British Railways in 1948

[rogerfarnworth]

I have recently purchased the six copies of The Railway Magazine which were issued in 1948. The first of these coincides with the formation of British Railways, and the January/February 1948 issue of the magazine highlights for the readers a little of the history of railways in Britain which led up to that momentous occasion. The linked article below builds on the article in The Railway Magazine.

 

http://rogerfarnworth.com/2019/12/09/british-railways-1948

 

A copy of the article is reproduced in Appendix 1 to this article.

 

The Railway Magazine was not alone in seeing the 1st January 1948 as a significant landmark in railway history. The Guardian carried an article on 30th December 1947 which said: "Of all the landmarks in Britain's railway history, January 1 1948 will probably be outstanding. It is over a hundred years since railway nationalisation was first advocated. Since then enthusiasts for State ownership have never ceased to proclaim the benefits to be obtained, though in 1867 Sir Rowland Hill in a minority report as a member of a Royal Commission on Railways gave a warning of the "undue enlargement of expectation". The clamour became louder towards the end of last century when the trade unions took it up strongly and after the first world war nationalisation nearly became a fact. Since then the pressure has continued to grow, culminating in the Transport Act of last August which provided for the transfer of the railways to the State on January 1. Thus after more than a century of controversy the decision has been taken."

[Wickham Green]

Would be interesting to compare with the Railway Mag's comments if/when Mr.Corbyn achieves his ambition of repeating Nationalisation ......... though it's not planned to happen on one memorable date !

[JeffP]

And if his party's other stated ambition of keeping us in the EU is also realised, nationalisation would then become impossible.

[The Johnster]

Please, gents, lets keep the politics out of it.  

 

 

[woodenhead]

51 minutes ago, JeffP said:

And if his party's other stated ambition of keeping us in the EU is also realised, nationalisation would then become impossible.

Would it or is that just another story peddled by our governments as a way to avoid difficult conversations.

 

Privatisation was a Tory policy that happened to address some requirements of the EU - but if you look at Germany, a rather important member of the EU you will find that DB, whilst an independent company, only has one shareholder - The Federal Republic of Germany.   If that isn't a form of Nationalisation I don't know what is.

[62613]

35 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Would it or is that just another story peddled by our governments as a way to avoid difficult conversations.

 

Privatisation was a Tory policy that happened to address some requirements of the EU - but if you look at Germany, a rather important member of the EU you will find that DB, whilst an independent company, only has one shareholder - The Federal Republic of Germany.   If that isn't a form of Nationalisation I don't know what is.

So, what you're saying is that there are ways and there are ways.

 

[woodenhead]

14 minutes ago, 62613 said:

So, what you're saying is that there are ways and there are ways.

 

You can sell off the family silver or you can put it at arms length in a safe place but still retain control over it.

 

Now railways are a little more complicated because of the franchising which isn't really privatisation at all but you you're paying people to provide a level of service for a profit some of which has to be paid back to the government.  But did the government need to sell off the trains to Roscos or the freight side to EWS (and only EWS creating a monopoly that EWS exploited until EMD began selling it's locos to other companies, the exact opposite of what was supposed to be a competitive industry).  Could the government have just separated itself from BR and let BR continue to develop itself as it was doing.

 

Did all of BT have to be sold off, did British Steel have to be sold off, then there is the power grid - is there really competition on price or just an illusion of one?

[62613]

52 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

You can sell off the family silver or you can put it at arms length in a safe place but still retain control over it.

 

Now railways are a little more complicated because of the franchising which isn't really privatisation at all but you you're paying people to provide a level of service for a profit some of which has to be paid back to the government.  But did the government need to sell off the trains to Roscos or the freight side to EWS (and only EWS creating a monopoly that EWS exploited until EMD began selling it's locos to other companies, the exact opposite of what was supposed to be a competitive industry).  Could the government have just separated itself from BR and let BR continue to develop itself as it was doing.

 

Did all of BT have to be sold off, did British Steel have to be sold off, then there is the power grid - is there really competition on price or just an illusion of one?

I would say that, apart from British Steel, British Coal, and possibly Britoil, all the markets are completely artificial; that is, there was very little chance of true competition between the actors in each service.

 

 

[woodenhead]

And British Steel is a key industry - having a home grown capability that cannot be manipulated by foreign owners to their own agenda.

[Wickham Green]

..... using home grown iron ore, home grown coal and home grown limestone ........................................... or maybe not !!?!

[62613]

On 12/12/2019 at 10:55, Wickham Green said:

..... using home grown iron ore, home grown coal and home grown limestone ........................................... or maybe not !!?!

Well, up until the 70s, yes! Then only the coal, or coke, and limestone.

 

[rockershovel]

On 11/12/2019 at 14:44, The Johnster said:

Please, gents, lets keep the politics out of it.  

 

 

 

[rockershovel]

I seem to recall that there was a long discussion in a previous thread, regarding the nature of railway franchising, leading to the conclusion that the nature of the arrangements employed, defied categorisation. 

 

 

[rogerfarnworth]

When was nationalisation of the railways first promoted as a significant idea? perhaps you'd like to fix a year in your mind before reading the linked post.

 

http://rogerfarnworth.com/2020/01/23/british-railways-1948-part-2

 

Quote

Was the idea of nationalisation first thought of in the preparations for the major conflict which was looming in the early part of the 20th century?

When conflict was declared on 4th August 1914, the Railway Executive Committee, which had been formed in 1912 as an intermediary between Government and the 120 private railway companies, moved swiftly to take control of the network. Within 24 hours of the start of the conflict, the Committee used the powers of the Regulation of the Forces Act 1871 to secure its ascendancy.

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by rogerfarnworth

[Wickham Green]

Depends on your definition of 'significant idea' ........ It was in the back of peoples minds from ( or before ) the moment two compatible railways met ! ( Grand Junction etc. ? )

[rogerzilla]

Railways are a "natural" state monopoly because they serve a public good but don't generally make a profit; the users can't or won't pay the real cost of the service.    Even before mass car ownership, the Big Four weren't exactly raking it in (I don't think the LNER ever turned a profit in its entire 25 year existence).

 

The current model is utterly stupid; the government pays companies a huge subsidy, way bigger than the cost of BR in real terms, to run the service so they can (sometimes) give a profit to shareholders.  The only advantage is that it allows investment in the railways that doesn't add to the national debt.