How was disruption handled in BR days?

[Pigeon]

No silly messing about with different organisations fighting each other over who gets to pay how much to whom and considering that of more importance than what happens to the passengers. More versatility with far less incompatibility of stock, and crews having a wider range of route and traction knowledge. Plenty of spare stock for when it was needed instead of paring everything to the absolute minimum so there's only just enough to run the normal service if everything goes perfectly and falls apart if it doesn't. Also spare locomotives to rescue failures, and use of workarounds like using the following train to push a failure on to the next station. Absence of the idea that you can't do anything to help a failed train without killing the passengers. More versatile track layouts allowing more possibilities for the necessary unusual movements. A tremendous set of worked examples to demonstrate the surely rather obvious point that you can handle disruption a lot better if you don't cripple, forbid or abolish the things you need to handle it with.

 

[Dr Hoo]

No silly messing about with different organisations fighting each other over who gets to pay how much to whom and considering that of more importance than what happens to the passengers. More versatility with far less incompatibility of stock, and crews having a wider range of route and traction knowledge. Plenty of spare stock for when it was needed instead of paring everything to the absolute minimum so there's only just enough to run the normal service if everything goes perfectly and falls apart if it doesn't. Also spare locomotives to rescue failures, and use of workarounds like using the following train to push a failure on to the next station. Absence of the idea that you can't do anything to help a failed train without killing the passengers. More versatile track layouts allowing more possibilities for the necessary unusual movements. A tremendous set of worked examples to demonstrate the surely rather obvious point that you can handle disruption a lot better if you don't cripple, forbid or abolish the things you need to handle it with.

Can I ask if you ever had much experience of BR's Regional Railways?

Do you really still believe that every 'incident' is argued about endlessly and that any performance regime financial implications are somehow negotiated on a bespoke basis (rather than, say, being calculated by a computer and spat out every four weeks)?

 

[Falcon1200]

No silly messing about with different organisations fighting each other over who gets to pay how much to whom and considering that of more importance than what happens to the passengers.

That is absolutely not what happens when an incident occurs.

Plenty of spare stock for when it was needed instead of paring everything to the absolute minimum so there's only just enough to run the normal service if everything goes perfectly

BR was not exactly awash with spare stock, scrapping vehicles used on a handful of occasions each year was one of the things targeted by Beeching!

More versatile track layouts allowing more possibilities for the necessary unusual movements.

And yet some places have more versatile layouts than in BR days, eg where redoubling has occurred such as the Oxford/Worcester, Gretna Jc/Annan, Kilmarnock/Barrhead lines, even quadrupling on the Trent Valley, grade-separated junctions at Norton Bridge and Werrington, elimination of single-lead junctions at for example Busby Jc, Midcalder Jc, and the massive rebuilding at Reading which gave that station the best and most flexible layout it has ever had, something not achieved by either BR or the GWR.

 

[furnessvale]

On one occasion, after a crash at Wembley that blocked all lines, passenger for the north were sent to St Pancras where various scratch trains were provided. My train as far as Crewe, was entriely made up of BGs, and 100s if not 1000s, squashed into the cages for a memorable, and surprisingly happy, trip to Crewe.

 

[The exile]

If they're advertised and they're not available, then I don't think it is wrong to ask for a refund. Using your logic, why should we refund first class ticket holders if they don't get a first class seat?

Because buying a first class ticket costs you more money. How much compensation should be paid for the lack of something that costs the ticket holder at point of sale nothing extra (whereby I would argue differently in the case of toilets….)