90019
Established Member
And out come the rose tinted specs :roll:
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
UK Railways, better now than they have ever been!
- Thread starter xc170
- Start date
- Status
And out come the rose tinted specs :roll:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Snapper
Established Member
As you say - the point that is always either ignored or never understood is that there's no way that the amount of investment which has gone into the railways post-privatisation would ever have gone in if the railways were still nationalised.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Get real!
Mk 1s were noisy, dirty poor riding and cramped. They were either boiling in sumer or freezing in winter - and their crash-worthiness (and fire worthiness) was nothing to write home about either.
If an accident like Greyrigg had happened with Mk 1s instead of a Pendolino the results would have been appalling.
Compartments may appeal to the nostalgic, but they were cramped and a poor use of space.
I've done a google search for the 67s and Mk IIs operating on the Fife Circle. One person is rightly complaining that, as a disabled passenger, she can't use the train. This is, of course, in violation of the DDA (although nothing needs to be done about trains until 2020).
Otherwise, however, you have to praise First Scotrail. Improving service frequencies in Fife did mean that you'd be short of trains (6 carriages short, in fact). And they're getting another one soon I think to go around the other way. But the E-G wiring will free some trains up in the foreseeable future.
Otherwise, however, you have to praise First Scotrail. Improving service frequencies in Fife did mean that you'd be short of trains (6 carriages short, in fact). And they're getting another one soon I think to go around the other way. But the E-G wiring will free some trains up in the foreseeable future.
Snapper
Established Member
Some enthusiasts may go all gooey-eyed at the thought of this:
http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p11985037.html
But the modern traveller certainly wouldn't. So, the modern railway researches what people want. Which is why we now have this:
http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p26913821.html
http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p11985037.html
But the modern traveller certainly wouldn't. So, the modern railway researches what people want. Which is why we now have this:
http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p26913821.html
Yes, rose tinting is all well and good in it's place, ie charters and heritage lines, but you can't expect the punters to put up with it. look at the fleet availability figures achieved by some of the modern unit fleets and compare it to some of the not so old units. 150s, 321s etc all have a lot more failures than some more modern fleets (I expect someone to produce figures that contradict my random picking of classes). But now customers have air-conditioning on most services where as it used to be the preserve of later mk2s and mk3s when built.
Just imagine, people used to pay 1st class fares for boiling hot mk1s with a bit of space back in the day.
The investment is the biggest difference with stock thanks to privatisation, we wouldn't have so many trains if it hadn't happened. My only regret here is that we didn't specify a standard DMU and EMU coupling so that assistance could be given by most trains to other failures.
With my own rose tinting although it may be progress I'm going to hate seeing the Lickey electrified because it will ruin the shots. I'll still go out mind you, cos my opinion now and in 30 years may differ slightly. After all, we have some enthusiasts running round the country to ride 67s and 57s, that would have been unimaginable 10 years ago!
Just imagine, people used to pay 1st class fares for boiling hot mk1s with a bit of space back in the day.
The investment is the biggest difference with stock thanks to privatisation, we wouldn't have so many trains if it hadn't happened. My only regret here is that we didn't specify a standard DMU and EMU coupling so that assistance could be given by most trains to other failures.
With my own rose tinting although it may be progress I'm going to hate seeing the Lickey electrified because it will ruin the shots. I'll still go out mind you, cos my opinion now and in 30 years may differ slightly. After all, we have some enthusiasts running round the country to ride 67s and 57s, that would have been unimaginable 10 years ago!
Course, I like all trains (being an enthusiast)....I'm not very left, very right, anti this or that, I would like a good railway system where appropriate.
But as I've said before, how good railway system we have is all down to good management and the available money, really whether people want a good system.
BR management did an exceptional job considering the available funds, but the truth is, investment on a large was never going to go into the railway under public ownership as the Treasury wouldn't allow it. The BRB were told to manage a declining industry, expansion wasn't even on the cards. It was only when we had a consensus in the 90s that alternative forms of transport were no panacea and there was a move to actually promote the system.
