Carry on Christian… Wolmar provides proper political balance

I am writing to defend Christian Wolmar from the attacks in Open

Access ( RAIL 831), and urge the continued inclusion of his column in the magazine.

The letter writers complain that he is bringing politics into what should be a magazine about railway issues, but the railways have always been intrinsically linked with politics.

In the 19th century, at a time when laissez-faire was almost a religion, successive governments felt it necessary to intervene to regulate the railways.

Nowadays, the railways would not survive without public funds. How much funding, how those funds are used, the regulatory framework, and issues of ownership and control are all matters of political debate. The result of June’s General Election will have an impact on these, and so is a legitimate area for Christian to comment upon.

They complain he is against HS2. So, according to opinion polls, is the majority of the population. Are their views to be banned from RAIL?

Is unquestioning support for HS2 now a requirement for everyone who writes in the magazine? It may have received Royal Assent, but HS2 is far from being a settled argument with continuing questions about its cost and impact. These concerns should be reflected in the magazine and Christian is doing that.

It is clear that what the writers really dislike is that Christian’s politics are left-wing. They do not complain about the right-wing views that get an airing in the magazine - for example, negative articles about trades unions, or the column inches devoted to debunking the idea of renationalisation without its proponents being given a chance to reply.

Christian Wolmar’s views may not reflect those of the letter writers or, indeed, most of the other contributors to RAIL magazine. But they do, I am sure, reflect those of many of its readers and members of the public. I welcome the Editor’s robust defence of his column, and I look forward to reading it for a long time to come. Iain Kitt, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

I have read quite a few of Christian Wolmar’s books, and I find his views in RAIL refreshing.

The rail industry is very political, with the HS2 debate and electrification issues, so it’s important that an alternative view to the DfT and Conservative Government propaganda is voiced.

My local MP (Lilian Greenwood, Nottingham South) is now chairman of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee, so I expect a lot of support for Midland Main Line electrification to Sheffield (via Derby and Nottingham) to be drummed up on a regular basis - something I believe Christian Wolmar would agree on.

My only disagreement with Christian is that I believe HS2 is vital for jobs (and so on) in the next 20 years, now that we are (eventually) to leave the European Union. David Hardy, Nottingham

I would like to defend Christian Wolmar, who I consider to be an excellent rail journalist and historian, able to present a breadth and depth of railway knowledge which is praiseworthy.

Although Christian Wolmar was a Labour Party candidate in last December’s Richmond Park by-election, he has not been slow on numerous occasions in criticising the Labour Party’s dubious policy of nationalising the rail franchises. His independent thought on various aspect of railway policy and practice are to be cherished and valued. Justin Beament, Crediton

In response to the rail versus politics debate in your columns: surely the railways have always been controlled by politics, one way or another, so you might say a lively news magazine such as RAIL is merely fulfilling its brief by reporting all shades of opinion.

Christian Wolmar writes well and interestingly. One might not always agree with what he says, but he balances up nicely the right-leaning editorial stance. Tony Bateman, Ledbury

I suggest that you publish two different editions of RAIL in future.

One might be renamed RAILING, in which Christian Wolmar and Barry Doe could propound their idealistic, non-railway-related political and anti-Brexit views.

The alternative version (aimed at people who want to read about railways) would omit such self-indulgent articles and could be titled RAILISM. There would be one comment column written by the editor, and the rest of the magazine could be filled with news and dispassionate articles, including political criticisms where they concern railway matters.

After RAIL 805 (the anti-Brexit issue), Nigel Harris wrote that the role of the magazine was “not only reporting what is happening physically on the railway, but to offer analysis, comment and opinions on every aspect of its strategy, management and development”.

The key words are “on the railway”. Nowhere in his defence then - or of Wolmar’s RAIL 829 comments ( RAIL 831) - did he directly answer the repeated criticisms made by myself and many others about columnists in a railway magazine gratuitously ramming their political views down the throats of its readers. Nigel urges people to stay with

RAIL, and his desire to keep it lively and topical is welcome. I worry that indulging those with an alternative agenda will put the magazine in danger of becoming like a pub bore - strident and best avoided. Chris Thursby, Gloucestershire Christian Wolmar has always included some political content, but since he’s become (essentially) a full-time would-be Labour candidate, the railway content in his columns has fallen, and what he writes seems designed primarily to curry favour with Labour selection committees.

I don’t want to be paying for Wolmar’s attempts to become a Labour candidate, and am not interested in reading his political commentaries or predictions.

Furthermore, he seems to have lost interest in the modern UK railway. We know he’s never liked the franchise system, but we don’t need him to repeat his stale old arguments. Nigel Pendse, Harrow