SAVE THEIR SUBSIDIES

A railway pressure group with no apparent political axe to grind is not as unbiased as it claims, says Ian Brown Save Our Railways is an umbrella group set up to co-ordinate opposition to privati- sation. Among its members are the Associ- ation of Metropolitan Authorities, the rail unions, Transport 2,000, the Railway Development Society and various environ- mental groups. The great powers at the top of the list are, perhaps, easily described as being motivated by socialist dogma, even though for New Labour that is no longer supposed the growth across the to exist. Privatisation is 'Tory dogma', but continued state control is not 'socialist dogma'. Both the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the unions believe in public ownership, despite all the evidence of its failings. The unions might be supposed to have an interest in 'job pro- tection' — that is, in overmanning. The other groups are of campaigners for gov- ernment action, not groups willing to act themselves. They campaign for public expenditure, as if expenditure were the goal.

The original stated aim of the organisa- tion was to stop privatisation. The aim now is said to be the protection of the network. This falls into two categories. Railtrack is continually derided for underspending on the physical state of the railway, and the operators for breaking up the network of services by not being enthusiastic enough about through ticketing and the like.

In dealing with Railtrack, Save Our Rail- ways have as their target the organisation most enthusiasts dislike. Railtrack is attacked on two main fronts. On the first, run-down structures are emphasised and treated as typical. A recent report talked up the supposed state of various structures `left to rot', including the Lea Bridge on the line between Gospel Oak and Barking, and some buildings at North Walsham sta- tion in Norfolk. Railtrack's annual survey found that the bridge had water getting into the base of the structure, and it was fully repaired over a long weekend. The plans for a complete rebuilding of North Walsham station were out for discussion with the local council and local user groups when the Save Our Railways report was published. They have now been agreed, and work is due to start soon. Scant men- tion of this from Save Our Railways.

Conversely, on the second front, increased maintenance work on other structures is not noted. The long break in the maintenance of the Forth Bridge under BR has been rectified by Railtrack, along with a long list of other previously neglected struc- tures. This is not credited. The impression is given that the whole system is falling apart, and that after two years Rail- track is entirely to blame. As, supposedly, none of the deteri- oration happened under BR, Railtrack should be renation- alised.

On the eve of publication of Railtrack's spending plans on major maintenance, Save Our Railways published its own sur- vey of what it thinks ought to be spent. This year's wish list includes elec- trification of the Midland main line from London to Sheffield. This is a long- stand- ing aim for local campaigners since the first 50 miles to Bedford are already wired up. But Save Our Railways is not satisfied with that; it must go on to denigrate the present diesel service.

Instead of new high-speed electric trains most passengers will have to use aging Inter- City 125s. Sheffield and the Midlands should be on a European network of electrified main lines. Railtrack has condemned the region to European branch line status.

Given the rather bendy nature of the track, the idea of the present 125s going flat out would bring nausea to almost any stomach. Any faster and a new kind of pas- senger would be needed.

In any case, the present service is fast and comfortable. The trains are reliable and well used. They are due a major refit, which they are getting, but they are a long way from expired. In the short term electri- fication is anything but good news. A deci- sion to electrify would introduce a prolonged period of disruption and loss of market share. It is true that electrification has been shown to increase trade, but such evidence has been accumulated where a run-down alternative has been replaced. A similar effect was noted when the Chiltern lines from Marylebone to Aylesbury and Banbury were given greatly improved diesel trains.

In the event Midland main line has ordered £38 million worth of fast, air-condi- tioned new diesel trains to double service frequency from Derby, Nottingham, Leices- ter, Market Harborough, Kettering and Wellingborough to London. Railtrack is spending a further £7 million to increase capacity on the route. This good news was never brought to you by Save Our Railways.

In another recent media splash, Save Our Railways issued a panic warning of job losses on Regional Railways North East. This story was generated from one of the endless stream of leaked documents that flow to pressure groups opposed to govern- ment policy. The new owners, then not yet in charge, were said to be planing to reduce staff from just under 3,000 to just under 2,000 over a seven-year period. Mysterious- ly, the cutback was said to be a 40 per cent reduction in staff. I don't make it that, but I suppose 40 per cent sounds like almost half, which is more emotive than about a third. Most of the reduction is to be at the company's headquarters at York.

According to Mr Jonathon Bray, the co- ordinator of Save Our Railways: This leaked document shows what privatisa- tion is all about. Privatised companies are getting contracts not because they offer the best deal for passengers but because they promise to cut staff and cut costs.

The result is a cheap and nasty rail system run by a skeleton staff.

If the leaked proposal is genuine, what it seems to show is that 1,000 spare staff are `employed' at York. Given that most sta- tions run by the regional companies are already unstaffed, the passengers will prob- ably notice very little. Indeed the tendency among the privatised companies has been to increase customer contact staff.

What it reveals is a wish to protect employment numbers without regard to cost or need. Serving customers, it seems, is not the point: railways are to be run to pro- vide jobs. Such a policy always ends in tears. Even Labour governments don't go on paying to run things no one uses. You can't serve staff or shareholders unless you put customers first.

Wisconsin Central, the American parent of the new freight operator, began in America by cutting staff to match demand. The reduced costs attracted more trade. Real jobs were created to the point that Wisconsin Central now employs more peo- ple than it did when it began.

Save Our Railways is committed to a state-run system, since only in that way can its member groups have influence without direct cost.

Despite its total failure to prevent pri- vatisation, which had been the sole aim of the organisation, it sees what it does as effective campaigning. It judges itself by column inches in the press and by electron- ic media minutes rather than by any good it does the railway, or indeed any progress towards its aim.

Save Our Railways has a vested interest in portraying privatisation as a failure. If the new order succeeds Save Our Railways will have no function, and will be seen to have been wrong all along. It is seemingly prepared to spread any propaganda it sees fit in order to defend its position.

The new private owners of the railway are far more public than BR ever was. They publish fuller accounts and are open to questioning at annual general meetings. Their performance can be compared with others in the field. They are committed by their bids to substantial growth. If they fail they will pay. They have to succeed. Unlike Save Our Railways, they have a vested interest in success.