British Rail?

[district]

Hi Guys,

In my AS Government & Politics class we've been learning about how Thatcher has revolutionised recent UK politics. Discussion soon turned onto Major and how he sold off British Rail.

I want to put a presentation together to outline the differences between British Rail and the privitised rail we have today.

The main things I want to think about (and consult with Rail UK Forums) are the following:

1. Rolling stock: I appreciate that the stock all transfered to the ROSCO's after privitisation but was the stock generally used on routes better or worse placed than now? What was the unit availability like? (Especially in emergencies/situations) How reliable were the rolling stock and most importantly the British Rail/Privitisied maintenance?
2. Fares and ticketing: I have no idea what the fare system was like in the BR days (except the Jimmy Saville adverts!). Were there more or less ticket types? Was the system easier to use than it is now?
3. Directed at BR Staff who transferred over: What was pay/pensions/job security like now and then? Are conditions for staff better than they are now or has privitisation improved things?
4. Customer culture: Was BR as 'customer focused/customer is always right' as they are today? Is this a good or bad thing?
5. Is there anything else that is a pivotal or notable change in how the railways have operated that I should know?

From what I've heard, i'm pro BR/pro nationalisation but I really, really want to hear the members views so I can put together and insitgate a balanced discussion.


Thanks, District

 

[Schnellzug]

I think the comparisons that should rightfully be made should be with pre-sectorisation BR, since post, say, 1987, BR was pretty much a series of separate units that tried to have as little to do with each other as possible (certainly INTERCITY, like the two Ronnies sketch, looked down on Regional Railways, while NSE would have much preferred to be a separate business). The BR that Major sold off wasn't the BR that most people fondly remember, the days when you could just borrow whatever loco was in the nearest siding and hook it onto your train and off you'd go.

 

[Morgsie]

District,

I'm taking a break from studying a Politics degree.

The Process of Privitisation in other words the way in which it was done should be a major part of your presentation. The different options (models), actors involved for example the Treasury etc.

I would suggest reading widely on this because there are differing views.

 

[dubscottie]

Just from my own experience its worse as far as tickets go. I found my collection of Family Railcard Tickets.

For example in 1990 my uncle took us (2 cousins, brother and myself) to York for £21.20 Adult and £1 each for the rest of us. Same to Liverpool.. Ticket bought at 2130 on the Friday night, got on the Sleeper from Inverkeithing to Preston and slept there till till the first pacer to Liverpool. Adult £31.50. Us kids? £1 each.

I live in Ireland now and after 21 years (I am 31 now)would never think about rail travel in the UK unless it was on a BritRail Pass. I feel sorry for my brother, who is still in scotland and cant afford to take his kid on even the shortest trip.

I dont know if you would be interested but my father was "Environmental Health / Pest Control" for the British Transport Hotels before they where sold off.

I remember my fathers ex-boss, who had stayed with the railway, regretting it as he was working everywhere but on the railway after privatisation.

May I also recommend a film? Its called The Navigators.
Ken Loach directed it. Good insight into the change from BR.

 

[Zoe]

Just from my own experience its worse as far as tickets go.

The walk-up fares are quite expensive these days on some routes but many of these now have cheap advance fares available.

 

[Wyvern]

Many routes with more than one TOC have restrictions which catch out the naive or unwary, such as the WCML with Virgin and London Midland.

 

[district]

Thank you all for your comments, I'm findng them all very interesting.

I've seen the navigators, it's brilliant. Wheres my free sardines???

 

[DarloRich]

Just stick to the BR was destroyed by evil stupid Tories with an axe to grind line and you will be ok!

 

[Greenback]

[*]Rolling stock: I appreciate that the stock all transfered to the ROSCO's after privitisation but was the stock generally used on routes better or worse placed than now? What was the unit availability like? (Especially in emergencies/situations) How reliable were the rolling stock and most importantly the British Rail/Privitisied maintenance?

I think it would be difficult to make a meaningful comparison in this area. There have been almost two decades of advances in technology and working practices since BR.

