Margaret Thatcher and the railways - complicated?

[Buttsy]

Re-opened east of Bathgate in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher, so shall we criticise her for the closure and praise her for the reopening?

A lot of the reopenings (lines and stations) were more down to Tony Speller MP and the act that was passed in 1982 (known as the Speller Act) which allowed stations and services to be opened on an experimental basis and so, if unsucessful, could be closed again without going through the full closure procedure. The only station I remember closing under this act was Corby.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I wonder if the apparent disinterest of the government at the time led to some of the better things happening, in comparison with the DFT putting their sticky fingers in everywhere.

Yes I think there a number of contradictions from the time which is why I say "complicated" on the thread starter. BR management was by and large left to get on with it and whether getting on it fitted exactly into the prevailing view on the railways in Govt at the time is perhaps questionable nonetheless Parker, Reid 1 & Reid 2 did much their own agenda apart from when it came to funding investment when they had to have permission from Govt. There's a case to say the modern railway dances to the tune of the TOC shareholders and Govt whereas BR by and large set its own agenda within the financial constraints imposed on it.

The re openings mentioned elsewhere were largely driven by local authority's/PTE's whilst at the same time the Ministry of Transport was encouraging BR to look at Bus Substitution as a solution to regional rail not re openings!

The regional railways replacement stock albeit on the basis of 2 new carriages for 3 old and remember there was Heritage DMU's and MK1 loco hauled stock knocking around until the early 2000's was a great triumph for BR given the Ministry of Transports wish for closures/bus Substitution. Again anecdotal were told Conservative backbench MPs were pre briefed on their lines having trains withdrawn due to the rolling stock falling apart with age.
BR in the 80's could certainly play politics well.

 

[jon0844]

I can see why people might have considered buses a more viable option than maintaining (or upgrading) rural lines with little usage. Buses are more flexible and don't need complex signalling.

Of course, back then, running a reliable bus service was probably not very easy - nor giving information to customers.

Arguably, in 2013 with GPS tracking, real time information and smartcard ticketing, as well as more modern buses that are more efficient, quieter and more comfortable, buses are probably more of a viable alternative to rail than ever before for areas where running a train is likely to be at a loss.

 

[Beveridges]

The worst thing to come from that decade is the Class 142 Pacer units and the railway still suffers to this day from these horrendous units all because they wanted to save money instead of build more 156's.

 

[yorksrob]

I can see why people might have considered buses a more viable option than maintaining (or upgrading) rural lines with little usage. Buses are more flexible and don't need complex signalling.

Of course, back then, running a reliable bus service was probably not very easy - nor giving information to customers.

Arguably, in 2013 with GPS tracking, real time information and smartcard ticketing, as well as more modern buses that are more efficient, quieter and more comfortable, buses are probably more of a viable alternative to rail than ever before for areas where running a train is likely to be at a loss.

Not really the case though is it. Arguably coaches are more comfortable than buses, but I Still wouldn't want to put up with either on say a trip from Leeds to Preston.

Marginally cheaper to run perhaps, but slower, noisier, lack of space to put anything.

 

[jon0844]

I am not talking about buses replacing all trains, but there are many rural areas where people might have once used a train for a very short distance where buses are more practical, especially as new housing developments have been constructed well away from a station (or former station).

I would clearly prefer a train, or indeed a proper tram, over a bus - but a bus could in theory start running almost tomorrow on any route. I can see that in an era where everyone assumed roads would make railways obsolete, this would have been the thinking.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose that maybe with some of the Beeching era closures perhaps, but the Thatcher era network was broadly similar to today (with a few noteable exceptions) and I still feel that the network during this period is largely unsubstitutable.

 

[The Ham]

I am not talking about buses replacing all trains, but there are many rural areas where people might have once used a train for a very short distance where buses are more practical, especially as new housing developments have been constructed well away from a station (or former station).

I would clearly prefer a train, or indeed a proper tram, over a bus - but a bus could in theory start running almost tomorrow on any route. I can see that in an era where everyone assumed roads would make railways obsolete, this would have been the thinking.

The government still though that investing in buses over rail was a good idea until fairly recently, however once traffic starts to hold the buses up and journeys become less reliable (especially in/through towns and cities) it was soon realised that actually it was better to invest in rail based travel modes for medium to long distance travel mostly and only rely on buses for shorter trips.

However there was still the problem that services can stop/change with very little notice, so it can be better to invest a lot in railways up front as they then keep going. Whilst buses often need investment on an ongoing basis to keep them running.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The worst thing to come from that decade is the Class 142 Pacer units and the railway still suffers to this day from these horrendous units all because they wanted to save money instead of build more 156's.

But their low cost kept lines open...
Pacers or nothing?
The 153s (splitting unreliable 155s in two) were also a great BR idea at the time.

 

[jon0844]

The 142s have arguably kept lots of lines in use. Rather like the views on Maggie T, there's a middle ground.

Yes, people might not like the trains but they have to accept that they served a purpose and therefore were a major success in that regard.

