LETTERS Railway saviours
Sir: In Ian Brown's critique of Save our Railways (`Save their subsidies', 21 June) his three main insinuations appear to be that we are a shadowy front for old Labour, that we only highlight problems on the pri- vatised railway and that we want to bring back British Rail with all its alleged `over- manning' and wasted taxpayers' subsidy.
Ironically your article appeared shortly after the Local Government Association (which represents the overwhelming major- ity of local authorities) agreed to affiliate with Save our Railways, so concerned are local authorities of all political persuasions about the effects of rail privatisation on local rail services.
Save our Railways was founded by the late Conservative MP, Robert Adley (dis- tinguished chairman of the House of Com- mons Transport Select Committee), Brian Wilson (Labour) and Nick Harvey (Lib Dem). Our steering group is made up of the rail unions, Transport 2000, the Rail- way Development Society and the afore- mentioned Local Government Association — not something we hide. Not a bad com- bination of those who use the railway, those who work on it and those elected represen- tatives with responsibilities for rail services. Not exactly the sinister old Labour conspir- acy that Ian Brown struggles to manufac- ture.
Ian Brown and friends in the privatised industry seem outraged because Save our Railways gets so much media coverage. Well, we get coverage because privatisation has caused so many problems for passen- gers, and because journalists want a coun- terbalance to the deluge of hype from the privatised industry's 'overmanned' press and PR offices.
Journalists aren't stupid (by and large) if we weren't a source of accurate informa- tion and analysis then we wouldn't get the media profile. And it's because of that cov- erage, as part of our vigorous and effective campaigning, that many concessions for rail-users have been won. For example, we won a legal requirement for a national timetable, for minimum service levels and for a range of discount fares and railcards.
Ian Brown has also got the wrong end of the stick as to our arguments and aims. Our main arguments against the former govern- ment's format for privatisation have always been that breaking up a unified national rail network into more that 100 companies will fragment the network and lead to the loss of 'network benefits' like national information systems, connections and those national discount tickets and railcards which have no legal protection; there are too few safeguards on excessive profits and too few requirements to invest.
These fears have been borne out by events. Even the formerly supine rail regu- lator John Swift has been forced to take up these issues, castigating Railtrack for underspending its essential maintenance budget by £750 million, and the privatised rail operators for providing a telephone inquiry bureau system that is consistently hopeless.
The challenge for the new government is to sort out the mess and begin the process of putting the railway back together again. This does not mean bringing back the British Rail of old. It means ensuring that taxpayers' subsidy (which contrary to Ian Brown's 'research' has gone up since pri- vatisation) buys new trains for passengers rather than new Jags for the new railway barons. It means reasserting public control over what is a publicly subsidised industry. And it means making a start by setting up a strategic rail authority as soon as possible.
Keith Bill
Save our Railways, Southbank House, Black Prince Road, London SEI
Previous page
