-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Winding back the railway clock
- Thread starter Shimbleshanks
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
IIRC there was once a "Rule of Sixteen" as a guide for carriage designers - 16 inches to the bum, 16 people to the ton. Perhaps it was going metric which caused standards to slip!
Rover
Member
I used the Inverness - Glasgow overnight.
or took their shoes off after several days' continuous bashing!
Brightonboy
Member
For a brief period in the very early 80's I used to have opportunity once a month or so to be released early from my last overnight shift of a cycle. That meant I could get away from work in NW London around 2030 and get down to LLSt for around 2200 - 2300 ish. The last train having gone, I'd spend about 5 - 6 hours there before catching the early morning newspaper train to Norwich. The comings and goings of the multitude of vans from Fleet Street (and the occasional chance to blag a early copy) was a sight to see. That first train out was more vans than seated stock.... Overnight the old LLSt could be mighty cold and uncomfortable.
Falcon1200
Established Member
So did I! Although the Glasgow-Inverness one night after a Scotland game at Hampden Park was interesting..... I kept my mouth shut the entire way.
Sun Chariot
Established Member
I'm too young to have seen steam era's inefficiencies (i.e. the coal wagons sitting for days (or weeks) at a coal merchant's siding and not earning revenue, loss-making branch lines).
It's only in my later life that I realise, since my 1970s--1980s youth, the other inefficient operations which have also gone:
- "Wagonload" freight services,
- Conveyance of newspapers (revenue one way only),
- Travelling Post Office services,
- Conveyance of domestic coal (revenue one way only),
- MoD traffic, ordnance (a vastly-reduced scale nowadays),
- MoD traffic, troop trains,
- Sleeping car services (a vastly-reduced scale nowadays),
- Motorail services and operations,
- Myriad of stock*, with parts typically unique to each class,
- InterCity service to, of all places, Pwhelli!
The list goes on...
* Example - as at January 1980, all these loco classes had at least one fleet-member in revenue service:
01, 03, 06, 08, 09, 13, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33, 37, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 55, 56, 73, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87.
Last edited:
True, there were a lot of inefficiencies, but there was a lot of charm too! However putting a price on quality of life is always problematic. Of course, there is the question about how many of these activities could have continued (or indeed new services developed) if more economically viable ways could have been found to deliver them and there had been a will to do so.
Finding efficiencies is almost always about cuts, closures or reductions. Where we struggle these days is the reverse. Trying to develop something or do something new proves to be prohibitively time consuming and expensive. Work started on the London and Birmingham Railway in 1833 and the line was fully open by the summer of 1837, having been constructed almost entirely by manual labour. Doing much the same thing in the 21st century whilst enjoying the benefits of a couple of centuries of technological progress would appear to be proving inexplicably challenging!
Not all of those are necessarily purely negative. For example - one way transport of newspapers or domestic coal might be “inefficient” but the cost of the “return empties” can in theory be factored into the rates charged.
Yes - BR probably had too much variety of traction foisted on them - but putting all your eggs in one basket can be dangerous - just imagine if the IET cracking had proved to be more serious than it actually was. What matters is compatibility- which was better then than now.
“Service” and “efficiency” are uneasy bedfellows - yes, you shouldn’t be deliberately wasteful - but if there is a social need for a sleeping car service to xyz then it should be provided, however inefficient it is on paper. The point with the sleepers is that in the main the social need (and commercial demand) dropped off as daytime trains got earlier, later and faster.
Sun Chariot
Established Member
I abaolutely agree with your points, @Rescars and @The exile - and I look at my 35mm photos of that era, with fondness and a degree of melancholy.
I vaguely recall reading that changes to BR's pricing-models for Speedlink (Wagonload) and Newspapers, consequently made them uncompetitive compared to road-haulage. I wonder whether that strategy was actually intentional (in the context of Sectorisation P&L). In my mind, it echoes the changes to pricing for fish traffic*.
* Nationalisation perpetuated a pricing "per consignment". A van might run to its destination near-empty and at a loss.
