policy, covering roads and other forms of transport as well as railways.
"Second, we shall create an integrated transport system, not a system of transport apartheid, in which profits on road and rail can be integrated, instead of allowing road haulage to cream off the more profitable traffics.
"Third, we shall ensure a redistribution of traffic between road and rail, so that traffics will go on the means of transport which is most economic in national and social terms, instead of following the dictates of short-run private profit and bureaucratic railway book-keeping."
Mr. Wilson emphasised that Labour had no quarrel with Dr. Beeching personally. "The fault lay not in the answers he gave, but in the question he was set. His report is a highly efficient and antisceptic job of surgery ... But diagnosis should precede the remedy."
More specifically, Labour are also committed [p. 234>] to the expansion of British Road Services (not, as hitherto, the renationalisation of all long-distance road haulage), while the future of C licence road haulage must obviously take high priority in planning an integrated system of transport. Here there is a strong body of opinion, including Mr. Wilson himself, which believes that the present open system of C licence operation, by encouraging the diversion of traffic from rail and commercial road hauliers to company trucks, is grossly uneconomic and leads to the overburdening of the roads and under-utilisation of the railways. The idea of strict physical controls has been rejected in favour of fiscal measures - most probably a substantial increase in licence fees to compel firms to think more carefully about the economics of owning their own lorry fleets, and to ensure that they make a better contribution to overall road costs. To a lesser extent this might well also be applied to commercial road hauliers as well. It is not just a matter of protecting the railways; as Mr. Douglas Jay pointed out in a recent letter to The Times, the road haulier's contribution, even making allowance for increased fuel tax, is now less than in the early 1930s.
On the secondary level, Labour are committed to easing some of the restrictions over the nationalised sector, such as the prohibition of the publicly-owned bus manufacturers constructing for private purchasers and, more important, the ban on the railway workshops manufacturing for export or private users. A Conservative victory would, I think, inevitably lead in the long run to a fresh look being taken at the Holding Company's assets to see what further scope there is for hiving part of them off to private enterprise.
Although the attitude of the Conservatives to British Railways has changed in the past year or so, it seems reasonable to assume that BR could expect a more sympathetic attitude from a Labour Government in contrast to the hostility that pervaded Conservative attitudes from 1951 onwards. Conservative propagandists are still not above exploiting BR's difficulties as an argument against nationalisation - and this, incidentally, in spite of the fact that the railways have been the responsibility of the Conservatives for 13 of their 17 nationalised years. In part this more sympathetic attitude sems from Labour's natural concern to ensure that the most conspicuous of the nationalised industries presents a favourable picture, partly from Labour's traditional links with the industry through the railway unions (the other side of the coin here, of course, is that it exposes a Labour Government to rank-and-file pressure) and also because Mr. Wilson has an intense personal interest in railways: his first thesis was a study 19th-century railway commercial policy. A Labour Government, too, would have one of the most enlightened of the railway union leaders, Mr. Ray Gunter, in the Cabinet - although probably not, for obvious reasons, as Minister of Transport.
The two points at which Dr. Beeching's ideas and Labour Party thinking seem most likely to coincide are probably these: a railway network concentrating primarily on long-distance bulk haulage of freight and medium-to-long distance passenger services; and, secondly, the need for BR to be organised as a closely-knit system effectively directed from the centre, instead of the wasteful regionalisation encouraged by the 1953 Act. The Beeching freight concept is not so different from the area schemes originally devised under the 1947 Act, while the organisation Dr. Beeching has established at the BRB seem to share many of the better points of the old Railway Executive.
The two main points of difference lie really further back than Dr. Beeching and in the terms of reference under which he is working. They are: the complete separation of rail from road haulage and road passenger services; and the strict reference to purely commercial criteria of profitability as the justification for maintaining a rail service.
But perhaps the most immediate issue to which a Labour Government would address itself, because of the feelings that have been arroused both in the party and in the unions, is the Board's handling of labour relations. Socialists who accept Dr. Beeching's general diagnosis and his faith in the Liner train concept have not been helped in getting their point of view accepted in party discussions by the almost wilful way the Board antagonised the NUR over the introduction of Liner trains, just as it mishandled the workshop closures.
The separation of road services from rail reflects the Conserative belief in competition between different branches of public transport. Labour thinking now regards public transport in general and private transport (i.e. the car and C licence lorry) as the main competitive factor. The Holding Company concept is not criticised - indeed some Socialists now see it as a model for future organisation in the nationalised industries in preference to the monolithic corporation. But there has been mounting criticism recently of the total lack of co-ordination at a practical level between BRS or the bus companies and BR. The impression that has grown that the Holding Company management wants to work as a completely self-contained organisation and, in particular, that BRS see the railways as their main competitor. This is, perhaps, not wholly fair; but it would be surprising if it is not how the two organisations develop should present trends continue. Nor does anyone feel at all happy about the lack of practical co-operation at operating level between the bus companies and the railways.