[*]Fares and ticketing: I have no idea what the fare system was like in the BR days (except the Jimmy Saville adverts!). Were there more or less ticket types? Was the system easier to use than it is now?

There were far fewer ticket types than there are now. There wer eno TOC only tickets for a start! BR had some Advance fares, called Apex and Super Apex, but they wer equite limited in terms of route and availability.

As far as I am concerned the BR system was far simpler to use and to understand, both from a staff and passenger viewpoint.

[*]Customer culture: Was BR as 'customer focused/customer is always right' as they are today? Is this a good or bad thing?

Br was not so customer focused as today's railway, but then customer service in Britain has improved massively over the past twenty years, in all areas.

Br was undoubtedly moving in the right direction. Who is to say that they would not be similar to the private companies of today if they had been allowed to continue?

[*]Is there anything else that is a pivotal or notable change in how the railways have operated that I should know?

I am sure that you are aware of the fragmented nature of the industry, and the huge number of interfaces between the organisations involved in running the system, including NR, DfT, TOC's, ROSCO's, and FOC's, not forgetting ATOC, PF, the devolved governments, RAIB, and CRP's. It is all far more complex than it used to be and transparency seems to be one of the casualties.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the comparisons that should rightfully be made should be with pre-sectorisation BR, since post, say, 1987, BR was pretty much a series of separate units that tried to have as little to do with each other as possible (certainly INTERCITY, like the two Ronnies sketch, looked down on Regional Railways, while NSE would have much preferred to be a separate business). The BR that Major sold off wasn't the BR that most people fondly remember, the days when you could just borrow whatever loco was in the nearest siding and hook it onto your train and off you'd go.

on the contrary, i think the only sensible comparison should be with the sectorised model. The other ways of running the railway had all been tried and it was only sectorisation which delivered a stable network. Regional railways may have been the poor relation, but at least they had a purpose for the first time, rather than being seen as just a nuisence to be hacked away at.

 

[Zoe]

The other ways of running the railway had all been tried and it was only sectorisation which delivered a stable network.

The network could have been stable under the regions but at the time rail travel was declining and so there were closures. The car was seen as the future. I expect the demand for rail travel would still have increased regardless of sectorization or later privatization and so the network would likely have stabilized by the 1990s. With sectorization you had separate business units and a failed train of one sector could be unable to use a locomotive of another section to rescue it, it was run as a business. Actually two years before privatization there was a further restructuring where the regions were completely abolished and the sectors gained control of the infastructure. This model could have been used for privatization with the sectors or parts of them getting sold off to different companies. Accounting for infrastructure would have been separate due to the EU Directive but each companies infrastrucure division would have charged its operations division a track access fee and would have charged all other companies the same fee. For some reason though they did not go for this model or other suggestions like a British Rail Plc or a return to the big four and decided to franchise passenger services instead.

 

[Buttsy]

If you read Christian Wolmar's 'On The Wrong Line', you'll get a good insight to the reasoning and errors that occured. The biggest culprit seems to be Steve Robson (now Sir Steve) who was the man in the Treasury who drove many privatisations.

Tickest were more straightforward in that you had only 3 really to choose from: Open, Cheap Day and Saver. The Cheap Day ticket tended to be for 50 mile journeys or anywhere in the SouthEast (I went to Shanklin from Oxford a number of times on these).

BR seemed to me to be slowly moving towards the commercial side of things as opposed to the 70s when trains seemed to be run for operating convenience rather than customer demand.

 

[Zoe]

If it was still BR though would there be the rock bottom advance fares we see today? It could be argued that this is one of the successes of privatization even though it seems to have been at the expense of affordable walk-up fares on some routes.

 

[Metrailway]

Hi Guys,

In my AS Government & Politics class we've been learning about how Thatcher has revolutionised recent UK politics. Discussion soon turned onto Major and how he sold off British Rail.

I want to put a presentation together to outline the differences between British Rail and the privitised rail we have today.

