Bring back british rail!

[choo~choo]

I never witnessed the BR days first hand other than through Hornby.. But any of the 'old BR workers' that are still knocking around generally speak of the 'good old days'... On closer inpection these days were so good due to excellent management that let the boys go home early, no silly H&S regulations preventing staff from injury, crap pay meaning working all the hours to make up their wages, and being able to go for a few beers over lunch...

The same old timers have never gone anywhere with the company, never wanted to, and openly slate anyone that wants to make something of themselves. They are generally militant towards the company, don't expect more than 1 job per day, do not support change in any way be it for the better or not, take pleasure in causing issues for the management etc etc....... The list goes on..

So in my opinion/experience, there is no place for the 'Old BR' and it's workers in today's ways of working..

As Deutche Bahn own several TOC's in the UK, doesn't it make them state owned already?? German State owned!??

 

[kylemore]

This is exactly it. When were the Glorious Years? The 50s, when traffic was being lost hand over fist until they brought in a gentleman called Beeching? When locos were scrapped after about six or seven years service, entirely because of mismanagement? Or the post-Sectorisation era, when the network was made up of lots of pseudo-independent companies that refused to have anything to do with each other, and when the only news stories you ever came across that mentioned freight in any way were ones that had the words "closure" or "more traffic lost" in the headline? When was BR ever devoted to public service above and beyond anything else?

The "glory" years were more a legacy of the Grouping years, and even then it was mixed - GWR/SR good, LMS/LNER less so, but even that reflected the reality of long term decline of the industrial areas the LMS/LNER served as opposed to the South.
What they all had to deal with was the exponential growth of road traffic even more so in the 50s, wartime neglect and after nationalisation a combination of incompetence and sabotage (Marples - Beeching was just a functionary).

 

[Old Timer]

I never witnessed the BR days first hand other than through Hornby

Which makes your damnation of the many former BR staff on here even more offensive.

Well now you have non-Railway staff managing most of the Industry and boy are the majority of you far from happy

 

[Trog]

So in my opinion/experience, there is no place for the 'Old BR' and it's workers in today's ways of working..

Quite right its about the difference between doing something to the railway, and filling in a form about it.

 

[choo~choo]

Which makes your damnation of the many former BR staff on here even more offensive.

Well now you have non-Railway staff managing most of the Industry and boy are the majority of you far from happy

There is no blanket damnation of former BR staff in my post, just first hand experience of ex-BR workers that I come across in my railway career.

By saying 'non-Railway staff managing most of the industry', you are implying that unless you are a railway apprentice that has worked up to manager status, you shouldn't be in a managerial post? Couldn't disagree more.

IME obviously.

 

[ivanhoe]

I never witnessed the BR days first hand other than through Hornby.. But any of the 'old BR workers' that are still knocking around generally speak of the 'good old days'... On closer inpection these days were so good due to excellent management that let the boys go home early, no silly H&S regulations preventing staff from injury, crap pay meaning working all the hours to make up their wages, and being able to go for a few beers over lunch...

The same old timers have never gone anywhere with the company, never wanted to, and openly slate anyone that wants to make something of themselves. They are generally militant towards the company, don't expect more than 1 job per day, do not support change in any way be it for the better or not, take pleasure in causing issues for the management etc etc....... The list goes on..


So in my opinion/experience, there is no place for the 'Old BR' and it's workers in today's ways of working..

As Deutche Bahn own several TOC's in the UK, doesn't it make them state owned already?? German State owned!??

Such comments do not add any academic credibility to this debate. Old Timer has experienced both regimes and can comment , ( We may not always agree)without both bitterness and rose colored spectacles.

 

[choo~choo]

Such comments do not add any academic credibility to this debate. Old Timer has experienced both regimes and can comment , ( We may not always agree)without both bitterness and rose colored spectacles.

Maybe the title should be changed then to...

'Bring back british rail! Only people with experience of both regimes need reply'?

I have no bitterness towards any 'regime', I only have my thoughts from working with ex-BR staff and how they come across to me.. Which is precisely what I have said. What exactly is the aim of the thread if not for posters to write their opinions?

 

[TDK]

I never witnessed the BR days first hand other than through Hornby.. But any of the 'old BR workers' that are still knocking around generally speak of the 'good old days'... On closer inpection these days were so good due to excellent management that let the boys go home early, no silly H&S regulations preventing staff from injury, crap pay meaning working all the hours to make up their wages, and being able to go for a few beers over lunch...

The same old timers have never gone anywhere with the company, never wanted to, and openly slate anyone that wants to make something of themselves. They are generally militant towards the company, don't expect more than 1 job per day, do not support change in any way be it for the better or not, take pleasure in causing issues for the management etc etc....... The list goes on..

So in my opinion/experience, there is no place for the 'Old BR' and it's workers in today's ways of working..

