SUPERSESSION OF THE STEAM LOCOMOTIVE

HL Deb 24 February 1959 vol 214 cc451-73

3.13 p.m.

LORD MONKSWELL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how far they have progressed on the supersession of the steam locomotive on British Railways, and whether they are satisfied with the results so far achieved; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, feel I have to say a word as to why I have ventured to bring forward this Motion. It is first and foremost a matter of money. I am horrified at the lightheartedness with which Parliament plans to authorise the spending of £1,500 million: it fills me with dismay. In the working of a railway there are three dominant questions: traction, permanent way and safety appliances. Some years ago I ventured to draw your Lordships' attention to what I believed was the wrong policy of the British Transport Commission in dealing with railway traction. We then had a debate in which, I think I may fairly say, Her Majesty's Government failed entirely to give any convincing reason for the abolition of the steam locomotive, and for allowing the British Transport Commission to spend vast sums of public money in replacing the steam locomotive with some rather indeterminate system or systems.

In the interval, search for the new system does not seem to have got on very well. On April 9 last there appeared in The Times an article entitled "New Motive Power, the Key to Rail Efficiency"—a title that begged the question completely. The most important part of the article which, surprisingly, seems to have attracted little attention, was a passage which ran as follows: So far, however, the changes are marginal; the railways are not visibly being transformed in a revolutionary manner, and the much talked of changes in commercial policy and methods of fixing charges seem to hang fire. That article can hardly have been published without the consent of the Ministry of Transport. The noble Lord who replies for the Government will no doubt tell us all about it.

What this seems really to have meant was that the Transport Commission, having no real plans and not knowing where to turn, thought they might gain time by building a number of diesel engines and going on with a much modified and reduced plan of electrification; and in this way avoid what they clearly ought to have done—namely, revert to the steam locomotive, which was there already for them, at a comparatively negligible cost. The one thing they appeared to want was to abolish the steam locomotive and thus pave the way for the huge expenditure that supersession of the steam locomotive must involve. Meanwhile, the Treasury seem to have woken up to the fact that the country cannot afford the huge expense of the system of electrification which had been proposed and that there is serious danger of a muddle of colossal dimensions.

At this point I may perhaps be allowed to comment on the situation as it exists in regard to surface lines. For underground lines which include stations some form of electrification is practically unavoidable, in order not to pollute the atmosphere. As for the surface lines in this island, the only considerable area which is not worked by steam locomotives is the South East corner. Whether this area is more profitable than might be expected if it were worked by steam is a dead secret which wild horses could not drag from the managers. This information has often been asked for, and as often refused. For some reason which has never been disclosed, the Transport Commission were persuaded to plan to abolish the steam locomotive and replace it by some other system which has never even properly been thought out, the excuse being that a large number of foreign railways have abandoned the steam locomotive. I am not aware that any of these railways has secured any profit from so doing.

What really started the move for the abolition of the steam locomotive seems to have been that the United States oil companies, being very anxious to sell more oil, got their enormously powerful organisation to work, and succeeded in persuading most of the American railways, and a number of others, to adopt the diesel. They have omitted, however, to give any figures in support of the favourable result which the diesel engine might have been expected to have on the railways themselves, and have ignored the difficulties that the diesel engine itself presents. There is, first of all, this great complication: that, whereas the steam locomotive has at the outset 4 cylinders, the diesel usually has 12 to 16; and diesel engines are far more complicated and require more skilled maintenance than the steam locomotive. They also require much earlier replacement. The steam locomotive is entirely springborne. The diesels, as so far tried on the railways of this country, are reported to run so roughly that they are knocking the permanent ways to pieces.

Finally, there is the fuel question: is it not better, from a national point of view, to drive our trains with a fuel which we have much more of than we can use, rather than with imported oil which may be cut off at any moment? When the electrical industries and others saw how much money the oil companies were making they did not hesitate to press their own claims, and the crowds of applicants for introducing some or any new system became unmanageable. There are gas turbines, several different kinds of electrification and diesel traction and atomic energy. The only thing on which there was agreement was that the steam locomotive should be abolished. The French and the Americans are the principal people who have made changes. The conditions in their countries vary to some extent from those here. There is plenty of water power in France, and plenty of oil in America. I am not favourably impressed by either of these systems, because there is a complete absence of facts or figures to show that they are cheaper or more efficient than the steam locomotive. But the French and the Americans must spend their own money as they like, and it is no business of ours.

