Transport ministers who notably hindered or helped the railway industry

[GordonT]

Here is a list of former Transport Secretaries from the time of Margaret Thatcher:

Norman Fowler, David Howell, Tom King, Nicholas Ridley, John Moore, Paul Channon, Cecil Parkinson, Malcolm Rifkind, John MacGregor
Brian Mawhinney, Sir George Young, John Prescott, Stephen Byers, Alistair Darling, Douglas Alexander, Ruth Kelly, Geoff Hoon,
Lord (Andrew) Adonis, Philip Hammond, Justine Greening, Patrick McLoughlin, Chris Grayling and incumbent Grant Shapps.

Were any of them of much benefit or positively harmful to the rail industry?

 

[Gloster]

Personally, I think that the only one who did anything of any real benefit is Lord Adonis, although I am not sure if I can say why (possibly pulling railways in from the outer reaches of policy). For the rest it is a case of anything from ‘didn’t do much either way’ to ‘a right disaster’.

 

[py_megapixel]

Grayling's "close your eyes and point somewhere north" approach to cancelling infrastructure projects was certainly been extremely harmful.

 

[Djgr]

Well Adonis gave us the North West Electrification. McLoughlin got rid of the Pacers. Darling and Grayling cancelled stuff.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I suspect this thread will very much fit the category of worm cans! My initial reaction is that all of them were either poor or downright awful but actually reading the list it's clear that isn't really fair. It's rather sad that the current incumbent and his immediate predecessor both belong on the truly appalling list but perhaps the worst of all was Nicholas Ridley thanks to his Buses Deregulation Act. But it has to be said that the overall political atmosphere of this country means that Transport Secretaries will always face an uphill battle to achieve any worthwhile improvements. As such my recollection is that Fowler, Adonis and Hammond at least tried to properly understand the brief without blindly applying their respective party's dogma to everything they did.

 

[htafc]

Lord Adonis will be remembered positively, even though he was only in office for less than a year. Shapps has to be one of the worst.

But it has to be said that the overall political atmosphere of this country means that Transport Secretaries will always face an uphill battle to achieve any worthwhile improvements.

Correct.

 

[GordonT]

Some of them moved on from Transport before they had time to do much damage. McLoughlin acquitted himself fairly well when his Department decided (the first time) that WCML was to be removed from Virgin and awarded to First and Virgin successfully cried wolf with McLoughlin swiftly accepting that DfT had screwed up. The subsequent "anyone but Virgin" policy led to the eventual loss of the franchise in First's favour with the results which we can see today.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Fowler authorised (too many) Mk III sleeping cars; Ridley (unexpectedly) opposed rail privatisation; Channon (not Portillo) saved Settle & Carlisle; MacGregor initiated privatisation; Mawhinney carried it on (including hawking freight to Ed Burkhardt); Young completed it; Prescott rescued HS1; Byers folded Raitrack; Darling cancelled tram schemes (except Edinburgh his constituency), zero growth franchise for Northern and lots of trains 'carrying fresh air'; Adonis electrification and HS2 but black mark for IET; Hammond 'why can't road users have priority at level crossings in my constituency?'; McLoughlin Pacer replacement despite DfT opposition; Grayling say no more; Shapps Okehampton but badly mishandling strikes.

 

[Taunton]

Left field candidate:

Ernest Marples, early 1960s. because he appointed Beeching and told him to get things modernised all round. Aside from closing rural branch lines which had been carrying fresh air since the 1920s when buses and cars became practical, he got stuck into Inter-City, freightliners, welded rail, coal merry-go-round, Mark 2 stock, centralised signalling, AWS, the British Rail image, and other substantial modernising major tasks, and in particular persuaded the Treasury to fund all of these, after the waste of the 1950s Modernisation Plan, which had just bought an excessive range of mediocre or downright useless diesels on the existing infrastructure, and hacked Whitehall off with the waste.

Criticised for also owning a "roadbuilding" business, he did indeed get substantial amounts of the motorway network under way as well. His construction company was more into complex bridges and engineering structures, rather than open country motorways, which were the bulk of the mileage.

Marples also did five years, more than anyone else in the role, right through to when the government changed.

