Skip to main content

Railway Branch Lines (Diesel Cars)

Volume 498: debated on Thursday 3 April 1952

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Redmayne.]

3.8 a.m.

I begin by expressing gratitude to my hon. Friend for being present at this late hour to reply to this debate. If he had listened to the torrent of oratory to which I have listened in the last five hours, I doubt if he would be in such good fettle to listen to me and to reply.

The last time this matter was raised was at about four o'clock on a Friday afternoon and I am now raising it at something like three o'clock on a Friday morning. My reason for raising the matter is the threat overhanging the passenger services on many branch lines in many parts of the country, and particularly in the part of the country I represent, South-West Scotland.

I begin by giving one or two examples. First there is the Dumfries—Locherbie line which links the South-West of Scotland with the capital. Two services are run daily on this line. If one wants to get from Kirkcudbright to Edinburgh, one travels at an average of something like 20 miles an hour over a distance of about 100 miles. Then there is the Dumfries—Stranraer line, over which three services run each way each day. There is the Langholm—Carlisle line, Langholm being a small industrial burgh, practically its sole industry being woollen textiles. It is a centre of hill farming and is served by a branch line which provides four passenger services a day from Carlisle and five to Carlisle.

I feel that the sparseness of the services, coupled with the general decrepitude of the rolling stock, is causing a steady reduction in the numbers of passengers using these lines. In consequence, an entirely new approach to the problem is required. Some of these branch lines have to be kept open for goods services, and sometimes also as emergency loop-ways.

Where expense of maintaining track and manning stations and level crossings has to be incurred in any case, how should the provision of a passenger service be looked at? There is extra cost of providing a passenger service—the train, the higher standard of track maintenance and whatever additional safety measures are required. It seems to me, as a layman, that some of these safety measures are inadequate and badly in need of being brought up to date.

The question then arises of the extra cost of running passenger services, after taking into account the cost of keeping a goods service going. Ought that full extra cost be covered by receipts? What cannot be justified and can never succeed is an inferior service—a grimy shadow of main line services. It will never attract traffic. It is doomed to failure and ultimate demise.

I suggest what is needed is something different. On Friday, 30th November last, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) suggested that diesel rail cars should be considered. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, replying with customary good humour, said:
"in no case where a branch line has been closed down would a diesel rail car have turned a non-profitable service into a profitable one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2000–1.]
I cannot tell what assumptions the Railway Executive made regarding charges to be taken into account in estimating whether a profit could be made or not, or what assumptions they made regarding the extra passenger traffic that would result from changing from steam to oil and all that implies. I am not concerning myself with lines which have been closed. My concern is to urge that unless the defeatist attitude that the railways have shown towards the problem of branch lines in the last 25 years is changed, in a few years they will have to close all their branch lines.

I am glad to say that I have good reason to believe that that attitude is now changing. We are not the only country by any means which has been faced with a growing tendency for the public to change to the use of buses rather than trains. In other countries also, train fares cost more than bus fares. In other countries also buses can put down passengers much nearer their destinations than can the trains.

Yet in other countries it seems clear that railways have succeeded in attracting passengers back from the roads and in resuscitating their branch lines. At a time when our roads are overcrowded, when the accident rate is far too high, is it reasonable that our branch railways, which cost so much to build and have often to be maintained in any case for goods traffic, should be regarded as obsolete?

If the Railway Executive continue to run obsolete trains on them by obsolete methods, it will not be surprising if they see their passenger traffic dwindling away to zero. I am urging a change of outlook. I should say at once that I am not expert in this matter, but I have taken such advice as I can to inform myself, and I am indebted to the Dumfries and Galloway Development Association for much of the information which I have been able to collect.

I believe that the answer may very well he in diesel rail cars. The reasons are that they are cleaner, more comfortable, far superior for tourist purposes—one can see out of the windows as one moves along—they ride far better than existing rolling stock and they are even equipped with modern conveniences. They are also quicker in acceleration and retardation. I know that my hon. Friend said that he was not wholly convinced on this latter point, but there seems to be good evidence in support of it. They are, thus, far better for journeys with frequent stops.