The main things I want to think about (and consult with Rail UK Forums) are the following:

1. Rolling stock: I appreciate that the stock all transfered to the ROSCO's after privitisation but was the stock generally used on routes better or worse placed than now? What was the unit availability like? (Especially in emergencies/situations) How reliable were the rolling stock and most importantly the British Rail/Privitisied maintenance?

From what I've heard, i'm pro BR/pro nationalisation but I really, really want to hear the members views so I can put together and insitgate a balanced discussion.


Thanks, District

The best way to compare rolling stock between the two eras is by comparing the average rolling stock age. This is a good indicator of comfort, safety, and reliability.

When rolling stock was transferred from BR to the ROSCOs, the average age was about 16 years. This is according to the National Audit Office report on the Privatisation of Rolling Stock Leasing Companies published in 1998.

This increased to 20.67 years in the second quarter of 2000/2001 year. This average gradually dropped to 12.98 years in the second quarter of 2005/6. This is an all time low in the privatised era. Since then, the average has increased to 17.34 years in the final quarter of the 2010/2011 year. These figures are from the ORR.

However, you must take in account the subsidies over the years, when comparing the average age.

In 1985-86 the total government support (including PTEs) to the passenger services was £988 million. This fell to £446 million by 1988-89. It then increased in the 90s significantly to a high of £2.171 billion in 1992-93. With privatisation immenent, it then fell to £431 million during 1995-96. The next year, 1996-1997, the subsidy increased to £1.056 billion going up to £1.829 billion the next year. It stayed around the £1.5 bn figure for the next three years till 2000-2001. This is when average age of Rolling stock was 20.67 years.

2001-2002 at £1.826 billion, and this figure increased substancially to £6.308 Billion in 2006-2007. It has dropped since then to £3.96 billion in 2010-2011. Note that the 2010-11 figure is still over £1.7bn higher than the maximum subsidy BR got in 1992-93.

ORR figures:
SRA National Rail trends 2004-2005
ORR National Rail trends 2010-2011

 

[Morgsie]

I said earlier in my post about the different models of Privitisation

One option favoured by John Major was the return to the Big 4.

Andrew Marr talks about the Privitisation in A History of Modern Britain pages 494-497.

I would like to suggest reading Academic Journals as well.

 

[DarloRich]

If you read Christian Wolmar's 'On The Wrong Line', you'll get a good insight to the reasoning and errors that occured. The biggest culprit seems to be Steve Robson (now Sir Steve) who was the man in the Treasury who drove many privatisations. QUOTE]

That Woolmer book is very good

 

[es373]

As rail staff - I'm glad of privatisation. I don't fancy crap money for the job I do and also the standard 'on board' was considerably lower.
Take a look at how many incidents happened in the BR days and compare it to now.
BR is dead and should have died earlier than it did.

 

[AndrewP]

What a fascinating subject - I don't know enough about the railways to comment on the details but I do think the service provided today is generally excellent and most staff seem to have a high degree of pride.

What I would say is that pricing is definitely different with the model having moved from a model akin to flat bus fares to the much more variable airline ticket pricing model.

Finally if you are using any figures, stats or other data just make sure that they are used consistently and any comparisons are on a like for like basis.

For data I would see if there are any Mintel reports availabe.

If there is anything I can do to help with data analysis or whatever just let me know.

 

[IanXC]

You might also want to consider whether there a different models of Privatisation which have operated since BR was wound up. There are some very different franchises around, from Chiltern to the new Anglia franchise, and there have been quite significant changes to the regulatory structure. I think most of us would agree that in the past the franchise structure has promoted innovation by TOCs much more than it does now.

 

[W-on-Sea]

A couple of points to throw into the mix as worthy of consideration (from someone *broadly* satisfied with, at least, the way the bits of the privatized railway I use most frequently works, if not other parts of the arrangements)

- Compare the state subsidy for the railways now and in BR days.

- Compare the number of passengers carried now and in BR days.

As I understand it, compared with, certainly anytime in the 1980s, both have increased substantially.