 

[Busaholic]

Left field candidate:

Ernest Marples, early 1960s. because he appointed Beeching and told him to get things modernised all round. Aside from closing rural branch lines which had been carrying fresh air since the 1920s when buses and cars became practical, he got stuck into Inter-City, freightliners, welded rail, coal merry-go-round, Mark 2 stock, centralised signalling, AWS, the British Rail image, and other substantial modernising major tasks, and in particular persuaded the Treasury to fund all of these, after the waste of the 1950s Modernisation Plan, which had just bought an excessive range of mediocre or downright useless diesels on the existing infrastructure, and hacked Whitehall off with the waste.

Criticised for also owning a "roadbuilding" business, he did indeed get substantial amounts of the motorway network under way as well. His construction company was more into complex bridges and engineering structures, rather than open country motorways, which were the bulk of the mileage.

Marples also did five years, more than anyone else in the role, right through to when the government changed.

And did a moonlight flit to Monaco to escape British justice.

 

[hexagon789]

Left field candidate:

Ernest Marples, early 1960s. because he appointed Beeching and told him to get things modernised all round. Aside from closing rural branch lines which had been carrying fresh air since the 1920s when buses and cars became practical, he got stuck into Inter-City, freightliners, welded rail, coal merry-go-round, Mark 2 stock, centralised signalling, AWS, the British Rail image, and other substantial modernising major tasks, and in particular persuaded the Treasury to fund all of these, after the waste of the 1950s Modernisation Plan, which had just bought an excessive range of mediocre or downright useless diesels on the existing infrastructure, and hacked Whitehall off with the waste.

Criticised for also owning a "roadbuilding" business, he did indeed get substantial amounts of the motorway network under way as well. His construction company was more into complex bridges and engineering structures, rather than open country motorways, which were the bulk of the mileage.

Marples also did five years, more than anyone else in the role, right through to when the government changed.

And all that while indulging in what Denning described to Macmillan as "champagne orgies with prostitutes", to say nothing of his fleeing to Monaco to escape potential prosecution for tax fraud. What one has to do to get anywhere as Minister for Transport...

 

[Dr Hoo]

And all that while indulging in what Denning described to Macmillan as "champagne orgies with prostitutes", to say nothing of his fleeing to Monaco to escape potential prosecution for tax fraud. What one has to do to get anywhere as Minister for Transport...

What has that got to do with whether Marples was ‘good or bad’ for the railway? Without diverting this thread into prurient muck raking, some of the other names were associated with infidelities too.

Macmillan was at least a former railway director who appreciated what the railways needed in 1959 when Marples was appointed.

 

[hexagon789]

What has that got to do with whether Marples was ‘good or bad’ for the railway? Without diverting this thread into prurient muck raking, some of the other names were associated with infidelities too.

Macmillan was at least a former railway director who appreciated what the railways needed in 1959 when Marples was appointed.

It came out as part of Denning's report into ministerial security in the wake of the Profumo Affair. I'm not saying it affected his abilities as SoS but it happened while he was in office, that's what I was saying.

 

[yorksrob]

Norman Fowler was actually quite good at seeing off proposals to close the railway in the 80's and letting it get on with it.

Patrick McGlouglin was a steady hand on the tiller. Removing him in place of his successor was one of Theresa May's poorest judgements.

 

[Taunton]

It came out as part of Denning's report into ministerial security in the wake of the Profumo Affair. I'm not saying it affected his abilities as SoS but it happened while he was in office, that's what I was saying.

We can't see what that has to do with the original, straightforward question.

 

[Gloster]

The various shenanigans that he got up to with ladies of the night are not really relevant, but those financial ones he also got up to could well be. Trying to avoid being forced to sell shares in a company that had a finger in the pie of road construction is not the behaviour of an upstanding Transport Minister.

 

[pdeaves]

Whether or not you think that any individual did well or not, I think it notable that few actually seemed interested in railways. Lord Adonis at least wanted to do the right thing and made an effort.

 

[Magdalia]

Marples also did five years, more than anyone else in the role, right through to when the government changed.

By modern standards, this was very unusual.

Criticised for also owning a "roadbuilding" business, he did indeed get substantial amounts of the motorway network under way as well. His construction company was more into complex bridges and engineering structures, rather than open country motorways, which were the bulk of the mileage.

Marples Ridgway was best known for the Chiswick and Hammersmith flyovers in West London.

