The building of the railways was a crucial factor in the development of the youthful capitalist system, in Britain and internationally. The export of this new transport system allowed the opening of entire continents for the exploitation of their resources and the growth of international trade. For Britain, the building of the railways created a revolution in its economic development, transforming communications, integrating a national market, agposing the way do its becomings the "werkshop of the crucial role in the country which was " This revolutionary new transport system Pontand world power.
Just as Britain lost this domination with the rise of German and US imperialism, its long decline has seen its industrial and technical base fall far behind these two countries, to which can now be added Japan (to make up the three leading economic powers). This generalised lack of investment which has hamstrung British industry in general, applies to the railways as much as, if not more so, than other industries. The German and French governments, for example, have understood the importance for the development of their economies, of a modernised, efficient rail network. They have not mistaken such investment for 'socialism'. They have viewed it as productive investment and not a burdensome 'subsidy' weighing unnecessarily on the exchequer. When the railways were nationalised aller the war, it was not as a socialist measure but as a means of rescuing them from the mess into which the private railway companies had led them. Even De Gaulle nationalised the French rail network which only the state could rebuild after the massive war destruction. The Labour government gave the private companies compensation which was recognised by the Tory press as "very generous" and was a financial burden for years to come.
Whilst the Tories reprivatised the steel industry when they came back to power in 1951, they did not do likewise to the railways. However, they did set about the process of rationalisation through the Beeching Report. Beeching proposed to abandon 5,000 rail miles, the closure of more than a third of rail stations and the reduction of stations receiving coal from over 5,000 to a few hundred.
The 5,000 mile larget was reached in just six years. Whilst there •was certainly a need for modernisation of much of the archaic rolling stock, the cut-backs carried out were made purely on the basis of financial considerations. Social needs were not taken into account. However, when the Labour government came into office in 1964 it continued the rationalisation begun by Beeching. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were shed. The Labour government shared the lory bias towards road transport The massive motorway buiking programme it embarked on sealed the fate of much of the rail network, especially in rural areas.
The shift away from rail to road is shown in the statistics. For instance, a 1952 survey showed that railways were responsible for 43% of ton-mileage of freight, as compared to 37% carried by road. Yet a quarter of a century later private road transport accounted for 767% of all freight movements. The story of that decline is to a large degree the story of growth of the mammoth car industry, cultivated and fed by the oil monopolies.
smaller ton mileage of freight at the end of that period. Only Argentina could match this dismal record. Over the same yates in the US 17 freshandt ap 2 times is 1977 when only 15.8% of total ton mileage of freight carried in Britain went by rail, in West Germany it was 27% and in France 37%. Since then, of course, il has declined to less than 10%.
With our planet under threat from global warming, the need to shift the balance back from road to rail becomes more urgent. Vast amounts of energy are wasted by the 'car economy' and the atmosphere is poisoned by exhaust fumes. Yet the 'road lobby' is never satisfied. Homes are destroyed by needless road building projects at the same time as public transport is under-funded. Subsidies on company cars in the form of tax relief now amount to two billion pounds annually. Privatisation will encourage a shift from rail to road. According to the government's own figures, the number of cars on our roads is set to increase 142% by 2025! In terms of exhaust emissions this will be disastrous. The 'freedom' of movement which the car supposedly provides is, as with the other freedoms which the government
praises, freedom only for those who can afford it. Millions of people cannot afford to travel by car, and many millions more choose not to commute in the cars they own because of the level of congestion which already exists in the metropolitan areas.
Whilst it is necessary to defend the existing nationalised industry because of the effects privatisation on the jobs and conditions of those who work on the railways, and the social and environmental impact, we have to recognise the complete lack of any perspective for development of the system on the part of the trade union and Labour leaders.
John Prescott, Transport Spokesperson for the Labour Parly has accepted the need for private investment on the railways, which would only serve to build up its financial debt. The union leaders do not go beyond talk of investment and a very abstract "integrated transport system". But how can you have the latter without national planning? How can you have it without renationalising the bus industry (now RMT policy against the wishes of the leadership)? It is impossible to significantly develop the rail network without challenging the whole structure of the "car economy" and the anarchic and wasteful profit-making logic of the capitalist system. In the first place this would mean a massive shift of freight from road to rail. I would require the growth of bulk freight depots at major workplaces to link into the network. It would require the inkage of parcels and smaller scale freight to short hau oad transport in order to move it from depots to the door It would mean accessible and cheap passenger services which encourage people to travel by train.
According to the free markeleers railways should be made to compele with other forms of transport. Road transport however is given an inbuilt advantage. It has been given huge subsidies in the form of government money spent on the road/motorway infrastructure necessary for fast communications. In contrast the railway industry has to pay for the upkeep and modernisation of its own infrastructure: rail track, signalling, safety systems, electrification, and even its own police forcel Purely financial measurements do not in any case lake full account of the relative social costs of these competing systems. What do these social costs amount to? In
the case of road transport it means a much greater accident rate (this costs the NIS in dealing with the treatment of accident victims) plus the cost of pollution in health terms, the economi impact of the growing trafte congestion, as well as the general impact Con the environment. The social and environmental costs of rail transport as compared to road are considerably less. An "integrated transport" policy cannot be left at the level of the need for investment (a combination of subsidy and loans from the banks). It requires a national plan which makes a complete break with decades of bias towards road transport, the basis of which was providing a financial killing for the big building companies, the car and the oil industries.
Moreover, in any serious attempt to deal with the global environment crisis, such a fundamental change cannot be made without a major shift from road to rail The struggle against privatisation of the railways therefore provides an opportunity for alliance o crail workers, of environmentalists, as well as service nsers who depend on rail for their daily lives.