A velvet purse in a mailed fist:
WHEN Railways Board Chairman Sir Peter Parker actually welcomed the Transport Secretary's eagerly (not to say long) awaited statement on railway electrification as 'a concrete declaration of faith in the railways as an industry with a future', our initial reaction was that PP had finally confirmed our suspicions that he is far too gentlemanly in his dealings with Government. To us, the bare bones of Mr Fowler's statement — long on productivity and short on electrification — with its talk of route-by-route submissions, each to be judged on its own profitability, seemed like a return to the dark ages before the joint Department of Transport/British Rail review of main-line electrification showed how important the network factor was in making a case. After all, considered on its own, even the East Coast main line could barely justify investment in electrification. And, in his'statement, Mr Fowler had not even given the go-ahead for the Anglia electrification scheme, which was first formally submitted to him more than a year ago. Faced with that, how could Sir Peter be so positive? Admittedly, when he was interviewed on radio, his voice had sounded lower than usual, so perhaps he was speaking through gritted teeth. But with one of his famous 'roneoed resignation letters' expected daily why did he not come out with phrases like 'bitter disappointment' or 'slap in the face'? His attitude contrasted strongly with the outspoken — uncompromising, even — reactions of the Chairmen of British Gas and British Coal to less-than- wholehearted Government commitment to their industries.

Then we received our copy of Hansard and read what the Minister had said in reply to questions following his statement in the House of Commons. And we also compared notes with railwaymen who, after an initial response similar to ours, had caught up with events. As a result, we tore up the first draft of this 'Railtalk' and started again. Mr Fowler had referred to a 'lOyear running programme', an 'imaginative plan', a 'pro- gramme of action', and a 'commitment over 10 years'. He also chided some critics, saying in one reply, 'I can only conclude that the Hon Gentleman has not understood what is being set out'.

This, we believe, holds the key to Sir Peter's response. It is necessary to look beyond the way that Mr Fowler said what he said to see what the statement really means. More succinctly, ignore the presentation and concentrate on the content. Bearing in mind the nation's unhappy economic position, talk of climbing down to the miners, the struggle for electrification in Cabinet — including the reference back of the DTp/BR review to the •Think Tank' and the Prime Minister's economic adviser, not to mention the Prime Minister's personal antipathy to British Rail - r Fowler's statement had to appear hardline lest it be seen as giving in yet again to a national industry.

Note, for example, the reference to a 10 year programme for starting schemes. Followed through positively this could become a 15year programme of completions on the main Inter-City routes. That could permit sights being set on the achievement of some two-thirds of 'Option 5 Fast' put forward in the DTp/BR review. Nor, it seems, is 'route by route' necessarily exactly that. Within the lOyear period BR will be able to choose routes and starting dates to gain the benefit of mutual financial support — the 'network factor', on which the review team laid such stress. Finally, it must be remembered that Governments are not permanent fixtures — still less so are Government attitudes. Once a rolling programme is actually under way and begins to bear economic fruit, who can now say what Mr Fowler's successor might feel in 10 years'