One other thing... the sheer scale of neglect and decay and customer-un-friendliness of large parts of the BR network in its latter days (because of decades of underinvestment and cost-cutting) shouldn't be forgotten. This could be illustrated in all sorts of ways, but the picture of Crowthorne station on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crowthorne_Railway_Station.jpg (I guess from sometime between the late 1970s and mid 1980s) is as demonstrative as any

Which is not to say that everything is perfect (or everything better) now... but with the exception of anything that Chris Green got his hands on and dramatically improved (ScotRail, Network SouthEast), mid-to-late-period BR is really not something I would lament.

There are numerous qualifications to be added to that. Maybe later.

 

[radamfi]

If it was still BR though would there be the rock bottom advance fares we see today? It could be argued that this is one of the successes of privatization even though it seems to have been at the expense of affordable walk-up fares on some routes.

Undoubtedly there would be Advance fares today if BR had continued. BR had already started offering Apex, SuperApex, Advance and SuperAdvance in the early 90s. I remember getting excited that I could travel from London to Glasgow and back for £29 SuperApex Return. You could get an Apex if you booked one week in advance on most long distance routes and you had to book two weeks in advance for SuperApex. Advance and SuperAdvance could be bought the day before and were similar or same price as Savers or SuperSavers but were tied to a specific train but could be used on more trains than Savers/Supersavers.

The internet has made buying Advance fares a lot easier. You couldn't buy tickets on the internet in BR days so if BR continued it would be obvious for www.britishrail.co.uk to offer train specific tickets. Most national train companies across Europe offer book ahead fares tied to specific trains.

Privatisation has preserved the backbone of BR ticketing and imposed fare regulation so most of BR's ticket types still exist today, albeit with more restrictions. Had BR continued, this regulation would not have been created so BR may have decided to go even further down the advance purchase road than the privatised TOCs have done and may not have kept cheaper walk up off-peak tickets. They could even have gone down the French/Spanish/Italian route and made some Intercity trains reservation only.

 

[Morgsie]

Another Wolmar book relevant to this is 'Broken Rails how privitisation Wrecked Britain's railways.'

 

[TEW]

The advance purchase tickets available at the end of BR, which we largely had until simplification a couple of years ago was more confusing than the current system. Apex or Super Apex were the cheapest, but you couldn't get a railcard discount on them. So if you had a railcard Advance or Super Advance were cheaper. Just having Advance singles is better.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

BR wasnt perfect - but did a good job with limited resources and a budget set every year by the DfT.

It got a lot more efficient - so by the mid - late 1980's - it very nearly got subsidy free and was better perceived by the politicians etc. Sectorisation of regional and Inter City , NSE made great improvements all round - the IC Pullman services and the best bits of NSE were excellent and real value for money.It actually had some very dedicated managers (I would put myself in there, frankly) - who looked at cost reduction quite humanely, and strove to increase traffic and revenue.

Had it hung together - we would be running a cheaper and more socially inclusive , market related railway than we have now with regulation and contract inerfaces.

BR always was a bit of a national knocking organisation - but this was probably due to the very austere 1940's legacy and the shambles of the 1950's , in the latter days it was very good and probably one of the most efficient in the world.

 

[Class41]

From the staff point of view, I would make the following observations;
1-first, the only good thing to come out of the whole privatisation debacle was a vast improvement in rates of pay, brought about as different companies competed for the services of a limited pool of skilled staff, while being uninterested in training new staff, eg apprenticeships.
2-Safety; more passengers killed in the first ten years of privatisation on ex Western Region metals than in 50 years of BR(W).
3-Use of untrained staff by Railtrack sub-contractors leading to staff casualties.
Diminished safety culture in maintenance depots as companies cut back on staff numbers and training.
4-Replacement of experienced rail managers with untrained staff leading to potentially dangerous errors of judgement.
5-Re-interpretation of the rule book to suit business requirements.
6-Loss of conditions; while the original transfers to private companies observed the required transfer of terms and conditions, each subsequent change invariably led to dilution or loss of benefits.
7-Passenger care took second billing to avoiding delay attribution fines on late running services. Connections with services of another TOC? Forget it!
8-Most of us were loyal servants of BR, I don't see much in the way of loyalties nowadays.