In theory there is, of course, co-ordinating machinery at the top in the National Transport Advisory Council, but in so far as it does anything (and how often has it met since the 1962 Act came into force?) it is simply concerned with broad policy. The Labour Party will seek to bring the various sections of the nationalised transport together at all levels. This, one imagines, must lead to the replacement of the National Council by a functional body, akin in [235>] some ways to the old British Transport Commission (the pre-1953 version) and a change in the terms of reference under which the Holding Company works.
This, of course, will become even more important once the expansion of British Road Services gets under way and the concept of an integrated system comes closer. An enlarged BRS would, it is thought, also ease the tension between the NUR and the Board over the Liner trains, since the union objection seems primarily aimed against private hauliers using the depots. It is thought, incidentally, that this expansion can be achieved by no more than a modification of existing legislation to permit the BRS to expand by purchase where it wishes. There is to be no repetition of the costly experiences after 1947 when all long-distance companies were taken over willy-nilly.
The future relationship between the bus companies and the railways is not yet clearly settled. One school of thought looks to Continental experience and argues that in modern conditions public transport must be treated and operated as a single entity, with the bus as an extension of rail services; it therefore favours bringing both under single management on a district or area basis. The leavening of rail management with practical road operators would benefit both, while only thus, it is argued, can a really effective public transport service be achieved on conditions which would make the Beeching closures acceptable.
Of course, it is easy to talk of drawing up a "national transport plan". But what does it mean in practice? Few Socialists would seriously argue that grossly uneconomic rail services should continue for ever. But the Labour Party's complaint has always been that Dr. Beeching drew up his plan - or was compelled to - in complete isolation from any consideration of the social or economic needs of individual areas, to say nothing of the consideration going on at that very moment both within the Government and the National Economic Development Council, of the need for economic planning and the creation of growth areas. Whatever attention may or may not be given to these wider matters when the proposals eventually reach the Minister, a plan that has proposed, for example, closures of lines and stations in some of the Scottish and Welsh development areas, or in places of obvious expansion such as the New Towns of Corby Cumbernauld and East Kilbride, cannot expect to be taken as inviolate by a Labour Government.
Again, a Labour Government is unlikely to be prepared to allow the BRB's own assessments of the profitability of a line or service to have the same unchallenged authority as they now enjoy. The complaints from the Transport Users Consultative Committees about the difficulties they face in getting information and their narrow terms of reference, as well as some of the less exaggerated complaints from Lord Stonham's Council for Inland Transport about the validity of the BR figures, have not gone unnoticed. Nor, if any justification were needed for some of these complaints, have the Board failed to provide it lately. The sudden enthusiasm for a vigorous sales drive, improved services and cut-rate fares on some routes where closure proposals have been turned down inevitably raises the question of why it was not done sooner - and before trying to abandon them. Again, the success of thr Thorensen car ferry from Southampton suggests that BR were so tied by their desire to abandon the route that they never asked themselves how to save it.
There is likely to be a significant difference between the two parties' policies in their attitude to the financing of public transport services, with inevitable consequences for the level of fares and charges. The Labour Party regard the financial targets that have been fixed for some of the nationalised industries - and, in the transport field, London Transport particularly - as excessive and illogical. The same criticism is made of BR being forced to regulate fares to commercial criteria and disregard the broader social implications. Conservative policy has undoubtedly had a beneficial effect in establishing a yardstick by which to judge efficiency and thereby imposing stricter financial control. On the other hand it is hard to see the justification for London Transport having to meet interest charges on the Victoria line at almost penal rates while road works, equally designed to relieve congestion, are financed by the Treasury out of revenue. Again, it is still far from clear who is to bear the burden of unprofitable rail services which the Conservatives have refused to allow to be abandoned.
A more logical attitude to this is long overdue in both parties. But a danger in the attitude to be found in some Labour circles is that, as a nationalised industry, BR should carry the costs. As the taxpayer bears the cost ultimately it is to a large extent a matter of book-keeping. Nevertheless, it would be unfortunate if this view triumphed to the extent that we returned once again to the unhappy situation of the past decade, where railway officers found themselves forced to accept financial responsibility for Government-imposed social obligations, but had their performance and efficiency judged by purely commercial criteria. It is certainly a danger that Dr. Beeching and his colleagues would have carefully to guard against.
