Negatives about the old British Rail

[matt_world2004]

I believe that if British Rail remained, the pattern of develoution would have seen business units like Network South East become devolved to TfL or London Transport or whatever it would have been called anyway, They may have been kept as seperate departments with a unified engineering and maintenance divisions but there would have almost certainly have been some rationalisation of those services into London Underground.

 

[Harbornite]

I believe that if British Rail remained, the pattern of develoution would have seen business units like Network South East become devolved to TfL or London Transport or whatever it would have been called anyway, They may have been kept as seperate departments with a unified engineering and maintenance divisions but there would have almost certainly have been some rationalisation of those services into London Underground.

What about the longer distance services of NSE, such as those that served Exeter? I can't imagine them being lumped in with TFL.

 

[thenorthern]

Safety compared to today was much worse under British Rail as pretty much every year there was an accident every year where a passenger on board a train was killed, since the Grayrigg Crash in 2007 I don't think there has been a passenger killed on board a train since then. I don't think this is down to privertisation though but rather the country as a whole is getting safer.

Its important to note though despite what Jeremy Corbyn might say if the railways went back into public ownership they wouldn't be like British Rail was as EU laws prevent this however given that that we are leaving the EU things could change.

 

[Deerfold]

Its important to note though despite what Jeremy Corbyn might say if the railways went back into public ownership they wouldn't be like British Rail was as EU laws prevent this however given that that we are leaving the EU things could change.

Has he said they'll be like British Rail was?

 

[DT611]

Its important to note though despite what Jeremy Corbyn might say if the railways went back into public ownership they wouldn't be like British Rail was as EU laws prevent this however given that that we are leaving the EU things could change.

Well yes it wouldn't be like british rail to the letter, as infrastructure and operations would have to be separate. However to the passenger they're would be no difference, just like irish rail where both operations and infrastructure are separate but to the average person they're is no difference what so ever. Also A nationalised railway wouldn't be able to stop other operators from operating services.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Once BR was broken up, the genie was out of the bottle.
Freight and rolling stock are in private hands.
The infrastructure is now back in public hands after the Railtrack/NR privatisation experiments.
The passenger railway never actually left public control, even if delivery is contracted out.

Looking back BR was an incredibly introspective outfit, and could do much as it liked within its (tough) spending limits.
Nobody got to review its plans and have their say.
Nowadays every single aspect of operation is consulted on, fought for/against, funding sought and spend monitored, including the fares structure and punctuality figures.
When was BR hauled in front of the Transport Select Committee and given a mauling?
Did they ever produce 5-year Business Plans and 25-year Route Studies for public consumption?
What would have been their equivalent to the recent Northern/TPE franchising process?

Looking ahead, devolution is rampant, with the possibility of the railway being split into many more pieces.
New lines are being built outside the "BR" envelope (Heathrow, Crossrail, HS1/2/3), with extensive external funding.
Open Access will stay.
The genie is not going back in the bottle, even under Corbynrail.

 

[physics34]

There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing news reports from the 80s about the "state of British rail" and especially some interesting ones about Network Southeast. After watching a few of them you realise things HAVE improved (barring the current Southern/GTR debacle).

The government knew that thousands of old carriages had to be replaced. It wasn't going to be able to afford it. Privatisation had to come in in some way shape or form. I would like more standardisation but I'm not sure renationalising is the answer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Old, Dirty and Late 1993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sULj6UpGAyU

 

[AnonymousUser1]

What kind of BR would you want? The 1980s-90s sectorised BR or the regional BR that existed beforehand?

or like the fantasists who laud a golden period of nationalised services that never actually existed ( exactly the same rose tinted fantasies pervade the debate over the NHS)

 

[Deerfold]

The government knew that thousands of old carriages had to be replaced. It wasn't going to be able to afford it. Privatisation had to come in in some way shape or form. I would like more standardisation but I'm not sure renationalising is the answer.

If it couldn't afford that, privatisation didn't seem to be the answer as it's resulted in us spending far more, and as I commented earlier we stopped ordering new trains with just a trickle being built in the first 5 years of privatisation.

 

[physics34]

If it couldn't afford that, privatisation didn't seem to be the answer as it's resulted in us spending far more, and as I commented earlier we stopped ordering new trains with just a trickle being built in the first 5 years of privatisation.

the private companies were trying to get as much out of the old trains as poss. There was a mandate to get rid of slam door trains by 2005 (i think it was).

 

[HH]

If it couldn't afford that, privatisation didn't seem to be the answer as it's resulted in us spending far more, and as I commented earlier we stopped ordering new trains with just a trickle being built in the first 5 years of privatisation.

It would have been a miracle if it were any different.

