British Rail or Network Rail?

[MidnightFlyer]

I assume quite a lot on this forum will remember BR, but since its become privatised, has it been for better or for worse?

 

[mrcheek]

This is a loaded question.

What you want us all to say is how bad National Rail is, so you can pretend that we're all against privatisation as a whole.

You would make an excellent market researcher for the Labour party with tricks like that.
But fortunately, they are out of office now, so we can cut out crap like this.

In summary.
Privatisation: Good.
Network Rail: Bad.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Loaded question?

Better than BR: Information systems such as platform screens/on board screens and running information, some stations have been smartened up since.

Worse than BR: Trains themselves no proper storage space for bikes (brake vans) luggage racks, worse journey times, useless air conditioning (why not have opening windows?), worse T&C for tickets/travel, an utterly bamboozling range of tickets & restrictions. Staff morale seems to be on an increasingly rapid decline, which is a shame as they're the ones who make the railway tick.

Overall privatisation is a mixed blessing. It should have been done as BR PLC, not franchises.

 

[daccer]

I don't think there is much doubt the network as a whole is in better shape
today than during BR's time. If this is due to NR I am not so sure - maybe more of a reflection on the amounts of funding available to each. It is not easy to compare two such different beasts operating in different economic times. I worked for BR and the spirti and camaraderie was great - there was just a feel of decline and corner cutting that pervaded the company. More cash means the ability to do more and NR have been good at spending money (and getting money out of Govt) and they have been fortunate that they operate in an era that values railways more. I am sure NR would point to the stats and use these are evidence of improvements. I like the privatised railway just think it is a work in progress not the done deal yet

 

[transportphoto]

Trains themselves no proper storage space for bikes (brake vans) luggage racks, worse journey times, useless air conditioning (why not have opening windows?), worse T&C for tickets/travel, an utterly bamboozling range of tickets & restrictions. Staff morale seems to be on an increasingly rapid decline, which is a shame as they're the ones who make the railway tick.

Overall privatisation is a mixed blessing. It should have been done as BR PLC, not franchises.

But how do you know what BR would have done?

It can't be said that BR wouldn't have brought in the units we have today - because we don't know, you are just assuming that they wouldn't have!

No my post is not intended to you personally T.E.B., it is aimed at everyone as a whole!

 

[Aictos]

Loaded question?

Better than BR: Information systems such as platform screens/on board screens and running information, some stations have been smartened up since.

Worse than BR: Trains themselves no proper storage space for bikes (brake vans) luggage racks, worse journey times, useless air conditioning (why not have opening windows?), worse T&C for tickets/travel, an utterly bamboozling range of tickets & restrictions. Staff morale seems to be on an increasingly rapid decline, which is a shame as they're the ones who make the railway tick.

Overall privatisation is a mixed blessing. It should have been done as BR PLC, not franchises.

You've got it in one, although I will say that if BR had the same amount of funding that there is today going to the railway then just maybe the investment that Stagecoach, First, Network Rail etc......has delivered would have been delivered by BR and probably done even better too!

 

[yorksrob]

This is a loaded question.

What you want us all to say is how bad National Rail is, so you can pretend that we're all against privatisation as a whole.

You would make an excellent market researcher for the Labour party with tricks like that.
But fortunately, they are out of office now, so we can cut out crap like this.

In summary.
Privatisation: Good.
Network Rail: Bad.

Except that NuLabour was against nationalisation.

 

[ainsworth74]

It can't be said that BR wouldn't have brought in the units we have today - because we don't know, you are just assuming that they wouldn't have!

We can be fairly sure because BR wouldn't have bought units from places like Alstom or Siemens they would have built internaly from BREL. The reason we have these units running around the network is because of the huge order gap in the mid 90s killed most of our indiginous train building industry.

 

[yorksrob]

We can be fairly sure because BR wouldn't have bought units from places like Alstom or Siemens they would have built internaly from BREL. The reason we have these units running around the network is because of the huge order gap in the mid 90s killed most of our indiginous train building industry.

