Negatives about the old British Rail

[Philip Phlopp]

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 ---


And the last decade?

The RoR and EAS work was easy under British Rail - there was only ever enough money to close one line to fix it.

Connections are a curiosity now - under British Rail, you needed to make connections as the service frequency on secondary routes made those lines borderline unusable - once an hour sort of thing, throw an extra pair of units onto a line and quadruple the frequency, suddenly instead of an hour wait, it's 15 minutes of a wait.

The downside is higher frequencies make it difficult to weave train paths around meeting connections at every station now, in a way it wasn't when there were fewer trains around and less pressure for platform capacity.

When you had to meet the one hourly train, arriving 10 minutes early was good, it gave a bit of safety, now, arriving 10 minutes early when the line has 15 minute service intervals means you're missing the preceding train by 5 minutes. That will generate upset - why can't we arrive 5 minutes early etc etc.

Can't win, never could win, never will win.

 

[Bald Rick]

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?

Nope.

1984-1994, (NSE area) RPI+3% (average per year over the decade)
1994-2004, regulated fares RPI-1% each year
2004-now, RPI+1%.


Of course there are unregulated fares, but for every expensive open return sold now that is X times what it was in 94, there will be dozens of advance fares sold that are cheaper in nominal terms, let alone after 22 years of inflation.

 

[Deerfold]

Nope.

1984-1994, (NSE area) RPI+3% (average per year over the decade)
1994-2004, regulated fares RPI-1% each year
2004-now, RPI+1%.


Of course there are unregulated fares, but for every expensive open return sold now that is X times what it was in 94, there will be dozens of advance fares sold that are cheaper in nominal terms, let alone after 22 years of inflation.

Perhaps, but it doesn't average out too well.

After inflation, rail fares increased by 23% between 1995 and 2013. Passenger numbers increased by 100%, but revenue increased by 150%.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06384

1996-1998 the increase was RPI, not RPI-1%.

 

[Springs Branch]

As well as low frequency on secondary (and not-so-secondary) routes, many of these also operated as short-distance shuttles. This could result in inefficient use of rolling stock, with some DMUs spending a large fraction of their working day burbling away in a bay platform.

In the north-west, for example, the Blackpool South branch generally operated as a shuttle to/from Kirkham, the Colne line ran only as far as Preston and most of the Windermere trains just went to Oxenholme. For most of the day on the CLC Liverpool/Manchester route, separate stopping trains ran between Lime Street/Warrington Central or Warrington C./Oxford Road, with a poor connection between the two if you were unlucky enough to need to change at Warrington.

Before the Merseyrail Electrics were extended to Kirkby in 1977, there was an hourly DMU between Liverpool Exchange and Bolton, taking about 61 minutes for the trip. At Bolton, the incoming unit arrived a couple of minutes before its cousin departed for Liverpool from the opposite side of the station. It then shunted to Platform 4West and sat for about an hour before forming the next Liverpool departure. At Liverpool Exchange, the incoming unit arrived a couple of minutes after the previous Bolton train had left.

Lots of time for crews to sit in the mess room brewing up and playing cards, plus for passengers the benefit of a warm carriage rather than draughty platform while waiting departure - but in any three hour period each of the DMUs working the Liverpool/Bolton route would spend one hour earning its keep, and two hours idling in a terminal platform.

Admittedly this kind of generous diagramming seemed to end in the sectorisation era, with more through-worked routes and presumably fewer spare Sprinters & Pacers on hand.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

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.



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".

You did always get where you wanted to go eventually - even if they ended up getting you a taxi.

Admittedly Sunday services were very poor - even without engineering work, though that was more a relic from observing Sunday as a holy day.

It was a different age though and a latter day BR would undoubtedly have evolved into an entirely different beast.

The only comparison we can draw is with LU which has remained in public ownership and has had the investment. Back in the day you could wait 15 minutes for a High Barnet train off peak now people complain if it's more than 4 minutes, back in the day stations and trains were dirty and the system in decline now there is new rolling stock on most lines and a cleaner environment without the need to privatise.

 

[HH]

The only comparison we can draw is with LU

I don't think there's any comparison between BR and LU. Completely different animals; always have been, even when BR existed.

 

[daikilo]

It was a different age though and a latter day BR would undoubtedly have evolved into an entirely different beast.

Maybe, but that would have needed a radical change to the accountancy of publis spending limits.

What de-nationalisation brought was a huge ammount of liquidity which in theory was not availabe to BR. The fact that the early TOC contracts were often heavily cash negative seemed to work as many should have been cash positive in later years.

As far as I am aware, BR basically needed to be cash positive on any investment from the very early years. In addition, as a public enterprise they had spending limits that barely covered their net cash out thus minimised investment.

Remarkably, the current TOC structure seems to have found the right "off-balance-sheet" investment for "UKRail" whilst maintaining a roughly coherent network.

I personally am not too happy about the theory of competition between TOCs and e.g. Open access but that didn't even exist in BR days so is irrelevant in this context.