The Government have been deplorably slack in accepting, as a reason for abolishing the steam locomotive, the argument that it is outmoded, or some such phrase begging the question. What about the experts who recommended this course? Were they supermen who were immune from the temptations that beset humanity and who could be trusted to give their decisions strictly in the interests of the country at large? Was none of them concerned with the manufacture or supply of objects or undertakings that the spending of vast sums of money must involve? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.30 p.m.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, I am reluctant to differ from the noble Lord who has just spoken in defence of the steam locomotive, especially since I yield to no one in my affection for those busy, majestic machines such as the one which drew me over Beattock and Shap last night while I slept. I might add that my children regard me as "a little soft on top" (I think that is their description) as regards railways and steam engines. I feel, however, with sentimental regret, that there is no alternative but to face the fact that, in the world in which we live, the steam locomotive's days are numbered.

I have some experience of the use of diesel-electric traction, for, curiously enough, a railway system with which I had something to do in India installed a diesel-electric railcar as long ago as in 1934. This was a British machine, operated on a narrow-gauge "feeder" line in the Central Provinces which stretched for many miles across the plain; and it was installed in order to meet competition from bus traffic on a parallel road system. That was competition with a capital "C", because, if I may weary your Lordships with an anecdote, in the early days, before that road was tarmacked, it was the practice for bus operators to tow a bundle of branches behind their machines and to drive them alongside the railway in such a way that the consequent clouds of dust impaired the train driver's vision and covered the passengers in the railway cars with dust. But those days are long since over. I heard from India only the other day that that machine was still operating satisfactorily and was still making a profit, in the face of acute competition from a parallel system on tarmac roads.

I mention that matter, as an anecdote, because I feel that electric traction has come to stay—certainly as far ahead as we can reasonably see. I feel that the diesel-electric locomotive, unsatisfactory as it may be in many technical respects—though, of course, it is more efficient, in terms of thermal efficiency, than the steam engine—is, in a manner of speaking, only a stepping-stone to universal, or almost universal, electrification of main lines. When people talk of the difficulties inherent in electrification (if I may again cast my mind back to India) it is not always remembered that there exist the fantastic broad-gauge, double-track systems on the Ghat section of the G.I.P. Railway, which illustrate the great developments of railway traction. In my day this system was operated by multiple-headed steam trains which were first coal-fired but, soon after became oil-fired, and later, in the 'thirties, were converted to complete electrification with regenerative braking. I think it would be virtually impossible to convince the careful thinker that such a step was not progress, and progress all the time.

If diesel-electric traction is indeed an intermediate step, I feel that we can put up with some inefficiencies. But one has to remember that, in transferring a system from steam traction to electrification, a complex and mountainous series of problems arise—problems ranging not only from the design of traction equipment to rolling stock, but to the whole question of track layout, track reconstruction, signal engineering and design—and, of course, the massive electricity distribution system which must run side by side with electrification. In addition—and perhaps more important—operating staff must be trained; and to that end, again, a diesel-electric locomotive offers an intermediate step. May I at this moment make a plea that, so far as train crews are concerned, the authorities, in picking their men for training, do not overlook the existing steam engine crews, and especially the younger men among them. I am certain they have this point in their minds, but it seemed to me to be a matter worth mentioning.

Talking of crews, when one compares photographs of the steam locomotive of a hundred years—or even fifty years—ago with those of the steam locomotive of to-day, the difference in conditions between those of engine crews a hundred years ago and those of the engine crew to-day is very marked. But not so marked, my Lords, as the difference in working conditions between those of the engine crew to-day in a steam locomotive and the tie-wearing, shirt-sleeved, shiny cap-wearing, driver that I saw at the controls of the Trans-European Express in Brussels only a few months ago. Working conditions in a diesel locomotive are, of course, more in keeping with what we to-day regard as proper conditions for men to work.

My view, then, is that this progress is inevitable, and that the ultimate goal is overall electrification. For one thing, such a goal would be a step towards tackling the problem of congestion, of which those of us who travel to the termini, particularly in the north of London, are so fully aware. When a steam train goes late (as they so often do, particularly in conditions of weather such as we have had recently) the resultant congestion is greatly accentuated by the lack of flexibility in steam traction on gradients, in tunnels, and the like. Again talking from experience, we have occasionally, of course, diesel-headed trains running on the night services from Scotland; and, speaking from the ordinary traveller's experience, there is no question that they are better able than steam-drawn trains to make up time and to fit into schedules in adverse weather conditions. To revert to the question of labour conditions, and the working conditions of the engine crews, I would say that the labour required to-day from a fireman would be regarded in many industries as sheer nonsense in a mechanical age like this.

