What would railways be like today if privatisation had not occurred?

[thenorthern]

I don't think the CrossCountry would be like it is today under British Rail.

 

[Yew]

The 'P' had fundamental flaws.

1) The hydro-kinetic brakes were unreliable and even when working created drag when 'off' through residual water in the system. Regenerative would have been the real answer.

2) The power cars divided the train into two, so two sets of catering, two guards, and two coaches with no pax capacity.

3) The body-mounted motors and control system not only took up space in the train which otherwise would have been passenger carrying, but meant only the power car wheels were powered.

1) This article in the new scientist states problems where with the conventional tread brakes, and not the hydrokinetic. It states the APT-U2 would use disk brakes, with hydrokinetic brakes employed at high speeds, to reduce brake wear. (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...e&q=advanced passenger train squadron&f=false)
2) The plan for the APT-U2 was to have (non tilting) power cars at each end, a la HST and Many contemporary TGV's
3) No worse than a TGV or HST.



Another feature I quite liked was the plan to move to semi articulated carriages, with sets of two carriages sharing one bogie, giving some of the weight savings of articulation, whilst maintaining operational flexibility (not having to take a whole train out of service for one hot axle box.

 

[Jonny]

I'm surprised that no-one has picked up on this yet.

Let's face it, that is the sort of thing that could have happened on BR

 

[Tibbs]

This business of holding trains after their scheduled departure time in order to make a connection with a late running incoming service cuts both ways. It's great if you need to make that connection, but frustrating if you are on the 'held' train and you are on a tight schedule where the delayed departure causes you a problem.

If you were on a late-running train into Heathrow would you expect the airline to hold your flight to give you time to catch it, thus delaying all the other passengers on the plane? Of course not. Why should it be different for trains?

For regular travellers on short hop scheduled flights (my experience is of London - Dusseldorf), it does happen.

 

[TheJRB]

Two points BR introduced advanced purchase, the internet technology which is used these days to sell them simply did not exist then there's no reason to assume BR would not have had its own website with one point of contact rather than national rail separate And separate TOC one sets.

BR was active in setting up my local RUG and engaging with it and had Managers who had worked on our line and knew the area. Nowadays it's suits and faces in Cardiff who don't know the Cambrian and view RUG engagement as a chore to be perhaps be avoided.

Thanks for these points. As I said, I'm too young to remember the days of the nationalised railway so it's good to hear more facts.

I, seriously, can't tell if this is satire.

The North London Line service under the previous, privatized, Silverlink Metro franchise, for 10 years, wasn't very good.

In 2007, TfL took over, and awarded the concession for London Overground to LOROL. Essentially, LOROL are just paid to manage the thing. TfL takes the revenue risk, and specify trains, train frequency and performance criteria, on which LOROL is rewarded. TfL are in charge of planning and funding improvements.

London Overground is a very weak form of privatization - if anything, the 2007 change was a strong shift towards nationalisation on the privatization-nationalisation spectrum.

The push for improvement has come from a combination of changing in public policy, and more powers of the GLA/Mayor to do things/argue London's case, and an increase in public money, rather than any private incentives. It's highly likely a similar situation would have happened if the NLL was under BR.

Don't get me wrong. I know that the line was in a terrible state well in to the days of privatised running. I'm also aware of the sort of privatisation that exists on the Overground; in fact I think this sort of privatisation with a strong control by a localised governmental body perhaps provides the best of both worlds. At the same time, could we say for certain that without the chain of events (including it getting worse before it got better) would have been at all similar and prompted the vast level of improvement we have seen?

 

[SWTCommuter]

I'm surprised that no-one has picked up on this yet.

Let's face it, that is the sort of thing that could have happened on BR

Anything could have happened under BR but that sort of error is more likely under a fragmented system.

Transport Minister Frederic Cuvillier blamed an "absurd rail system" for the problems.

"When you separate the rail operator from the train company," he said, "this is what happens."