Finally, the future of the modernisation programme. After the unhappy stop-go policies of the Marples era it looks as though the programme will be allowed to go forward under either party. One's impression is that so far as the next major move is concerned - electrification from Crewe northwards - Mr. Marples is as yet unconvinced of the case. A Labour Government would seem more likely to favour it, judging by the present thinking, although it is a matter which they would wish to study in office before making any final commitment.
Ian Waller was political correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph at the time of the 1964 elections.
With election fever catching on, it is almost inevitable that many enthusiasts will be looking at statements from the various political parties to see what their transport policies are and what sort of stance they will take towards railways - all railways.
I do not intend to allow politics to elbow their way into Railway World but a press release from the Green Party caught my eye the other day. To a believer in the value of public transport, it certainly looked attractive at first sight. A policy of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from transport by 60% by AD2005, achieved mainly by a 50% reduction in car and freight road mileage is bound to find favour with railway enthusiasts. Hefty increases in the cost of fuel, a stop on road building, lower speed limits and a ban on large car engines are some of the proposals, balanced of course by 'massive investment' in public transport.
It sounds promising but then the doubts began to creep in; what effect would this have on the preservation movement? Not just in terms of access to preserved lines and the fall in visitor numbers but how long before the fervour for reducing CO2 emissions becomes a crusade to abolish the use of fuel in the leisure industry - in other words, burning coal in preserved locos? An initial skirmish with the EC environmental lobby has already had to be fought on this one.
The Green Party claims that many of its ideas get adopted by the mainstream parties, so it could well be that our hobby is going to need an increasingly strong lobby fighting for it in the future. This is not scaremongering; our friends in the canal movement have already faced problems with, for instance, bats residing in canal tunnels having more rights than boats. Perhaps all enthusiasts could make a new year resolution to ask any politicians they meet awkward questions about safeguarding their hobby. That way, politicians will be made aware of the size and views of the enthusiast lobby. It could be an important first step.
Retreating in the face of bickering about privatisation methods, and of evidence (though partly from opinion polls!) of the unpopularity of privatising the railways at all, the Conservative Party election manifesto ended up presenting the least detail it could possibly get away with on the railways. The private sector would be given the fullest opportunity to operate existing railway passenger services, it said, but then busied itself with assurances about what would not be allowed to happen, rather than presenting a coherent vision of the way forward:- standards of punctuality, reliability and quality of service would be set; subsidy would continue to be provided where necessary; the current national network would be maintained; through ticketing would be required; a regulator would ensure that all companies had access to the track, would award franchises and see that franchise holders honoured the terms of their franchises. All this merely counteracting the more popularly expressed objections to privatisation.
So far the manifesto seemed to have at least one foot in the real world. But then it says: 'BR's accounting systems and internal structures will be reorganised'. What, again? 'One part of BR will continue to be (our italics) responsible for all track and infrastructure. The operating side of BR will continue to provide (our italics) passenger services until they are franchised out'. So just as BR culminates a decade of upheaval to integrate management of infrastructure and operations, under Conservative supervision all the way, nobody in the party seems to have noticed what has happened, and it's back to the drawing board.
Freight and parcels businesses will be sold outright, says the manifesto, having apparently failed to comprehend that the Freight businesses encompass infrastructure which it had just told us would be managed separately.
Franchises, the manifesto continues, would be aimed to reflect regional and local identity, and (of course) the spirit of the old regional companies, and (small mercy) to make operating sense. Stations could be 'sold' to franchisees or independent companies.
And after the election? The Queen's speech says the Government is committed to increasing the role of railways in meeting the country's transport needs, and legislation will be introduced to enable the private sector to operate rail services. That takes us forward a long way - to last spring, in fact, when Transport Secretary Rifkind said the same thing. Beyond that, a paving Bill has been published 'to enable BR to participate actively and constructively' in the development proposals.
But that's all, while a new Transport Secretary tries to come to grips with the issue. There is a flurry of interest in the proposals, of course: Stagecoach have their Aberdeen service tacked onto an InterCity train; Virgin are talking to InterCity about their 'Flyers' on the East Coast main line; the airports authority and BR are seeking private finance for the Heathrow Express; Hunslet-Barclay are set to push the frontiers of private-sector railfreight operation back a little further. All these enterprises depend on BR's involvement (in some cases more willing than others); they are essentially brand names plugged in to the existing operational and administrative structure. Is that what the Government's vague proposals will boil down to? No one yet knows.