It would take most of that time simply to procure and build new trains, let alone build the business case for them. In any case large numbers of new trains were going to be needed for the replacement of slam door stock shortly afterwards.

Further, at the time of privatisation there was still a general feeling that the railway was a shrinking business and the way forward was cost cutting. It took a while before people realised that accepted wisdom had been turned on its head.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the private companies were trying to get as much out of the old trains as poss. There was a mandate to get rid of slam door trains by 2005 (i think it was).

And yet many TOCs didn't wait until that time, e.g. FGE had largely phased out Class 312 slam doors by the end of their franchise (March 2004).

 

[Clip]

If it couldn't afford that, privatisation didn't seem to be the answer as it's resulted in us spending far more, and as I commented earlier we stopped ordering new trains with just a trickle being built in the first 5 years of privatisation.

Are we spending more due to the infrastructure maintenence and upgrades though given thats NRs spending?

 

[yorksrob]

There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing news reports from the 80s about the "state of British rail" and especially some interesting ones about Network Southeast. After watching a few of them you realise things HAVE improved (barring the current Southern/GTR debacle).

The government knew that thousands of old carriages had to be replaced. It wasn't going to be able to afford it. Privatisation had to come in in some way shape or form. I would like more standardisation but I'm not sure renationalising is the answer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Old, Dirty and Late 1993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sULj6UpGAyU

If you think about the context of the programme, it does show the results of staff shortages, which were due to the state of funding at the time.

However, most of the issues caused were due to a passenger fatality and a terrorist incident (both topical today) and the upheaval created by the Kent Link total route modernisation, which would see renewed infrastructure and new trains.

So your example programme is as much about what BR was getting right and what was beyond its control as it is about its problems.

So in that, it isn't that much different from today.

 

[thenorthern]

I think when the railways were sectorised Regional Railways was subsidised at the rate of 4:1 meaning that for every 20p they got in revenue the Government gave them 80p which rather made it so that it didn't matter if they carried passengers or not. The railways were certainly improving by the time of privertisation but would they have improved enough to make them like they are today? Probably not.

One thing though I have noticed is that before the railways were privertised is the East Coast Main Line was arguably the main London to Scotland route but since then Virgin Trains has made the West Coast Main Line the main route while the East Coast Main Line has struggled with GNER, NXEC, East Coast and now VTEC and lost the title of main route to Scotland.

 

[DT611]

There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing news reports from the 80s about the "state of British rail" and especially some interesting ones about Network Southeast. After watching a few of them you realise things HAVE improved (barring the current Southern/GTR debacle).

The government knew that thousands of old carriages had to be replaced. It wasn't going to be able to afford it. Privatisation had to come in in some way shape or form. I would like more standardisation but I'm not sure renationalising is the answer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Old, Dirty and Late 1993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sULj6UpGAyU

But wait a minute, the government is mostly paying for everything in relation to the railway as it is isn't it not? So how really has privatisation meant the government can suddenly afford to spend the money that they couldn't afford to spend with br?
The reality is, the government didn't wish to spend the money when br existed, so kept them in a state of underfunding and decline. They hoped that privatisation would mean they didn't have to spend any money at all, or could get it done even more on the cheep. That backfired. As for that documentary, what i see is a cronically underfunded railway which had a lot to deal with and which was constantly undermined. Over my time here i have never read 1 post that stated br was perfect or fantastic, far from it. But people do recognise possibilities as to why they're were so many problems, and what might have been achieved had they been allowed to improve going on the number of high achievements they did have.
Realistically though, as things stand it might be the case that things should be left as they are, the "don't rock the boat" approach might be the best option for the uk railway.

The railways were certainly improving by the time of privertisation but would they have improved enough to make them like they are today? Probably not.

They possibly could have, had the government began enforcing minimum standards with incentives to meet them (maybe they started to do so i don't know) . As it is that is what is done and that is with the private companies. While some of the companies do bits off their own back, can anyone tell me if they're weren't the high standards of regulation and minimum service standards, that they would implement everything that has been implemented by the government off their own back?

 

[HH]

1. Generally speaking, the more the government get involved, the worse things get.

2. What we've seen on DoR is NOT going to be what we'd see if we re-nationalised the railway. On both occasions that DoR have been called into effect, they have largely been able to run their services without interference (and with decent budgets) due to only being part of the whole. DfT were able to lose DoR spend in their overall budget.

3. Now that NR can't borrow money in its own right, it is likely that there will be a reduction in expenditure on infrastructure, unless it's for grandiose projects like HS2, which always seem to get funding.

 

[Domh245]

But wait a minute, the government is mostly paying for everything in relation to the railway as it is isn't it not? So how really has privatisation meant the government can suddenly afford to spend the money that they couldn't afford to spend with br?