Indeed, one of the worst flaws in the whole plan.

 

[mumrar]

A virtually impossible question to answer, bu hypothetically I think we'd have less new stock. But one thing BR would have done is ensure they all had a similar coupling system. Train failures could easily be dragged or shoved out of the way in years gone by, now they just block routes, especially where you have cheap electrifications of certain lines only like Barnt Green to Kings Norton.

 

[dave_wm]

In my opinion, our rail network would have had a better past 15 years or so had British Rail still existed. Admittedly, I can't say I'm old enough to remember British Rail, but it strikes me that something like a rail network is far better organised as a single institution, and having that in the public sector means you cut out all the private sector profiteering crap. Some industries are acceptable to be privatised; the telephone network for example, but there are others which should not, the railways and the post office for example.

Some may argue that the network has improved since the days of BR, and I'd agree, there are things like the West Coast Upgrade, trains every 20 minutes from London to Manchester, every half hour London to Norwich, every half hour London to Cardiff, every half hour London to Weymouth even! But there is nothing to say that these could not have been carried out by BR, given the amounts of subsidy some private operators have received.

And fair enough, open access operators like Wrexham & Shropshire would not exist at all if the railways were still nationalised, and thus Hull would be really poorly served (although maybe other London services may have been introduced?), Shrewsbury and Wrexham wouldn't have a London service at all.

And perhaps some of the major engineering projects would never have been carried out, the West Coast Upgrade for one - often the government in this country have had problems with the idea of giving public sector companies the money to do things like this.

But, with a nationalised rail system you have other benefits - the stupidly over-complex ticketing systems wouldn't be this bad under a single operator, connections between trains would probably be better (although in recent years, I have noticed that these have improved), productivity may well be better (with no requirement for profit to be made on top of breaking even, more could be ploughed back into service improvements); it is a well-known fact that InterCity was the only profitable railway network in Europe in the early 1990s.

The old BR slogan, 'We're getting there' was fairly rubbish, it implied that they knew that the first 35 years or so had been rubbish, and were finally improving, but by the time the railways were privatised, I believe that BR were on the cusp of getting it right - if only the governments had been more willing to spend the money, then maybe we could have a world-beating rail network, instead of just the world class network we have today.

Whilst the Tories privatised British Rail, I'll admit that Labour didn't renationalise (although it was probably a little too late by the time they got in), and didn't really sort out much of the mess that had been created, but I have even less hope of the Tories sorting out the mess this time, and although, in my eyes, a nationalised system would be better for Britain, I doubt it will return for a long while, if ever.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

You only need to look at the stock that they designed, with the limited resources that they had!

Look at the HST, it's still going strong after nearly 40 years of sterling service & it's still the worlds fastest diesel train (daily service). The Mk3 coach is a work of brilliance you only need to look at where they've been involved in serious incidents at the way they stood up to the impacts (OK, Ladbrook Grove being an exception, but that was a high speed crash).

The class 442's were ahead of their time, using old technology on new bodies, they're still the best EMUs of their time.

The class 91's + MkVI's are brilliant as well.

Their mistakes were the 142's and like buses on wheels & Classes 165/166 - "Turbos" - Not overly pleasant nigh on minimalist commuter trains with a poor layout + no storage space for bikes, unlike the old 11x series DMMU's, not one of BR's best efforts.

What have we got from the private sector so far?

Class 390 - (Pendolino) An "advanced" tilting train, with tilting technology that BR came up with and the Italians improved upon, they'd be nice if they didn't stink of what's gone down the loo, claustrophobic (I try to avoid them where possible)

Classes 221/222 - (Voyager/Super Voyager) - Noisy, cramped & stink just like the Pendolinos, not really fit for purpose. (I try to avoid them where possible)

Class 377 - Electostars - Mmm, too complex and not brilliant for comfort & again lacking in storage space which leads to luggage & bikes being stored in doorways. (Again I try to avoid them where possible)

Classes 450/444 - Desiro - Again commuter stock, but with no luggage racks (444) or Cycle Racks (450) WHY NOT?, Ride's good, seats could be better, air con deafening & not overly reliable. Shame, could be extremely good with a few minor tweaks.