My Lords, diesel-electric locomotion is—or will be—a link, for I feel that we must look ahead to universal electrificaton. To that end I wonder if I might ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether the engine designers have been able to develop a diesel-electric locomotive which can switch to overhead supply by pantograph in the course of its run. It seems to me that, if we are to look forward to overall electrification, the day will soon come when long-distance trains will have to pass from electrified to non-electrified sections, and a locomotive of that design might again extend this link which I take the view the diesel-electric locomotive creates.

The supersession of the steam locomotive should not be taken to mean the elimination of the use of coal. Surely, as the Minister of Power said in this Chamber only the other day, it will be many years before the generation of electricity can be visualised without a compensating consumption of coal. Of course it is within the bounds of possibility that electricity may be produced direct from nuclear fission, but that would be another matter. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, in a speech made during a recent debate on coal, suggested that the time would not be far off when our scientists would be able to produce oil fuel from coal, thereby using our existing fuel resources in the modern medium of the internal combustion engine. Coal must be our main source of fuel for many a year to come, but I feel that, in a competitive world, we cannot survive as a nation unless we use our resources of fuel with proper thrift. Incidentally, in terms of fuel, we may note the contribution which hundreds of steam locomotives make to the smog problem, despite the best efforts of shed and engine crews. That in itself is a costly charge to the economy of the country.

My last point is perhaps my most important. It is that I feel that a massive programme of railway electrification would be one of the greatest contributions which we could make to promoting employment and to stepping up the use of steel at a time when we are aware of the short-fall in the off take of the products of our steel plants. When we come to think it out, the employment created would be of a fantastically varied range. It would mean work and work, and more work, not only within the plants of the railways themselves but also in the electrical engineering manufacturers' plants, in the metal-producing industries, apart from steel—I refer to aluminium and the like, many thousands of tons of which will be necessary to help with the transmission and distribution of electricity—steel fabrication, and porcelain for insulation. The range is fantastic. I believe that on these grounds alone, this possibility of injecting into our economy a kick, as it were, of potential consumption is as good a reason as any other for electrification. I feel that work of this nature would all be work contributing to progress.

3.43 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF AILSA

My Lords, I am one of those maybe misguided or unfortunate persons born with an itch to be an engine driver. I have had the privilege, not of fully satisfying that desire, but of working in the motor fire department of the British Railways and graduating as a special fireman, earning my keep by the sweat of my brow, heaving coal into the furnace in endeavouring to keep the train going. It is from my experiences in the British Railways motor fire department that I wish to speak to-day.

The first aspect I should like to touch upon is that of safety. I do so because in recent months there have been a number of accidents in which this question of the training in safety precautions of train crews and those responsible has arisen. I should like to say at once that, so far as British Railways are concerned, safety is first with them. I joined the railway service at 8 o'clock one morning, and at half past eight I was presented with a rule book, plus a sheet of paper, pointing out to me the rules that were relevant for me to know. Before I had been in that shed for a fortnight I was examined by an inspector to see whether I had read these rules. I was not expected to know them word-perfect, but I was expected to know what they said and to understand their purport. That purport was safety.

Before I was allowed to go on to a footplate to carry out what may be termed responsible work I had to pass an examination to ensure that I knew what I was doing on the footplate, and that I knew the various safety precautions I had to carry out not only to protect myself but to protect others. As well as the rule book, at every station and shed there is a set of standing orders covering incidents which are not covered within the rule book. Every man in the shed—driver, fireman and cleaner—is required to read those standing orders and to sign a book stating that he has done so.

Another safety precaution is that every week drivers are issued with booklets which set out the repair work—track repair, station repair or bridge repair work—that is being carried out within their areas and gives the speed limitations. One weakness I should like to mention is that this booklet is available only to drivers. The driver is supposed to show it to his fireman. If you have a regular driver, that is fair enough; he will nearly always show it to you. But if you are a special fireman, as I was, who rarely gets the same driver two weeks running, it is often a different matter. Your Lordships know that people differ. I found that one driver would show me the book, while another would have taken umbrage if I had asked for it, although the rule of the railways was that he had to show it to me.