As Deutche Bahn own several TOC's in the UK, doesn't it make them state owned already?? German State owned!??

And this comes for someone who has just passed the tests to become a train driver? What other experience of the railway do you have choo choo

 

[choo~choo]

And this comes for someone who has just passed the tests to become a train driver? What other experience of the railway do you have choo choo

9 yrs maintenance..

 

[snail]

SBB/CFF/FFS: State Owned

How much of the network do they own and run compared to private operators?

 

[Oswyntail]

It is futile to talk about "Old Br", because memories are selective, and tinted by personal taste. It is equally impossible to say that the current railway is entirely due to privatisation - for instance, improvements in customer focus may be due to commercial disciplines or simply that the public demands better service nowadays. And the "what ifs" about investment are just that.
However, it is undeniable that there are flaws in the current system, and some are highly expensive. What I would like to see would be a more monolithic, centralised system, based on the true competition coming from other transport modes rather than between rail companies. IMHO, the role of a government includes providing the essential infrastructure.

 

[Schnellzug]

However, it is undeniable that there are flaws in the current system, and some are highly expensive. What I would like to see would be a more monolithic, centralised system, based on the true competition coming from other transport modes rather than between rail companies. .

That just means that the train operator is then able to charge what they like, and provide as limited or as indifferent a service as they like, because people who insist on using rail have to use that operator. If you choose to travel by car, for a start you've got a vast choice of what kind of car to buy; you can choose a Smart car or a Mercedes S Class, whereas if you choose to travel by train (by this argument, and in fact in reality a lot of the time thanks to TOCs having monopolies that are protected by the Government), you have to have (for example) Voyagers because that's what the train operator (or the Government) insist is what is best, and/or is the least expensive option. I firmly believe that there should be choice within each mode, and anyone having exclusive rights inevitably becomes complacent and indifferent to the wishes or the opinions of the user. And that's probably what's one of the major deficiencies with the current system; far from being a cut-throat world of everyone against everyone else and no one co-operates with anyone, it's just the opposite, all the TOCs are very comfortable within their protected monopolies, and can very easily become complacent.

** to add: Obviously I'm talking about inter-city services here, it'd hardly be realistic to have competition on commuter routes, while branch lines and rural services are another kettle of fish again. And probably competition would be better on different routes, as for instance London-Birmingham, rather than a free-for-all on the same routes like there was aftern Bus deregulation. Although with a separate body in charge of timetabling, even that needn't be a reci[pe for utter chaos.

 

[CosherB]

I do wonder if many on here are too young to remember how awful BR was! Or worked for the railway in BR days when the attitude was that BR was there for rail workers, not for the travelling public!

Well I was a regular user of both suburban and Inter City trains from the 60s to a few years ago when I retired. The post-privatisation railway is a million times better than anything BR could offer; new trains, far better reliability, bright modern stations intead of grimy run-down ones, safer, faster (Wilmslow to London sub 2 hours every hour), and many staff with a customer-oriented attitude (rare in BR days).

Don't forget the 'natural' state for rail is private - that's waht they were until the government ran them down in 2 world wars and could not compensate the private companies post WW2, so nationalised them. Now they have returned to how they should be!

Bring back BR? You must be joking!

 

[Schnellzug]

I think I read that the reason why they were nationalised in 1948 wasn't so that they could be a Service for the People, it was because that way the Government could control them directly in wartime, and save themselves a lot of trouble having to co-operate with and compensate private companies.

 

[yorksrob]

I do wonder if many on here are too young to remember how awful BR was! Or worked for the railway in BR days when the attitude was that BR was there for rail workers, not for the travelling public!

Well I was a regular user of both suburban and Inter City trains from the 60s to a few years ago when I retired. The post-privatisation railway is a million times better than anything BR could offer; new trains, far better reliability, bright modern stations intead of grimy run-down ones, safer, faster (Wilmslow to London sub 2 hours every hour), and many staff with a customer-oriented attitude (rare in BR days).

Bring back BR? You must be joking!

Old and ugly enough, and, as a regular user of Network SouthEast I found the stations and trains to be well looked after and cared for (even though the trains I used were definately at the older end of the spectrum). My biggest gripe with NSE was that they kept demolishing our characterful timbered South Eastern Railway station buildings and replacing them with (albeit very attractive) modern buildings !

Things became decidedly grubbier and less well looked after under Connex, and although the more recent incumbents have improved things in this respect, I'd happily have NSE back like a shot !

 

[Oswyntail]

I do wonder if many on here are too young to remember how awful BR was!

Perhaps in parts, but the majority was quite good. Which "awful" aspects do you mean? Sure, many seem to have rose-tinted glasses, but the opposite is equally bad.

Or worked for the railway in BR days when the attitude was that BR was there for rail workers, not for the travelling public!..