In 1964, British Railways amended its model, to "per vanload". Suddenly, the cost to the fish vendors jumped - paying for van's "full load equivalent" irrespective of how little fish was being carried in it.
Rail-borne fish business declined rapidly; it was all but gone to road-hauliers by 1968.
I vaguely recall reading that changes to BR's pricing-models for Speedlink (Wagonload) and Newspapers, consequently made them uncompetitive compared to road-haulage. I wonder whether that strategy was actually intentional (in the context of Sectorisation P&L). In my mind, it echoes the changes to pricing for fish traffic*.
* Nationalisation perpetuated a pricing "per consignment". A van might run to its destination near-empty and at a loss.
In 1964, British Railways amended its model, to "per vanload". Suddenly, the cost to the fish vendors jumped - paying for van's "full load equivalent" irrespective of how little fish was being carried in it.
Rail-borne fish business declined rapidly; it was all but gone to road-hauliers by 1968.
One also has to consider the efficiency of the Southern Region's EMU/DEMU fleet, many of which could run in multiple with eachother, and which shared many components, making planning and maintenance easier.
I would have said that the best example of all (for compatibility at least) was the majority of the 1st gen DMU fleet. With a few exceptions (why were they permitted) all inter-compatible, capable of being hauled and of themselves hauling stock - despite being built to many different designs by different manufacturers.
Merle Haggard
Established Member
Having spent most of my rail career in freight & parcels charging it's interesting to suggest that we weren't bright enough to have thought of that.,,...
Similarly for
which, by the attachment of a couple of carriages, also provided a useful very late night service if you had missed the last service train.
Some time ago - possibly about 150 years ago - railway management became aware of this problem and initiated charges. For small traders who were allowed the day of arrival and one day for unloading after which demurrage charges were raised; as each day passed the charge per day increased. Standage, for larger customers, averaged over all the wagons so that one wagon held for say five days could be compensated by returning the wagon on the day after arrival.
I wonder how this compares with today - counting current subclasses. For instance, each operator's Cl. 66 requires different traction knowledge.
And, in the bad old days, they could all be inter-coupled. Very useful for using the train behind to propel a failed train into a loop or the next station, rather than
blocking the fast line for 4 hours (vide Wellingborough last week)
Close rivals perhaps !
I was suggesting no such thing - merely that since I have no idea of the rates or costs involved (or indeed of any regulations preventing such pricing) the only thing I could state with certainty was that it was, in theory, possible.
I think that the 05, 05001 on the Isle of Wight, was still in revenue (Capital Stock) service at the time.
Sun Chariot
Established Member
Good spot, yes. 1981. My first info-scrape incorrectly showed its transfer as 1979. I've now sifted a few more sites and they all concur with you. Many thanks!
When a trainload of Tank ammo arrived at Pembroke in 1965; en route to Castlemartin, us happy troops were told it had to be unloaded within 24 hours so that HM goverment wasn’t charged for the storage.
We achieved this with an incentive of a day off but I suspect the poor folk who used the roads at that time had many a close encounter with 3 tonners full of Ammo going hell for leather on those narrow roads.
Merle Haggard
Established Member
B.R.'s obligation to be a common freight carrier (accept all traffic offered regardless of profitability) and to provide freight rates based on distance ceased on 1.1.63 as a result of a clause in the Transport Act 1962.
Freight and parcels/newspaper traffic after that date was carried under contract with the customer. Unlike the passenger business, there was no obligation on the part of BR to convey this traffic unless it was profitable. That situation existed when the rate quoted to the customer - based on market pricing - was higher than the costs, which, in the case of one-way traffic, would include the cost of returning the empty stock.
As an aside, my intemperate response (perhaps better directed to the first post) was because the role of the people who actually negotiate and win the traffic that the railway moves seems generally to be either over-looked completely or regarded as a simplistic routine task. Without marketing and sales people there would be no trains.