You can see that BR's design skills were far better than the private sectors by a long shot, they thought things through, something that today's designers haven't done & haven't a clue about.

 

[The Planner]

The question isnt comparing like for like though is it, you are basically asking the age old privitisation or no privitisation. Network Rail dont have a say in what rolling stock or how a TOC runs itself, it just deals with the infrastructure.

 

[Vulcan]

I can imagine old timer preparing an essay to reply to this

Myself, having worked for neither and only just remembering life with British Railways, am not really in a position to make any judgement. Also, any judgement would be a tad unfair, as BR operated in a different time, with different problems and challeneges to the ones NR has today.

However, my anorak-sence tells me that the NR fleet of maintenance machines, p'way stock, locomotives and the NMT all look pretty good in matching yellow livery.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

The question isnt comparing like for like though is it, you are basically asking the age old privitisation or no privitisation. Network Rail dont have a say in what rolling stock or how a TOC runs itself, it just deals with the infrastructure.

I would suspect that it may have some say in what the TOCs stock can be like after all if they were to give them carté blanch, they could end up with trains that are too heavy, too long or too wide!

They must provide them with a comprehensive list of specifications to ensure that the new stock that they want to buy will actually be suitable for use on the lines that the TOC intends to use them over.

 

[The Planner]

No TOC is going to buy/fund/build something that is so seriously out of gauge it can't run. Not unless they either fund the gauging clearance themselves or the Dft say that it needs to be done. The majority of the basic info for that is in the public domain anyway in the baseline/sectional appendix documents in the way of RA and W gauges.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

I wouldn't put anything past any company whether it be rail, sea, bus or air.

 

[Ivo]

I wouldn't put anything past any company whether it be rail, sea, bus or air.

Except what is best for the passenger

 

[thefab444]

no luggage racks (444) or Cycle Racks (450) WHY NOT?, Ride's good, seats could be better, air con deafening & not overly reliable. Shame, could be extremely good with a few minor tweaks.

I agree with the lack of luggage racks, surely it wouldn't be too much to spare 2/4 seats in each coach for some luggage space? Really, they could use the entire front coach being first class as well, as I hear that it gets very busy in the peak period, and ensuring there's more first class capacity could be a good way of increasing revenue. Although that would be at the cost of 24 standard class seats (plus another 16 if you install luggage racks, so in all capacity would fall from 299 to 259).

I think 450s have a handful of cycle spaces, but can't for the life of me remember exactly where they are but I think they are in the wheelchair coach?

 

[A60K]

We can be fairly sure because BR wouldn't have bought units from places like Alstom or Siemens they would have built internaly from BREL.

Have a look at some of the last orders placed by British Rail before the privatisation process even started:
Class 60: Brush
Class 91: GEC
Class 92: Brush

Class 155: Leyland
Class 156: Metro-Cammell (now Alstom)
Class 158: BREL (now Bombardier)
Class 321: BREL
Class 323: Hunslet
Class 465: BREL and Metro-Cammell
Mk4 stock: Metro-Cammell
BREL by no means had the monopoly you suggest.

 

[mumrar]

Looking at that list, then look at what where extremely troublesome when first introduced. Class 60s, the awful 155s (doors falling off!) and the 323s. It's not like things were much different. And the Class 59 had laid the foundations for purchase outside, being far less trouble than the 60s they preceeded and more capable too.

 

[ainsworth74]

BREL by no means had the monopoly you suggest.