There is a saving in time in refuelling and watering. I believe that the rail cars can run for about 700 miles without either operation being necessary. They are less hard on the track itself, and they are less hard on the rolling stock owing to the smoothness of shunting. They are very much more economical in manpower, fuel and maintenance.

On the question of manpower, there is one driver instead of two. There is a conductor, and on branch lines we may very easily be able to save the whole business of issuing tickets at intermediate stations by using the cars like buses and having a conductor on the train itself.

In fuel, these rail cars are said to be three times as economical, but comparisons here may be vitiated by the growing fiscal discrimination against petrol. However, they save two hours "steaming up," and there are enormous economies in the handling of fuel. In starting a new venture, maintenance is bound to present a problem. When the problem is overcome, maintenance is found to cost less.

Servicing is certainly simpler. In the meantime, it is a question of establishing maintenance centres, a matter on which the Road Haulage Executive, who are accustomed to the maintenance of diesel engines, might be able to help. We certainly want the maximum flexibility in these matters.

I am informed that the standard considerations which one should take into account are availability, and here diesel rail cars can be relied upon for service at any time in much the same way as road vehicles. The next consideration is overall efficiency, and they are said to be far superior to steam. Next we have cost. The initial cost is undoubtedly a good deal higher than the cost of the other form of transport. It varies from about £7,000, I am told, for a rail-bus, to about £18,000 for a 250 horse-power rail car, but that consists of both a motive unit and a carriage.

On the question of the operating costs, both the Belgian State Railways and the Great Northern Railway of Ireland find that diesel cars are about three times cheaper to run than steam. I have some interesting figures about maintenance costs from the Great Northern Railway of Ireland. Last year the maintenance cost for the 20 rail cars which they ran was less than £8,000.

There is one alleged disadvantage, and that is that diesel cars are less flexible than steam trains, which can have carriages added more easily to deal with emergency traffic, such as football matches and market days provide. But against this one can set the big advantage of greater frequency. We shall not attract custom back to the railway lines until we can get some system which will provide greater frequency.

I am told that the usual practice of the Great Northern Railway of Ireland is to run two rail cars with either a buffet car or one or two carriages between them. Normally a branch line diesel rail car can easily be run alone, but when extra traffic is offered it can be run as a train with four carriages in that way. What is undoubtedly essential is additional frequency.

A very good example is the experiment which was carried out recently in Ireland, where a train was run to a football match between Dundalk and Cork. The total distance covered by the training, including empty running—and all done in 24 hours—was 554 miles. Nearly 300 passengers were carried at an average speed of 45 miles an hour. There was no refuelling during the whole time and the fuel consumed was less than four miles per gallon for each car.

Rail cars have been used on the Great Western Railway for several years. Lord Brabazon said, at the last annual general meeting of Associated Commercial Vehicles, Ltd., that cars supplied by them had run 17 million miles in Britain up to the end of 1951. I would ask my hon. Friend how many of those miles were run in Scotland.

It is not too late to make a change. It means having three or four points in Scotland as centres for branch line rail car operation; say, Glasgow, Perth, Inverness and Aberdeen, and either Dumfries or Carlisle would be suitable centres in the south.

Associated Commercial Vehicles also supply Ireland and Western Australia. I understand another British manufacturer supplies a number of countries, including Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Jamaica and Portuguese West Africa. It seems odd that we cannot purchase a few more for ourselves. By 1950 there were more than 2,000 rail cars in use on the Continent of Europe and another 600 on order. Italy runs more than 700. She also supplies Greece and Egypt.

In France, the substitution of 18 diesel rail cars for seven steam trains resulted on one branch line in a three to fourfold increase in passenger traffic. Germany supplies herself and Turkey. Hungary supplies herself and the Argentine. As for the United States, I would quote from "Diesel Railway Traction" No. 229 of June, 1951:
"On a number of American railways a new lease of life is being given to subsidiary mainline and to branch-line services by means of the new 85 Budd railcars with hydraulic transmissions."
It is estimated that in 1951, 3,500 new diesel units would be delivered to U.S.A. railways, needing 15,500 new drivers, maintenance staff and supervisors.