I would give your Lordships an instance concerning this booklet and the incidence of its issue. The booklet is available from ten o'clock onwards on Sunday night when a driver books on for the beginning of his week he is given a copy. One Sunday my driver and I booked on and the driver was given his work book. We had to take a train out straight away and the time allowance was ten minutes for booking in, gathering our gear together and walking over and getting on the train. It was a fast goods train running in front of the Midnight Scot. There was half an hour's allowance in front, and to keep ourselves from delaying the express train we had to keep moving. When we arrived at Crewe we had not delayed the Midnight Scot. We booked off and went to the canteen to have a cup of tea, and the guard who had been with us said to my driver, "Did you see that permanent way restriction of fifteen miles an hour?" The driver said, "No, I did not; I did not even know it was there." We had gone over this part of the permanent way which was restricted to fifteen miles an hour at between fifty and sixty miles an hour. If anything had happened the driver would have been at fault because he had not read his booklet. But he had hardly had time to do so. He had no time before joining the train and, as noble Lords who have been on a footplate will know, there is not much light to read by there.

The other example of where flaws can occur in the safety regulations is in the standing orders. There is one standing order known as Regulation 5. That is used if you come to a signal and it is at stop. You should then get down, telephone the signal box and tell them that you are there, and the signalman will say to you: "Regulation 5". What it means is that the section is clear but the station is blocked, and you should enter into the section carefully until you come up behind the train that is already in. One worked away at this for a long time and discovered that a lot of firemen had no idea what Regulation 5 meant. They were getting down, ringing up the signal box and saying, "We are here"; they were getting the answer "Regulation 5" and telling the driver, "Oh, Regulation 5", but they had no idea what it meant. Fortunately, no instance occurred where they had to apply their common sense. It is a point which shows that, with all the care in the world, things can go astray.

The next matter, still on safety, is the vital one of reporting signals, and I mention this in view of some of the recent accidents where misreading of signals has taken place. It is the driver's duty to observe all signals, and, as the rule book puts it, he has to endeavour to have his fireman unemployed at all busy junctions to assist him in the reading of signals. In most cases this is done, although sometimes the fireman has to be employed on his task of shovelling in coal. However, as a fireman, you learn from experience where you are needed to observe signals and where you are not. I know of one case where one always has to assist, and that is going into Birmingham, New Street. There the signals are on the right hand side of the train and it is impossible for the driver to tell how far up the platform he stops unless the fireman is alert and watching for the signal. There are other signals where it is the fireman and not the driver, who sees the signals first; and the two men have to work together.

Similarly in fog they have to work in close harmony and it is possible for one to see the signal and the other not to. I had an instance of that one foggy morning. We were going up between Rugby and Crewe and we knew the signal we had to find. We were looking out for it, and I saw it come out in our favour. It never struck me that my driver had not seen it until he said: "Have we passed that signal?" I said: "Yes, and it was all right." To me it stood out absolutely clearly, but my driver could not see it. Of course, had it been against us I would have told him if I thought that he was not stopping.

There is a question that I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to answer, and that is on the use of detonators in fog. I should like to know whether they are still used, even though the colour light signal is in use. The old semaphore detonators were always used and were most helpful. You came to a signal, and not only did you have a detonator, which gave you the fright of your life, but there would be someone on the ground who would shout out to you any information such as that there was a train ahead of you, so that you went into the section knowing that there was something there already; whereas colour lights are not always so easily seen as people make out.

Still on the subject of safety is the question of eyesight. There is, I think, a slight weakness here. When you join British railways your eyesight is tested. When you graduate from being a fireman to a fast fireman, your eyesight is again tested. Then you graduate from a fast fireman to a driver, and your eyesight is tested once more. But there may be a period of ten years between the two. However, the worst thing, in my opinon, is that when you are a driver, having graduated from fast fireman, you go without a test until the age of sixty. After that I think it is an annual event. But I have known of two or three occasions where at sixty it was discovered that a driver's eyesight was faulty, and it was not known how many years before that it had been faulty. I suggest regular five-year intervals of sight testing, so that a weakness in this respect is not found out much too late.

The next point I want to mention is what are called service conditions. One of the things that interested me about British Railways was that when you joined you felt that you had joined a service in which you got a fair part, no matter how low your job was. You might have been given a dirty job to do, but somebody explained to you that it was worth while and made you feel that you were wanted. Also, I was working away from home and had to live in British Railways' hostels, and the care taken of the staff was highly commendable. But conditions fell down in the actual working. Your hours were chronic; you went on at any time of the day or night required, and it frequently happened that you could not even make a "date" with anybody because you never knew what time you would be working. Then you often went to work and there was no job to do, and you had to sit your time out in the sheds, twiddling your thumbs and feeling that you could be doing something much more useful.