Ernest Marples, early 1960s. because he appointed Beeching and told him to get things modernised all round. Aside from closing rural branch lines which had been carrying fresh air since the 1920s when buses and cars became practical, he got stuck into Inter-City, freightliners, welded rail, coal merry-go-round, Mark 2 stock, centralised signalling, AWS, the British Rail image, and other substantial modernising major tasks, and in particular persuaded the Treasury to fund all of these, after the waste of the 1950s Modernisation Plan, which had just bought an excessive range of mediocre or downright useless diesels on the existing infrastructure, and hacked Whitehall off with the waste.

In the 1962 Transport Act Marples abolished the British Transport Commission and set up the British Railways Board, an important step between pulling the plug on the Modernisation Plan and publication of The Reshaping of British Railways (the Beeching report). But, as you say, Whitehall was hacked off by the way the Modernisation Plan was being rolled out, and I think that much the same would have happened with a different Minister.

 

[Bevan Price]

I wonder how many problems can be ascribed to ministers, and how many to the civil service, including DfT, which has long had a reputation for being "pro-roads".

 

[joebassman]

By modern standards, this was very unusual.


Marples Ridgway was best known for the Chiswick and Hammersmith flyovers in West London.


In the 1962 Transport Act Marples abolished the British Transport Commission and set up the British Railways Board, an important step between pulling the plug on the Modernisation Plan and publication of The Reshaping of British Railways (the Beeching report). But, as you say, Whitehall was hacked off by the way the Modernisation Plan was being rolled out, and I think that much the same would have happened with a different Minister.

Would things have been a lot better if Beeching had been in charge for the Modernisation plan in 55?

 

[Rescars]

Would things have been a lot better if Beeching had been in charge for the Modernisation plan in 55?

Presumably there would not have been a Modernisation Plan in 1955 if the railways had not been nationalised in 1948. I wonder how things would have developed (or not) if the Big Four had continued. Difficult to see HM Treasury being warm to the notion of proper funding to restore wartime wear and tear.

The impact that any minister can have is bound to be affected by their likely period in office (typically measured in months), the urgent matters in their in-tray, their personal political aims and objectives and the pressures of satisfying the electorate in time for the next General Election. Contrast this with the expectations of rail users (aka voters, who want trains which go where they want to go, turn up when they want to go there, are reasonably priced, clean and run on time) and the lifespan of railway assets. Infrastructure lasts a long time (it's called permanent way for a reason - another thread the forum has been commenting on the current condition of 19th century bridges). An item of rolling stock may typically last 40 years - that's at least 8 General Elections away (and goodness knows how many ministers).

 

[Taunton]

Presumably there would not have been a Modernisation Plan in 1955 if the railways had not been nationalised in 1948. I wonder how things would have developed (or not) if the Big Four had continued. Difficult to see HM Treasury being warm to the notion of proper funding to restore wartime wear and tear.

The impact that any minister can have is bound to be affected by their likely period in office (typically measured in months), the urgent matters in their in-tray, their personal political aims and objectives and the pressures of satisfying the electorate in time for the next General Election. Contrast this with the expectations of rail users (aka voters, who want trains which go where they want to go, turn up when they want to go there, are reasonably priced, clean and run on time) and the lifespan of railway assets. Infrastructure lasts a long time (it's called permanent way for a reason - another thread the forum has been commenting on the current condition of 19th century bridges). An item of rolling stock may typically last 40 years - that's at least 8 General Elections away (and goodness knows how many ministers).

It's an interesting thought that, much as the 1948 nationalisation was driven by political desires of the postwar government, it was whooped along by civil servants (both Transport and Treasury) for whom it got them out of the enormous payments due to the railway for both wartime damage the government was responsible for paying, and also the great outstanding debt for wartime travel on the government account, which had still not been repaid at nationalisation.

 

[Cowley]

We had a similar thread to this a good few years ago that might be worth a look through:

Best and Worst Ministers/SoS of Transport for the Railways

The future of the railways has always been ultimately in the hands of the numerous Ministers of transport / Secretaries of state. So who do you think have been the best and worst Ministers looking after the railways and why? Worst - Barbara Castle, closed 2437 route miles in nearly 3...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[John Luxton]

John Prescott certainly worked wonders for the Welsh Highland Railway in 1999.