Very true, and perhaps I should have stated more units would have been built internaly in the UK rather than overseas (even if that builder wasn't BREL many of those units/locos were built by UK builders). I certainly can't see BR having bought units like 22x for instance.

 

[daccer]

Br could never have survived in its original form in the modern day world of European politics. Nationalised monopolies are now an anachronism and are dying out rapidly. In Europe legislation now precludes monopolies on the railway and so the point about what BR would have done will always be mute as it couldn't have existed! For me working for BR for a short period showed up both its strengths and weaknesses. There are some who see it as a very efficient company making the best on limited resources. To some extent it did have to be innovative bit it was also very wasteful especially in relation to its labour force where the practises were very restrictive. However this did breed a culture of loyalty and camaraderie that a privatised company on a short term franchise can't replicate. However I have to say BR was a product of its time and its time has past - we will never see its like again and it should be remembered realistically.

 

[yorksrob]

We'll need to see what happens to the EU in the future, and indeed what sort of relationship we'll have with it.

 

[Greenback]

I assume quite a lot on this forum will remember BR, but since its become privatised, has it been for better or for worse?

This question cannot be answered. We can never know what would have happened if Labour had won in 1992. We can;t know what BR might have done with doen with the amount of money put into the industry during and after privatisation. We can't compare BR and NR as they are not the same type of organisation in the first place.

 

[142094]

Their mistakes were the 142's and like buses on wheels

I wouldn't call 142s a mistake, they have done the job they were supposed to do, remember they were a stop gap until more money was available and better units (156s) could be funded. I don't think many people would have known that they would still be around 25 years later.

The main problem these days is that they are on routes which are unsuitable for them, and sometimes used where more capacity is needed. Not the units' fault.

 

[Welshman]

Except that NuLabour was against nationalisation.

IIRC Matthew Engel, in his excellent book "Eleven Minutes Late" develops the interesting theory that, ideologically, NuLabour would have liked to renationalise the system, but realised privatisation had gone too far to untangle it, and by leaving it as it is, could forever blame the previous regime for whatever went wrong in the present situation.

I think there are pros and cons for privatisation. It seems to be more advantagous if you are just making a journey wholly within one TOC, but not if your journey is more complicated. Punctuality has certainly improved since TOCs can be fined for late departures, but connections are now riskier, as one TOC does not wait for another. Still, that's good business for the local taxi firms! Fares are certainly more complex now, but there are some previously unheard-of bargains to be had. Browsing the EC website recently, I was amazed to find I could buy an AP ticket with senior railcard from Heckington[near Sleaford] to Hebden Bridge, via Grantham and Leeds, for £3.95p!! [the single on EMT to Grantham alone costs that!].
Privatisation has brought a return of service to London from places like Sunderland, Halifax & Brighouse, but changed the whole culture from "can-do" to a "sorry, can't do" one. I could go on, but, like it or not, we're stuck with it, so let's try to make it work the best we can.

 

[boing_uk]

In Europe legislation now precludes monopolies on the railway and so the point about what BR would have done will always be mute as it couldn't have existed!

Oh I dunno. DB seems to do pretty well out of it, owning half of our railway as they do now (figuratively speaking, before the pedants start)

What would have had to have happened if we had kept BR would that there would have been BR Infrastructure and then all the other business units as they were, with Open Access operators. All that would have complied with European law and is just about the way the other nationalised european rail operators have gone.

What has happened with Network Rail is the same as any other organisation which is flush with cash... it becomes bloated with procedure and process. The impression I get of BR was that while it may have been fatty and inefficient in places, it made do with its lot. Network Rail seems to spend money standing still.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Oh I dunno. DB seems to do pretty well out of it, owning half of our railway as they do now

So, they don't have a monopoly then do they?

 

[The Planner]

What has happened with Network Rail is the same as any other organisation which is flush with cash... it becomes bloated with procedure and process.

That is a stunningly accurate portrait of it at the mo, you cant even order some Post It notes without following the correct procedure and process, its ridiculous.