The other aspect was the change in status, and this applied especially to drivers. Prior to the war the driver was the king of his trade and sometimes called the aristocracy of the working class. He was highly paid, and looked up to. But when I was with British Railways we had drivers who had reached the top of their profession and, having reached the retiring age of sixty-five, were getting £6 18s. per week, the top rate at that time. When they left they received a pension of 10s. a week from British Railways, and they went across the road to a factory and were given £6 8s. a week for sweeping the floor. It did not make drivers feel that they had a job which commanded respect in the country. Your Lordships will realise that the responsibility carried by these men is tremendous. They have to know exactly where they are going, and it takes only one mistake not only to put them out of a job but to take away many people's lives. When one considers the amount of traffic moved daily, one realises how very few mistakes are made, although a great deal of fuss is made when they are.

I come now to the question of steam versus other methods, either diesel-electric or electric. It is thought by many that if the railways transfer from steam to one of these other methods, that is the answer. I agree that it goes a long way and that many benefits are to be derived from operating diesel-electric or electric services. But many of the drawbacks to British Railways' operations will be there still, because those drawbacks do not all lie within the power of the Government to alter. I would mention various things that cause trains to be late and give the people so much anguish. A train may be running on time but finds a signal against it. Why? Some other train, a freight train or even a local feeder train, has been held up, maybe for a good reason. Perhaps seeing a customer who has not reached the station on time the guard has waited a minute or two to allow him to get on. The effect it has on the main line is to delay the express. That is one of the reasons for signals. There are many others. Odd things happen which nobody knows about.

With regard to permanent way repairs, as we know, it is a national pastime to dig up our roads, especially during the summer, but equally it is a national pastime to dig up the railways. They do that at any time of the year, and maybe for good reasons; nevertheless, it does slow down the operation. If you have to slow down to fifteen miles per hour, it takes a long time to get back to sixty or seventy miles per hour. Whether you have steam, diesel-electric or electric engines the difficulty will still be there. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said that he felt that diesel trains were better in adverse weather conditions. I do not know whether they are. Snow and ice have their effect—the points freeze up. It does not make much difference when you have a fog; it is still difficult to see through it. Finally there is the failure of the engine, or some mechanical defect. In this case it usually meant that a person in the position I held was not up to the mark and was not able to give the driver sufficient steam. Not long ago I read of an interesting instance of how, on December 30, 1958, a diesel Deltic type locomotive slowed down outside Bletchley for a permanent way repair. The brakes went on and they could not get them off again, so they had to take the engine off and put on a steam engine. I am not saying that to praise steam above other methods, but to point out that the things that happen to steam can happen to the other methods as well. They are there all the time.

We have in this country a good system, but the density is tremendous. Every train leaving Euston for the North—Rugby, Birmingham, Manchester, Crewe and northwards—has to use the same lines. I know there is a diversion around Northampton which adds a little to the time, but there is just one long queue of trains to the various parts of the country. Should any one of them suffer from any of the defects I have mentioned, the whole are affected. I used as illustration the Midland Region, the Euston-Carlisle line. The same thing happens on the West of England line. Each line is just a channel, and there is a queue of trains one behind the other. If everything goes all right it is perfect, but it needs only one thing to go wrong to upset the applecart.

I am afraid I have taken far too long, but I should like to add one more point. We hear comments that the railways are not so good now as they were in the past. I was reading the other day of some comparisons of the times. The Euston-Rugby route, a distance of eighty-two miles, in 1933 was timed at 92 minutes, in 1939 at 86 minutes (and these times were maintained) and in 1959—the same distance—at 80 minutes. So we are improving gradually. I wish British Railways every success in their endeavour, with either diesel or diesel-electric motive power, bearing in mind that they have been set a tremendous standard by those who have worked with steam.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, on a point of explanation, may I say that my reference to weather conditions, so far as I can recall, was certainly intended to refer to crews: that the difference between the conditions of the diesel crew and those of the steam crew in bad weather is marked.

4.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for having given us an idea of what his arguments were going to be to-day. I fully sympathise with much that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, must be feeling. I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and, obviously, the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, am a railway enthusiast. I must say that I am sorry to see these magnificent beasts disappear gradually from the railways, but we cannot stop the march of progress. However, I will come to that aspect later.

I think I should remind your Lordships of the wording of the Motion which is: To ask Her Majesty's Government how Ear they have progressed in the supersession of the steam locomotive on British Railways, and whether they are satisfied with the results so far achieved. I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that there is no question of Her Majesty's Government suppressing steam locomotives. The Commission are completely free, as part of their management functions, to select the sort of equipment they want for their services, and any decision to supersede Steam by oil is taken by them in the light of the best advice and information available at the time. I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing lighthearted in their decision. The results of the introduction of diesel services will show that this decision was not an error; and that matter also I wild come to later.

