Did sectorisation improve BR?

[Falcon1200]

In this case point 'A' had a Train Crew Depot where there were Drivers trained on the Traction, and available. The incident occurred around midday, and the Freight Loco was not required until around 1600. The Loco could've even worked the failed train to where the next Inter City allocated Loco was, and still have been back in time for its rostered working.

In which case I am rather surprised, because in the Control I worked in the Inter-City Controller would have raised the issue with the Duty Manager, who would have overruled the Freight Controller and allowed their loco to be used.

 

[nw1]

But a busy commuter railway doesn't matter lots of confused irregulars with loads of baggage mixed in either.

Mind you recently the regular Southern trains have been full of Gatwick passengers anyway (including myself).

I can't help but think Gatwick Express would have been more useful if it called at Clapham Junction. It would have kept a lot of us airport passengers off coastal services if it did!

 

[Andy R. A.]

In which case I am rather surprised, because in the Control I worked in the Inter-City Controller would have raised the issue with the Duty Manager, who would have overruled the Freight Controller and allowed their loco to be used.

Unfortunately this wasn't just a 'one off'. There were other similar incidents that I can recall. Luckily I have kept a detailed work diary down the years, and have already put over five years worth of day to day activities online from 1975 onwards, and I have many examples of how bad things were, but we had the resources to put things right without the 'in fighting' that went on post sectorisation. At one time there might be a 'Local Inquiry' into incidents, after the event, whereas later the Inquiry was already underway before the incident had been resolved. I have only just reached transcribing my journals up to 1981 so far, and have years more stuff to sift through taking in the transition to the Sectorisation era. I think the main difference of pre-sectorisation as opposed to post-sectorisation was that in the 'pre' period everyone, generally speaking, was 'singing from the same page', whereas 'post' period people weren't even singing from the same book anymore. It is interesting to see that 'a total shambles' still happen on today's railways (looking at this forum has many examples), the only difference is the way things are handled now.

 

[Helvellyn]

That I think was the mistake. There isn't room on a busy commuter railway to consume paths with "premium products".

Me, I'd just have run it with CIGs, and later, standard Southern 377s.

But the service frequencies weren't anywhere near like today. There was no Thameslink when Gatwick Express was re-launched in 1984 either. The use modified 4-VEPs (extra luggage racks, classified 4-VEGs) had shown there was demand for dedicated Gatwick services.

At this time the M25 also wasn't complete and Gatwick actually had a lot of longhaul flights (besides being the home airport of British Caledonian). So Gatwick Express was a profitable, premium service and it went to InterCity.

Finally, NSE didn't exist when Gatwick Express was relaunched - after the APT the "new" Gatwick stock (converted Mk 2F coaches) was the first fleet to fully carry the new InterCity livery (the Mk 2 Manchester Pullmans being the other).

 

[tbtc]

Doesn't seem all that wobbly to me, even if the outcome was a bit arbitrary. The criteria for being an InterCity service was simply that it was profitable, not necessarily that it served cities.

Gatwick Express was profitable, hence it was hived off from NSE; Liverpool-Newcastle serves weren't, so they remained with Regional Railways (later the RR NE shadow TOC).

IC XC services were generally marginal so it's only through good fortune (and possibly inertia) that they didn't end up lumped together with RR Central, for example.

The public don’t care which routes are profitable (or most profitable) though - they’re not expected to know this

ScotRail made sense because it covered all “domestic” services north of the border

NSE generally made sense because it covered all routes confined to the south east of England/ Home Counties (quibbles about Gatwick Express/ Exeter etc aside!)

The name InterCity suggested that this was the sector for services that linked big places, probably restricted to only long distance/ high speed routes?

But, no, despite the name, InterCity was really “Profitable Routes”.

What’s the point in branding all of the profitable services in a different livery though?