I am concerned by profit extraction which is going to shareholders, but the cash would not have been injected without it.

Finally, regarding the track authority, I am quite happy that it be in semi-public hands but can work with TOCs to optimise spend and enhancements.

 

[coppercapped]

A lot of effort was put into making the very best of what was available - including Pacers which probably saved lots of branch lines.

Not true. By the early 1970s the 'Beeching round' of railway closures had come to a practical stop and since then only a few lines have lost their passenger services and indeed many stations and some lines have been re-built or re-opened.

The prototype LEV (Leyland Experimental Vehicle) - the unpowered precursor to the Pacer fleet - first ran in 1978. The first production batch, the 141s, were built in 1984, more than a decade after the great wave of closures had finished.

Pacers were intended for use on the remaining lightly trafficked routes. They played no part whatsoever in saving any lines from closure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pacers were intended for use on the remaining lightly trafficked routes. They played no part whatsoever in saving any lines from closure.

I disagree. Had the only option been the much more expensive Class 210, and BR had been able to order only half the number, further lines would have closed or had service cut. Certainly, as an example, the Ormskirk-Preston line was talked about as being under almost constant threat. (Yet now we will be seeing a service increase to hourly clockface - good job they didn't plain-line the Rufford loop!)

The Class 150 kind-of solved that one with a Class 210 body with a cheaper driveline, of course, and alongside the Class 156 has been phenomenally successful.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I don't think there's any comparison between BR and LU. Completely different animals; always have been, even when BR existed.

Of course there is a comparison - they both suffered from lack of investment and were crumbling and both eventually got the investment of public money only in different ways.

 

[HH]

Of course there is a comparison - they both suffered from lack of investment and were crumbling and both eventually got the investment of public money only in different ways.

I'll have to disagree with you. The Victoria line opened in 1968, just a few years after the Beeching cuts on BR. The Jubilee line opened in 1979. The first half of the 90s saw new rolling stock on the Northern Line, the Central Line and the Jubilee Line. In the 1980s they introduced fare zones and travelcards.

I was using both LU and BR throughout this period and I am quite certain of which one provided a better experience.

 

[Harbornite]

I'll have to disagree with you. The Victoria line opened in 1968, just a few years after the Beeching cuts on BR. The Jubilee line opened in 1979. The first half of the 90s saw new rolling stock on the Northern Line, the Central Line and the Jubilee Line. In the 1980s they introduced fare zones and travelcards.

I was using both LU and BR throughout this period and I am quite certain of which one provided a better experience.

In fairness to BR, it was a more complex operation and it did manage to source fairly large quantities of new rolling stock during the 1960s and 90s, although I'm obviously not denying the cuts that took place.

 

[yorksrob]

I'll have to disagree with you. The Victoria line opened in 1968, just a few years after the Beeching cuts on BR. The Jubilee line opened in 1979. The first half of the 90s saw new rolling stock on the Northern Line, the Central Line and the Jubilee Line. In the 1980s they introduced fare zones and travelcards.

I was using both LU and BR throughout this period and I am quite certain of which one provided a better experience.

I don't really see what point you're trying to make.

In 1979, the Government invested in the London transport network and built the jubilee line.

Wasn't it BR that invested large amounts of public sector money in the Windsor link in Manchester, or reopening Snow Hill in Birmingham or initiated the reopening of Bicester Town of its own accord without good railway management ?

Did you never get to use the one day travelcards from NSE that allowed travel into the centre by rail, tube or bus, or even a Network Card ?

And are you suggesting that LU provided the only new rolling stock during the 1990's ? Never been to Kent then.

Also, let's not forget that LU was a public body anyway, so not even a part of the thrusting private sector.

 

[HH]

In fairness to BR, it was a more complex operation and it did manage to source fairly large quantities of new rolling stock during the 1960s and 90s, although I'm obviously not denying the cuts that took place.

I agree with all that, but there was systemic investment in LU. I'm not denigrating BR, but pointing out that LU was treated differently to BR, in response to the suggestion that LU & BR were the same in being starved of investment. In fact, as you've demonstrated, even BR wasn't always on a starvation diet...

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

I don't really see what point you're trying to make.

In 1979, the Government invested in the London transport network and built the jubilee line.

Wasn't it BR that invested large amounts of public sector money in the Windsor link in Manchester, or reopening Snow Hill in Birmingham or initiated the reopening of Bicester Town of its own accord without good railway management ?

Did you never get to use the one day travelcards from NSE that allowed travel into the centre by rail, tube or bus, or even a Network Card ?

And are you suggesting that LU provided the only new rolling stock during the 1990's ? Never been to Kent then.

Also, let's not forget that LU was a public body anyway, so not even a part of the thrusting private sector.

See above for my point. It was certainly none of the straw men you've invented above.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with all that, but there was systemic investment in LU. I'm not denigrating BR, but pointing out that LU was treated differently to BR, in response to the suggestion that LU & BR were the same in being starved of investment. In fact, as you've demonstrated, even BR wasn't always on a starvation diet...