I may be wrong, but I would guess that this is where ROSCOs come in. They've privately financed a lot of rolling stock (ie the government has not had to spend any money on it). The only government funded stock has been the IEPs and the Class 700 IIRC.

 

[richieb1971]

Can't really see any negatives from the old BR. Things got old and never replaced. Brush won every loco contract outside of the class 59.

Those are the only 2 negatives really.

The only negative on todays railways is

A) It takes a million years to do anything
B) Costs are way too high and the railway is effectively (outside of going to London) not cost effective for most people.

If Richard Branson gets anymore of the railway you might as well call it Virgin railways anyway. With his pick pocket techniques of using tax payers money to buy the assets and then charge huge sums on tickets for revenue.

 

[Bald Rick]

I may be wrong, but I would guess that this is where ROSCOs come in. They've privately financed a lot of rolling stock (ie the government has not had to spend any money on it). The only government funded stock has been the IEPs and the Class 700 IIRC.

Both private finance deals.

There is a difference between financing and funding though.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

One negative of today is how connections are not guaranteed, in fact even getting you where you want to go isn't. With a major shutdown BR would endeavour to get you there eventually. With Virgin it's a bugger off and fend for yourself mentality. Similarly with engineering works - trains always found an alternative route, now you are advised not to travel.

 

[thenorthern]

I think I was told that had British Rail been created in 1948 the big four companies could have gone bankrupt as after the Second World War there was an oversupply of ex army lorries which meant that haulage could move to the roads and railway freight traffic began to dry up on the railways.

Another important thing with British Rail was parliamentary stations were much more common under British Rail than they area today as all of them I think started the current service pattern under British Rail. Many stations under British Rail also had parliamentary services such as Bromsgrove, Dunston, Blaydon, Atherstone, Penkridge, Settle, Appleby, Dunbar and many others had a much poorer service under British Rail than they do today.

Another thing was the amount of trains that divided such as most trains on the West Coast Main Line divided at Carstairs which took time to do and meant longer journey times (I am aware that some people on this forum would prefer that as its meant locomotive hauled trains though).

The best thing about British Rail however has to be the Inter-City 125, the first train outside Japan to reach 125 mph, the first diesel train and only one for 25 years (I think) to reach that speed and one that has lasted so long.

 

[yorksrob]

Can't really see any negatives from the old BR. Things got old and never replaced.

Even that's somewhat overstated.

Rolling stock lasted about thirty to forty years - as now.
Signalling, anything from forty years to forever - as now.
Track, forty - fifty years, depending on heaviness of usage - as now.

Not to say that everything was perfect. I'd probably tinker with today's system before getting rid of it.

I just don't see why some are so keen to regurgitate John Major's unfounded propaganda.

 

[Phil.]

I think I was told that had British Rail been created in 1948 the big four companies could have gone bankrupt as after the Second World War there was an oversupply of ex army lorries which meant that haulage could move to the roads and railway freight traffic began to dry up on the railways.

Another important thing with British Rail was parliamentary stations were much more common under British Rail than they area today as all of them I think started the current service pattern under British Rail. Many stations under British Rail also had parliamentary services such as Bromsgrove, Dunston, Blaydon, Atherstone, Penkridge, Settle, Appleby, Dunbar and many others had a much poorer service under British Rail than they do today.

Another thing was the amount of trains that divided such as most trains on the West Coast Main Line divided at Carstairs which took time to do and meant longer journey times (I am aware that some people on this forum would prefer that as its meant locomotive hauled trains though).

The best thing about British Rail however has to be the Inter-City 125, the first train outside Japan to reach 125 mph, the first diesel train and only one for 25 years (I think) to reach that speed and one that has lasted so long.

Re your first paragraph, basically the four companies were bankrupt. The major mistake was that the five regions - later reduced to four - that were set up were allowed to be run as a continuation of their constituent parts. Railways have always been notoriously conservative. In 1969 the staff at Cambridge where I started still referred to London trains as Northerns or Easterns.

 

[Harbornite]

Can't really see any negatives from the old BR. Things got old and never replaced. Brush won every loco contract outside of the class 59.

Those are the only 2 negatives really.

The only negative on todays railways is

A) It takes a million years to do anything
B) Costs are way too high and the railway is effectively (outside of going to London) not cost effective for most people.

If Richard Branson gets anymore of the railway you might as well call it Virgin railways anyway. With his pick pocket techniques of using tax payers money to buy the assets and then charge huge sums on tickets for revenue.

I'm afraid this is a load of wibble. Absolute wibble.

Things got old and never replaced.

BR wasn't ideal, but in fairness they did try to replace their elderly stock- new diesel and locomotives, Sprinters, pacers (crap, I know), networkers etc. To say they never replaced stock is absolute nonsense, although funding was short during the 70s, 80s and early 90s, hence why we have pacers and no intercity 250 trains.