For example, if I go to the supermarket, it’s useful for me to know if it’s going to be a Tesco Metro or a Tesco Extra since that’ll affect the quality/ variety of things on offer … I don’t care whether the shop in question is one if the most profitable Tesco branches or not, that’s only something that Tesco accountants would care about, it doesn’t matter to me as a consumer

Obviously there will be some grey areas whenever you try to draw a distinction between different operations to carve them up into separate sectors, but focusing on the internal balance sheets ahead of the passenger experience showed that BR had the wrong priorities

So in the 1980s/early 1990s, people commonly had diaries (or Filofaxes etc!) in which one page was the stylised BR InterCity map… lots of diagonal lines, maybe the silhouette of a swallow in one corner… very trendy looking bit of marketing… but some huge gaps which suggested that the only way from Manchester to Leeds was to go down to Tamworth (or up to Edinburgh) since the relatively frequent trains from Manchester to Leeds weren’t profitable … yet more Style over Substance from an operator who produced some great looking designs for how they’d like new trains to look but weren’t as good at the humdrum task of actually running trains

And then the InterCity branding gets diluted so much that it ends up on Mk1s and 37s (but not on Manchester to Leeds!)

Then again, this was the time of painting the number of the locomotive in huge text on the side, as if this meant anything to the average passenger…

This is reminiscent of a long-ago meeting between BR and the Whitehall Ministry, where the Newcastle to Carlisle rural dmu service was reviewed for support. The civil servant said surely that should be an Inter-City service ... as both Newcastle and Carlisle were cities!

If you’re going to come up with a name like InterCity then it’s understandable that people will expect it to run between cities (rather than actually be secret code for routes that the Accountants deemed to be best performing, in the Byzantine ways that BR used to allocate costs!)

 

[nw1]

So in the 1980s/early 1990s, people commonly had diaries (or Filofaxes etc!) in which one page was the stylised BR InterCity map… lots of diagonal lines, maybe the silhouette of a swallow in one corner… very trendy looking bit of marketing… but some huge gaps which suggested that the only way from Manchester to Leeds was to go down to Tamworth (or up to Edinburgh) since the relatively frequent trains from Manchester to Leeds weren’t profitable … yet more Style over Substance from an operator who produced some great looking designs for how they’d like new trains to look but weren’t as good at the humdrum task of actually running trains

I did think it was a bit odd that the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle route and its various branches did not come under IC. Now I see why...

Unless it was to do with stock, maybe the criterion was "if it's HST, Mk-II or Mk-III then it's IC, if not, it isn't" (I believe Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle was mostly Mk-Is at this time?)

(As an aside, I'm surprised Manchester-Leeds (etc) wasn't profitable. Linking large northern cities would have been profitable, I'd have thought)

 

[Watershed]

And yet XC was deeply unprofitable when franchised to Virgin in 1996.

Perhaps at that point, but the circumstances had changed from when services were allocated to sectors. Indeed, several of the IC shadow TOCs were loss-making when they were franchised; the loss of vertical integration and introduction of Railtrack, which had to be profitable in its own right, certainly didn't help. Those franchises were only expected to return a premium to the Government several years down the line, after the mythical "private sector efficiencies" were supposed to have been achieved.

 

[Meerkat]

For example, if I go to the supermarket, it’s useful for me to know if it’s going to be a Tesco Metro or a Tesco Extra since that’ll affect the quality/ variety of things on offer … I don’t care whether the shop in question is one if the most profitable Tesco branches or not, that’s only something that Tesco accountants would care about, it doesn’t matter to me as a consumer

It wasn’t an informative brand, it was a commercial brand, marketing.

 

[Taunton]

(As an aside, I'm surprised Manchester-Leeds (etc) wasn't profitable. Linking large northern cities would have been profitable, I'd have thought)

It was, for the 1970s, extraordinarily slow, Liverpool to York was 2 hours in 1973 for the 75 miles, that's averaging 37mph, once the M62 motorway came along that just wasn't competitive. The distances were short, thus fare revenue was low, there was hardly any true first class revenue, there was no effective distribution across the Metropolitan area that the London Underground provides, etc.

