Skip to main content

Review: British Rail: a new history - Christian Wolmar ****

If you're interested in railways - and it's hard to imagine why you would buy this book if you're not - this is a fascinating exploration of the rise and fall of British Railways/British Rail from nationalisation in 1948 through to privatisation in the mid-1990s.

Along the way, we take in the phasing out of steam (and why, unlike many other countries we mostly converted to diesel), the infamous Beeching cuts of the network in the 1960s, successes such as the 125 mile per hour High Speed Train with the InterCity brand and more. What comes across most strongly is the way that interference from government has time and again messed things up. It's not that the railway management itself was without faults - particularly in the way that the old regions, reflecting the four private companies that were taken over, tried to still do things their own way. And Christian Wolmar is no fan of the many restrictive practices that had to be gradually removed in the face of resistance from staff. Similarly, the London-centric management never properly handled what was dismissively referred to as the 'Provincial' region. But time and again, the government got it wrong.

Whether it was Beeching's total mishandling of the necessary pruning of some of the oddities and low usage branch lines left over from Victorian railway expansion, removing many valuable connections and stations, the inability to properly account for the need to subsidise some lines for the public good, or a lack of recognition of good management practice where it was brought into play, successive governments, both Conservative and Labour, have proved totally incapable of understanding the country's rail needs - while the Treasury has resisted every sensible investment to improve the railways from day one. And, of course, the story ends with the disastrous privatisation, just when BR was getting its act together, that has resulted in far more public subsidy than was previously the case - plus terrible services in some areas. Wolmar holds up some hope for the planned formation of Great British Railways, an oversight body taking in most of Britain's railways - but since the book was written, that too seems to be suffering from government mishandling.

From the point of view of a railway enthusiast dating back to peak diesel, the book's biggest fault is an over-concentration on politics and details of management structures. Of course this is important, but it is given too much detail sometimes, where some of the niceties of the experience of being a rail traveller in the BR period could have had more coverage. The favourites of late 60s/early 70s trainspotters, the Deltics, do get a couple of mentions - but no real details. The beautiful, if flaky, diesel hydraulic Western class aren't even named - they get lumped in with a general criticism of the Western Region's attempt to do it their way. And I would have liked to have seen more detail, for example, of the seating, food provided in the dining cars and suchlike.

However, I can't deny that the politics, management and strategy (or lack of it) that are explored here are central to understanding what happened to British Rail, why it got better - and why it wasn't far better still. A must for UK rail fans.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
You can order British Rail: a new history from Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and Bookshop.org.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope