Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• Joel, London

  It is important to remember that any bringing of rail back into public ownership (or whichever description is preferred) will not be the same as the earlier nationalised railway. Technologies have moved on, and while there are still unresolved issues, such a change must be based on the real necessities for passengers, freight and sadly political bias. We need a fifty year infrastructure, maintenance and development programme, reviewed five-yearly with guaranteed investment and central support. And intelligent cost-benefit analysis, not the myopic system we have now. Dreams start here...

• david C smith, Bletchley

  One thing that emerges here is the negative tmpact that relatively short term contracts / franchise agreements have on investment . One thing the railway industry needs is a stable , long term structure that is not dependant on political ideology.
  [Assuming that Labour wins, as the polls say it will, there will be no contracts (or franchises) on the passenger railway for much longer.--Ed.]

• John B, London

  Modernisation failed in 1955 because BR panic bought batches of untested diesel prototypes as it couldn't afford widescale electrification. It also bet the farm on automated marshalling yards when the future was in MGR services. Unlike most other European countries, Britain didn't invest its Marshall funds into rebuilding the shattered network, and it was run on a shoestring basis for years.
  
  Beeching was the villain as he chopped indiscriminatorily in the belief that rail travel was going the way of the canals. There's a clip somewhere where he regrets not closing the ECML north of Berwick. No regard was given to the possibility of mothballing key inter-urban routes and the solum was sold off at a pittance, causing connectivity issues which persist to this day. Castle could have, perhaps should have, done more, but the die was cast: road transport was on the rise, and rail transport was the past. These were the assumptions.

• ChrisJones-Bridger, Buckley

  Come the 5th July the railway will still be there with an agreed budget. It would appear that irrespective of the outcome of the election there is some agreement between the main parties that GBR will form a major part in the structure of the industry going forward. The challenge will be ensuring that the resulting organisation dismantles the current costly dysfunctional matrix which absorbs a disproportional amount of cash on needless bureaucracy.
  
  Then again history should inform us that the railway has all too often been it's worst enemy. Just look at the results of the at the time generous settlement in the 1955 modernisation plan. Is it any wonder that questions were asked given the dubious investments made? Looking at the cold facts of the early 1960's is it really right to cast Beeching solely as the villain? Line closures were nothing new and had been going on from the 1930's as loss making minor or marginal routes were axed. The great majority of the lines slated for closure in Beeching's report would have gone given the modal shift to road from the 1950's, he only accelerated the inevitable. Let it not be forgotten he championed Intercity, company block freight trains, Freightliner and the MGR workings developed in the 1960's, services that today remain integral to the heart of the commercial railway.
  
  I think it wrong of a previous contributor the to cast Barbera Castle as a villain. Let it be recalled that as mister of Transport she steered the 1968 Transport Act to the statute book. This legislated for the social railway and formalised the funding for the subsidised railway that even today is the foundation to the support mechanism the industry enjoys. It was Sir Peter Parker when BRB chairman who endeavoured to characterise this as a contractual relationship to neutralise the stigma that subsidy unfortunately implies.
  
  I believe your contributor characterising TfW as a disaster is being unfair. This is an operator undergoing a complete makeover having inherited an operation that under previous franchised operators that had been expected to run on a no growth basis with an ageing & limited rolling stock fleet. The safety related withdrawal of the 175 fleet during early 2023 certainly led to a collapse in performance but irrespective of public or private ownership drafting in replacement equipment within the current structure isn't as easy as days gone by. For comparison just look at the challenge LNW had sourcing replacement stock for Bletchley to Bedford after Vivarail collapsed.
  It is also worth noting how some of TfW's ambitions to enhance North Wales coast and Marches Line services have had to be scaled back due to the low priority NR gives to modernising the infrastructure on these routes. While TfL now has ownership of the Core Valley Infrastructure it is still beholden to the deaf ears of Whitehall when funding NR routes.
  
  

• H.Gillies-Smith, South Milford

  Indeed Mr Editor we're on the 'same page' re your comments.

• david C smith, Bletchley

  At least there appears to be some degree of consensus from the letters above. I would join this myself ; nationalisation , as exemplified by the post - war version was not a success story, with the State proving to be more of a millstone around the railway's neck than a useful agency. Public ownership, though can take different forms. Some form of it will be needed to give a coherent management of the captive market natural monopolies ( commuter for example ) . I hope such structures would give efficient answerability and facilitate longer term thinking.
  
  Needless to say, not all rail activity is by nature monopolistic ; there are "sectors"where competition between operators is quite feasible, which ought to be in a "free enterprise" environment ( intercity , freight , ROSCOs in particular).
  
  Infrastructure is also an obvious prime candidate for public ownership . The modern railway needs to run as "horses for courses" , rather than a " one size fits all"monolith.

• H. Gillies-Smith, South Milford

  How right you are King Arthur. I worked through Harold Wilson's government cancelling electrification from Weaver Junction-Glasgow only for it having to be done 10 years later at much increased cost. Then the selling off of assets i.e. property, at any cost, it seemed, which had it been leased, particularly the prime sites in London, would have brought income in for the railways to finance themselves. Everybody blames Beeching but Barbara Castle was really the culprit.
  [Indeed so. Mrs Castle and other ministers, including those in the Treasury. But British Rail tends to be blamed for it all in hindsight. It wasn't nationalisation as such but tight restrictions on investment which pushed the railway into decline, and many people saw this as inevitable. Since the 1990s nearly all railway investment has come from the public purse, either directly or by guaranteeing Network Rail's borrowing. The franchises were too brief for them to justify much capital spending.--Ed.]

• king arthur, buckley

  This reads a bit like a party political broadcast for the Labour Party? The Conservatives have never been supportive of the railway but Labour's record is scarcely better. The disaster engulfing the nationalised railway in Wales should be evidence enough that public ownership does not deliver an Island of Sodor fairyland that many commentators would have us believe. I'm sure most passengers would not welcome a return of the filthy, old trains and dirty and dilapidated stations that British Rail offered (that's if you're lucky and they don't close your line completely).
  [This is an accurate summary of what Labour says it will do if elected. There is no endorsement or otherwise from Railnews. As the introduction says: if the polls are right. There is nothing to be usefully added about Conservative intentions, because we have already reported these in detail and if they won the election it would be the status quo.--Ed.]