 

[The Crab]

The public don’t care which routes are profitable (or most profitable) though - they’re not expected to know this

ScotRail made sense because it covered all “domestic” services north of the border

NSE generally made sense because it covered all routes confined to the south east of England/ Home Counties (quibbles about Gatwick Express/ Exeter etc aside!)

The name InterCity suggested that this was the sector for services that linked big places, probably restricted to only long distance/ high speed routes?

But, no, despite the name, InterCity was really “Profitable Routes”.

What’s the point in branding all of the profitable services in a different livery though?

For example, if I go to the supermarket, it’s useful for me to know if it’s going to be a Tesco Metro or a Tesco Extra since that’ll affect the quality/ variety of things on offer … I don’t care whether the shop in question is one if the most profitable Tesco branches or not, that’s only something that Tesco accountants would care about, it doesn’t matter to me as a consumer

Obviously there will be some grey areas whenever you try to draw a distinction between different operations to carve them up into separate sectors, but focusing on the internal balance sheets ahead of the passenger experience showed that BR had the wrong priorities

So in the 1980s/early 1990s, people commonly had diaries (or Filofaxes etc!) in which one page was the stylised BR InterCity map… lots of diagonal lines, maybe the silhouette of a swallow in one corner… very trendy looking bit of marketing… but some huge gaps which suggested that the only way from Manchester to Leeds was to go down to Tamworth (or up to Edinburgh) since the relatively frequent trains from Manchester to Leeds weren’t profitable … yet more Style over Substance from an operator who produced some great looking designs for how they’d like new trains to look but weren’t as good at the humdrum task of actually running trains

And then the InterCity branding gets diluted so much that it ends up on Mk1s and 37s (but not on Manchester to Leeds!)

Then again, this was the time of painting the number of the locomotive in huge text on the side, as if this meant anything to the average passenger…



If you’re going to come up with a name like InterCity then it’s understandable that people will expect it to run between cities (rather than actually be secret code for routes that the Accountants deemed to be best performing, in the Byzantine ways that BR used to allocate costs!)

Remind me, which 37/Mk1 service was IC branded?

 

[yorksrob]

The "landcruise" mk1 sets looked rather splendid in IC livery.

 

[55002]

Unfortunately this wasn't just a 'one off'. There were other similar incidents that I can recall. Luckily I have kept a detailed work diary down the years, and have already put over five years worth of day to day activities online from 1975 onwards, and I have many examples of how bad things were, but we had the resources to put things right without the 'in fighting' that went on post sectorisation. At one time there might be a 'Local Inquiry' into incidents, after the event, whereas later the Inquiry was already underway before the incident had been resolved. I have only just reached transcribing my journals up to 1981 so far, and have years more stuff to sift through taking in the transition to the Sectorisation era. I think the main difference of pre-sectorisation as opposed to post-sectorisation was that in the 'pre' period everyone, generally speaking, was 'singing from the same page', whereas 'post' period people weren't even singing from the same book anymore. It is interesting to see that 'a total shambles' still happen on today's railways (looking at this forum has many examples), the only difference is the way things are handled now.

Where’s that Andy, be interesting to read that

 

[nw1]

It was, for the 1970s, extraordinarily slow, Liverpool to York was 2 hours in 1973 for the 75 miles, that's averaging 37mph, once the M62 motorway came along that just wasn't competitive. The distances were short, thus fare revenue was low, there was hardly any true first class revenue, there was no effective distribution across the Metropolitan area that the London Underground provides, etc.

To me Liverpool-York in 2 hours actually sounds good, as it "seems" a long way due to the Pennines forming a psychological barrier between one side and the other.

Liverpool to York "seems" like a lot more than 75 miles.

I remember doing Manchester-York in 1997 (so rather later) in about 1hr20-1hr30 or so, and again that seemed reasonable.

