The railways in 1963 vs 2023 - what would you prefer?

[AM9]

True, but that said my memories of first gen DMUs were in their final rundown. Scruffy, chewing gum stuck in the seats and left in the old ash trays, a layer of dust and grime that puts most Sprinters to shame. But for all that they had character and the seats were comfy. I enjoyed travelling on them.

That's the enthusiast kicking in, I.e. the randomness of their condition and operating rather that the comfort of the journey.

I don't enjoy travelling on any modern train, they just get me from A to B, preferably as quickly as possible. It's a lacklustre experience. The scenery from the window is the highlight.

That's true, but after all, railways are there to get from A to B in the most effective way, not an adventure in railway operation. I agree that the journey really consists of the view, in relative comfort and safety. Little if any care about my safety, travelling at much higher speeds than in the '60s and with more chance of getting there clean and on time.*

* I am presuming that the recent parlous state of rail travel is excepted from this discussion, things were far different pre 2020.

 

[Mikey C]

2023 definitely. From a London pov, a lot of commuter lines have been transformed in that period, with pokey DMUs trundling into most of the non Southern terminuses. The "sparks" effect caused by electrifying the commuter lines into Euston, STP and Kings Cross was still to come, never mind Thameslink and Crossrail.

The larger network back in 1963 would be a plus I agree, but how frequent were some of these branch lines?

 

[Krokodil]

2023 definitely. From a London pov, a lot of commuter lines have been transformed in that period, with pokey DMUs trundling into most of the non Southern terminuses.

Whereas much of the rest of the country steadily had their trains replaced with pokey DMUs. Progress, eh? It was only with the 2016 Northern and TPE franchises, and the 2018 TfW one that a programme to expand the fleet happened.

 

[PeterC]

Apart from one stop on the way to school I wasn't making much use of the railway until the lare 60s and 70s.

In the railway's favour at that time were
walk up fares that weren't outlandish and services that ran into the early hours. Plus of course on many inter city routes you could get an excellent cookbreakfast.

Against that trains didn't meet modern accessibility standards. The fact that most people smoked meant that carriages were generally filthy. On lines that I use frequencies were much lower then.

I miss the class 309s and the Blue Pullmans but for the rest I'll stick with the modern railway.

 

[uglymonkey]

I also remember we hardly ever went on the train anywhere as a child, as it was too expensive. We always went by bus, which was cheaper.

 

[Merle Haggard]

1963 for leisure, 2023 for commuting. For instance, if I were to leave Northampton at 07:00, I'd get there around 10:00 in 1963 (or at least, I think. I'll have to consult my 1963 timetable), whereas today to get to London at 10:00 I'd need to leave at around half eight. aside from the times, I'd probably have to pick 1963, sue to the fact that there was a non-electrified WCML, and lots of locomotives. however 2023 has more trains per day, and the 350s are on the whole very nice units. With the stations, they would mostly be under refurbishment.

In 1963, he Southern end of the W.C.M.L. was undergoing track improvements and electrification work on a large scale. The service was reduced considerably - London to Birmingham and Liverpool services were from Paddington, Manchester was from St. Pancras.
Looking at a Summer 1963 W.T.T. which I fortuitously have, the 07.49 from Northampton arrived Euston at 09.42 and the 'D240'* 08.17 at 09.59. In both cases, considerable recovery time was allowed (for temporary speed restrictions and 'weaves') in total (distributed in sections) 10 minutes - presumably before the work started, the schedule would not have included that but unfortunately I have no details. The trains were formed of gangway vestibule stock (i.e. with end doors, 3 seats a side in the SKs and some (T)SOs. The running time (i.e. without recovery time) was therefore 1 hr 32 minutes.
Not 2023 I know, but the new fast electrified service in 1966 after years of inconvenience saw the journey time slashed from 1 hr 32m to ---errr--- 1 hr 20m. And the new electric trains had slam door access to almost every seating bay (2+3, 6 at the ends), and draughty. The draughts would carry with them the distinctive smell of asbestos disc brakes being applied.
Northampton is an interesting example to choose. In 1963 there were direct services from the County town to its two largest towns, Wellingborough (25 mins) and Kettering (37) and one through service to Nottingham. It's not possible to make these journeys by train now - which of course also provided connections to Notts/Derbys/Yorks. But we're very handy for the M1.

