20 March 2025 – The Rail Industry and Political Intervention 1923 – 1973 by Stewart Palmer – former MD of South West Trains

Stewart started by emphasising that these were his personal thoughts and no-one else’s.  Why 1923 to 1973?  The creation of the Big Four grouping in 1923 was a pivotal moment in railway history; Stewart joined the railway in 1972 with his first real job beginning in 1973.  So 50 years of railway history to be considered as we celebrate 200 years of passenger railways this year.

Throughout the period the influence of politics and politicians on railway development is visible with many decisions being as much political as economic and what we have today is shaped by former decisions.  We cannot re-write history but what if it had been different?  It appears to be a widely held belief that some areas of the public railway started post WWII and anything earlier is not relevant.  However, there was plenty going on between WWI and WWII with branch line closures beginning in the 1920s and NOT under Beeching, especially where bus services and other road traffic were starting to compete, particularly where stations were not conveniently located.  There was a significant amount of electrification going on during the 1920s and 1930s both 3rd rail and overhead wires, although progress was delayed during WWII.  Dieselisation was also happening quite rapidly in the 1930s – not post war, and some of the locomotive styling innovations can still be seen today.  Examples given included the GWR diesel railcars developed as cost conscious vehicles for use mainly on branch lines, and LMS diesel shunting locomotives.

Grouping helped to drive development of bigger and more powerful steam locomotives both for freight and passenger workings with GWR at the forefront of the drive for locomotive efficiency hauling greater loads at sustained higher speeds.  Some of the developments were not necessarily profitable but they were certainly innovative and forward looking.  Marketing promoted the railways with named trains, showing them as modern, fast and frequent – illustrated by examples of some railway posters from the time.  All of this has contributed much to the railways of today.  WWII resulted in a huge amount of destruction but great efforts were made to continue to provide services that the country desperately needed through the war years.

Post war much of the railway network in the UK was intact due to the efforts made to keep it running, but it was in a very poor state and the UK had huge debts as a result of the war.  The rest of Europe could be said to have been luckier because so much was destroyed that they had to start from scratch.  In December 1947 Henry Ivatt introduced his first diesel locomotive just before nationalisation which took place from 1 January 1948.  A thought provoking and pivotal question to ask is what if the railways had not been nationalised?

The first true mainline diesel locomotive was 10000 produced by the LMS in a striking black and silver livery.  It was surprisingly reliable seeing 20 years of service for what was effectively a prototype.  Another photograph used as illustration was of Royal Scot just out of Derby works with little other than its name changed, in an experimental apple green BR livery.  At the time of the changeover to BR, the name had changed but not much else.

 

There were some seminal moments from 1948 to the present day but covering all of that in one evening would take far too long hence only covering the key decisions and issues in the period until Stewart himself joined the railway in 1972.  There were some questionable decisions such as persisting with steam.  Overall transport decisions came from the British Transport Commission with policies including electrifying the core network in the UK.  This was a good policy decision with some projects started and others completed.  Not so sensible was the decision for BR to build 999 new steam locomotives partly due to an obsession to avoid having to import oil at all costs.  This was clearly a political decision rather either common sense or good economics.  The new locomotives were technically good for their type but strategically this decision was rather silly.

However, the storm clouds were gathering post war with a booming economy.  Up until the 1950s the railways had covered their costs but with the end of petrol rationing in 1950, which had helped the railways, there had been less pressure to innovate.  In 1951 the government deregulated the economy and the British Transport Commission was abolished in the 1953 Transport Act.  One advantage of deregulation was the abolition of the ‘common carrier’ obligations for the railway, one of the few positive outcomes, but mostly the Act laid the foundations for the destruction of the railways.  Road transport was deregulated and a railway modernisation plan was introduced.  What prompted the decision to spend money on the plan when the financial numbers were going the wrong way?  The figures were quite staggering but comparing the numbers then and now, the modernisation plan would have been excellent value for money.  Unfortunately, much of the plan was flawed with too much spending on poor value projects such as extensive new marshalling yards when road haulage was growing rapidly and the development of new diesel locomotives that did not work well helping create a poor public view of the railways.  Stewart provided more details of the political pressures placed on the railways to follow a particular pathway forward – often both unwise and impractical, as well as costly.  At this point he showed a selection of photographs illustrating both success and failure during this period explaining the good and the bad in each contrasting pair of photographs.

Part of the modernisation plan was delivered including modernising the signalling system using track circuit signal blocks which also helped reduce the number of signal boxes required as well as improving safety.  But the seeds of destruction had been sown.  The government lost confidence in the railway industry although much of the problem was caused by government interference, eg forcing the railway to use diesel designs that were inefficient and poorly researched and tested.  Richard Beeching was a much maligned man but much of what he said was right and he showed the inefficient use of resources, but emotion over closures often overrode the facts.

The 1968 Transport Act under Barbara Castle shaped the railways right up to privatisation and  highlighted the ‘socially necessary railway’.  It is worth noting here that Beeching included the possibility that some parts of the railway network should be considered as socially necessary and government would have to make the decision about how to fund these necessary parts of the system.

So was the railway so very different in 1973 from what it had been in 1923?  In many ways yes eg hardware, but in other ways it was not.  It was very hierarchical, had a very diverse portfolio including hotels, shipping etc, hand written parcel lists, and nothing much had changed in terms of its mindset.

Questions and answers followed the main presentation including why the Treasury did not pay for what was needed.  It could not afford to as there are always competing claims on whatever finance is available; it is hard to balance competing needs.  There were questions about how much change there really was to unite the whole of the railways under BR – answer, not much really until the 1970s.  There were further questions on strategic planning, funding, comparisons between road and rail investment.  Politics and strategy and the turnover of ministers included the comment that at least John Prescott had an understanding of transport which is more than could be said of some as many were described as using the role to further their political career.  Reinventing the wheel with every 5 year period of railway funding, rather than planning for the much longer term and how this is affected by political changes was also covered; as were complimentary comments about railwaymen such as Chris Green and Gordon Pettitt – both of whom understood what worked and what did not especially under the constraints of the time.  The difference between intentions, plans, announcements and reality was also highlighted.

An excellent and enlightening presentation, covering many areas including the political controls in place.  The evening ended with Stewart speeding off to catch his train home whilst the audience enjoyed a late break for refreshments and informal socialising and discussion