 

[Magdalia]

InterCity does not mean short-distance airport shuttle (or shouldn't).

You are missing the point, which was to put all of the profitable routes into one sector, so that BR could demonstrate to the government that those routes were operating without taxpayer support. It then made sense to use the well established InterCity brand name for that sector.

Gatwick Express in InterCity was a bit silly

Most people using the rest of InterCity didn't know or care that Gatwick Express was included, so there was no significant damage to the brand.

Me, I'd just have run it with CIGs, and later, standard Southern 377s.

Air travel was very different then: the routes at Gatwick were different, with much more intercontinental travel, air passengers carried more luggage, and it wasn't in suitcases with wheels.

A frequent service primarily aimed at airport customers, with generous provision for luggage, was essential to keep the airport traffic as separate as possible from the other traffic, particularly peak time commuting.

Standard CIGS just would not have been able to cope. One of the huge advantages of the Gatwick Express MarkIIs was the wide doors for getting big suitcases in and out.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Wat’s the point in branding all of the profitable services in a different livery though?

As I see it, this was precisely the point.

Sectorsation was about figuring out if the parts of BR with growth potential, i.e. the ones already of such evident use to the customer they could turn a profit, which could then be improved to the point they could cross subsidise the parts that were simply only ever going to be loss making but socially necessary or marginally profitable, it being moderately useful to be able to offer onward travel. And if not cross subsidise, at least reduce the cost of BR to the taxpayer to the point it couldn't be used as a political differentiator between the party that was now pro car and individual choice, and the party still wedded to the notion of collective good and thus collective burden.

IC was meant to be competing with cars and planes. NSE was competing with cars and coaches. Freight was competing with road and customer rail.You make brands and adverts for these things because you're trying to reach new eyeballs and change mindsets, in an era where BR had become a byword for a bygone age at best, a running joke at worst.

Rightly or wrongly, it was perhaps simply presumed that the people using trains to get around in the provinces, were not really in a position to choose, so it was unlikely there was any significant growth potential, or at least nothing that could justify the expense of campaigns, much less step changes in the offering. This was because it was as true then as it is now, If you had a car or could afford a plane ticket, you'd be insane to take a train for any kind journey that began or ended a significant distance from a major rail hub or was not inside or between a densely served area/corridor. Which, thanks to Beeching at al, isn't all that much of the country any more.

That said, the creation of Regional Rail and Scotrail as distinct entities, and a greater sense of PTE relevance to the metropolitan services, of course meant that even here, it would be more likely that opportunities for growth could be spotted and exploited.

Arguably it was either too much of an ask for the internal culture, or was doomed to fail from the outset given the pace of change in the world of travel and transport. Definitely an opportunity missed, either way (sectorisation done well, with confidence in the accounts produced, could just have easily shown that no amount of efficiency savings and investment would ever change the basic underlying economics of a 1990s railway, ensuring any kind of privatisation would look insane as soon as you sketched it on a notepad).

 

[Andy R. A.]

Where’s that Andy, be interesting to read that

The entries are being gradually added on a theme of '43 years ago'. So far there are around 1.5k days entered up from when I started my Work Diaries in October 1975, and today's entry for March 1980 I added this morning. I usually post them up every two days to try and get it as close to the actual dates as possible. From today's entry if you click on the top title it'll take you back into the main site, where you will have to scroll back a long way to get to the start.
At the moment I'm covering my time at Finsbury Park station, and the entries from my time at Euston PSB are now some 10 months back along the storyline.

West Coast - Southern Section N Gauge Model Railway

The saga continues, 43 years ago, but now on the East Coast at Finsbury Park. After a week of Nights it's time to double back onto Late shift. Another gloomy Evening Peak in store........ Monday...

www.facebook.com

 

[55002]

Brilliant, will check that out

The entries are being gradually added on a theme of '43 years ago'. So far there are around 1.5k days entered up from when I started my Work Diaries in October 1975, and today's entry for March 1980 I added this morning. I usually post them up every two days to try and get it as close to the actual dates as possible. From today's entry if you click on the top title it'll take you back into the main site, where you will have to scroll back a long way to get to the start.
At the moment I'm covering my time at Finsbury Park station, and the entries from my time at Euston PSB are now some 10 months back along the storyline.

