{Symbolic Lines}[18th November 1984]

[Redbook2:351][19841118:1935b]{Symbolic Lines}[18^th November 1984]

19841118.1935

[continued]

It occurred to me today that there may be more than one reason why people who never used them complained so loudly when their local (or other non-local) railway lines were closed or reduced. The obvious reason is that a railway symbolises connection and communication with Society in a more concise way than a road can. But it is a curious thing that although people rarely complained when an exactly duplicating and adjacent line (of which there were many) was closed, sensible attempts to single a double-track line in order to save it by reducing costs tend to be met with extraordinary opposition (e.g. on the Salisbury to Exeter line). 

 

It is just possible that this occurs because the symbolism is actually recognised at some 'level' by far more people than one would expect. The symbolism of the railway system itself might arise from the fairly rigid pattern of lines and choices involved, a part of and yet separate from the context through which the railway passes, and more easily comprehensible than the relative formlessness {of the network} of roads, tracks, paths and open spaces over which a vehicle might drive. The double-track railway might take this a stage further by symbolising the option to develop or regress. Or, for most people, this may be irrelevant – but I suspect it has something to do with* my own fascination with railways.

*[i.e. some part to play in]

[PostedBlogger28082015]