The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, also said in this connection something to the effect that it was the Treasury who had said that this modernisation must take place, and that electric tracition should supersede steam. Again I can assure the noble Lord that that is not so, and that the Transport Commission, who are now carrying out their own reappraisal of their modernisation plan, have taken their own decisions in this: it is not a question of any dictation by the Treasury. The noble Lord quoted an article from The Times. He said that this could hardly be published without the consent of the Ministry of Transport. Surely the noble Lord knows, as I am sure all your Lord ships do, that newspapers are entirely free to print and publish comment and criticism of anything they like, including a modernisation plan, and the Ministry's consent for this is not in any way required. As for the article itself, I do not think that the estimate is any way correct now. The modernisation plan is in tap gear; locomotives are coming forward at a good pace, and in some cases will be introduced faster or in greater numbers than was thought possible in 1956, or even in 1958, when the article was written. All the regions are decentralising their traffic organisation, and where it has become fully established the results are encouraging. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this article was not, in the light of events, strictly accurate.

The great operating advantages of electric and diesel traction over steam lie in acceleration and greater availability. Better acceleration gives higher average speed, which in turn gives a more economical use of track capacity. Greater availability means that fewer locomotives are needed to operate services, and the Commission accordingly save interest, depreciation and maintenance costs. Examples of some of the Commission's future plans show this very well. Deltic locomotives, the largest and most powerful type of main-line diesel locomotive yet used in this country, will be introduced in 1960 and 1961 to work the express passenger services between King's Cross, Newcastle and Edinburgh. Twenty-two of these engines will replace 55 steam locomotives. On main-line workings to and from the West of England 129 diesel hydraulic locomotives which are expected in service by 1961 will replace over 200 steam locomotives. Furthermore, the Commission's scheme to substitute diesel for steam in the Bristol area will require 157 main-line diesel locomotives, instead of, as at present, 300 steam locomotives. Two further schemes planned for East Anglia and the Great North of Scotland and Highland lines involve replacement of 820 steam locomotives by 325 diesels.

I think your Lordships would agree that from those examples it can be seen generally that one main-line diesel will do the work of at least two steam locomotives; and broadly the same is true of electric locomotion.

LORD MONKSWELL

Has that ever been proved?

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

I will come to that later, by giving figures of experience to date. This reduction in the number of traction units not only gives the Commission substantial savings in running and maintenance costs, but also helps to off-set the high first cost of the diesel locomotive compared with its steam counterpart. This is particularly true of the electric locomotive because of the much lighter weight of its power unit for a given horsepower. Moreover, electrification, because of the acceleration and density of service it permits, enables heavy traffic to be shifted more readily and cheaply than under any other system of traction.

The Commission's modernisation plan introduced in December, 1954, was based on the premise that its main components should be capable of being started within the next five years and completed within fifteen; that is, by 1970. It may be argued that by modernising on two fronts the Commission are dissipating their resources. A development of this argument is that it is equally wrong to have two main systems of electrification. The answer to the first criticism is that the present advance along both fronts is necessary. I think I might say this—for although nobody has argued this way to-day, I do not think my argument would be complete unless I did so: electrification is a long-term form of investment, and the Commission cannot afford to wait on all their present schemes coming to fruition before entirely discarding steam traction. Diesels are a very necessary interim measure. Furthermore, many lines are not suitable for electrification, which requires a certain minimum density of traffic to make it an economic proposition, and the Commission have never intended in their plan that all the lines in the country will be electrified. Diesels are accordingly necessary for many services and will continue to be so. One further point is that the present arrangements are flexible. Diesels can, if necessary, be used on a line until it is electrified and can then be transferred to other duties.

At present the Commission's resources are at full stretch in implementing most of the electrification schemes outlined in the White Paper, Proposals for the Railways. My noble friend Lord Ailsa mentioned digging up the railways in the same context as digging up the roads, but we cannot have modernisation without a certain amount of digging up. That is something which I mentioned the other day, in the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Transport (Borrowing Powers) Bill: that we shall have to put up with works on the lines until modernisation is complete. Work is proceeding on the North Kent coast scheme, and stage 1 of this should be complete by the middle of this year. The Fenchurch Street—Southend scheme is going according to plan, and is expected to be completed in 1961. Stage 1 of the Glasgow suburban scheme (due to be completed in mid-1960) and the Hertford East— Bishop's Stortford schemes are both well under way. The Colchester—Chelmsford scheme is due to be completed in September, 1961. On main-line electrification, your Lordships will know, as I indicated in the debate that I have already mentioned, that the Commission are at present concentrating all their available resources on the London Midland route from Manchester and Liverpool to Euston, and hope to accelerate its completion.