West Coast - Southern Section N Gauge Model Railway

The saga continues, 43 years ago, but now on the East Coast at Finsbury Park. After a week of Nights it's time to double back onto Late shift. Another gloomy Evening Peak in store........ Monday...

www.facebook.com

 

[Fleetmaster]

Air travel was very different then: the routes at Gatwick were different, with much more intercontinental travel, air passengers carried more luggage, and it wasn't in suitcases with wheels.

Part of my extended family was a perfect case study in the growth potential and threat to the bottom line of that era. The husband worked abroad but wanted his whole family out there (wife and two kids), but they would come back for every break in school and more, with some trips resembling an actual expedition in terms of luggage.

They were representative of a growing ability of UK plc to make money by exporting home grown talent and family values without said talent actually emigrating to adopt the values of a foreign land. A provincial family with no privleage beyond that which comes with hard work and intellect, never once claiming benefits and with both parents in work, their betterment of course still assisted through the helping hand of the state via free education and health, which of course was now getting its money back and more through good old taxation.

Hardly the dream of Neil Kinnock or Kier Starmer. Thatcherism on steroids. There is no such thing as society. But community is a thing (the oft ignored second part of that infamous speech). They could not have done what they did without their domestic community, centred on extended family, and their ex-pat community.

Having been newly privatized, the regional airport just a short taxi ride up the road was doing gang-busters, so was an obvious means of getting to London, for their intercontinental flight needs. Yet they were also a short taxi ride from the main station, offering fast and frequent IC services to London.

The initial taxi ride is therefore equal.The hassle of having to check in twice and the doubling in risk of lost baggage, compared favourably with the hassle of a taxi transfer between London terminals. The journey time from door to intercontinental plane seat, favours the regional airport but is reflected in the still very large difference in cost.

They are doing well for themselves, two cars and a big house, but they're not rich or stupid. The mother in particular, being of working class stock, is acutely award of how much a pint of milk and a pair of school shoes costs, despite now being treated to top notch jewellery for Christmas. Since the journey will take a day either way, and will be an epic hassle either way, she would rather have the jewellery than the time.

This was exactly the sort of existing and future custom that the renewed focus on offering that sectorisation theoretically brought that could and should have retained and grown. It was not to be. Privatisation narrowed the view, and failed to deliver the savings that, in the airport and latterly car hire sectors, only continued their downward trajectory into affordabiliy.

I also regularly used to travel to London. Not for nothing did I proudly display my models of Easyjet planes as a reminder of their superior cost, time and convenience of air travel over both rail and car. My BR blue and IC grey model trains, not so much.

Post-9/11, and then post-Covid, air is less appealing, as is private or hired cars. And yet even now, the train struggles to look attractive, even under normal conditions. Throw in militant greedy staff and a quite literally unreliable service which is only cheap for those whose travel plans can be predicted months in advance, and they can frankly screw off (all except certain open access operators whose minds are still very clearly on the customer and their growth potential, just as Thatcher would have wanted it).

 

[sprinterguy]

Remind me, which 37/Mk1 service was IC branded?

I'm not sure that the combination was often seen together in regular service (The closest I can think of would be the class 37 hauled workings out of London Liverpool Street towards Cambridge/Norwich, but I think those ended around the time sectorisation was introduced, circa 1982, and don't know if the mark 1 stock was ever 'Inter-city' branded), but separately there were Swallow liveried 'no heat' 37s used on the Aberdeen and Inverness sleepers between 1992 and 1994, and the white-roofed Intercity mark 1 charter rakes plus sundry other vehicles used on select services like the Stirling Motorail.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Mar 2023 ==

The "landcruise" mk1 sets looked rather splendid in IC livery.