BR managers only got ECML electrification through because they got the price down so much. And they did that by designing the catenary to be ultra cheap with the masts further apart than anywhere else in the world for a comparable line. We all know what the result of this has been since.
BR was so underfunded, that the BR Board marched down to Whitehall to demand that money be spent on Clapham junction area signalling, else the line into Waterloo would be shut in the near future on safety grounds.
In 1992, the pay for a driver is 1992 was £200 a week, for a guard around £130, and signalling staff £115-£220 with various enhancements. As a result BR couldn't recruit staff very easily at all, so much so that BR area management Reading, had to go to Liverpool to recruit guards!
There are people who believe BR management were incredibly inefficient and BR was a huge monopoly run for the workers. While there may be some element of truth in that, the fact is there has always been competition in the railway industry at least since the beginning of the 20th century. Its called the motorcar, motor bus and lorry. The system was so run down after the War because of the war effort, it was put into public ownership. But no real money was forthcoming until the 1955 modernisation plan - which was a loan. Hence BR couldn't balance the books, especially while the government where busy building trunk roads and motorways to allow ever larger trucks, which were steadily eating into all available funds, as traffic fell away to the roads. Its so much cheaper after all to run a truck when you aren't even covering the cost of the damage to the road let alone anything else..
In the early 1960s, came the Beeching plan. In the 1980s came the Serpell plan, one option was to shut down all the network which was unprofitable, all that was to remain was the line south of Newcastle on the ECML, WCML, GWML to Cardiff only, and parts of the SR network. It was shelved, deemed to be 'politically unacceptable' and probably because busitution had failed in the past, and road congestion was an ever increasing problem.
Despite that the Conservative government did go ahead and build most of the M25 in this period, the M40, and a good proportion of the trunk dual carriageways. Until in the mid 1990s they concluded they would never build their way out of road congestion and the public were increasingly objecting to new roads. Under the same administration the March-Spalding line was closed, the Woodhead line was closed and the Settle-Carlisle was threatened with closure. This was until 1987 when it was given a reprieve, after an especially strong campaign to keep it open - comparisons were made that the line would cost the same to save as 1/4 mile of new motorway. Which to my mind was a turning point after a solid 30 years of doom.
So don't EVER believe if it was nationalised or run by a Government it would have funds, or the Government would actually go out and promote it or it would be wonderful. Those old enough to remember - and I'm not that old, mid 30s - know that's not the case. Governments are about politics and dogma, thankfully we have an administration that actually is willing to spend money on it. But generally it depends who is in Government and the people who make up that government. The rail lobby is comparability weak and tiny against the road lobby, who are well financed and organised.
It was only after a massive public backlash, and steady traffic increases in the late 80s/90s that turned the railways fortunes around. Indeed, only since traffic increases of the privatised period that its now seen to have a future, especially coupled with road congestion.
I know there are some people here, whose view is 'We shall flog the system until morale improves'. It won't work, people love to distort the truth to grind an axe, as seen from the figures above. It'll only work if you convince people that the railway is worth having and using, and make use of it yourself - that's what saved the S&C. Just because things turned round in 1987, doesn't mean they won't turn back again, especially if you keep feeding the press with anti-rail stories (there are on or two on here that do) all it does is give people a jaded view, and an unwillingness to support any expansion. Which is no good for the railway, or solving some of the country's transport problems.
But as I've said before, how good railway system we have is all down to good management and the available money, really whether people want a good system.
BR management did an exceptional job considering the available funds, but the truth is, investment on a large was never going to go into the railway under public ownership as the Treasury wouldn't allow it. The BRB were told to manage a declining industry, expansion wasn't even on the cards. It was only when we had a consensus in the 90s that alternative forms of transport were no panacea and there was a move to actually promote the system.
