Rail Competition

Yesterday I watched a programme about the vital part the railways played in the Second World War.  By the end of the war the railway infrastructure was much weakened and the railways were nationalised by the Labour government.  The position was such that any government after the war would have had to nationalise to ensure investment in repairing the system. In those days there were no motorways and most goods and minerals were conveyed by rail.

The programme mentioned the role the railway played in the preparations leading up to D-Day and the fact that there were so many alternative routes that could be used.

Acting on the recommendations contained in the Beeching Report Conservative and Labour governments in the 1960s closed many competing railways and reduced capacity on lines that were retained.  Margaret Thatcher decided to privatise the railways  -the poll tax on wheels - as Nicholas Ridley MP described it.  What privatisation lacked was the introduction of competition, franchises deliver monopolies.

The history of the development of railways in the nineteenth century is one of competition and the avoidance of monopoly. Some of the competition resulted in ruination for the railway companies involved.  Some cities were served by by two or more competing companies, some by only one company.

The classic example of ruinous competition is that of the London Chatham & Dover Railway and the South Eastern Railway.  Where one company went,  the other was sure to follow. Eventually common sense prevailed and the two companies in effect merged to become the London and South Eastern Railway and operate an integrated service.

At one time it was possible to travel by train from Manchester to London Euston via Stafford and Rugby, to London St Pancras via Derby, to London Marylebone via Sheffield, Nottingham and Rugby and to London King's Cross via Sheffield.  Today the only route is that to London Euston.  The line is almost full to capacity and the franchise holder has a monopoly.  Such is progress.