Passenger traffic can be won back from the roads. It is no answer to say that railways cannot afford to make this experiment. I believe that they cannot afford not to. In any case British Railways have purchased 84 diesel shunters and have decided to buy another 573. I hope the Minister will tell the House what consideration has so far been given to the extended use of diesel rail cars and that he will urge upon the railways a progressive policy of modernisation on branch lines. If my hon. Friend will tell us that he will at least try to persuade the Railway Executive to carry out in Scotland experiments such as have been carried out near here with light cars, I think he will make Scotland very happy.

3.25 a.m.

I intervene to support the plea made by my hon. Friend for more extensive use of the diesel car, and in particular, I would focus attention on one branch line where such a vehicle would prove most useful. This is a line which has been closed, running between Inveramsay and Macduff, and catering for an important part of the seaboard of Banffshire and part of East Aberdeenshire. The Railway Executive state that it is closed because of loss.

The passenger traffic was not paying. The Railway Executive had been told that the times of trains were totally unsuitable. So far as the passenger traffic is concerned, I believe it could be brought back. The tracks are there, in a reasonably good state of repair, and a frequent service of diesel cars on this stretch would pay handsome returns.

Holidaymakers come here; visitors from the south have come for generations via Aberdeen, and then by this branch line to the seaboard. But now there is only a bus service, and the visi- tors are not coming because there are not the facilities for handling luggage. Visitors arriving in Aberdeen en route for Macduff or any other town along this branch line must trundle their luggage half way across Aberdeen to the bus stop. People with young families, who would ordinarily take prams with them, must stay away.

The railway is there, and it is a national asset which ought to be used. An experiment ought to be made in the direction which has been suggested by my hon. Friend. So far as this branch line is concerned, I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that it could be made to pay.

I deplore this defeatist attitude on the part of the Railway Executive, which seems to produce, every time, as the only panacea, the closing down of any line which does not pay. If a line is really needed, then it would pay, and here is a branch line which the people want. It is not the line that is at fault; it is the service that was offered. Here is the opportunity for experiment with diesel cars, and I feel certain that there is success awaiting such operation.

3.28 a.m.

I should like to say straight away that I am only too anxious, even at this hour, to give as full a reply as I can to my hon. Friends who have just spoken, and would say that it will be necessary for me to cover again a little of the ground I traversed on 30th November last year with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), on a tour of branch lines.

First, there is the situation regarding branch lines in the area so ably described this morning, and, secondly, I will say something about the development of diesel rail cars over the country as a whole. Passenger services will be withdrawn from the Lockerbie-Dumfries branch line as from 19th May this year. There has been ample opportunity for objections to be lodged, and a census was taken of the traffic; but, in this, as in so many other causes, those most vociferous in their protests were those who use this railway the least. The number of passengers carried daily is eighteen per train, or 524 a week.

was closed to freight traffic on 4th July, 1949—nearly three years ago—and a co-ordinating road and rail service introduced. Freight traffic formerly carried on this branch line is now conveyed to and from railheads by the Road Haulage Executive acting as agents for the Railway Executive, with the result that there is now a service provided on five days a week as against three days a week when the railways looked after it.

At Dumfries, there is a railhead for light goods traffic and parcels. Heavy goods traffic is dealt with at Dumfries, Auldgirth, and Thornhill stations. Collection and delivery services, not previously available, are now given, excepting for traffic where distance or inaccessibility of premises are involved. Such traffic is delivered to, and received by, agents in the villages of Dunscore and Moniaive.

Holywood became an unstaffed public siding dealing with horse-box traffic and through-load traffic on 26th September, 1949. More than a year before that decision was taken, the average daily passenger traffic was six, one parcel was forwarded and one parcel received daily, together with an average of about one ton of freight traffic.

