General railway nationalization in Sweden
The general nationalization of the railways in Sweden (also: general nationalization , Swedish : allmänna förstatligandet ) was based on a decision made by the Swedish Reichstag on May 17, 1939 to transfer a large part of the railway companies that had existed as private companies into state hands. With 73 votes against 26 in the First Chamber and 125 votes against 35 in the Second Chamber of Parliament, the proposal found an overwhelming majority.
The corporate structures of the Swedish private railways were very diverse up to this point. It was the interests of companies or well-funded private individuals that built routes. In some cases, they were subsidiaries of these companies. Often the owners of the railway companies were wholly or partially towns and cities along the route. The term private railway was misleading in many cases.
Railway construction
Railway construction in Sweden began in the middle of the 19th century as a result of industrialization . The companies needed better transport connections to transport their goods. The construction of the Swedish railway system was based on a fundamental parliamentary decision in 1854. The so-called Stambanelinjer were decided upon. These five lines were the Östra stambanan ( Nässjö - Katrineholm ), Södra stambanan ( Malmö –Nässjö– Falköping ), Västra stambanan ( Stockholm - Gothenburg ), Norra stambanan (Stockholm– Uppsala - Avesta - Krylbo - Storvik ) and the Nord västra stambanan ( Laxå - Kristinehamn - Karlstad - Kil - Charlottenberg ). All of these routes were completed in 1875, but over time, the train services on these routes changed.
Under the main railways, the Reichstag understood “contiguous routes that run through several provinces or in large parts of the country” (“ i oavbruten sträckning fortlöpa genom flera provinser eller en större del av lands ”). These all had their starting point in Stockholm, from which in many cases the distance measurement from Stockholm that is still used today originates. Nils Ericsson was commissioned in 1855 as head of the state railway construction authority to build these state railways.
The construction of the smaller railways or branch lines was done with private funds. These were defined by parliament as lighter railways that begin at land locations and end at trunk lines or waterways or connect closer together points that are important for domestic travel . Very quickly, more concessions were granted for private railways than for state lines. In 1872 the state owned 65 percent of the route network, in 1882 it was only 35 percent. Only in 1939 did this ratio change as a result of the poor economic situation.
First nationalizations
Railway companies were nationalized by the Swedish Reichstag in earlier years. During the economic crisis of the late 1870s there was the idea of a general railway law that would provide for the nationalization of railway lines. This proposal was submitted to the Järnvägskommitté in 1886 and contained the recommendation to nationalize all public routes that are not only used for local traffic. However, this proposal was not followed up.
Nevertheless, the Hallsberg - Motala - Mjölby line was the first to be taken over by the state in 1879. In the years that followed, nationalization focused on the railways in northern Sweden. These actions affected the branch lines of the main line to Söderhamn , Hudiksvall and Sundsvall . The route lengths were insignificant, but the takeover was of great importance with regard to the uniform rail network in the north of the country. Another step was the acquisition of the Luleå - Gällivare line in 1890 for political and military reasons.
The next big takeover took place on the west coast between Gothenburg and Malmö, partly for economic reasons. In the 1910s, the inland railway between Kristinehamn and Gällivare , which was still partially under construction, followed . The nationalizations in the 1920s and 1930s were partly due to economic problems of the individual societies. From this time on, they were exposed to strong competition from cars.
Considerations on general nationalization
As early as 1918, in a letter to King Gustav V , the Swedish Railway Board proposed a proper investigation into the nationalization. In the south of Sweden in particular, private routes far outnumbered state routes. This development was seen as a departure from the decision made in 1854 with regard to the construction of state railway lines, the so-called trunk lines. The advantages of the trunk lines were emphasized in this letter. In 1918 the King instructed the Järnvägskommitté to investigate the matter. The committee found that the split into state and private railways wasted capital, created higher operating costs, disagreement over tariffs and salaries for staff, and slowed the pace of necessary cooperation between the various rail administrations. The committee also found that it was not possible to fully resolve these issues. Economic benefits could not be gained without general nationalization. However, the committee also noted that, to some extent, these benefits could also be achieved if small companies were to merge into larger entities. Further studies should examine the possible concentrations of private railways. The proposal was approved by the king, but the committee was dissolved in 1922.
