French railway history

The first railway lines built in France were short mineral lines built during the early 19th century. The main French railway system however began to be constructed after 1842 when a law was passed legalising railways.

French railways started later, and developed more slowly than those in other nations. While the first railway built in France was in operation in 1832, not long after the first line had opened in Britain, French progress failed to keep pace over the next decade. Thus France quickly fell behind Germany, Belgium, Switzerland in terms of trackage per person. It also was severely outdistanced by the rapid growth in United States and the United Kingdom. A start as early and successful as Britain's would have been very unlikely. This was due to Britain generally having a higher level of industrialization, and France was also slowed by the destruction and turbulence of the Napoleonic Wars and the subsequent process of rebuilding. But other more comparable nations, such as Belgium, embarked on large rail building projects soon after the technology was introduced. In France it took a full decade to begin railway construction on a national scale. This delay was almost certainly inevitably a product of France's history and level of development. France's economy in 1832 was not well enough developed to support a railway industry of national scope. The limited iron industry for many years forced French railways to import many of their rails from England at great cost. French coal supplies were also not nearly as well developed as those in England and Belgium. Until these complementary industries developed railways were always at an economic disadvantage in France relative to other nations.

As well as the economic condition of the nation, France also saw powerful opposition to the changes that railroads would bring and these critics contributed somewhat to France's slower development. An example of this is the 1832 opposition by the Rouen chamber of commerce to a rail link between it and Paris, arguing it would be detrimental to agriculture, hurt the traditional way of life, and impinge upon the business of the canals and rivers. This last argument was a common one throughout France. Unlike Russia or Germany, which did not have well developed canal systems, France had a great deal of capital invested in water-born transport, and these interests saw the railways as dangerous competition. The origins of this opposition can be traced to France's geography. France was naturally well endowed with navigable waterways, and also had much terrain suitable for the construction of canals. Much of France is also not located far from the coast and coastal shipping successfully and cheaply carried much trade. Thus the interests who profited from canals, river, and coastal shipping all used their sway in government to limit the construction of railways. While other countries, such as Britain, were already well served by canals and coastal shipping, these nations did not have government controlled railways, and thus the vested interests of water born trade had minimal ability to limit new competition. In France these interests were combined with popular worries about the introduction of railways, especially in their safety. While those in opposition to railway development were certainly a minority, they were a larger group in France than in most other industrializing nations. Since French rail development depended on government initiatives, French opponents had a stronger influence than in countries where rails were constructed by completely private corporations.

The central involvement of government in French railways also slowed their construction as it took a great deal of time to create a national railway policy. France under the July Monarchy[?] was a far more democratic state than most others in Europe. While the German states mostly had strong central authorities, decisions in France needed to be made by long debates in parliament. France was also a very divided nation. Belgium, with its extremely unified political class just after independence could quickly embark on an elaborate railway project. France, however, was long divided between liberals, conservatives, royalists and democrats. With laissez-faire liberals consistently holding a great deal of parliamentary power. All parties did support some form of governmental rail initiative, but they all had differing visions of what this initiative would be. The parliament thus rejected all major rail projects before 1842 and during this period France steadily fell behind the nations that had reached quick consensus on railway policy.

The French rail system could not develop successfully without the involvement of the state. Unlike Great Britain or the United States France did not have a substantial industrial base willing to pay for railroads to bring its products to new markets. French investment capital was also not nearly as substantial as that of Great Britain. Early troubles, such as the failed Paris to Rouen line, only reinforced the deep conservatism of the French banks. French private industry was not strong enough to construct a railway industry unassisted by government. Thus in the period of inaction by government before 1842 only small and scattered rail lines were built in France.

