The Death of Public Railway Services: The Ideological Ruin

by bernt & torsten

In recent decades, the downfall of public railway services has become emblematic of a broader ideological shift among conservative politicians. The decline is not merely a matter of incompetence or greed; it is driven by ideology—the belief that all private enterprises perform better than their public counterparts. This ideological perspective has resulted in what is arguably the worst-maintained and least efficient railway system in Europe.

To understand this predicament, revisiting the historical context of state-operated railways is essential. In the mid-19th century, when Sweden's national railway service was founded, Europe’s rail systems were a chaotic mess of competing private companies, lacking coordination. It was a right-wing initiative, devoid of any contemporary leftist influence, that established a comprehensive and well-functioning national railway network. Political leaders of that era, often viewed as regressive by today's standards, recognized the necessity to create a transport system that served the entire populace, including workers and goods for export, like iron ore. Despite their elitist tendencies, they nationalized railway traffic for the nation's benefit.

 

 

For over a century, the state-run railway service operated with clockwork precision. Even in harsh winter conditions, trains ran on time thanks to the relentless efforts of an extensive workforce dedicated to maintenance. This highly efficient public service was a product of what could be considered 'old right' ideology. In stark contrast, contemporary conservatives believe all private enterprises outshine state-run entities, prioritizing the market economy over the planned economy.

Running a railway, however, is vastly different from managing markets for consumer goods. The efficiency of the public railway challenged modern right-wing dogmas since it was a government-run, successful, and largely planned economy-based project. Consequently, it became a target of political reform. This reform, termed 'deregulation', was based on ideological principles rather than economic pragmatism. It resembled a similar ideological decision to sell a thriving state-owned spirits company, successfully exporting its products globally. Despite the company’s success, it was sold off to align with economic doctrines, resulting in a financially poor but ideologically 'correct' decision.

By the 1980s, as the political climate shifted to the right, the time arrived to dismantle the enduring state colossus of the railway service. Immediate privatization was impractical, so the first step was to break the railway service into smaller companies, analogous to other privatization efforts. The intention was to liquidate these entities, replicating market dynamics eventually. Each split unit was expected to operate profitably, regardless of its segment's profitability within the broader organization.

The newly formed maintenance company found its way to profitability by shedding assets deemed costly, such as snow-clearing equipment, which now seems crucial in retrospect. The predictable result of these business strategies was a deterioration in service quality, which is familiar to any winter train passenger. Although this maintenance entity retained the considerable capacity to maintain critical infrastructure, the transport authority favoured cheaper private contractors. When these private firms lost bids, they pursued legal challenges, halting maintenance activities and increasing legal costs, further diverting funds from essential upkeep.

In the subsequent years, these decisions led to a ballooning maintenance backlog, with costs soaring from billions to tens of billions and an estimated 350 years to rectify the deficits at the current pace. Railway management cannot adhere to the same free-market principles, unlike consumer goods markets. The guiding ideology that privatization inherently improves efficiency is gradually extinguishing the national railway system, a stark contrast to countries like Japan and Switzerland, where likewise-conservative leaders have preserved their railway systems by avoiding rigid dogmas.

The current state of affairs results from conservative ideological missteps, highlighting the fallacy of applying broad market principles to complex public services. As the situation unfolds, some voices traditionally aligned with right-wing parties have begun to question this approach, recognizing the ideological flaws that have led to the railway's decline.

 

 

In conclusion, while ideology may inspire innovative reforms, it becomes detrimental when it disregards the unique operational demands of essential public services. As we bear witness to the impact of these decisions, it is imperative to reassess and realign strategies to preserve and enhance public transit systems for future generations.