Brush won every loco contract outside of the class 59.

Not relevant, only trainspotters would care about this. You also seem to forget about all the locomotives that were built by English Electric and the BRC&W, such as the class 37s and class 33s respectively. By the way, didn't you know that the 59s weren't ordered by BR?

A) It takes a million years to do anything

That's because health and safety procedures are stricter now and there are more regs. However there is some justification to argue that some things take too long.

If Richard Branson gets anymore of the railway you might as well call it Virgin railways anyway.

Branson isn't really involved in Virgin Trains, which only owns 51% of the Intercity west coast company, and only 10% of Intercity Railways for East coast.

 

[route:oxford]

One negative of today is how connections are not guaranteed, in fact even getting you where you want to go isn't.

Were connections truly Guaranteed?

It's not as if it really matters quite so much now. With considerably more services operating, it's more likely that you'd never have to wait more than an hour for an alternative - and you would be suitably compensated.

With a major shutdown BR would endeavour to get you there eventually. With Virgin it's a bugger off and fend for yourself mentality. Similarly with engineering works - trains always found an alternative route, now you are advised not to travel.

Whereas in the old days it was "bugger off if you want to travel on a Sunday - let's keep the timetable almost empty all year round because a few weekends a year we might need to maintain the tracks".

 

[Agent_c]

1. Generally speaking, the more the government get involved, the worse things get.

Free marketeer slogans with no basis in reality. If the freemarketeers had their way and left everything to the market, the entire market would implode as the very supports it requires to exist are consumed and destroyed by it.

 

[Bald Rick]

One obvious negative was price. A decade of (way) above inflation increases in ticket prices in the run up to 1994.

 

[coppercapped]

I may be wrong, but I would guess that this is where ROSCOs come in. They've privately financed a lot of rolling stock (ie the government has not had to spend any money on it). The only government funded stock has been the IEPs and the Class 700 IIRC.

The only money that the Government has spent on the IEP and Class 700 programme until now has been on consultancy fees, not for manufacture.

The whole point of both programmes is that no Government/taxpayers' money has been spent on their development, testing and manufacturer. This is one of the reasons for the cost of the programmes, so-called Train Service Provision contracts - Agility Trains and Cross-London Trains only get paid for the operated diagrams. In other words Cross London Trains are only now starting to get paid for the Class 700s and Agility Trains won't get any income until next year although both organisations, and their principals, have had to borrow millions to pay for all the work they have done up to now and they also have had to pay interest on these borrowings.

The fees for the diagrams are paid by the TOCs, but the deal is that these payments are guaranteed by the Government.

 

[Deerfold]

One obvious negative was price. A decade of (way) above inflation increases in ticket prices in the run up to 1994.

Hasn't that been the case for most years since 1994 (and that's only on regulated fares) after a couple of heavily publicised years of below inflation rises?

 

[AndrewE]

Were connections truly Guaranteed?

It's not as if it really matters quite so much now. With considerably more services operating, it's more likely that you'd never have to wait more than an hour for an alternative - and you would be suitably compensated.

My family & I were given a private non-stop DMU from Salop to Wrexham because the late-running Bristol-NW train missed the last Wolves to Chester train. The last Salop terminator was extended just for our benefit. I can't imagine that happening now.

Whereas in the old days it was "bugger off if you want to travel on a Sunday - let's keep the timetable almost empty all year round because a few weekends a year we might need to maintain the tracks".

There were "Rules of the route" planning conferences that ensured that diversionary routes were maintained whenever serious blockades happened. Since privatisation I have found (when trying to get to a family gathering) that all 3 lines south (2 from Brum plus Crewe - Newport) have been blocked and to get from the NW to Bristol or the SW has involved a journey via London - except that the WCML was disrupted at the same time!

The negatives of BR were that it could only do what government money would allow, but generally people accepted that that was the way it was. A lot of effort was put into making the very best of what was available - including Pacers which probably saved lots of branch lines. I also remember years of much-less-than-inflation pay rises (with the occasional extra day of leave given as compensation) but I can't see any benefits at all from the current Balkanisation of the network.
The travelling public want to go from A to B, not to travel end-to-end by any particular franchise. They want services that connect to give a convenient journey from say Saltburn to Ebbw Vale (or any one of ten thousand other options.) The colour of the train at any stage of the journey is irrelevant, unless they come to recognise that one particular lot will abandon them when a connection fails, after which they will go by road instead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One obvious negative was price. A decade of (way) above inflation increases in ticket prices in the run up to 1994.

And the last decade? The result of a government decision to make rail users pay for improvements regardless of the fact that all road transport including buses benefits from the people choosing not to go by car as a consequence of the improved rail services. Blinkered, or barking mad.?