The irony of your post being that your very own Welsh trains are operated every day by a pair of 150s with "NORTHERN" in capital letters on the side
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Great British Railways - Binned
- Thread starter 800001
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yes, that's what the Times article said...
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,247
But then people want it both ways.
They want simplified fares, but also want to shop around if the likes of Grand Central or Lumo provide cheaper fares. Ditto the LNWR option out of Euston instead of Avanti.
Not everyone of course, but an awful lot of people are very tech savvy these days. They buy tickets on their phone, they shop around for cheaper tickets, they use split ticketing websites.
As I've mentioned before, people don't want "simplified fares" per se, they wan't consistently competitive fares where they don't have to plan everything months in advance, and where they won't get fleeced if their plans change.
The "simplified fares" mantra is an Establishment ploy to make people think something is being done while ensuring that fares remain extortionate.
contrex
Established Member
He's been namechecking Attlee and Wilson, so we can hope...
That's a good sign in my book.
Jammy Dodger
Member
May I ask, who are Attlee and Wilson, rail experts I assume...?
LOL The Irony
Established Member
Prime Ministers. Attlee was the PM to nationalise the railways, but also gave jet engines to the soviets.
They just want whatever is cheapest, it would be great if you could just get a walk up ticket at a reasonable price rather than going through all that.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Clement Attlee (PM 1945-51) nationalised the railways, but then refused to develop them for the future under the British Transport Commission.
Harold Wilson (PM 1964-70 and 1974-76) came to power just after Beeching and continued the closures, but at least introduced the policy of social subsidy for individual railway lines under Barbara Castle in 1968.
I think (can't fully recall) that BR's accumulated debt of the time was paid off in the Wilson years. NR's debt is substantially higher today (£35 billion?)
But the Wilson years were when government interference in the railway really began - BR no longer controlled its finances or major investments.
That first happened in 1960 under Harold MacMillan.
Indeed. The Wilson years were bad for closures, but Barbra Castle did at least write off BR's debt.
nanstallon
Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2015
- Messages
- 1,063
During the 1980s and early 90s, I felt that BR was being prepared for privatisation as it was becoming more efficient and customer focused. The old 'take it or leave it' mentality had changed. If only BR had been privatised as 'BR plc' without being split up into numerous organisations, all wanting their slice of the pie, it might have worked. But it has been a dreadful waste of taxpayers' money, even if it gave a lot of lawyers and financiers etc a bonanza.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The problem with "BR plc" was that it was inherently monopolistic and closed to new entrants.
Maybe the privatisation went too far in breaking up the railway, but the regulated TOC policy did allow new entrants, notably in freight and open access.
BR (and the unions) had spent years trying to keep new entrants off the system.
With multiple independent TOCs, you then need a regulator and open system rules about driver/train acceptance and safety cases which we now have.
Ironically, if we had not privatised early, and stayed in the EU, we would now be breaking up "BR plc" in the same way the EU has broken the state monopolies across the continent.
Maybe the privatisation went too far in breaking up the railway, but the regulated TOC policy did allow new entrants, notably in freight and open access.
BR (and the unions) had spent years trying to keep new entrants off the system.
With multiple independent TOCs, you then need a regulator and open system rules about driver/train acceptance and safety cases which we now have.
Ironically, if we had not privatised early, and stayed in the EU, we would now be breaking up "BR plc" in the same way the EU has broken the state monopolies across the continent.
Jammy Dodger
Member
Richard Clinnick has shared a picture of a potential GBR Intercity livery - looks very much like the old BR Corporate livery...
Shame we will likely never see it, looks decent
Shame we will likely never see it, looks decent
Richard Clinnick has shared a picture of a potential GBR Intercity livery - looks very much like the old BR Corporate livery...
Shame we will likely never see it, looks decent
That looks awful, sorry.
Pete_uk
On Moderation
Yuck! No!
I'm sure better liveries could be made. Hopefully colourful ones
I'm sure better liveries could be made. Hopefully colourful ones
Jammy Dodger
Member
Feel like I should clarify, decent does not necessarily mean good. IMO it's better than TPE's or HT's IET livery, but nowhere near LNER, or the god of high-speed liveries, Swallow!
Fazaar1889
Member
The DfT is still firm on GBR. It hasn't been scrapped. I can't access the article but here's the link. If someone can send the entire article, that'll be great
DfT confirms go-ahead for Great British Railways despite speculation on axeing | New Civil Engineer
The Times cited sources within the DfT that are said to have claimed GBR is not a priority for the current government and will not be brought forward inwww.newcivilengineer.com
contrex
Established Member
You are a millennial or Gen-Xer, I presume?
Jammy Dodger
Member
Erm, go younger! I was born in 2003, partial privatisation is all I've known! The first TOC I remember was NXEA (or, depending on how you classify it, TfL)!
In terms of the Soviets, Attlee also instigated our independent nuclear deterrent as well.
You learn something new everyday !
contrex
Established Member
They don't make them like that any more.
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,581
Couldn't the dft just write franchise specifications to create a GBR why would it need legislations. The DfT have let out concession based franchises without legislation before.
Peterthegreat
Established Member
Absolutely.
The article referenced above includes:
To be fair nothing there contradicts it being left out of the Kings Speech, and the "as soon as parliamentary time permits" is a get out clause. We shall see whether the response to the consultation is published by summer and if so what it says.
To be fair nothing there contradicts it being left out of the Kings Speech, and the "as soon as parliamentary time permits" is a get out clause. We shall see whether the response to the consultation is published by summer and if so what it says.
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
in my humble opinion....All passengers really want is a train that will arrive on time, Have space to sit down and relax and a reasonable priced ticket. All these Advance..Time...Operator..etc. just causes confusion (I see it every day) and then myself and my colleagues are "bad guys" for having to enforce the rules. Everything is way too complex and needs to be simplified. To the average person a Train is a Train they are not looking for markings of which operator it is etc. all they care about is if it goes to the destination they want. Ticketing needs not to be revolutionised but made simple and with a touch of common sense.
Jammy Dodger
Member
Sounds similar to my personal approach for forming an opinion on public transport, the 3 C's - Convenience, Cost, Comfort. Fulfil all of those, and I see no reason why people would switch to public transport en masse.
Is that a fair expectation or not?
- Status