That list, my Lords, takes no account of the schemes which the Commission have already completed. Some of these, admittedly, were not included in the modernisation plan, but to ignore them would distort the picture of the very real progress that the Commission have made in this field. The Liverpool Street—Shenfield scheme was officially opened in September, 1949, and the Manchester—Sheffield Wath line in September, 1954; and the extensions of the Liverpool Street—Shenfield scheme to Chelmsford and Southend came into use in June and December respectively in 1956.

I will come to diesels. Between January, 1955, and the end of last year the Commission had brought into service 103 main-line diesel locomotives, 787 diesel shunting locomotives and 2,000-odd diesel multiple-unit vehicles. This, I think your Lordships will agree, represents a very formidable achievement, and some indication of the pace of the programme is shown by the fact that in December last year and in January this year multiple-diesel units were becoming available at the rate of 70 per month.

The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier asked me whether it was technically possible that diesel-electric engines could be dualised, so to speak, so that when they arrived at the electrified section they could put up their pantograph and carry on using the electric current in place of their diesel engines. I understand that this is technically possible, and it is very much in mind; but there are, in fact, no such locomotives at present either in service or under manufacture. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, also asked whether present steam train crews could and would be trained for transfer to diesel engine and electric engine. I understand that not only is this in the mind of the Commission but several crews have already been so trained, and they will be given priority.

I will come back to the diesel traction and continue the argument that they are in many ways much more attractive than steam. It is, for example, considerably cleaner. Although the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, did not mention this point to-day, he has argued in the past that the diesels emit obnoxious fumes which are fouler than locomotive smoke. I understand that if a diesel locomotive is well maintained—and it is the Commission's intention that they should be—there is no reason why fumes should cause any discomfort at all to passengers on the train, and certainly there is no comparison between that and what sometimes comes through the window of the steam-driven train.

The results of diesel services speak for themselves. Your Lordships will no doubt remember what I said on the Second Reading of the Transport (Borrowing Powers) Bill, but perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I mention again, for the information of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who I do not think was present, some of the results to date. The Scottish Region inter-city diesel service between Edinburgh and Glasgow, introduced in 1957, carried 700,000 extra passengers in its first yew of operation.

LORD MONKSWELL

With how many more trains?

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

That I will lot the noble Lord know. I regret to say that I have not that information with me.

LORD MONKSWELL

That is essential; it is vital.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

I will let the noble Lord know. Anyway, the Scottish Region introduced this service, which carried 700,000 extra passengers in its first year of operation, and there has been a still further increase in the second year. In Hampshire, where the Southern Region introduced local diesel services in 1957, there was a 20 per cent. increase in the number of passengers carried during the first six months of operation and a reduction in the staff required to work the services. In fact it became necessary to order extra vehicles to cope with the traffic. On the Newcastle—Middlesbrough service, introduced towards the end of 1955, annual receipts have increased from £207,000 to £312,000, and a loss on movement cost of some £10,000 in 1955 has been changed into a surplus of over £137,000 in 1958. Many of the diesel services illustrate a similar success story, and I think it is clear from the fact that passengers are attracted by this new equipment, that many more who deserted the railways in the days of steam will come back to them.

I should like just to sound one word of warning—namely, that the benefits and advantages of diesel traction, though to my mind quite clear, and having produced the fairly spectacular results which I have mentioned, cannot by themselves cure all the railways' financial difficulties. Some of the diesel services introduced on branch lines and on local services in areas where there is a low-traffic density are admittedly experimental, and the Commission do not regard them as sacrosanct merely because they are diesel services. Diesels attract more passengers but, unfortunately, not yet necessarily in sufficient numbers to turn in these cases a loss into a profit. The multiple-unit services introduced so far are at present all under review. Some of them, unfortunately, in spite of increased traffic, still do not pay, and may have to be closed.

The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, argued about imported oil and said that we should not desert the steam engine for this reason. The only thing that I think I can say here is that we must have a sense of proportion in this matter. The railways are not by a long way the only industry to think that oil is vital. If the railways consider that by introducing oil-powered diesel engines they are going to be able to provide a more efficient and economic service, they should not be put off by a fear that we might be cut off from oil. If all industries, all means of locomotion or other users of oil in this country, were to drop the use of oil for this reason, we should soon come to an effective standstill.