We had a similar hiccough a few years ago when the MK1 EMUs in third-rail land were replaced:

Responsibility for ordering replacement stock and notifying Railtrack of any changes needed to the 750V DC power supply lay with the three operators of MkI EMU fleets, South West Trains, South Central and South Eastern. All TOCs have regulated track access agreements with the infrastructure owner, Part F of which covers changes to the types and characteristics of rolling stock operated. Should a change affect the maintenance or operation of the network, or the operation of trains, a TOC must notify the infrastructure owner and could be liable for meeting any resulting costs.

From BR's experience with the Networker programme, it was clear that the new trains being ordered by the three TOCs to replace MkI stock would require changes to the power supply. However, the TOCs assumed that this was Railtrack's responsibility.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...highlights-the-pitfalls-of-fragmentation.html

 

[Bill Stanier]

1) This article in the new scientist states problems where with the conventional tread brakes, and not the hydrokinetic. It states the APT-U2 would use disk brakes, with hydrokinetic brakes employed at high speeds, to reduce brake wear.

Read the book. It states a few problems with the hydrokinetic brake. Drag when 'off' was one due to residual liquid in the system, inability to fine-control the brake to prevent locked wheels was another, and the brake used enormous amounts of compressed air to blow the liquid in and out - even with big reservoir tanks there sometimes wasn't enough after several brake applications.

But really, it was a duff system. Even when it worked it simply radiated off the energy recovered from braking as heat, with non recovered. Regenerative braking should have been specified instead. Even rheostatic braking using the traction motors would have been better from a control and reliability point of view, and would have saved weight.

 

[yorksrob]

Nonsense. Nonsense on stilts!

I don't know where new technology is supposed to come from if no one is prepared to design and develop it.

The technology pixies dropping it off in an enchanted glade presumably.

Indeed, and if you're big enough (and good enough) to produce large numbers of locos (or whatever) you aren't stuck in the 'low numbers' underdeveloped area that BR was with its minuscule numbers of each type of diesel. Once you reach that level of build numbers you are in a position to become a world supplier (globalisation wasn't such a feature back in BR days - it's axiomatic now!).

The Mk3 coach was (is) a good vehicle but it displays classic 'under developed' charcateristics, such as failing aircon (never known that on a Pendolino), failing vestibule sliding doors (never known that on a Pendolino), and unreliable brakes (never known that on a Pendolino).

These are the sort of faults that get designed out of vehicles in mass production, but the small numbers of Mk3s makes this unviable. It's cheaper to fix the faults as they occur than to design new systems that obviate the faults. Economies of scale don't just influence purchase price, they also make for cheaper running costs and better reliability.

I'm not sure how dodgy the brakes are on Mk3's - I've travelled on them enough times and I've not noticed them to be any more unreliable than any other train. However the point is, types of vehicle weren't developed in isolation. Lessons learnt on dodgy doors on Mk 3's informed the 158's and 159's for example.

 

[Bill Stanier]

I don't know where new technology is supposed to come from if no one is prepared to design and develop it.

Yes, but I didn't disagree that someone has to design and develop it; obviously. What I said was that if someone has already done it and the technology is running around in its thousands and working well, why would you go off and make your own, rather than buying off the shelf at a fraction the cost and for a proven product?

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but I didn't disagree that someone has to design and develop it; obviously. What I said was that if someone has already done it and the technology is running around in its thousands and working well, why would you go off and make your own, rather than buying off the shelf at a fraction the cost and for a proven product?

Alternatively, why by trains off the shelf from several different companies, incompatible with each other, with different components, competing with all the orders of other countries, when you can have your own continuous stream of development, leading to a degree of standardisation over time (I go back to my example of the Southern Region) not to mention continuity of supply.

 

[thenorthern]

What about each individual operator?

My guess would be for some.

