The first half of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link opens on Tuesday, the UK's first new inter-city line for more than a century. Were travellers then better off than today?
Then and now
The early years of the 20th Century are commonly thought of as the golden age of train travel. The social revolution the railways heralded meant that for many, the train was a symbol of immense pride. The Great Western Railway, for instance, was dubbed God's Wonderful Railway. But what was the real picture?
In 1900, the rail industry was split into rival companies which competed against each other, often between the same destinations.
The battleground for competition was comfort. The introduction of luxurious Pullman cars transformed many trains into hotels on wheels. But well-off travellers were not the only ones to benefit from Mr Pullman's plush seats. The coaches vacated by the rich were rebadged as second class.
Most definitely first class
In their turn, the proles of third class - 95% of passengers - were allowed to upgrade. It had taken an Act of Parliament to bring third class travellers in from the cold - rail companies had regularly offered them open carriages, if any at all.
Colin Divall, professor of railway studies at the University of York, says rail travel has always been expensive.
"There were no great bargains to be had, and a much smaller range of tickets, really just single or return. If you were a working man you would have travelled third class."
Companies would race against their rivals to claim new records, and primarily competed on the lines between London and Aberdeen. Journey times on this route were cut from 11.5 to 8.5 hours within a few weeks.
Improved train brakes helped unlock the full potential of steam. Passenger trains were beginning to travel at speeds approaching 100mph. In the 1890s, though, there was a high speed derailment at Preston, caused partly by the race to the north. But after the accident, schedules were considerably slackened.
At the end of the 19th Century, it was not unusual for 100 people a year to die on the railways.
Jim Rees, a rail historian at the Beamish Museum in Durham, says: "It was still the same balance between profit and safety, but without the safety culture we have today. When you crashed a wooden carriage lit by gas, my God, you had a disaster on your hands."
Regulation helped improve matters with the introduction of a signalling system, the principles of which are still widely in use today.
But it took the deaths of some 80 passengers in an Armagh crash to prompt parliamentary action on brakes. A locomotive had failed to take a gradient - when several rear carriages were unhooked, they rolled back into a following train.
Crashes prompt action on safety
The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) insisted passenger trains were fitted with continuous automatic brakes - a safety feature previously dismissed as too expensive.
In the 1900s, the companies were still profitable. By World War I, profits were falling, which lead in part to rationalisation into four companies.
The companies were in competition, which led to a large amount of duplication. Nottingham, for instance, had two separate lines linking it with London. Manchester had three main stations.
The British people could - at rail's peak - travel on 23,000 miles of track around the country. Now that total is about 11,000, the greatest cut coming in the Beeching Report of 1963 which did for branch lines and deprived many smaller towns and villages of their stations.
In 1900, as now, the rail system was subject to an enormous amount of criticism, particularly about nationalisation, which eventually happened in 1947.
Colin Divall says: "Those in favour of nationalisation argued that the duplication of services was often wasteful. There was a lot of criticism too from the railway workers and by the trade union movement that was developing."
Merchants and manufacturers were also critical, suffering from pilfering en route and disappearing goods wagons.