Despite being on the opposite side of the political tracks to me I will gratefully acknowledge his positive role in over ruling the recommendation that the railway should not be rebuilt, I am sure many others do too.

As the FWHR already has two "political" locomotives PALMERSTON and DAVID LLOYD GEORGE I have often thought it would be a nice touch if one of Garratts gained the name LORD PRESCOTT in recognition.

 

[TheBigD]

I'd say that Paul Channon was the unluckiest having the Clapham crash, Kings Cross fire, Lockerbie bombing, and the Kegworth plane crash during his tenure.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nicholas Ridley (1983-86) doesn't get much praise in this thread but he authorised the ECML electrification in 1984.

Cecil Parkinson (1989-90) approved very large spend on the Channel Tunnel routes and their trains and facilities before the momentum moved to building HS1.
It was something like £2 billion at the time, and was a very big commitment by a government which refused to fund the channel tunnel itself.
It paid for Waterloo International/Battersea Flyover/North Pole depot, and electrification of the WLL and Redhill-Tonbridge.
It also funded massive resignalling in Kent and construction of (the UK share of) class 373 trains and class 92 locos.
He is also credited with initiating the original Crossrail scheme, in terms of detailed route planning.

His successor Malcolm Rifkind (1990-92) was rail-friendly, being a weekly Caley Sleeper customer from Edinburgh.
Douglas Alexander (2006-07), Ruth Kelly (2007-08) and Geoff Hoon (2008-09) presided over Rodd Eddington's largely anti-rail strategic proposals.

Another curiosity was Richard Marsh (1968-9, following Barbara Castle).
He became chairman of the BRB 1971-76, but is not well remembered in either role.

 

[John Luxton]

Another curiosity was Richard Marsh (1968-9, following Barbara Castle).
He became chairman of the BRB 1971-76, but is not well remembered in either role.

Between the two of these they saw off the Southern mainline from Plymouth to Exeter despite the strategic diversionary importance of the route.

Castle closed Bere Alston to Okehampton and Marsh Okehampton to Exeter.

However wasn't it Marsh who as recently appointed chairman of BRB rescind the mainline steam ban?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

However wasn't it Marsh who as recently appointed chairman of BRB rescind the mainline steam ban?

Yes, that was him.

However, Marsh was also responsible for forcing through the closure of the Waverley line, wasn't he?

Also quoted in his own 1978 autobiography as "I could not see the slightest reason why I should be shifted into a ministry about which I knew nothing and cared less"
this following his 1968 appointment as Minister for Transport, which kind of says a lot. Slightly surprising that he later became chairman of British Rail.

 

[WAO]

Perversely, I would suggest Lord Adonis as the worst, after Barbara Castle.

After 12 years of his Party running down Network Rail with no new electrification, he announced about six schemes just before his Party lost power, for an industry both public and private that had been stripped of its technical capability. Give a starving man a seven course meal....

That was the cause of the GWEP disaster and our troubles for several decades.

Ridley and Tom King were the best, pushing through many wirings under Thatcher's nose.

WAO

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Perversely, I would suggest Lord Adonis as the worst, after Barbara Castle.
After 12 years of his Party running down Network Rail with no new electrification, he announced about six schemes just before his Party lost power, for an industry both public and private that had been stripped of its technical capability. Give a starving man a seven course meal....
That was the cause of the GWEP disaster and our troubles for several decades.
Ridley and Tom King were the best, pushing through many wirings under Thatcher's nose.

I don't think you can blame Adonis/Darling/Brown for authorising GW and NW electrification in 2009.
It was his Coalition successors who re-authorised these undeliverable projects (and Crossrail), aided by NR's over-optimistic electrification RUS costings.
For CP5 the Coalition then piled on TRU/MML/Electric Spine (inc 3rd rail conversion), plus Thames Valley and northern branches, with no NR delivery plan.

Adonis also kept up the momentum for HS2 which became a cross-party scheme.

Subsequently he seems to have fallen out with all his colleagues and developed a very narrow mindset.
So I'm not sure another 5 years of Adonis would have worked for the railway, despite his undoubted industry knowledge and management skills.
Network Rail and the TOCs were also against electrification until Coucher and Shooter combined to lobby for it.