The eventual relationship created between the French rail system and the government was a compromise between two competing options. One option was the completely laissez-faire free market system that had created Britain's elaborate rail network. The other was a government built and controlled railroad, such as had been introduced in Belgium. France employed a mixture of these two means to construct its railroads, but eventually turned highly to the side of government control. The relationship between the government and private rail companies was a complicated one with many conflicts and agreements between the two groups. The most important piece of legislation was the 1842 agreement. It aided the companies by having the department of the Ponts et Chaussée[?] doing most of the planning and engineering work of new lines. The government would assist in securing this land, often expropriating it. The government also agreed to pay infrastructure costs building bridges, tunnels, and track bed. The private companies would then furnish the tracks, stations and rolling stock, as well as paying the operating costs. Under state guidance, France's railways were built according to a national plan, which stipulated that every town with a population of around 1,500 inhabitants should have a standard gauge rail link. With a network of metre gauge lines filling in the gaps.

There were many exceptions and additions to this general policy, however. The most successful companies, especially the Compagnie du Nord[?], would often build their own lines themselves to avoid the complications of going through government. During the economic boom period of the 1850's[?], for instance, the national government had to only pay nineteen percent of the costs of railway construction. Other less successful lines, such as the Midi, would often need more assistance from the government to remain in operation. The same proved true during recessions, such as in 1859 when the railway lines were given a new agreement to save them from bankruptcy. In exchange for funding part of the construction of rail lines the French government set maximum rates that the companies could charge. It also insisted that all government traffic must travel at a third normal costs. Another important element of French rail legislation was that the government expected to eventually nationalize the rail system. The original agreement of 1842 leased the rail lines to the companies for only thirty-six years. Napoleon III extended these leases to ninety-nine years soon after coming to power. That the rail companies only operated on leases paved the way for the nationalization of the French rail lines under the socialist government of the nineteen-thirties.

The French rail policy, once it was put in place was not perfect, but it certainly cannot be considered a failure, and many aspects of the French rail laws were adopted by other powers attempting to encourage rail developments. It has already been seen that the dependence on government for rail development delayed the construction of the French rail system. It also true that the extra bureaucratization and influence of special interests that all governments are prone to also negatively affected the French railways. However, the French rail system had failed to grow on its own and required government intervention to expand successfully. While the intrusion of government into the rail business caused problems, it was also necessary and inevitable.

Unlike in most countries where the construction of railways was left to private enterprise, the French railway system was constructed almost entirely by the state, and private companies were invited to work the railways under lease[?] (of up to 99 years). France's railways are largely unique in the fact that they have never been privately owned. The dividends of these railway operating companies were guaranteed by the state, who in exchange took two-thirds of any greater profits.

The close relationship between the rail companies and government has much to do with French history. France had long had a large and elaborate bureaucracy and governmental structure that regulated many areas of French life. This bureaucracy survived the revolutionary period intact and played an important role in every government that ruled France in the nineteenth century, thus when railways arose there were already well established governmental structures and procedures that could easily expand to encompass railway regulations as well. This regulatory regime, through the professional and powerful department of the Ponts et Chuassée, had very close control over French road, bridge, and canal building in France and it was all but inevitable that the new railways would also fall under the government's close watch.

Other reasons also lead French railways to be closely controlled by the government. Unlike in the United Kingdom or the United States France as a continental power had pressing strategic needs from the railways, which would not be met by the private sector. Long stretches of rail lines were constructed in eastern France along the German border that were strategically crucial, but not economically viable. Pure private interests would not have constructed these routes on their own so France used government rewards and pressure to encourage the rail companies to build the needed lines. Strategic rail lines were also widespread throughout the German and Russian Empires as well, and in those countries as well they would not have been built by private companies.

The first lines to be built were lines radiating out of Paris connecting France's major cities to the capital. These lines still form the backbone of the French railway system. By the 1860s the basic structure of the network was complete, with many minor lines being built to fill in the gaps, during the late 19th century.