They certainly were quite pleasing to the eye.

 

[nw1]

In terms of sectorisation in general, I think NSE and ScotRail made sense, as they were largely self-contained networks.

However I would have put InterCity and Regional Railways/Provincial in the same sector, and just use different brandings - as they covered the same geographical area (everywhere expect the southeast and Scotland). At this time both IC and Provincial/RR had a lot of loco-hauled workings. It would have been more flexible to allow the same pool of locos to haul both IC and Provincial/RR services; sectorisation perhaps interfered with this. Furthermore, in an emergency you could have put an RR hauled set on an IC working, and vice-versa, if necessary.

Pre-sectorisation there seemed to be much more of a philosophy of "substitute with anything in an emergency". You might say a 304 or a heritage DMU is not the best substitution for an IC set, but it's better than a cancellation.

Similarly, I would have kept Waterloo-Exeter and Paddington-Oxford in the InterCity-Regional Railways sector until the 159s and Turbos, respectively, were introduced, which would have been the logical time to transfer them to NSE. Again, it would have meant a common pool of locos and hauled stock could have been used.

(Actually, I'd have perhaps kept Waterloo-Exeter in IC-RR even when the 159s were introduced. 159s are of course compatible with other 14x and 15x stock, of which RR Western had plenty by then).

 

[Magdalia]

However I would have put InterCity and Regional Railways/Provincial in the same sector, and just use different brandings

You are still completely missing the point of sectorisation, which was that financial considerations took priority over operational considerations.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

To me Liverpool-York in 2 hours actually sounds good, as it "seems" a long way due to the Pennines forming a psychological barrier between one side and the other.
Liverpool to York "seems" like a lot more than 75 miles.
I remember doing Manchester-York in 1997 (so rather later) in about 1hr20-1hr30 or so, and again that seemed reasonable.

Liverpool-Manchester Vic-Leeds-York is 99 miles: 32 + 42 + 25.
103 via Piccadilly.

 

[Magdalia]

I'm not sure that the combination was often seen together in regular service (The closest I can think of would be the class 37 hauled workings out of London Liverpool Street towards Cambridge/Norwich, but I think those ended around the time sectorisation was introduced, circa 1982, and don't know if the mark 1 stock was ever 'Inter-city' branded)

Apart from a few workings, class 37s finished on the Liverpool Street-Norwich/Cambridge services in 1983. At sectorisation Norwich went into InterCity and Cambridge into NSE. At that time the Norwich line was mostly aircon MarkIIs and the Cambridge line mostly fresh air MarkIIs. It was possible to get a blue class 37 hauling a blue and grey MarkII with InterCity on the side, see here for example:

Semaphores at Ely

37099 waits to depart at Ely with the 1435 Liverpool Street to Kings Lynn on 23rd October 1982. The loco still roams the rails today, being part of the Colas fleet.

www.flickr.com

 

[Senex]

Liverpool-Manchester Vic-Leeds-York is 99 miles: 32 + 42 + 25.
103 via Piccadilly.

So that's 99 miles in 110 minutes by the "faster" trains — pretty pathetic really (and despite both the Liverpool–Manchester and Leeds–York segments being fairly fast lines).

 

[Fleetmaster]

Pre-sectorisation there seemed to be much more of a philosophy of "substitute with anything in an emergency". You might say a 304 or a heritage DMU is not the best substitution for an IC set, but it's better than a cancellation.

Again, this was probably the whole point. Sectorisation was meant to instill a culture where aiming so low ceased to be acceptable, since the market wouldn't stand for it. They would (and were) going elsewhere.

It all becomes clear how bad that culture was, when you put yourselves in the shoes of the InterCity Business Development Manager. You have just replaced a high speed train with bog standard one. Your passengers were delayed, and arrived significantly later than planned, and they also didn't get the standard of service expected. The only good thing about their trip is that they made it from A to B, even though that same basic function could have been achieved had they simply purchased an inferior railway product and been happy to leave earlier and/or arrive later.

