The shape of London today, built up to beyond Surbiton or Croydon to the south, and similarly extended to the west, north and east, would not have been possible without the railways. London as we know it is a creation of the railways. Only railways can handle the massive volume of passengers and provide reasonable speeds safely in a built-up area. This has become more critical as London has followed the trend set initially in the United States, but now copied almost worldwide, of building ever taller buildings. Building upwards satisfies the need for more accommodation, be it residential or business, but it also imposes massive strains on the infrastructure, and in this context that means railways. Quite simply, the number of people who need to travel is vastly increased.
There is another problem, which is the ever deeper foundations required by higher buildings means that it becomes progressively more difficult to find routes for underground lines, or for that matter for electricity, gas, telephone, water and sewerage.
Compared to Paris, London has shown considerable lack of foresight in not establishing a regional express network along the lines of the French capital’s RER (Reseau Express Regional), that can provide reasonably high-speed travel over relatively short distances, easing the burden on the Underground and the suburban services of the mainline companies. The first RER route opened in 1969. The only British equivalent is Thameslink, which sets no records for speed, while Crossrail waits some time in the future. It should be ready in the next decade, but major British projects have a habit of running late, so if it opens by 2020, that will be an achievement. Many commentators believe that the twenty-five minutes or so time saving on services from London to Paris and Brussels by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link does not justify the cost and that the money would have been better spent on Crossrail. The CTRL has also made life much less convenient for passengers to the East Midlands using St Pancras, who now have a longer walk to what amounts to a satellite station outside the terminus.
There is no excuse for this oversight and delay. The railways are necessary for a major conurbation and its population, including both the resident population and that of workers.
One can argue very convincingly, as Transport Watch would, that many railways would serve the community much better if they were converted into roads, and there is little doubt that there are lines on which the frequency of trains and the proportion of seats occupied are so low that using the better alignment of the railway would often provide a low-cost road improvement. This is not always the case as some railway lines fit very tightly into the surrounding terrain, with narrow cuttings and tunnels.
The bulk of longer distance British inter-city travel, such as that between the main Scottish cities and London, is by air. Until air travel was crippled by over-zealous and untargeted security measures, meaning that short-haul passengers spend most of their time at the departure airport, it was unrivalled, and while it suffered from the airports being too remote from the central business districts, by choosing one’s airport at the London end of the journey, one could minimise this. That is one advantage of London having five airports spread around the fringes of the Greater London area, and it also means that the airports are closer to the homes of many London commuters when they need to travel by air. The exception is London City, close to the Docklands and also exceptional in that check-in time is still just fifteen minutes.
The trouble is that the current regulatory regime for all of Britain’s railways has also caused the train operating companies to take the easy way out, with journey times extended to ensure absolute punctuality. Today, a train is still theoretically on time if it is five minutes late, before the Second World War it was either on time or it was late. No nonsense!
A rolling programme of electrification has long advocated by the railway press as the only cost-effective means of electrifying the railway. Nevertheless, costly overhead electrification which requires bridges and tunnels to be rebuilt is only necessary and justifiable if one is building very high speed lines. Much more could have been done sooner, cheaper and more quickly had the London suburban network used third rail, which would also have standardised each generation of suburban and short distance mainline rolling stock. The money spent on raising overhead structures could have been saved for those lines on which capacity is now so tight that double deck trains, known in the trade as ‘bi-levels’, would be the cheapest solution. One advantage of bi-levels over longer trains, which require costly platform lengthening, changes to points and signals and often other works as well, is that they also keep the train within a set length which means that the passengers don’t have to spend five minutes walking along the platform getting to the front of the train. For disabled passengers, bi-levels are a practical solution, as the ends of the carriages over the bogies provide a third level that is easily accessible with having to use steps to reach the lower or upper saloon.
So, what is the future for the railways in London? For the next twenty years, Crossrail will be the big step forward, and for much of the rest, what is running today will still be running. The most obvious change will be that at last the Metropolitan Line will have its ‘A’ stock replaced by a new fleet of what has been dubbed ‘S’ stock, with variations of this following later for the other sub-surface lines. However, the new ‘S’ stock will have fewer seats, with the current 2+3 configuration being replaced by 2+2 and also longitudinal seating in the interests of extra standing room. In defence of the new stock, the current Mayor for London, Boris Johnson, has suggested that the three-abreast seats on the ‘A’ stock are so cramped that they are seldom used efficiently. Others have suggested that those boarding trains at the outermost stations are likely to get a seat, but this ignores their homeward journey!
There has for long been a proposal for a line between Chelsea and Hackney, which some believe could be completed by 2025, but with Crossrail and the mounting deficit in the public finances, this is a project that may remain a dream for many more years.
Within the next twenty years we can expect some move on electrification of the remaining diesel lines, with priority being given to the lines from Paddington, but it remains uncertain whether the projected HS2, the high-speed line that will run, possibly via Heathrow Airport, to the Midlands, Manchester and then possibly to Edinburgh and Glasgow, will be even started during that period. Failure to do so means that the London commuter belt will remain much as it is for now.
The problem is that when money was available, it was spent none too wisely, and now the money isn’t available as government borrowing has soared. The previous massive debt, built up to finance two world wars, to cover the years of recession between the wars and post-war reconstruction, was largely eliminated due to North Sea oil revenues, but now we are a net importer of oil, gas and coal. One problem with Crossrail is that a contribution was expected from business, but the recession has made this unlikely, and as for HS2, the estimated cost today is £34 billion, money which the government does not have and is unlikely to have for many years.
Electrification is vital, and to provide reliable supplies for the long term, the only source of this power must be nuclear energy. It is also the only way to get our future energy needs off the balance of payments.
Re-opening railway lines as has been proposed recently is something that will have to be addressed, but re-opening for an hourly two-car diesel multiple unit would be a waste of resources. Few of the closed lines are in the London area, or even the commuter area, but there are some, such as that to Cranleigh and the old Great Central line through Quinton Road – but would these be viable?
Viability is important. The heavy cost of providing an extra train for commuters and the low revenue that would be earned has already been mentioned, and now the country can’t afford it. Something has been lost somewhere compared to the Victorian age. Perhaps a political solution is needed, reuniting ownership of trains, infrastructure and the operating companies, should we consider re-creating the old grouped companies, and perhaps just a few more so that East Anglia and the longer distance services to the north-east and Scotland are not lumped together? These new companies should be in private hands so that they can raise capital once again, given absolute tenure to make long-term planning possible and to allow employer-employee and customer loyalty to grow, and, of course, to make them aware of market opportunities.
As for the longer term, beyond twenty years, is it worth making any prophesy? Much can happen in a year, still more in ten, except in railways where rolling stock lasts for more than thirty years.