Hon. Members, and possibly you, Sir, will be sorry to learn that, despite the romantic attraction connected with it, Gretna station is closed. Of course, one used to proceed there, I think, by road for romantic purposes, but Gretna station was closed, despite its attraction. A census showed an average of six passengers using the station daily, with an average of one-and-a-half tons of freight.

There is little doubt that passengers are now road conscious. This is something of which the House is likely to hear more as the Session progresses. The buses, after all, go right into the middle of the villages and drop passengers at the post office, local inn, or wherever it may be. The railways have been realistic in this matter. Hence, the closing of branch lines. Here, I repeat something that I have said before. These branch lines would never have been laid down at all had the railways been constructed in the motor age instead of in the age of horses.

On this side of the House, those who hold the political views we do—hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to be exhausted with their oratory on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill—have had many a tussle with the Opposition on the subject of the economic running of nationalised railways. My hon. Friend must not complain of a policy which will, in 1952, result in a saving for British Railways of about £800,000. We live in an age of big figures and we talk in millions, but £800,000 is, after all, £800,000.

With regard to the extended use of diesel rail cars, the British Transport Commission informed me, and I have obtained this information since my hon. Friend gave notice he would raise this matter, that where branch lines have been closed in Scotland, it is considered that the use of diesel rail cars would not have affected the economic position sufficiently to justify the retention of the services.

With regard to exporting diesel rail cars, it is true that manufacturers are fully engaged with orders for export. In fact, however, British Railways have not yet sought to place orders for diesel cars. The reason was given in a debate we had a fortnight ago on Friday about the organisation of distribution and the later debate on the dismissal of certain railway workers. But, since the war, British Railways have necessarily had to concentrate their resources, which are severely limited by the capital investment programme, upon trucks and wagons, and in restoring the equipment and running facilities neglected during the period of hostilities. In addition, available technical staff has been fully employed on schemes of electrification between Liverpool Street and Shenfield and Manchester and Sheffield.

The railways are fully alive to the fact that there is scope for diesels in replacing lightly loaded steam services. In consequence rail car development is being pressed forward energetically. During this year a special committee, consisting of senior regional officers, together with specialists from headquarters, was formed to investigate the whole problem. The results of their investigations and their recommendations are now being given full consideration by the Executive. The findings of this committee will be made known to the British Transport Commission, with a recommendation from the Railway Executive in regard to expenditure.

Will the findings of this committee, after being reported to the Transport Commission, be made known to the House?

In the first instance they will go to the British Transport Commission, and I should like to investigate the possibility of presenting them to the House, because this information would be of value to hon. Members.

The Railway Executive inform me that the question of using rail cars has been studied for many years and there is nothing that is not known about their design, equipment, operation and maintenance. Full information is available of the experience on the Continent and overseas by constant contact between railway officers of the various undertakings throughout the world.

In Britain the former Great Western Company initiated a small fleet of diesel rail cars between the wars. Many of these were in operation over quite long distances. I have no doubt that investigation will be steadily pursued with a view to expanding these services as the financial position makes this possible.

I am sure the House will agree with me that my hon. Friend has raised a matter of great interest and importance, and I have no doubt his remarks will be carefully studied by those responsible. Coming back, however, to his original point, regarding branch lines, I would conclude by saying that while diesel operation might have been cheaper, the saving would not have been sufficient to counteract the other services in maintaining these branch lines.

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for one second, but I made it quite clear that I was not concerned with the lines that had been closed but rather with ensuring that other branch lines will not be closed in the future.

Exactly the same factors operate, and my hon. Friend, by putting his intervention, which I do not resent, has prevented me from making the most important part of my remarks because the time of the Adjournment has now finished.

It has been suggested that the railway engine drivers, who have been accustomed for a lifetime to driving heavy engines pulling heavy loads, have a reluctance to transfer to these single vehicles. Has my hon. Friend regarded that as a limiting factor, and if so, could the matter be looked into?

I do not think it is, and certainly it has not been brought to my notice.

In connection with the point made about attracting passengers to the trains, the evidence available on the Continent is that people have been attracted by the introduction of diesel cars because of the attractive and easy travelling—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Thursday evening, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes to Four o'Clock a.m.