As was obvious from his speech, the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, has had first-hand experience, which I regret to say that I have not. I am not really in a position, as the Motion was not particularly on the subjects which he mentioned, to argue with him on subjects such as safety and drivers' lapses over signals, but I have no doubt that the chairman of the Transport Commission will read the remarks of the noble Marquess to see whether any suggestion which he has made for improvement can, in fact, be introduced. I understand that the problem of unaccountable lapses on the part of drivers to observe signals is being examined by the Medical Research Council, at the invitation of the Transport Commission, and I will write to the noble Marquess about this matter, if he will permit me to do so. As to rates of pay—a matter which was also raised by the noble Marquess—as your Lordships know, the Guillebaud group are studying railway pay. Their study is at present proceeding, and I do not think your Lordships can expect me to say anything about that at this moment.

My Lords, I do not know whether I have been able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, at all. Knowing of the correspondence which he has had with the Transport Commission and with the Minister, I am certain that no argument that I can produce would in any way persuade Lord Monkswell away from the steam engine. As I said earlier, I, too, am an enthusiast of the steam engine and shall be sorry to see this magnificent piece of machinery disappear from the land. It has a majestic beauty and action, and it is somehow a symbol of our past supremacy in engineering. But compared with diesel or electric traction it is wasteful of fuel; it has to spend a great deal of its working life in being cleaned, in raising steam and so on. Much as we might admire this animal, I do not think that we should retain it beyond its usefulness for what I think must be sentimental reasons. I have no doubt that the same was said at the time when steamships superseded sail; and maybe when cars superseded horse transport. I do not think that we can halt progress. It certainly is not the Government's intention to ask the Transport Commission to do so.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl to explain one thing in his speech? He said that one diesel locomotive was able to do the work of two steam locomotives. Would he tell us how that happens? Obviously, it does not pull two trains at one time.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

I said that the Transport Commission were trying a certain number of diesels and that they needed only so many diesels to carry out the work of double the number of steam engines. I am not very much of a technician myself although I take a great interest in the railways. I understand that the main reasons are that a diesel can operate for much longer periods without maintenance, and that it does not require time to get steam up. As a result of this, diesel engines can be turned round much more quickly than steam engines, so that, for example, a diesel engine can do a return journey without having to go in for coaling and so on; and can therefore make a connection at the other end; whereas with the steam engine another one would have been needed to do that journey. Those, I believe, are the main reasons involved.

4.30 p.m.

LORD HURCOMB

My Lords, may I make just one point? A fortiori those arguments apply to the electric locomotive. It is the much greater time spent in doing the actual service that gives it advantages over the steam locomotive—to which I know the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is by affection, habit and use so much addicted. I feel that the British Transport Commission have a very good case for using the diesel locomotive as an interim or stop-gap arrangement until they can get full electrification. But I hope, with other noble Lords, that that policy will not delay the full completion of an electric transport system which I believe to be best adapted to the circumstances of this country and best suited to the national economy. That is the real way of using our coal. As a noble Lord has said, it will be a long time before all power comes from atomic energy. The electric locomotive fulfils the need completely and, I believe, even more strikingly than the diesel, and will enable the Commission to secure those economies in operation which are so much to be desired. Also, electric loco- motives will attract traffic because they are silent, clean and in other respect very attractive to the people who are drawn by them.

4.32 p.m.

LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, I must apologise for not being in better health, but unfortunately I am an invalid and am unable to marshal my thoughts as well as I should like. I had hoped that there would be some definite figures forthcoming from this debate but I cannot find that there is anything at all. We have heard no definite figures with regard to costs or anything else. All that we have heard to-day is very marginal—which I suppose means quite untrue. I had hoped that a debate on this subject might lead to a standstill for the time being and that a lot of things would come out in the course of an investigation; but it cannot be said that anything we have heard to-day has really proved anything.

I had hoped that the principal matter which I had endeavoured to bring for-ward—costs—might have been dealt with. Many things could have been gone into much more deeply than they have been. It seems to me that what we have heard has very largely developed into a general criticism of railways, but it is extra-ordinarily difficult to say that one has got hold of any new facts at all. I hope that the facts which the chairman of the British Transport Commission has will be published much more freely than at present. I am afraid I can do no more at present but beg your Lordship's pardon for taking up a good deal of your time owing to the fact that I am an invalid and eighty-three years old. Although I am completely dissatisfied with a great deal of what I have heard, I can only beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.