* D240 - Diesel hauled, load limited to 240 tons trailing.

 

[AM9]

2023 definitely. From a London pov, a lot of commuter lines have been transformed in that period, with pokey DMUs trundling into most of the non Southern terminuses. The "sparks" effect caused by electrifying the commuter lines into Euston, STP and Kings Cross was still to come, never mind Thameslink and Crossrail.

The larger network back in 1963 would be a plus I agree, but how frequent were some of these branch lines?

Even the larger network couldn't cope with the sheer volume of patronage experienced in 2019. The renaissance of London's network capability has allowed individual lines' passenger numbers to approach those of the golden age of railways, to be safely handled.

 

[Krokodil]

Even the larger network couldn't cope with the sheer volume of patronage experienced in 2019. The renaissance of London's network capability has allowed individual lines' passenger numbers to approach those of the golden age of railways, to be safely handled.

In the 1980s BR sent more passenger trains through the remaining one platform at Pontypridd than they ever did through the seven which once existed. Naturally with six disused platform faces the solution to the lack of capacity was to build an extra one next to the goods line (there was logic in this madness, there was already signalled track in place, whereas the disused faces had long since had theirs ripped out, a road scheme was involved too).

 

[Irascible]

The larger network back in 1963 would be a plus I agree, but how frequent were some of these branch lines?

Usually, not especially ( some exceptions even in more rural areas ) - don't forget local trains on far more main lines too. Neither they or the expresses were anything like as frequent as would be wanted now. On the other hand people didn't travel quite so much, and the population was something around 16m fewer. I suspect there's some muddling here between "would you like the 1963 rail network now" and "would you like to be in 1963 to travel the rail network". I mean, if the alternative to commuting by 1963 rail is driving & you hate driving then there's not much choice, but otherwise oof, not good. If you want to travel vs going from A to B as fast as possible, then that's a different matter.

 

[Falcon1200]

I suspect there's some muddling here between "would you like the 1963 rail network now" and "would you like to be in 1963 to travel the rail network".

Yes indeed! I would love to visit the railway back in 1963 (with of course an unlimited supply of the appropriate money) - So many lines now gone, so many loco-hauled trains. But live there? No thanks, I grew up in the 60s, before central heating, more than 3 TV channels, the internet etc, and nor would I want to have to work until 65 and (probably) drop dead by 70.

 

[Irascible]

I grew up in the 60s, before central heating, more than 3 TV channels, the internet etc, and nor would I want to have to work until 65 and (probably) drop dead by 70.

I remember the 70s, I don't remember central heating in the 70s either! open coal fires ( and a coal bunker ), yes. My grandparents ( who all worked in WW2, a couple in some horrible industrial environments ) made it into their 90s, so it wasn't that bad unless you were a miner. The rot had well and truly set in by the 60s but I'd like to see what a still-industrialised Britain was like, and then having experienced early 60s society be even more gratetful I fully came of age in the 90s... ( other than the rather large increase in paranoia ). And, just a slow bumbling around it all in the trains of the time - I've often talked about taking slower routes/services for comfort & interest even now, more so in the 80s - raw speed doesn't interest me much aside from commuting or unless it's absurdly long like 8hrs on a Voyager vs an hr and a half in the air.

 

[yorksrob]

I want to have to work until 65 and (probably) drop dead by 70.

65! We'll be lucky to be allowed to retire then, the way things are going.

 

[yorkie]

65! We'll be lucky to be allowed to retire then, the way things are going.

I suspect you missed the point the other member was making.

Let there be no doubt: the average length of life after retirement has massively increased since 1963.

People live much longer now, and clearly it would be impractical for all of that additional time to be in retirement, however this comparison of 1963 Vs 2023 is beyond the scope of this thread, so any debate about the rights or wrongs or details would need to be posted elsewhere.

 

[leighsw2]

Not sure about 1963 (year before I was born), but in 1975 (when I started regular train travel) there were three direct trains a day (loco hauled, with restaurant and buffet) from North East Lincolnshire to London with Mk2 seats (table and windows). By 1978 it was air conditioned. What I wouldn't give to get that back!