BR managers only got ECML electrification through because they got the price down so much. And they did that by designing the catenary to be ultra cheap with the masts further apart than anywhere else in the world for a comparable line. We all know what the result of this has been since.
BR was so underfunded, that the BR Board marched down to Whitehall to demand that money be spent on Clapham junction area signalling, else the line into Waterloo would be shut in the near future on safety grounds.
In 1992, the pay for a driver is 1992 was £200 a week, for a guard around £130, and signalling staff £115-£220 with various enhancements. As a result BR couldn't recruit staff very easily at all, so much so that BR area management Reading, had to go to Liverpool to recruit guards!
There are people who believe BR management were incredibly inefficient and BR was a huge monopoly run for the workers. While there may be some element of truth in that, the fact is there has always been competition in the railway industry at least since the beginning of the 20th century. Its called the motorcar, motor bus and lorry. The system was so run down after the War because of the war effort, it was put into public ownership. But no real money was forthcoming until the 1955 modernisation plan - which was a loan. Hence BR couldn't balance the books, especially while the government where busy building trunk roads and motorways to allow ever larger trucks, which were steadily eating into all available funds, as traffic fell away to the roads. Its so much cheaper after all to run a truck when you aren't even covering the cost of the damage to the road let alone anything else..
In the early 1960s, came the Beeching plan. In the 1980s came the Serpell plan, one option was to shut down all the network which was unprofitable, all that was to remain was the line south of Newcastle on the ECML, WCML, GWML to Cardiff only, and parts of the SR network. It was shelved, deemed to be 'politically unacceptable' and probably because busitution had failed in the past, and road congestion was an ever increasing problem.
Despite that the Conservative government did go ahead and build most of the M25 in this period, the M40, and a good proportion of the trunk dual carriageways. Until in the mid 1990s they concluded they would never build their way out of road congestion and the public were increasingly objecting to new roads. Under the same administration the March-Spalding line was closed, the Woodhead line was closed and the Settle-Carlisle was threatened with closure. This was until 1987 when it was given a reprieve, after an especially strong campaign to keep it open - comparisons were made that the line would cost the same to save as 1/4 mile of new motorway. Which to my mind was a turning point after a solid 30 years of doom.
So don't EVER believe if it was nationalised or run by a Government it would have funds, or the Government would actually go out and promote it or it would be wonderful. Those old enough to remember - and I'm not that old, mid 30s - know that's not the case. Governments are about politics and dogma, thankfully we have an administration that actually is willing to spend money on it. But generally it depends who is in Government and the people who make up that government. The rail lobby is comparability weak and tiny against the road lobby, who are well financed and organised.
It was only after a massive public backlash, and steady traffic increases in the late 80s/90s that turned the railways fortunes around. Indeed, only since traffic increases of the privatised period that its now seen to have a future, especially coupled with road congestion.
I know there are some people here, whose view is 'We shall flog the system until morale improves'. It won't work, people love to distort the truth to grind an axe, as seen from the figures above. It'll only work if you convince people that the railway is worth having and using, and make use of it yourself - that's what saved the S&C. Just because things turned round in 1987, doesn't mean they won't turn back again, especially if you keep feeding the press with anti-rail stories (there are on or two on here that do) all it does is give people a jaded view, and an unwillingness to support any expansion. Which is no good for the railway, or solving some of the country's transport problems.
Last edited:
When I first started working for the railways as a guard in 1997 my basic salary was just over £8k. Sure you had overtime enhancements, but for the person who just wanted to work basic, it was awful. Just two months later we lost all enhanced rates for overtime and changed some T&Cs and as a result our basic became £16k. Plenty of the 12hour crew said they'd be missing out, but the point was you couldn't get finance on a car by saying how much overtime you were going to earn, finance was only interested in your basic pay. Now fast forward to 2009 and basic is £24k, have I really been doing this 12 years?? The job is great, which is why out of 9 guards who passed out of that course, 5 are still at New St albeit 1 now driving. As Mastercard say, there are some things in life money can't buy.....
- Status