 

[HowardGWR]

I'd like us to cease posting just so we can change the subject title.

I suggest anything -how about the above?

 

[yorksrob]

I'd like us to cease posting just so we can change the subject title.

I suggest anything -how about the above?

I think both titles make interesting discussion points. Have you thought about starting a new thread ?

 

[Gareth Marston]

I am not talking about buses replacing all trains, but there are many rural areas where people might have once used a train for a very short distance where buses are more practical, especially as new housing developments have been constructed well away from a station (or former station).

I would clearly prefer a train, or indeed a proper tram, over a bus - but a bus could in theory start running almost tomorrow on any route. I can see that in an era where everyone assumed roads would make railways obsolete, this would have been the thinking.

The best example I can give is National Express's coach form London to Aberystwyth its a once a day job and I've rarely seen passengers numbers in double figures on it. Aber stations footfall is c 900 a day. As I've said to some around here that try the bus is better argument people have voted with their feet and opted for the train when given the choice ( a long rural journey Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury).

I've read a comparison of bus services in Mid Wales that serve villages/towns that lost their railway station and or line with the BR Western Region Summer 1951 timetable .In most cases the bus replacement has around the same number of journeys a day as the train, has a more condensed working day i,e no early morning, evening services and journey times are comparable without any attempt being made at integration with the national rail network. Which is the reality on the ground of buses in rural areas. They might get you into the nearest town and back but as a means to go further are utterly hopeless.

 

[jon0844]

I don't disagree with that, but on paper it probably sounded good and anyone arguing against sound logic would have had a tough time.

 

[Bald Rick]

The best example I can give is National Express's coach form London to Aberystwyth its a once a day job and I've rarely seen passengers numbers in double figures on it. Aber stations footfall is c 900 a day. As I've said to some around here that try the bus is better argument people have voted with their feet and opted for the train when given the choice ( a long rural journey Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury).

I've read a comparison of bus services in Mid Wales that serve villages/towns that lost their railway station and or line with the BR Western Region Summer 1951 timetable .In most cases the bus replacement has around the same number of journeys a day as the train, has a more condensed working day i,e no early morning, evening services and journey times are comparable without any attempt being made at integration with the national rail network. Which is the reality on the ground of buses in rural areas. They might get you into the nearest town and back but as a means to go further are utterly hopeless.

Being Devil's advocate.... what if the bus service was specified to be integrated with, and to similar times, as the train service? And was cheaper to use? And required (much) less subsidy?

 

[yorksrob]

Being Devil's advocate.... what if the bus service was specified to be integrated with, and to similar times, as the train service? And was cheaper to use? And required (much) less subsidy?

It would still be rubbish to travel on, get stuck in traffic and would loose business.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, but we're not building new railway lines to serve new (rather large) housing developments all over the UK. I happen to think we should, but we're not and so buses are about all we can hope for in most cases from now on.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Being Devil's advocate.... what if the bus service was specified to be integrated with, and to similar times, as the train service? And was cheaper to use? And required (much) less subsidy?

I sketched out a plan to replace Aber-Shrewsbury trains with a comparable express bus service that could carry the same numbers that use the trains. I had to split it into 3 sections all hourly. The footfall for 11/12 was 800,000 plus those changing to the coast line.

An express coach from Aberystwyth that ran over the A44 to Llanidloes then to Newtown and Welshpool only to Shrewsbury. 1 per hour.
A Newtown to Shrewsbury and all stops inbetween incl villages en route and slightly off route. 1 per hour.
An Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury via Machynlleth thats all stops to Newtown and then quick to Shrewsbury. 1 per hour.

I then realized I needed something like 25 plus coaches - that quantity would have to be brand new to run it (and replaced every 5 years) and i needed to find depots for them. The capital start up costs run into £ millions.

I then realized that the displaced Class 158 units would be demanded to be used by Northern Citys so there would be no savings here. The hundred plus railway staff based out of Machynlleth would all need redundancy payments and then they would never earn comparable wages locally and many would end up claiming benefit. The local economy would suffer knock on effects from the lose of income. Aber uni would be less attractive to students and staff due to remoteness and go into decline with knock on effects.

The express coaches would end up being full of pensioners using there free bus passes so they dont have to keep the heating on at home all day, making them less attractive to paying customers. etc etc.

 

[jon0844]

I think buses would win now where there is no railway line, because of the cost of building the line.

Trains would make more sense when there's already a line, which is probably why existing lines are being reopened in places - or reused for trams and guided busways etc.

 

[notadriver]

A new train line can regenerate and attract people to live / work in a it's area. Buses just can't compete on speed.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbw_Valley_Railway#section_6

 

[jon0844]

I know that. But no council is going to build a new line (look at the fuss over HS2) to serve a new area compared to sticking some buses on within months.

The buses might be slow, infrequent and eventually get canned but that will of course only make it even harder to justify a railway line.

It seems hard enough to even build new stations on existing lines.