On what planet do you come out of that situation having not offered a full and complete apology and refund anyway? While still having incurred the expense of substitution and potentially even worse publicity and reputational damage. It being a planet where your competitors in that situation are already as a matter of course, either replacing like for like with minimal delay, or offering a full refund and vouchers for the inconvenience.

 

[sprinterguy]

Apart from a few workings, class 37s finished on the Liverpool Street-Norwich/Cambridge services in 1983. At sectorisation Norwich went into InterCity and Cambridge into NSE. At that time the Norwich line was mostly aircon MarkIIs and the Cambridge line mostly fresh air MarkIIs. It was possible to get a blue class 37 hauling a blue and grey MarkII with InterCity on the side, see here for example:

Semaphores at Ely

37099 waits to depart at Ely with the 1435 Liverpool Street to Kings Lynn on 23rd October 1982. The loco still roams the rails today, being part of the Colas fleet.

www.flickr.com

Many thanks for the info - It's an area of the country I've never been particularly familiar with.

 

[nw1]

You are still completely missing the point of sectorisation, which was that financial considerations took priority over operational considerations.

But that is probably something I would fundamentally disagree with.

 

[The Crab]

Remind me, which 37/Mk1 service was IC branded?

Thanks to all for the contributions about this.

 

[nw1]

Again, this was probably the whole point. Sectorisation was meant to instill a culture where aiming so low ceased to be acceptable, since the market wouldn't stand for it. They would (and were) going elsewhere.

It all becomes clear how bad that culture was, when you put yourselves in the shoes of the InterCity Business Development Manager. You have just replaced a high speed train with bog standard one. Your passengers were delayed, and arrived significantly later than planned, and they also didn't get the standard of service expected. The only good thing about their trip is that they made it from A to B, even though that same basic function could have been achieved had they simply purchased an inferior railway product and been happy to leave earlier and/or arrive later.

On what planet do you come out of that situation having not offered a full and complete apology and refund anyway? While still having incurred the expense of substitution and potentially even worse publicity and reputational damage. It being a planet where your competitors in that situation are already as a matter of course, either replacing like for like with minimal delay, or offering a full refund and vouchers for the inconvenience.

OK, so you're at a large station in the North West in the 1980s, say Piccadilly or Lime Street. Your 1200 train to Birmingham, formed of an 86 + Mk-II set, has problems due to a failed loco (with no substitution available) or severely delayed inbound working. The next scheduled service is the 1400 (in the 80s, there could be 2-hour gaps on these routes). There's also a 1300 to Euston, with a 30-min connection to New Street available at Stafford (again, these kinds of long waits were commonplace in the 80s). What's least bad?

a) a 304 is available in the sidings and not needed until the evening peak - enough time to get it to Birmingham and back. There's staff available to operate it. You get the 304 out of the sidings and deploy it on the 1200. OK it's an "inferior product", but it's something, and those needing Birmingham relatively quickly (recognising a 304 would lose time) have it as an option.

b) you just cancel it full stop and tell people they must wait for the 1400, or, for the 1300 to Euston which has a 30-min connection at Stafford for Birmingham.

Some might prefer the 304.

You might say "they could have travelled on the 1100 all-stations stopper to Birmingham if they were happy using a 304". But they probably wouldn't. They chose the 1200 because it was fast, and IC-standard. They would prefer an IC-standard train in the ideal world. But they would put up with an EMU designed for local services if the only alternative was a cancellation.

 

[43096]

In terms of sectorisation in general, I think NSE and ScotRail made sense, as they were largely self-contained networks.

However I would have put InterCity and Regional Railways/Provincial in the same sector,

I think you’ve forgotten that ScotRail was not a separate sector: it was one of the Provincial/Regional Railways sub-sectors.