I must admit that my knowledge is pretty limited in regard to international railway operations, but as of now it seems to me that for the country who invented railways and trains, we seem to be especially bad at running them and investing in them. For example, while many other European countries and even some Asian countries have managed to construct high speed railways since as early as the 1960s, the UK has barely managed to construct one which is miniscule in length compared to other high speed lines on the continent, and with HS2 the project over the years consistently kept getting more expensive to the point where the eastern leg was scrapped, and at this point I wouldn't be surprised if it only became a London-Birmingham route in the end. Even outside of high speed rail it still seems like we can't invest very well into the current infrastructure.
The Elizabeth Line was also notable for it's multiple delays and even going back to the 2000s the West Coast Main Line modernisation ran over budget and three years late, and that was after the initial plans were scaled back. Despite hopes for 125 running at 2002, it ended up becoming the final product in 2008 rather than the 140 running hoped by 2005. Then on the subject of rolling stock we had the APT that was ultimately canned, and of course the Pacer train is also a prime example of bad rolling stock because it was literally a bus body on a freight wagon. Whatever charm they might have for some they were very much not fit for purpose as trains, and while initially meant as a stop gap, it took decades to actually replace them. So the question I have is why is the UK so bad at investing in it's railways and infrastructure and why does it always run into problems?
Why did the Elizabeth Line face so many delays and why was the WCML modernisation so badly budgeted, and why are we so bad at updating rolling stock that it took nearly forty years to replace poor quality rolling stock? Is there a genuine lack of political willpower in this country to properly invest in railways? Has the systematic structure of the railways in the UK enabled such bad management that we can't seem to do most things right? Is it partially down to political influences? After all, Dr Beeching's cuts happened, perhaps not coincidentally, alongside government funding of motorway construction that were being built by companies that Transport Minister Ernest Marples had an interest in, and since World War II most UK governments have been Conservative with occasional five to six year breaks of Labour governments as well as the 13-year New Labour government.
Is it maybe a cultural aspect of the UK itself? Are we simply more individualist than our European neighbours and thus don't see public transport as importantly as they do and instead prize private car ownership? Could it be a combination of bad management as well as cultural aspects? Could there be a lot more to it than that? I am genuinely interested to know why the UK despite being the inventors of the railways somehow can't do a good job at investing in their upkeep? Why have we fallen so far behind the rest of the world and why today can we still not properly manage to invest in new infrastructure projects?
The Elizabeth Line was also notable for it's multiple delays and even going back to the 2000s the West Coast Main Line modernisation ran over budget and three years late, and that was after the initial plans were scaled back. Despite hopes for 125 running at 2002, it ended up becoming the final product in 2008 rather than the 140 running hoped by 2005. Then on the subject of rolling stock we had the APT that was ultimately canned, and of course the Pacer train is also a prime example of bad rolling stock because it was literally a bus body on a freight wagon. Whatever charm they might have for some they were very much not fit for purpose as trains, and while initially meant as a stop gap, it took decades to actually replace them. So the question I have is why is the UK so bad at investing in it's railways and infrastructure and why does it always run into problems?
Why did the Elizabeth Line face so many delays and why was the WCML modernisation so badly budgeted, and why are we so bad at updating rolling stock that it took nearly forty years to replace poor quality rolling stock? Is there a genuine lack of political willpower in this country to properly invest in railways? Has the systematic structure of the railways in the UK enabled such bad management that we can't seem to do most things right? Is it partially down to political influences? After all, Dr Beeching's cuts happened, perhaps not coincidentally, alongside government funding of motorway construction that were being built by companies that Transport Minister Ernest Marples had an interest in, and since World War II most UK governments have been Conservative with occasional five to six year breaks of Labour governments as well as the 13-year New Labour government.
Is it maybe a cultural aspect of the UK itself? Are we simply more individualist than our European neighbours and thus don't see public transport as importantly as they do and instead prize private car ownership? Could it be a combination of bad management as well as cultural aspects? Could there be a lot more to it than that? I am genuinely interested to know why the UK despite being the inventors of the railways somehow can't do a good job at investing in their upkeep? Why have we fallen so far behind the rest of the world and why today can we still not properly manage to invest in new infrastructure projects?