In the case of newspaper traffic, the transfer of Murdoch newspaper production to Wapping in 1986 changed many aspects of newspaper production and distribution. Apart from the obvious problem of serving the location by train there were also other well-known issues revolving around labour relations and complete disconnection from unionised labour. The Murdoch company employed the Australian transport company, T.N.T., for distribution. For Murdoch, price from a unionised and nationalised carrier was not the issue. The other publishers generally followed. I travel by train a lot, and I very rarely see anyone reading a paid for newspaper, so there would be little traffic now anyway.
It was a Government edict that closed Speedlink, not a change in the profit/loss situation. Closure of Speedlink also endangered trainload busines, particularly of chemicals. for the reason (Major customer/minor flow) already stated.
The Pelican
Member
The most signficant period of change for me always seems the time between the end of steam in 1966 and the start of the HST era in 1975- because such a substantial traction change coincided with most of the last large scale route closures, it always seems like the time the railways became essentially "Modern". Of course, on London Transport or the Southern Reigon, the 1930s (first long distance electrification, 1938 stock) or the 2000s (end of slamdoors) would be just as good suggestions!
Western was four-a-side and no armrests.
Sun Chariot
Established Member
Some fascinating insights @Merle Haggard and @LMS 4F My earlier career touched on port demurrage for inbound shipping containers; so I find it fascinating to learn of its nineteenth century railway origins.
My post 68 carefully chose wording "...other inefficient operations" . I lack a personal insight or the reference material but I do recognise certain operations, by their nature, seemed to be resource-intensive / onerous. Of course, it does not stop them from being profitable on paper (even if not profitable enough).
My earlier career touched on port demurrage for inbound shipping containers; so I find it fascinating to learn of its nineteenth century railway origins.My post 68 carefully chose wording "...other inefficient operations" . I lack a personal insight or the reference material but I do recognise certain operations, by their nature, seemed to be resource-intensive / onerous. Of course, it does not stop them from being profitable on paper (even if not profitable enough).
Merle Haggard
Established Member
Some fascinating insights @Merle Haggard and @LMS 4F
My post 68 carefully chose wording "...other inefficient operations" . I lack a personal insight or the reference material but I do recognise certain operations, by their nature, seemed to be resource-intensive / onerous. Of course, it does not stop them from being profitable on paper (even if not profitable enough).
I will own up. it's a fair cop!
When you were costing traffic on the shared BR network the choice of cost allocation methodology made a big difference to cost attribution. Towards the end, infrastructure costs had to be calculated on a prime user/avoidable basis. For routes that were freight only that of course meant 100%, but for routes intensively used by passenger actors track marginal cost attribution resulted. Signalling costs were different because for instance one single train later or earlier than the passenger service might require another signaller's shift. A certain other (passenger) sector's timetable and seemingly odd re-routing was driven by avoiding a) being the prime user and b) causing an extra daily shift in a signal box but we did not exploit the system in that way, ie our service drove costs not vice versa.
Same with using fully depreciated resources; there was an advantage in having what seems to be an un-necessarily large fleet of locos for the sector's traffic when, by careful usage, progress towards the costly 10,000 TOPS hours exam/overhaul could be held off as long as possible, and at that time the other Sectors were offering redundant locos with some hours left. We did, however, eventually run out of shoe-strings
.I think I have a similar perspective to @The Pelican in that it was the thinning out of the network into a basic railway that removed a lot of the interest, even though for a lot of what I was seeing, the track may have been there but it wasn't used, or hardly ever. In fact I always had a particular fascination for track that had rusted black because it hadn't been used for so long, or sadly in some cases, never been used at all.
D6130
Established Member
Maybe in theory....but in practice it was only used for engineering trains.
thesignalman
Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 153
Are you related to Dr Beeching?
Getting rid of so-called "inefficiencies" only creates fresh ones, as has been discovered the hard way.
John
On the one occasion I used the luggage in advance service it arrived with a substantial hole in the case.
Never used it again.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Examples?
Last edited:
The singling of various main lines springs to mind, only having one route between Brighton and London is another.
