Great Western Passenger Forum

The culture of cost cutting by government imposed cuts by BR^▸ has left a huge legacy on our railways. Top down cuts were imposed and BR therefore became adept at finding ways to reduce costs. It is clear that the underlying assumption that railways were a thing of the past was not only in the mind set of the politicians but many senior managers at BR as well.

Reducing a double track line to single not only saved the costs of relaying one line and the future day to day maintenance of that track, but also, by slewing the remaining line into the middle allowed then to delay earthworks maintenance. A low speed goods line could be easily neglected as obviously if it was only goods it would be destined for closure soon, was presumably the thinking.

This is essential work that is not obvious to the general public, but its past neglect is haunting Network Rail (NR^» ) now, not just on minor good lines. It is obvious if you do not repaint a steel bridge it will deteriorate, but embankments and cuttings are seen as maintenance free, when they are far from being so. The clay soils that predominate in many parts of the UK^▸ especially southern England are notorious. Brunel was delayed in opening the link from Farringdon Road (later Challow station) to Chippenham by 18 month, by the challenge of building embankments with these clays and the Swindon section of the caused major problems in building the Gloucester line.

With some exceptions a goods line in the UK is typically the last leg of a journey with an infrequent service (the intensively used quarry and (previously) coal line were well maintained) poorly were neglected. I don't know if railway administrations on the continent similarly neglect such routes, but the line in Sweden in the OP^▸ , was an international freight route that goes through an area with little population so obviously had a future. I am not sure of the geology but it may have rock embankments rather than clay which can be easier to maintain.

Comparing costs on a benchmark per km basis is a technique used by economists who know little or nothing of engineering to provide ammunition to politicians who are entranced by the idea that "efficiency savings" can allow them to say they are spend more while doing the opposite so they can also cut taxes. They fail to realise that it is their own policies past and present that have created many of the inefficiencies that therefore cannot be tackled because they are the problem. Having a steady pipeline of electrification work would cut the costs per km significantly but if you have a new team each time who have to learn on the job you will never do it efficiently.

Similarly some requirements imposed by DfT^» on HS2^▸ to minimise future maintenance have massively increased the cost of construction. I am sure these will be revisited in later stages, but for stage 1 they are now fixed into the project. Why was no engineer on the project at an early stage empowered to question these requirements or did the design while you construct culture (don't get me on that) that we so like in this country these days blind even them to the implications of that decision.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym