The Rural Transport Problem

David St John Thomas

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367748876
• eBook ISBN: 9781000368154
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: City Planning & Urban Development
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Originally published in 1963, this book was the first to survey the rural transport problem as a whole, and it includes the results of extensive research in an important but until then neglected field. The issues of increased car ownership and the reduction of train and bus services and the social impact of this is discussed, as well the question of subsidies in the UK as a whole. Three area specific studies deal with the Lake District, Northumberland and Devon.

Part One

chapter one

Inconvenience Or Hardship?

This book is written with considerable feeling. In the course of my research not only have I continuously met people whose enjoyment of life has been sapped by inadequate transport, but time and again it has seemed that much of the inconvenience to the rural population (and also much of the damage to the rural economy) is unnecessary.

The average standard of transport management in the countryside is, with outstanding exceptions, disconcertingly low. In many cases a more useful service could be provided at far less cost. Too frequently buses and trains are run with scant reference to the demand. Narrowly-missed connections are perpetuated in the timetables year after year, sometimes decade after decade. The railways in particular are often guilty of useless expenditure; fully-staffed signal-boxes may survive long after the removal of any possible justification for them.

Inevitably a study of the rural transport problem leads first to criticism of the operators, who could have done so much more to help themselves and the public. Sometimes indeed these men seem almost to enjoy the martyrdom of watching losses mount to the point where closure is inescapable. But examination of the difficulties in their wider context brings sympathy for railway and bus officials on the job and the realization that the policy-makers are largely to blame.

The chief trouble has perhaps been the lack of foresight on the part of transport—especially railway—management. It was not realized in time that the railways could not pay their way and continue to provide extensive social services. If the Transport Commission had presented the Government with a forceful, clear-cut alternative between policies, probably some decision would have been reached early enough to prevent much of the damage. On the other hand, the Government need not have evaded taking the initiative in giving the industry the lead it so obviously needed.

Throughout the 1950’s, arguments continued inside and outside the industry as to whether the railways should be regarded as a public utility or whether they should be run on strictly business lines disregarding the interests of minorities. Although it became increasingly clear toward the end of the decade that basically the Government insisted that the system should pay its way, loopholes remained, the question of the retention of social services was shunned even in the 1960 White Paper, and many railwaymen felt that ‘justice’ for British Railways still lay round the corner.

The result was a prolonged and extremely unhappy compromise. Although many services had been closed by the time British Railways entered a new era under the management of Dr. Richard Beeching in 1962, thousands of miles of uneconomic routes were retained—including some branch lines which British Railways wished to close but could not because they were unable to meet the condition then in force that adequate bus alternatives had to be provided. Yet because so many routes had no assured future—closure was always potentially imminent—improvements and even short-term working economies were shelved. In addition, capital was not available for schemes on many lines more likely to have a future. With few exceptions, it was impossible for railwaymen at district headquarters to obtain sanction to spend even small sums of capital on schemes which would have yielded valuable annual savings. Some lines which could have been brought near to paying their way ten years ago had thus become hopelessly uneconomic by 1962.

Much the same thing has happened with rural bus services. Many country routes have always run at a loss and have been ‘cross-subsidized’ by profitable town and inter-town business. But by 1952 it was clear that without Government help there could be no long-term security for services in more sparsely-populated regions. By 1955 warnings were being uttered by some Members of Parliament and others that unless subsidies were introduced many parts of Britain would be left without public passenger transport. Not until December 1958, however, was the Jack Committee appointed to report on the position. The Committee’s findings were published in July 1960, a delay in itself harassing to operators uncertain whether or not to prune services further, and two years later the Government had still not indicated any intentions.

Exchequer help, should it eventually arrive, may be too late to save many important services. Without help, the bus industry will be in far worse plight than had it known from the beginning that it would have to fend for itself, whatever the consequences to its customers. Obviously while Government aid has been a possibility, the public have been in a strong position to demand postponement of withdrawals. Unfortunately, the relatively small number of withdrawals in the four years following the Jack Committee’s appointment has sometimes been quoted as evidence that there is no financial problem, the commercially-minded urban world wrongly assuming that if buses remain on the road they must be profitable. Alas, I have spent long hours examining the balance sheets of small operators whose capital has steadily disappeared and who remain in business solely to avoid letting down the public while a shred of hope for better times persists. After years of indecision, it seems that anything more than token support for rural transport is unlikely.

Rightly or wrongly, intentionally or unintentionally, steps have been taken to keep an active and prosperous rural economy in Britain. Agriculture is directly subsidized, and also indirectly supported by the expensive agricultural advisory service and its ancillaries. Roads, power, water, education, postal and telephone services all cost more than country people are expected to pay for them.

The country dweller—farmer, farmworker, and retired townsman who wants to spend his last days in peaceful surroundings—benefits in three ways. Firstly, many charging systems are inevitably standardized: posting a letter costs 3d. anywhere, for example. Secondly, some organizations have thought it prudent to serve the countryside at less than cost even where this could be avoided: if they wished, the electricity boards could reduce the extent to which sparsely-populated areas are a drag on town consumers. And thirdly, many social and other services (including education, library and health) are made available to the countryman as a right. They are of course provided as cheaply as possible, but they are provided whatever the cost.

Why omit transport, thereby vitiating the value of some of those services? Three arguments are used in answer to this question.

1. It is popularly held that transport operators, like the Post Office, should be prepared to take the rough with the smooth, making sufficient profit on main routes to cover at least the essential rural ones. This opinion persists despite clear contradiction by those who have inquired into the matter—the Select Committee on Nationalized Industries,¹ for example. Today transport is among the most competitive of industries. If they raise charges on main routes, operators immediately lose business, either to other men who concentrate on profitable runs and incur no rural losses, or to the ubiquitous private car—including the hired car. Only if operators with rural liabilities were fully protected on their main routes—and today that is impossible— would the argument about ‘using the fat to fry the lean’ hold true. Of course there is still some fat: the territorial bus companies continue to support thousands of miles of unprofitable country routes out of urban and inter-urban takings, but this becomes steadily more difficult. Moreover, fat and lean territories are distributed indiscriminately.

¹ Report of the Select Committee on Nationalized Industries: British Railways (Stationery Office, 1960).

To be quite clear, this is essentially a matter of degree. The Post Office would be able to reduce telephone tariffs by connecting only subscribers likely to prove profitable, and no doubt the tariffs high enough to cover rural losses reduce the attraction of the service to town subscribers. But the telephone service is a monopoly. Again, electricity charges in towns reflect the high cost of serving rural areas, and this weakens electricity’s competition with other fuels in the town market. But the weakening is slight, and in no way endangers electricity’s position. When we come to transport, we find that fares high enough to cover losses on unremunerative services are driving away large slices of the most valuable traffic on profitable routes. The traveller from London to Plymouth goes by road because he does not wish to pay the main-line railway fare that includes a contribution to the upkeep of secondary lines.

2. It is said that public transport is fast becoming unnecessary in view of the increase in car ownership. This too is untrue. Certainly in some country areas one in three adults now owns a motor vehicle, and public services are less used. But a railway or bus route can still play a vital part in rural life even when only a small proportion of the population use it regularly, and even when receipts cover only a small part of costs. Conclusions drawn from the ratio of costs to receipts can be misleading when assessing the usefulness of a service. That some services affect the lives of far more people than actually use them is a point dealt with fully later in the book.

3. Those who oppose subsidies argue that although cuts in transport bring some inconvenience, this amounts to nothing serious. ‘It’s just the changing times. A few people are bound to suffer, but it isn’t as though there were any real hardship. We’d soon hear about that.’ The fact that a growing number of backbenchers from the West Country, the North of England and elsewhere have lost no opportunity to point out the dangers of the present position is overlooked, because the majority of M.P.s are convinced that were the crisis pressing they would hear much more from such organizations as the National Farmers’ Union and the county councils. Did the problem directly affect a large number of farmers and farmworkers, there is no doubt that action would have been taken long before this. But the effect is of course indirect and often not fully appreciated. Farmers report that their workers complain of nagging wives who find life ‘too quiet’, but the analysis goes no further. The vast majority of county councillors are motorists. Even meetings of Women’s Institutes attract a higher proportion of car owners and those living on the best transport routes than of other women. The very lack of mobility tends to prevent those who suffer from inadequate transport voicing their grievances. Including many young and old people, they are anyway not a naturally vocal part of the population.

It is true that taking the narrow view the amount of positive hardship does appear relatively small. Except in isolated cases, the residents of even remote areas obtain the necessaries of life, and the benefits of the Welfare State. Few families have to move because the chief wage earner is unable to reach work. There is nothing dramatic to justify shock headlines, but a great deal of inconvenience is endured quietly by an increasing number of people in many parts of the country. Sometimes this inconvenience is proving severe enough to become an underlying, perhaps only half-realized, source of restlessness in family life. It is this sapping of the contentment of our rural areas that is the real problem. Inevitably it is difficult to describe and does not interest the popular Press.

I have spoken of inconvenience, but where does inconvenience end and hardship begin? It is impossible to draw the boundary but clearly some of the deprivations which one generation have accepted are not going to be accepted by generations to come. To some extent the mere passage of time is turning inconvenient conditions into unbearable conditions. The luxuries of yesterday are the necessities of today. Already a much higher standard of transport is needed to preserve equanimity in more socially advanced parts of the country, such as South-East England, than in less developed areas, such as the central Devon plateauland and the upland country to the east of the Lake District. Having had better education, many daughters cannot face the lack of opportunities their mothers accepted. Indeed, in many cases the mothers, though not complaining for themselves, are determined that their daughters’ lot shall be different. ‘It’s all right for us, but it won’t do for the young ones,’ were words I frequently heard during interviewing.

The problem of rural transport does of course very largely concern girls and young women. Boys take jobs locally on farms, in forestry or in quarries, or perhaps drive lorries which they park at home at night; if they go to the towns to work, they buy motor vehicles at an early age. But on leaving school many girls are confronted with impossibly difficult journeys to and from the nearest town. Sometimes they board out, if only on alternate nights; in other cases whole families are moving specifically to give the daughters better chances of advanced education, employment and, of course, marriage.¹

As has already been said, if poor transport were preventing workers reaching the farmers, rapid action could be expected. But most agricultural workers have to take only a short walk or bicycle ride. They need little transport: television, pub and football pools satisfy most of their entertainment demands. It is very different for the wives, especially the younger ones. Inability to enjoy leisurely shopping, to meet friends, and to share even to a limited extent in urban amusements frequently leads to discontent. The result may be years of frustration and bickering in married life. Or the husband may be persuaded to save domestic happiness by moving to town. In this case he will probably be lost to agriculture (urban living demands urban wages and the theory that workers will travel back to the countryside daily does not work), but most farmers will be more inclined to blame the young woman’s unreason than even to think of the transport position.

True, some farmers see that times have changed, offer the use of their own car, arrange regular lifts, or encourage staff with young families to live in the village or on the bus route rather than in isolated cottages nearer their work. But this is exceptional. ‘I’ve lost my man because his wife wouldn’t bi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Tables
• Maps
• Introduction
• PART ONE
• PART TWO
• Index