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


See above for my point. It was certainly none of the straw men you've invented above.

Given that one of the main justifications cited for privatisation was central Governments stated inability to invest in publically owned public transport, your argument certainly doesn't seem to provide a convincing case against public ownership.


In terms of quality of experience, I'd rather a Kent coast express to Charing Cross during the late 80's, early 90's, than rattling along to the outer reaches of the LU network at that time.

 

[lord rathmore]

Lots of differing opinions, but it's all speculation as we'll never know. What I do remember is continually decline in the 60s to the 80s with under investment apparent in every facet of BR. The travelling experience was not great and staff morale and customer service increasingly poor. Government of all hues believed rail travel was not for the future. Would it have changed? I personally doubt it.

 

[yorksrob]

Lots of differing opinions, but it's all speculation as we'll never know. What I do remember is continually decline in the 60s to the 80s with under investment apparent in every facet of BR. The travelling experience was not great and staff morale and customer service increasingly poor. Government of all hues believed rail travel was not for the future. Would it have changed? I personally doubt it.

I think it already was changing, certainly by the mid 80's.

 

[ainsworth74]

You did always get where you wanted to go eventually - even if they ended up getting you a taxi.

I must have imagined the taxi that VTEC put me and some other people in when we missed the last train from Darlington to Saltburn due to the late running of one of their services...

 

[HH]

Given that one of the main justifications cited for privatisation was central Governments stated inability to invest in publically (sic) owned public transport, your argument certainly doesn't seem to provide a convincing case against public ownership.

I wasn't trying to make a case against public ownership. You seem a bit confused.

 

[Deerfold]

I think it already was changing, certainly by the mid 80's.

My line certainly was. I travelled daily 1986 to 1992 and the service on the line went from hourly with around 4 peak extras to 4tph for much of the day with excellent reliability.

Reliability on the line tanked shortly after privatisation and took years to recover.

 

[cjmillsnun]

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 Brian Souter gets anymore of the railway you might as well call it Virgin Stagecoach 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.

Fixed that for you

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ignoring Souter's personal views, which have nothing to do with the operation of the railway, I'd be happy for more TOCs to be run by Stagey - they seem far and away the most competent, certainly when compared to the likes of GTR.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Ignoring Souter's personal views, which have nothing to do with the operation of the railway, I'd be happy for more TOCs to be run by Stagey - they seem far and away the most competent, certainly when compared to the likes of GTR.

Agreed. My local TOC is SWT and I want to see stagecoach retain the franchise.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Ignoring Souter's personal views, which have nothing to do with the operation of the railway, I'd be happy for more TOCs to be run by Stagey - they seem far and away the most competent, certainly when compared to the likes of GTR.

Time served railway lags who live on the SWT patch agree wholeheartedly with this comment - usual things like clean trains , proper ticket checks , well looked after stations etc.

 

[Harbornite]

You could say one of the issues with British Railways was the fact that it had to act as common carrier. Also, its "image" before 1965 could be cited as an issue as British Railway's branding was something of an outdated hotchpotch.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Once BR was broken up, the genie was out of the bottle.
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?

Open Access will stay.
The genie is not going back in the bottle, even under Corbynrail.

Correct

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

I agree - generally.

 

[PHILIPE]

Correct



I agree - generally.

No forward plans. If something needed doing, they'd just get on with it if circumstances allowed..

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I hated the lack of customer service in BR days. I went for an interview and got a First Class Ticket and the sleeper - Preston- Euston in 1984. I got in my compartment and the attendant said there was no water in his tank so there may not be any refreshment. There was an hour layover IIRC in Crewe with access to water etc. Sure enough I get to Euston and no tea/coffee. A fortune was spent on a First Class Ticket plus a sleeper supplement and you cant even get a frickin hot cup of tea. That would not happen in this new era - hell on Virgin there is even free food in First never mind a hot drink.

In general, I do not like nationalized industries - sorry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Time served railway lags who live on the SWT patch agree wholeheartedly with this comment - usual things like clean trains , proper ticket checks , well looked after stations etc.

Same on VTWC routes.

The absolutely disgusting state of GWR stations, particularly suburban ones, is quite a comparison, as is the state of some ex-TPE stations, like Ulverston, where the PIS display on platform 3 has been partially broken for about 4 years, if indeed it ever worked.

The attention to detail displayed by Stagecoach as a company (it applies to buses as well) is vastly better than any other UK transport business I have seen, other than *possibly* a couple of smaller ones (in UK terms) like Trent and the northern Transdev operators. Oh, and Lothian, who beat everything bus-related into a cocked hat.

Back on topic...BR wasn't very good at this - stations tended to be tatty and basic.

 

[ainsworth74]

Same on VTWC routes.

Well looked after stations on VTWC?! Maybe the Network Rail ones but the ones that VTWC are responsible for all seem to be terrible.