And this is still the case, if you go by some of the posts you read here! But, again, the majority of rail staff seemed to take pride (ah, a nostalgic word, that) in providing the service.
In other words, nothing much has changed

 

[CosherB]

Perhaps in parts, but the majority was quite good. Which "awful" aspects do you mean? Sure, many seem to have rose-tinted glasses, but the opposite is equally bad.

Old knackered stock
Dirty run down stations
Poor timekeeping
Unreliability
Inward-looking staff

And one I didn't mention before - BR closing down lines like Woodhead (and trying to close Settle & Carlisle), taking out signals, junctions, and single-lining all to save money. Much of that is being put back under privatisation

And this (inward-looking staff) is still the case, if you go by some of the posts you read here! But, again, the majority of rail staff seemed to take pride (ah, a nostalgic word, that) in providing the service.
In other words, nothing much has changed

I think this place is a refuge for many of the old BR mindset. You can see who they are as they stand out like the dinosaurs they are. They are perhaps a minority on here, but their 'the railway is for railwaymen and passengers are a menace' attitudes, and complete lack of service-orientation, are everything that was wrong with BR. Most of that has been, or is being, corrected under privatisation.

Of course there were many good staff in BR, and we still have dinosoars on the privatised railway, but the trend of change is now the right way.

When I was travelling Cheshire to London and back it was either by BR Inter City or BA Shuttle (Flying). The BA staff were highly professional in every respect. The BR 1st class staff were for the most part an absolute shower. Unprofessional and a real let-down to the rather good Mk3 stock and the excellent breakfast / evening meal. Today, Virgin on board 1st class staff are up there with anything the airlines can offer. And that's just an example.

 

[142094]

I do remember BR days, they weren't fantastic yet I doubt any railway could provide a good service with low funding. No one will know but if BR had enjoyed the same levels of investment from the Dft/Treasury that the current railway does, things would have been a lot different.

 

[yorksrob]

Old knackered stock
Dirty run down stations
Poor timekeeping
Unreliability
Inward-looking staff

And one I didn't mention before - BR closing down lines like Woodhead (and trying to close Settle & Carlisle), taking out signals, junctions, and single-lining all to save money. Much of that is being put back under privatisation

The idea that all stock under BR was 40 years old and everything now is brand new is, I'm afraid, a figment of your imagination.

It's certainly true that BR had the wrong strategy in the 1960's with regard to closures, however a great deal of this had to do with the motor-centric mindset of Governments (and it has to be said, a lot of the population as well) which prevailed well into the 1980's. The ill-conceived machinations around Settle - Carlisle (and the closure of Tunbridge Wells - Eridge) were the last sorry death throws of this mindset

As for those removed signals and singled lines etc, yes, they are a nuisance, but it has to be said, those rationalisations helped to save many a route, including the Marshlink - particularly at a time when Gmt was unwilling to cough up more dosh (unlike the past couple of decades !).

I think this place is a refuge for many of the old BR mindset. You can see who they are as they stand out like the dinosaurs they are. They are perhaps a minority on here, but their 'the railway is for railwaymen and passengers are a menace' attitudes, and complete lack of service-orientation, are everything that was wrong with BR. Most of that has been, or is being, corrected under privatisation.

I think that there is quite a lot which is unfair in that as I found plenty of staff to be friendly and accessible as today.

 

[Zoe]

It's certainly true that BR had the wrong strategy in the 1960's with regard to closures, however a great deal of this had to do with the motor-centric mindset of Governments (and it has to be said, a lot of the population as well) which prevailed well into the 1980's

I'm not convinced it would have been any different if the railways had been in the private sector. At the time it was thought that the private car was the future and I expect people would still have ended up buying cars due to the convenience. Many lines would then no longer have been profititable and so there would have been little benefit to a private company in keeping them open.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not convinced it would have been any different if the railways had been in the private sector. At the time it was thought that the private car was the future and I expect people would still have ended up buying cars due to the convenience. Many lines would then no longer have been profititable and so there would have been little benefit to a private company in keeping them open.

Indeed, I fear the search for profitability would have been just as damaging to the railway had it been under the private sector at the time.

 

[Zoe]

Indeed, I fear the search for profitability would have been just as damaging to the railway had it been under the private sector at the time.

Here's a question though: If it gets to the point where only a few very rich people can afford a car, do you think the railways could be run on a fully commercial basis?

 

[Schnellzug]

I'm not convinced it would have been any different if the railways had been in the private sector. At the time it was thought that the private car was the future and I expect people would still have ended up buying cars due to the convenience. Many lines would then no longer have been profititable and so there would have been little benefit to a private company in keeping them open.