Reasons for takeovers
There were three main reasons for taking over routes from private companies:
- Expansion of the main railway network
- Completion of the main railway network
- more or less compelling special individual reasons
Route network 1930
The state takeover of the so-called cultural railways in the north in 1930 created a clear distinction in rail ownership between the southern and northern parts of the country:
| region | Route network SJ | Route network of private railways |
|---|---|---|
| Götaland | 1,525 km | 6,251 km |
| Svealand | 1,525 km | 3,225 km |
| Norrland | 3,480 km | 693 km |
Fusion idea
In 1918 two members of the Railway Committee, John Flodin and Sven Norrman, had decided on their own initiative. She continued these thoughts even after the dissolution of the committee. As proponents of the merger idea, they recorded possible solutions. According to Norman, the state should be involved in mergers so that the public interest is preserved. There should be an entire merger of several companies into a new one. According to Flodin, these amalgamations should take place on a voluntary basis and not under state coercion.
By 1927, competition from the car had reduced revenues for many railway companies and several of them were on the verge of financial collapse. The private railways now wanted the state to take over. The Minister for Transport and Communication Carl Meurling initiated the conference on rail and road transport in Stockholm. Among other things, this dealt with the cooperation between rail and car traffic. State takeovers were only possible in exceptional cases. General nationalization was not the main topic of the conference; different perspectives with regard to mergers were discussed.
On November 18, 1927, Minister Carl Meurling instructed a panel of experts to investigate how far it would be possible to unite the railways in Skåne into larger units. The result was that there would only be economic benefit from a full merger. This should be done on a voluntary basis. Partial nationalization was also viewed positively. There was a consensus that something had to be done - but the idea of merging was not taken any further. In the discussions it was also noted that road and railroad construction has a public law character and thus a social necessity is met. It was a recurring topic in the discussion that Sweden should also conserve resources with its most important transport links. There was only a clear breakthrough in the debate in the report of the Railway Committee in 1938. This recommended complete nationalization, because the advantages in terms of economic and technical aspects of railway operations would only be achieved through a reorganization through nationalization . According to the Commission, nationalization could be achieved over a period of five years. It was also assumed that voluntary agreements could be reached, but mandatory adoption was not excluded.
However, there were different political views on nationalization. The right saw more detailed problems in the local economy, while the social democrats saw the effects on society as a whole. There were also regional differences, especially in Småland, where there were many narrow-gauge railways and small transport companies that had great difficulties with cars as competitors. Big companies like Trafikförvaltningen Göteborg – Dalarne – Gävle (TGDG), Stockholm – Västerås – Bergslagens Järnvägar (SWB) or Trafikbolaget Grängesberg – Oxelösund (TGOJ) in central Sweden had it easier . These large companies had very close contact with industry such as TGOJ with ore transports.
Decision of the Reichstag
On May 17, 1939, the vote in parliament took place, with the proposal for general nationalization finding a majority. Due to the Second World War , the nationalization could not be implemented as quickly as planned. It started in 1940 and was not fully implemented until 1958. After that, only a few railways, such as the TGOJ, remained formally independent of the SJ. A total of 7495 km of railway line was nationalized, the largest purchases took place in 1940 (1476 km) and 1947 (1750 km).
After the end of nationalization, the SJ were the only large transport company in Sweden. The more than 80-year-old decision on traffic distribution in Sweden of 1854 had been replaced by a new one. The entire Swedish rail network peaked in 1939 when it covered 16,900 km. In the 1950s, the dismantling of the railroad began, which in large measure lasted until 1994.
Current data
In 1991, the TGOJ route network with 316 km was taken over into the state network. On May 1, 1993, the Inlandsbanan AB transferred 1,053 km to “Administration on behalf of the State” and is included in the statistics for the private railways. According to the Swedish Statistical Yearbook 2011, the Swedish route network was 11,206 kilometers. Of this, 10,014 km were state-owned. 1,192 km, 65 km of which are narrow-gauge, operated by private companies.