 

[starrymarkb]

Being Devil's advocate.... what if the bus service was specified to be integrated with, and to similar times, as the train service? And was cheaper to use? And required (much) less subsidy?

Though in a lot of cases integrating the bus and train would be difficult, especially if the bus runs to a clock face timetable and the train doesn't. If it was possible to run trains better to a clockface timetable then integration is more likely.

 

[Bald Rick]

Though in a lot of cases integrating the bus and train would be difficult, especially if the bus runs to a clock face timetable and the train doesn't. If it was possible to run trains better to a clockface timetable then integration is more likely.

If you are specifying a bus service you can specify it for whatever time you like. Some mornings I catch a specified bus service from my front door to the station, and it integrates perfectly with the train.

But then I specify it, and it's called a taxi.

 

[6Gman]

I sketched out a plan to replace Aber-Shrewsbury trains with a comparable express bus service that could carry the same numbers that use the trains. I had to split it into 3 sections all hourly. The footfall for 11/12 was 800,000 plus those changing to the coast line.

An express coach from Aberystwyth that ran over the A44 to Llanidloes then to Newtown and Welshpool only to Shrewsbury. 1 per hour.
A Newtown to Shrewsbury and all stops inbetween incl villages en route and slightly off route. 1 per hour.
An Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury via Machynlleth thats all stops to Newtown and then quick to Shrewsbury. 1 per hour.

I then realized I needed something like 25 plus coaches - that quantity would have to be brand new to run it (and replaced every 5 years) and i needed to find depots for them. The capital start up costs run into £ millions.

I then realized that the displaced Class 158 units would be demanded to be used by Northern Citys so there would be no savings here. The hundred plus railway staff based out of Machynlleth would all need redundancy payments and then they would never earn comparable wages locally and many would end up claiming benefit. The local economy would suffer knock on effects from the lose of income. Aber uni would be less attractive to students and staff due to remoteness and go into decline with knock on effects.

The express coaches would end up being full of pensioners using there free bus passes so they dont have to keep the heating on at home all day, making them less attractive to paying customers. etc etc.

But a little further north people seem happier to use the Express Motors bus rather than the ATW train between Llandudno and Blaenau Ffestiniog.

 

[317 forever]

I seem to remember that Margaret Thatcher was considering privatising the London, Tilbury & Southend Railway (now c2c) as an experiment to see whether it was feasible to privatise any more of BR. Where she risked alienating commuters' votes she preferred not to touch the railways, even though she disagreed with the idea of railways needing regular government subsidy.

 

[D1009]

Isn't it the case that both the West Highland and Far North lines have parallel Scottish Citylink coaches which are actually quicker than the train, but don't carry as many passengers?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Isn't it the case that both the West Highland and Far North lines have parallel Scottish Citylink coaches which are actually quicker than the train, but don't carry as many passengers?

Its going to boil down to local circumstances. The Conwy Valley is an area where the train frequency is very low over a relatively shortish distance where the bus services is competitive in terms of time and a lot more frequent.

Buses travel on roads and the journey quality on single carriageway roads is not great the point of attractiveness takes a nose dive after about 45 minutes. I can remember a week long bus substitution on the Cambrian and saw people throwing up on a number of occasions.

The train ( 8 a day) between Newtown and Shrewsbury takes 38 minutes the parallel X75 bus service (7 a day) 90 minutes and doesn't stray far off the A458/A483 roads.. The once a daily National Express coach takes 70 minutes. The train easily wins on the long distance market.

 

[LE Greys]

I seem to remember that Margaret Thatcher was considering privatising the London, Tilbury & Southend Railway (now c2c) as an experiment to see whether it was feasible to privatise any more of BR. Where she risked alienating commuters' votes she preferred not to touch the railways, even though she disagreed with the idea of railways needing regular government subsidy.

How involved was she with some of BR's sell-offs? BREL, Sealink and Hotels all went during her premiership.

 

[billio]

It would still be rubbish to travel on, get stuck in traffic and would loose business.

I live in a small town that lost it's rail connection to the big city in 1964. Now there is a 15 minute bus service which though 10 minutes slower than the train was, and subject to traffic delays in the rush hour, is infinitely more convenient due to it's regularity and frequency.

The only advantage of a train would be the opportunity for easy connection to onward train journeys, as there is a 10-15 minute walk from the bus station to the city railway station. I think there could often be a great advantage to the use of rail services if planners would see that bus stations are located next to major railway stations.

 

[yorksrob]

I live in a small town that lost it's rail connection to the big city in 1964. Now there is a 15 minute bus service which though 10 minutes slower than the train was, and subject to traffic delays in the rush hour, is infinitely more convenient due to it's regularity and frequency.

The only advantage of a train would be the opportunity for easy connection to onward train journeys, as there is a 10-15 minute walk from the bus station to the city railway station. I think there could often be a great advantage to the use of rail services if planners would see that bus stations are located next to major railway stations.

I can see that maybe if the bus took the same length of time and the journey was fairly short, frequency would win out for a lot of people.

I agree with your point about bus stations being close to train stations.