Labour will not renationalise the railways. It could not afford to do so. And even if it could, it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. For even though we have been consistent critics of the privatisation process initiated by the previous government, one of the main bugbears has been the huge transitional cost: changing it all back again would just fill the pockets of the lawyers and the City money men a second time over. Anyway, if there is one thing this industry needs now, it is a bit of stability in its structure, rather than the perpetual change it has endured in the past five years.
But that doesn't mean there is nothing for the new administration to do. Far from it. The bill which became the 1993 Railways Act was a dreadfully written piece of legislation. There were 1,435 amendments on its passage through Parliament, most of them initiated by the Government: it was written on the hoof. Introduced prematurely and rushed through the legislature, it was inevitable that it should reach the statute book with serious flaws.
That is what Labour should concentrate on putting right. The focus should be on the regulatory regime, to ensure the structure put in place by the 1993 Act works more effectively, to the benefit of passengers and freight customers. Prior to the election, Labour spoke of beefing up the powers of the Rail Regulator, bringing the rolling-stock leasing companies and possibly the bus industry within his purview (thus making this authority Oftrans - rather than, as the joke has it, Ofrail). Also mooted was a Rail Authority to replace the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, which is heartily loathed by Labour as the standard bearer for privatisation. The new authority could also take over responsibilities for Freight Facilities Grants from the Department of Transport (which has buried all applicants in red tape and failed to spend the money allocated to it), and it could also take over responsibility for keeping records of the network from Railtrack (which has no idea what its own assets look like, and has the cheek to charge potential initiators of new freight flows to find out if there would be any problems with infrastructure).
So far, so quango. The vital question, if these authorities are to make the changes which are so essential, is who is going to run them? The current incumbents will find it difficult to shrug off the accusation that they are merely Tory stooges. They have fallen into the trap of siding with the producers, with whom they have been comrades-in-arms in the battles over privatisation, and have manifestly failed to protect the consumers. OPRAF twiddled its thumbs earlier this year while Waterloo-line communters were left freezing on suburban platforms due to the incompetence of the franchisee, and only acted against South West Trains when the political heat became too much. Any British Rail chairman who had treated his customers in this way would have been hauled over the coals in Marsham Street long before Stagecoach was challenged. As another example, the Railfreight Group was astonished that a letter which it directed to the Office of the Rail Regulator complaining about certain policies of Railtrack was replied to by Railtrack itself; far from addressing the concerns of the consumer, it seems ORR saw itself merely as a glorified post office for the redirection of mail.
If the railway is to flourish, the quango chiefs must see championing the consumer as their prime role. Nevertheless, the incoming administration must resist the temptation to install people who hark back to the days of the nationalised railway and see all the new companies as devils incarnate; progress will only be made with the co-operation of the producers. New Labour needs New Railway people, who are converted to the new structure of the railway, but whose instinct based on a long railway tradition will nurture our industry. A deep knowledge of the railway is required, so that any unscrupulous producer seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the regulators would be seen through. Men and women of the class of Gordon Pettitt, for example, who as a former head of the Southern Region knows his '455s' from his '456s', but is also at home in the new structure, are the type of which we are thinking.
And what of the new Men in the Ministry? Deputy prime minister John Prescott has been given overall responsibility for transport, and while it is true that he has experience with the industry, that was gained some time ago, and he has so much else to do now that it is doubtful he will have much time for the minutiae of railway affairs. As for Gavin Strang, the new Secretary of State at the Department of Transport, as far as we know he is innocent of knowledge of the railways, having spent the recent past locking horns with the Conservative Government over the BSE-related cow-culling policy. The fear is that this pair will be like cattle to the slaughter themselves when they come up against the Sir Humphreys at the Department of Transport; selective use of information and skilful management of the ministers' time could vitiate any attempts at making real changes.
Remember, the Department's civil servants have just been through a gruelling five years with the railways. In the teeth of sometimes vicious public and political opposition, they have managed to steer the industry into the private sector. It would be only human to identify with that achievement and to defend it from any newcomers.
In a letter to the Financial Times a few months ago, Sir Patrick Brown, the most senior civil servant at the Department, flatly rejected any charges of political bias amongst his staff over railway privatisation, and maintained that the civil service tradition of independence and willingness to serve political masters of any credo was alive and well at Marsham Street. The new ministers will find out soon enough if that is really so, but they would do well to remember that the Whitehall gossip machine has it that only two out of the succession of Tory ministers of the past 18 years (Nicholas Ridley and Brian Mawhinney) were capable of standing up to the machinations of civil servants: the rest were as putty in their hands. Messrs Prescott and Strang must look out to ensure that the mandate for change they have won so convincingly in the country at large is not subverted by guerilla action in their own offices.
Compiled by Dr Ralph Harrington, Institute of Railway Studies, York.
Updated 16 May 2001