Was British Rail that bad?

[LE Greys]

I think it needs to be remembered that we live in a different world now what we did back in BR days. As has already been said, attitudes to customer service have changed dramatically across the board. The same can be said for safety, comfort, speed, convienience, price etc. Take safety, the big safety improvement since privatisation was TPWS. TPWS was a government requirement due to a number of accidents caused by SPADs, and would have been fitted just the same by BR, infact BR was developing ATP at the time of privatisation. Arguably the only issue in that sence had privatisation not occured would have been that instead we might have had more limited ATP coverage (mainlines) rarther than widespread TPWS, the latter being safer due to the circumstances of most SPADs (most occur at low speeds where TPWS is totally effective, yet where ATP might not be fitted). Perhaps though we'd have gone the full way and had ATP on the mainlines and TPWS everywhere else. Another "safety" (plus "comfort", "quality" etc) think was the mass replacement of Mk1 stock with new trains. Again the TOCs did not choose to do this (any more than BR would have carried on eating away at the older SR slammers with more Networkers) but the government used legislation to force it on them, and could have done the same with BR.

Well, I agree there. I don't think the slammers would have lasted beyond 2000 under BR, with the corridor version of Networkers coming in to replace them, and possibly on overhead lines as well, displacing units such as 317s onto Regional Railways. I'd also expect a modified diesel version (Turbostar perhaps) to come in or RR to replace by cascade the last diesel units. As for TPWS, not only was there ATP, there was also SR-AWS that could have performed most of the features of TPWS a long time earlier.

This report, published in 1991 and currently on Railways Archive, pretty much sums it up. BR was flourishing, or could have been with a little more funding and ten more years. £1bn a year was 'the highest level of investment for thirty years', ridership was up and freight ton-miles were growing fast.

Still, that does bring freight up. That is the real success story of privatisation, loads more freight running much more efficiently. EWS/DBS, Freightliner, DRS, GBRf and so on have done a very good job.

 

[Zoe]

With the Intercity 250 project though, the Mark 3 stock would have been cascaded to XC and so Cross Country would have continued to be a Cinderella operation. Also of note is that with the sectors, HSTs would not have been used on peak outer suburban services from Paddington as these would have been the domain of Network SouthEast.

 

[LE Greys]

With the Intercity 250 project though, the Mark 3 stock would have been cascaded to XC and so Cross Country would have continued to be a Cinderella operation. Also of note is that with the sectors, HSTs would not have been used on peak outer suburban services from Paddington as these would have been the domain of Network SouthEast.

Would that really have been all that bad? The ex-47 services would have been able to speed up; we might still have had trains to Brighton, Blackpool, Poole and so on; and we would still have proper buffet services. NSE is an unknown quantity. Would they have realised that 166s were insufficient for the commuter services? Would they have ordered Voyager-type stock? A complete unknown, although I suspect something Turbostar-like (a diesel version of the "Main Line Networker" perhaps) would have appeared.

 

[Zoe]

A complete unknown, although I suspect something Turbostar-like (a diesel version of the "Main Line Networker" perhaps) would have appeared.

Good point, maybe even electrification although funding could have been an issue as the GWML itself would most likely have been owned by Intercity and not Network SouthEast.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would have the CrossRail in London taken place under B.R.?

 

[LE Greys]

Would have the CrossRail in London taken place under B.R.?

Proposed for completion ten years ago, but the bill was shot down in 1994. If it had not been for the uncertainty around privatisation, it might well have got through. I also reckon the GWML would have been electrified at around the same time, presumably with IC250 taking over, releasing yet more HSTs (perhaps Chris Green would finally have got some for NSE).

Oh yes, and Thameslink 2000 was supposed to be finished first.

 

[Zoe]

Proposed for completion ten years ago, but the bill was shot down in 1994.

It actually had the support of both government and opposition at the time but was thrown out by the Bill Committee. By that time though the Railways Act 1993 was in force so it most likely would have been franchised.

 

[yorksrob]

With the Intercity 250 project though, the Mark 3 stock would have been cascaded to XC and so Cross Country would have continued to be a Cinderella operation. Also of note is that with the sectors, HSTs would not have been used on peak outer suburban services from Paddington as these would have been the domain of Network SouthEast.

Well, we probably wouldn't have had operation princess. Would frequencies have been increased at all ? We don't know. I don't think Mk 3's would have made cross country services a "cinderella". The traditional problems of poor reliability due to pathing conflicts with so many other services would have remained.

 

[Zoe]

I don't think Mk 3's would have made cross country services a "cinderella".

The Ciderella name was due to the fact that it ended up with used stock rather than new trains and the way it was timetabled. As you say it would still have to be pathed around other services and that fact that Mark 3 coaches would have been cascaded would have delayed in possibility of new stock.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Let's face it - the railways would have been better left under BR - not privatised.

 

[Zoe]

Let's face it - the railways would have been better left under BR - not privatised.

I agree with you, the railways should be run as a public service. I'm just saying that there are some areas where services may not be as frequent as they are today and some services may not have gained new stock. XC is one example of this.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with you, the railways should be run as a public service. I'm just saying that there may be some areas where services may not be as frequent as they are today and some services may not have gained new stock. XC is one example of this.

That's a fair point. I actually think it's better to have an industry developing new stock on an ongoing basis and replacing gradually than having a big splurge in one go, which seems to have happened recently. This does mean that most of us have to make the best of our stock for it's full forty years - but I'm a Southern Region man so this seems natural for me anyway.

 

[ACE1888]

Rose tinted glasses anyone, two sides to this question, stock wise it's cleaner, a lot more punctual , downside we were all much younger, variety was better and most of it was Loco hauled! The ideal situation for me, and i guess a lot of passengers/enthusiasts would be extra Mk3's with standby loco's for TOC's ready 'to go' , ie greater flexibility

 

[thefab444]

stock wise it's cleaner, a lot more punctual

Higher fares and slower journey times (both in terms of stops and padding) compensate for that though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I have just found an old copy of the BR timetables for 1981/2 (which was far bigger in size than the current one and has a nice picure of the front ends of 2 HST on the cover) and it makes very interesting reading in comparison to the current one with regards to services available. There are two other items in this that will show how matters have changed:-

On page 1279, there is a half-page BR advertisment... MOTORAIL...take the car the easy way

On page 1280, there is a full page BR advertisment saying THE PARCEL SERVICE OF THE FUTURE WILL RUN ALONG THESE LINES....it is advertising RED STAR!!