Margaret Thatcher and the railways - complicated?

[A0]

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.

Unfair that - they were designed for totally different uses.

The 'Pacers' were all designed for use on short urban runs or longer, light used branches.

The 155s / 156s were medium distance units.

The business case of extra 156s wouldn't have made sense, so if the Pacers hadn't happened you'd probably have seen service reductions or closures in an effort to extend the life further of some of the 1st generation units which were being withdrawn around that time.

The problem with the current use of the Pacers - as distinct to their original use - is a direct result of the growth the railways have seen in the last 20 years - and to be fair, few if any forecasts foresaw the growth the rail network has seen.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Unfair that - they were designed for totally different uses.

The 'Pacers' were all designed for use on short urban runs or longer, light used branches.

The 155s / 156s were medium distance units.

The business case of extra 156s wouldn't have made sense, so if the Pacers hadn't happened you'd probably have seen service reductions or closures in an effort to extend the life further of some of the 1st generation units which were being withdrawn around that time.

The problem with the current use of the Pacers - as distinct to their original use - is a direct result of the growth the railways have seen in the last 20 years - and to be fair, few if any forecasts foresaw the growth the rail network has seen.

I've certainly read a few times that BR wanted an all 150 fleet but were forced into Pacers as the Ministry of Transport wanted "savings" the Pacers had to be re-engined so poor were the originals that they ended up costing more than a new 150.

You'll find every Rail User Group up and down the country had an invest for growth agenda as they were confident the traffic was there. The one I was involved with in the early 90's certainly did. It said the "no growth" Wales and Border franchise in 2003 had got it wrong and were proved right they met with the Welsh Government Transport Minister in 2008 and told him that his departments Wales Rail Planning Assessment was far too pessimistic and have been proved right( It said that there would be growth of 41% to 2026 from 2006 under the high growth option, the station footfalls released by the ORR recently show all Wales and Border stations having grown by that amount by 2011/2012.)

 

[Gwenllian2001]

I've certainly read a few times that BR wanted an all 150 fleet but were forced into Pacers as the Ministry of Transport wanted "savings" the Pacers had to be re-engined so poor were the originals that they ended up costing more than a new 150.

You'll find every Rail User Group up and down the country had an invest for growth agenda as they were confident the traffic was there. The one I was involved with in the early 90's certainly did. It said the "no growth" Wales and Border franchise in 2003 had got it wrong and were proved right they met with the Welsh Government Transport Minister in 2008 and told him that his departments Wales Rail Planning Assessment was far too pessimistic and have been proved right( It said that there would be growth of 41% to 2026 from 2006 under the high growth option, the station footfalls released by the ORR recently show all Wales and Border stations having grown by that amount by 2011/2012.)

When it became apparent that a number of the 150s destined for the Cardiff Valleys were being diverted elsewhere and the intention was to dump the 'Pacers' on us, the alarm bells began to ring. I've forgotten now what the actual failure rate was for these units but it was horrendous. The units, as built, were an expensive failure.They had to re-engined and new transmissions were essential to make them anything like reliable. In addition, the door mechanisms were far too flimsy and had to be changed for something better engineered. By the time all this was done it would, indeed, have been cheaper to go straight to 150s. The 150s are not perfect but, on the whole, they have not been a bad buy and continue to give good service throughout Wales. Ironically, the 'Pacers' have become more reliable but most of them stink of damp and the recent very cold weather has accentuated how draughty they are.

Rail passenger carryings had shown an upward trend for some years prior to Major's meddling. There had been some 'downs', notably at the time of Major's recession but the underlying trend was 'up' and, to be fair, the minister that you met had nothing to do with setting up the W&B Franchise.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Mrs Thatcher chose her battle grounds with care. With the exception of the Poll Tax (her nemesis, some might say) she only took on fights that she could win with a positive outcome. The railways offered no such opportunities; A showdown against the rail unions would have been difficult to contrive, and achieve nothing. Mrs T. also sensibly shelved Serpell, realizing that it would only alienate potential voters. She was, at best, lukewarm on rail privatisation, perhaps instinctively aware of the possible pitfalls. Her lack of interest in railways probably helped them to find their own way under her premiership. For once, and not for long, railwaymen were allowed to run the railways. This example of 'hands off' government control is a far cry from today's micro-management by Whitehall.
Margaret Thatcher's relationship with the railways wasn't complicated, it was mild disinterest. Nothing happened during the Thatcher years to make BR appear anything but a declining industry. There was no capital, political or otherwise, to be made for the Iron Lady, so she left it to others to manage.

 

[duncanp]

During the Thatcher years I was a student in Edinburgh and used to travel regularly up and down the East Coast main line.

At that time, the seats on the platforms were made from metal, and all were painted red...except at Grantham where they were painted blue. I don't think the benches at Grantham were made of iron though.

 

[Gareth Marston]

When it became apparent that a number of the 150s destined for the Cardiff Valleys were being diverted elsewhere and the intention was to dump the 'Pacers' on us, the alarm bells began to ring. I've forgotten now what the actual failure rate was for these units but it was horrendous. The units, as built, were an expensive failure.They had to re-engined and new transmissions were essential to make them anything like reliable. In addition, the door mechanisms were far too flimsy and had to be changed for something better engineered. By the time all this was done it would, indeed, have been cheaper to go straight to 150s. The 150s are not perfect but, on the whole, they have not been a bad buy and continue to give good service throughout Wales. Ironically, the 'Pacers' have become more reliable but most of them stink of damp and the recent very cold weather has accentuated how draughty they are.

Rail passenger carryings had shown an upward trend for some years prior to Major's meddling. There had been some 'downs', notably at the time of Major's recession but the underlying trend was 'up' and, to be fair, the minister that you met had nothing to do with setting up the W&B Franchise.

Aside from a couple of years in early 90's recession there's been growth in rail passenger numbers for 30 years. Which makes the diatribe about how the railway was in decline and growth in passenger numbers is all down to the TOC's and privatisation a big lie.

IWJ at least listened to us even if his civil servant clearly looked like and behaved like he didn't want to be there or listen. He was called Tim James ex Network Rail who I believe has gone back to NR. I can remember meeting Peter Hain in 2003 and he yawned all thorough the meeting! His officials apologised afterward and said it was due to him being leader to house and Secretary of State for Wales.