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,590
I think your perceptions of the 60s and 70s probably depended a lot on where you travelled. My recollections of the Southern inner suburban area was of a very reliable service, albeit with somewhat ageing stock (you could sink quite far down in some of the cushions) and floors covered in cigarette butts, discarded newspapers and other rubbish. They weren't swept during the day, so the morning's rubbish was still there in the evening. I think that sweeping of trains after the morning peak was a NSE innovation?
But the important thing was that even if something happened and the timetable collapsed, they would still keep trains running. So if something derailed, for example, it would be hoiked clear so that trains could run again asap, and recovered overnight.
Whereas the Cambrian on a Saturday, you never knew when you might get a train. You would turn up at the advertised time, and could wait two or even three hours. No staff to ask, no platform displays, no help point, no internet, no mobile phone to call anyone. If you left the station to find a phone box, you risked missing the train, so you all just waited. Even if a train came the other way, and you asked the guard, they were usually as much in the dark as you.
The North Wales coast line was much better. Except summer Saturdays, which could be quite chaotic. But at least there were station staff to ask, and who generally knew what to do. And even on the Conwy Valley, I don't recall ever being seriously delayed.
The Midland Mainline however was a different kettle of fish. It seemed to be the forgotten mainline. The loco hauled stock was old and dirty, the service slow and unreliable. Often I would turn up at Derby and there would be no clue when the next train to London might actually turn up, or when I might get to London. I used to dread my trips to Derby. That line was totally transformed when the HSTs were introduced.
One thing that I think we tend to take for granted these days is that most services now run on a regular repeating pattern. Back then, outside the suburban areas, service patterns were totally irregular, and often different from one day to the next. Timetables used to be littered with WO, TThO and the like. You really did need to refer to the timetables for most journeys. Nowadays, even on a line like the Cambrian, the services are two hourly, give or take a couple of minutes. Back then, if you missed a train, you would have to look at the timetable.
The most unhelpful timetable note that I still recall was Crossville's bus services that ran something like Tuesdays only, except Wednesdays on Llanrwst market and fair days. Of course, the timetable didn't tell you which were market and fair days, you were expected to know that. As I recall, markets were held in the first week of the month, except in months when there was a fair. And if the Tuesday was the last of one month, and the Wednesday the first of the next..... I got stranded once because I got it wrong.
But the important thing was that even if something happened and the timetable collapsed, they would still keep trains running. So if something derailed, for example, it would be hoiked clear so that trains could run again asap, and recovered overnight.
Whereas the Cambrian on a Saturday, you never knew when you might get a train. You would turn up at the advertised time, and could wait two or even three hours. No staff to ask, no platform displays, no help point, no internet, no mobile phone to call anyone. If you left the station to find a phone box, you risked missing the train, so you all just waited. Even if a train came the other way, and you asked the guard, they were usually as much in the dark as you.
The North Wales coast line was much better. Except summer Saturdays, which could be quite chaotic. But at least there were station staff to ask, and who generally knew what to do. And even on the Conwy Valley, I don't recall ever being seriously delayed.
The Midland Mainline however was a different kettle of fish. It seemed to be the forgotten mainline. The loco hauled stock was old and dirty, the service slow and unreliable. Often I would turn up at Derby and there would be no clue when the next train to London might actually turn up, or when I might get to London. I used to dread my trips to Derby. That line was totally transformed when the HSTs were introduced.
One thing that I think we tend to take for granted these days is that most services now run on a regular repeating pattern. Back then, outside the suburban areas, service patterns were totally irregular, and often different from one day to the next. Timetables used to be littered with WO, TThO and the like. You really did need to refer to the timetables for most journeys. Nowadays, even on a line like the Cambrian, the services are two hourly, give or take a couple of minutes. Back then, if you missed a train, you would have to look at the timetable.
The most unhelpful timetable note that I still recall was Crossville's bus services that ran something like Tuesdays only, except Wednesdays on Llanrwst market and fair days. Of course, the timetable didn't tell you which were market and fair days, you were expected to know that. As I recall, markets were held in the first week of the month, except in months when there was a fair. And if the Tuesday was the last of one month, and the Wednesday the first of the next..... I got stranded once because I got it wrong.