Would a Herbert Walker, Lord Stamp or Felix Pole have handled it better, though? Would they have known when to judiciously cut where unavoidable, rather than just sat back and watched when a Government appointed hatchet man came in, who knew about profit & loss but nothing about how the railways worked and how it all fitted together?

 

[CosherB]

I do remember BR days, they weren't fantastic yet I doubt any railway could provide a good service with low funding. No one will know but if BR had enjoyed the same levels of investment from the Dft/Treasury that the current railway does, things would have been a lot different.

And that is the entire point! BR was NEVER going to get any more funding from the government than it was already getting, as it would have been a vote loser for any government (generally, voters have cars and prefer them to trains) to divert transport spending to rail.

The ONLY WAY the railways would get the funding they needed was to do it through privatisation.

And that's just the funding! The changed attitudes of customer-facing staff would never have come out of BR - it took the privatised companies to bring about such a culture change.

 

[yorksrob]

Here's a question though: If it gets to the point where only a few very rich people can afford a car, do you think the railways could be run on a fully commercial basis?

It's difficult to tell unfortunately, particularly as they relied on a lot of heavy freight the last time they were generally profitable.

I think you'd need a very large outlay to deal with the influx of passengers before they came close to being profitable again, particularly as you'd need to expand network coverage again.

 

[CosherB]

The idea that all stock under BR was 40 years old and everything now is brand new is, I'm afraid, a figment of your imagination.

I didn't say 'all'. But I regularly suffered unreliable 87s on Mk3s on a WCML that was forever having infrastructure failures! Virgin brought in fast and reliable Pendelinos and as part of the deal got WCML infrastructure greatly improved. The bottom line is we now have largely new trains compared to BR days, far better reliability, better safety despite higher speeds and more trains, and bright stations like Manchester Piccadilly.

It's certainly true that BR had the wrong strategy in the 1960's with regard to closures, however a great deal of this had to do with the motor-centric mindset of Governments (and it has to be said, a lot of the population as well) which prevailed well into the 1980's. The ill-conceived machinations around Settle - Carlisle (and the closure of Tunbridge Wells - Eridge) were the last sorry death throws of this mindset

As for those removed signals and singled lines etc, yes, they are a nuisance, but it has to be said, those rationalisations helped to save many a route, including the Marshlink - particularly at a time when Gmt was unwilling to cough up more dosh (unlike the past couple of decades !).

Precisely my point. Under BR the money was NEVER going to be available from the Treasury to run a proper railway (it's not a vote winner like new roads are). It took privatisation to wring the money out of government.

 

[Zoe]

And that's just the funding! The changed attitudes of customer-facing staff would never have come out of BR - it took the privatised companies to bring about such a culture change.

I'm not sure about that, privatization does not automatically result in more customer friendly staff. Staff on the London Underground these days seem to be much more customer friendly and this hasn't been privatized.

 

[RichW1]

Well at least with BR when they had a 125mph train to run, they run it at 125mph so that journey times decreased UNLIKE FIRST GREAT WESTERN!!! I am currently in Bristol and have travelled numerous times on that route and we are made to go slower than the journey needs to be. On all 125mph sections of track the train NEVER reaches 125mph. 122mph is the most that has been clocked and that was very briefly just before and after reading London bound. Most you get is 118 - 120 but also much of the time a lot less.

At least BR tried to achieve maximum journey time benefits. Now 125mph is a pretty poor speed for an IC in the 21st century, you'd think it was just polite to run trains to the low speeds they're at least designed for and not leave us all with longer journey times we have. The stupid thing is....even at these speeds well below the 125mph ability of train and track, we still get to the odd station early and don't enter it, only to be told on the announcement 'we're early and will be pulling in shortly'!!! How much padding can you have for god sake!!!

I am no fan of the privatised railway now, even though I know a railway can't be paid for any other way in the 21st century. It just annoys me that so little of it is engineering led and all are just saving fuel and making trains an economical force instead of a service. Poor show. Yet, now even with all the money going into electrification and new signalling in the 21st century on the Great Western, we're still only going to have brand new trains going at exactly the same speed as they did since the 1970's!!! WHAT'S THE POINT??!!!!!!! Might as well not bother for god sake. Rant over.

 

[Zoe]

On all 125mph sections of track the train NEVER reaches 125mph. 122mph is the most that has been clocked and that was very briefly just before and after reading London bound. Most you get is 118 - 120 but also much of the time a lot less.

So you've seen the speedometer then?

 

[CosherB]

I'm not sure about that, privatization does not automatically result in more customer friendly staff. Staff on the London Underground these days seem to be much more customer friendly and this hasn't been privatized.

I speak as I find. Privatisation brought focus on staff training in customer service skills, and recruitment of staff who are customer oriented. It was particularly striking on WCML when Virgin took over.

As I said above, it was a joke compared to BA in BR days, in Virgin days it was at least as good as the airlines.