 

[Butts]

Just stick to the BR was destroyed by evil stupid Tories with an axe to grind line and you will be ok!

And also add at the time of privatisation Labour in opposition promised to renationalise the railways if elected at the subsequent Election.

They were but it wasn't

Just for a little balance.

 

[yorksrob]

A couple of points to throw into the mix as worthy of consideration (from someone *broadly* satisfied with, at least, the way the bits of the privatized railway I use most frequently works, if not other parts of the arrangements)

- Compare the state subsidy for the railways now and in BR days.

- Compare the number of passengers carried now and in BR days.

As I understand it, compared with, certainly anytime in the 1980s, both have increased substantially.


One other thing... the sheer scale of neglect and decay and customer-un-friendliness of large parts of the BR network in its latter days (because of decades of underinvestment and cost-cutting) shouldn't be forgotten. This could be illustrated in all sorts of ways, but the picture of Crowthorne station on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crowthorne_Railway_Station.jpg (I guess from sometime between the late 1970s and mid 1980s) is as demonstrative as any

Which is not to say that everything is perfect (or everything better) now... but with the exception of anything that Chris Green got his hands on and dramatically improved (ScotRail, Network SouthEast), mid-to-late-period BR is really not something I would lament.

There are numerous qualifications to be added to that. Maybe later.

Is that not rather the point though.

At least during the late 80's early 90's moves were being made to improve customer service, due in large part to Chris Green. Obviously he couldn't do the whole lot in one go, but he may have moved on to the next bit given half the chance, or even ended up running the whole show.

Old BR of the 60's and 70's may have had more atmosphere but give me the confident expansion of sectorized BR (which managed more re-openings than the current shambles) anyday.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

also the standard 'on board' was considerably lower.

As a passenger, my main experience of BR was on the old Southern Region. Certainly things got a bit Grimier during the Connex era (and things have certainly been tidied up since then) but I'm afraid I haven't found any "on-board" improvement compared to Network SouthEast.

 

[SWTCommuter]

Another book you may find useful is The Crash that Stopped Britain by Ian Jack published by Granta (ISBN 1-86207-468-2). It's out of print now but there are plenty of copies available second-hand if you google the ISBN.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crash-That-...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1862074682

It is an account of how the fragmentation of the railway after privatisation led to the poor maintenance that caused the Hatfield crash in October 2000.

 

[Zoe]

It is an account of how the fragmentation of the railway after privatisation led to the poor maintenance that caused the Hatfield crash in October 2000.

Philip Hammond it considered the rail disasters of the late 1990s and early 2000s to be a consequence of the legacy of BR: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110519/debtext/110519-0002.htm

British Rail operated the railway on a shoestring at relatively low cost, but in doing so it built up a tremendous legacy of under-investment and disregard for safety risk, the terrible consequences of which we saw only too clearly in the late 1990s and the early years of this century.

 

[SWTCommuter]

Philip Hammond considered the rail disasters of the late 1990s and early 2000s to be a consequence of the legacy of BR: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110519/debtext/110519-0002.htm

That's just political spin. If Philips Hammond really believes it, the quote below from Wolmar applies to him as well.


Media Reviews

‘Brilliant’ The Observer

‘Ian Jack has done a thorough investigation of the Hatfield railcrash. This is a little book which packs a breathtaking punch’ Northampton Chronicle & Echo

‘Ian Jack is a master of the journalistic art. [This] is as passionate and intense a piece of writing as you are likely to encounter. It is writing from the heart – brilliant stuff’ Yorkshire Post

‘The ministers who are responsible for perpetuating the outrage of rail privatisation, and who have the power to reverse it, should be forced to read Ian Jack’s book’ Christian Wolmar, New Statesman