One product of the government intervention in the railroads was that the French rail system became based on a very inefficient design. By 1855 the many original small firms had been organized into six large companies, each having a regional monopoly in one area of France. The Nord, Est, Ouest, Paris-Orleans, Paris-Lyon-Méditerranée, and the Midi lines divided the nation into strict spheres of control. The great difficulty was that the six large monopolies, with the exception of the Midi Company[?], all connected to Paris, but did not link together anywhere else in the country. The French railway map was one of a series of unconnected branches moving out of Paris. While this meant Paris was well served by trains, nowhere else in the country was. For instance one line of the Paris-Orleans Line[?] ended in Clermont-Ferrand, while Lyon was served by the PLM Line[?]. Thus any goods or passengers that wished to travel from Lyon to Clermont-Ferrand in 1860 needed to take a circuitous route via Paris of over seven hundred kilometers, while the two cities were only a hundred and twenty kilometers apart. This grave inefficiency lead to great problems in the Franco-Prussian War. The German rail lines, outlined in a grid like fashion, proved far more efficient at advancing troops and supplies to the front than the French one. "Combien nous a été funeste l'absence de lignes transversal [...] unissant nos grandes artères" reported a military officer to the parliamentary inquiry on France's defeat. The arrangement of the lines also hurt France's economy. Shipping costs between regional centres were greatly inflated. Thus many cities were limited to exporting their goods to Paris, as transshipment to a second city would be double the price.

France ended up with the regressive arrangement for a number of reasons. Paris was the undisputed capital of France, and was viewed by many as the capital of Europe. To French railway planners it seemed only natural that all the lines should be founded upon the metropolis. By contrast Germany ended up with a far superior system because it had little unity and many centers vying for preeminence. Thus a variety of rail centres arose. Berlin, Munich, Dresden, Hamburg, and the Rhine areas were all linked to each other. The French rail lines were also greatly centralized because they were planned, unlike Britain and America the layout and planning of the railways was greatly influenced by the central government. This government was based in Paris with minimal local representation, especially in the bureaucracy. The Ponts et Chausée department that supervised the railways was thoroughly Parisian. Because of this strong governmental influence all six of the French railway companies had their headquarters in Paris. This was not only because of the unquestioned centrality to Paris, but also because the rail companies were always in close contact with the French government, and needed to be in Paris to ensure positive relations. Britain was largely free of intensive government interference in the railways and companies were thus under less pressure to center their lines on London, and it was also less necessary for each company to be so closely linked to the center of political power. In England the Stockton and Manchester[?] lines, for instance, were financed and promoted by local businesses. In France cities like Lyon and Bordeaux did not have many wealthy investors, they were almost exclusively located in Paris. This concentration of capital in Paris also contributed to the concentration of the railway system in the metropolis.

Amongst the most important of these railway operating companies during this period were.

• Chemin de Fer de l'Est[?]
• Chemin de Fer du Nord[?]
• Chemin de Fer Paris-Lyon-Mediterranee[?]
• Chemin de Fer Paris-Orleans[?]
• Chemin de Fer du Midi[?]

By 1914 the French railway system had become one of the densest and most highly developed in the world, and had reached its maximum extent of around 60,000 km (35,000 miles). About one third of this mileage was made up of narrow gauge lines.

By the 1930s, road competition began to take its toll on the railways. And the rail network needed pruning. The narrow-gauge lines were the most badly affected by road competition, many thousands of miles of narrow-gauge lines were closed during the 1930s. By the 1950s the once extensive narrow-gauge system was practically extinct. Also many minor standard-gauge lines were also closed. The French railway system today has around 40,000 km (25,000 miles) of track.

Many of the private railway operating companies began to face financial difficulties. In 1938 the railway system was fully nationalised by the socialist government, and SNCF was formed. Regional authorities have begun to specify schedules more recently.

From the late 1970s onwards, a new set of high speed TGV lines have been constructed linking France's major cities.

In 1994, the Channel Tunnel opened connecting France and Great Britain by rail under the English Channel.

See also Transportation in France, History of rail transport