Virgin Trains - Better than it would be under BR however I think under BR more trains would stop at Tamworth, Nuneaton and Lichfield Trent Valley, it would be unlikely tilting trains would be in use by now under BR.

London Midland - The inner-city services would be better with less strikes and better connections although I think the Long WCML are better under privatisation.

CrossCountry - Better no question under Arriva/Virgin.

East Midlands Trains - I think they would be better under BR, having regional and Inter-City services under the same operator is not a good idea and I think BR could run it better.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I don't know where new technology is supposed to come from if no one is prepared to design and develop it.

The technology pixies dropping it off in an enchanted glade presumably.



I'm not sure how dodgy the brakes are on Mk3's - I've travelled on them enough times and I've not noticed them to be any more unreliable than any other train. However the point is, types of vehicle weren't developed in isolation. Lessons learnt on dodgy doors on Mk 3's informed the 158's and 159's for example.

It was more a fault with the positioning of the air inlets into the coach. When the brakes were applied, you got a lungful of hot brake pads. Bear in mind, these were originally made from chrysotile (asbestos).

They are also known for wearing through pads and discs very quickly and require constant maintenance.

The biggest problem with the air con on ex-BR stock is that it was designed for R12 (a refrigerant made from CFCs), not the R134a that it has to use now. Without a complete change of system, of course it won't work well compared to a system designed to work with R134a from the start

 

[ChiefPlanner]

What about each individual operator?

My guess would be for some.

Virgin Trains - Better than it would be under BR however I think under BR more trains would stop at Tamworth, Nuneaton and Lichfield Trent Valley, it would be unlikely tilting trains would be in use by now under BR.

London Midland - The inner-city services would be better with less strikes and better connections although I think the Long WCML are better under privatisation.

CrossCountry - Better no question under Arriva/Virgin.

East Midlands Trains - I think they would be better under BR, having regional and Inter-City services under the same operator is not a good idea and I think BR could run it better.

Thanks for rewriting history - BR would have made the tilting trains work if they had carried on (the FS used the lessons learnt from BR hence "Pendolino" !!!)

 

[yorksrob]

It was more a fault with the positioning of the air inlets into the coach. When the brakes were applied, you got a lungful of hot brake pads. Bear in mind, these were originally made from chrysotile (asbestos).

They are also known for wearing through pads and discs very quickly and require constant maintenance.

The biggest problem with the air con on ex-BR stock is that it was designed for R12 (a refrigerant made from CFCs), not the R134a that it has to use now. Without a complete change of system, of course it won't work well compared to a system designed to work with R134a from the start

[/QUOTE]

With the exception of the asbestos break pads (which I'm obviously glad they've moved away from) I can't say any of the rest of it has ever affected my comfort as a passenger. I can't say I've ever found air conditioning to be a problem (not one that's stuck in the mind). Whether that's because I've just been lucky or you're never completely shut in on a Mk 3, I don't know.

 

[Bill Stanier]

Alternatively, why by trains off the shelf from several different companies, incompatible with each other, with different components, competing with all the orders of other countries, when you can have your own continuous stream of development, leading to a degree of standardisation over time (I go back to my example of the Southern Region) not to mention continuity of supply.

I go back to my car scenario. If I want 100 cars I don't make them myself, and I don't buy them from a mix of suppliers. I do a deal with Ford for 100 Focuses. The deal will include a maintenance contract including all parts and labour and possibly a guaranteed buy-back/trade-in price for when they need replacing.

That way I get reliable cars that can be delivered quickly, and I know in advance what my costs of running the fleet will be.

All of that may not translate to buying a loco fleet, but the principle does.

 

[yorksrob]

I go back to my car scenario. If I want 100 cars I don't make them myself, and I don't buy them from a mix of suppliers. I do a deal with Ford for 100 Focuses. The deal will include a maintenance contract including all parts and labour and possibly a guaranteed buy-back/trade-in price for when they need replacing.

That way I get reliable cars that can be delivered quickly, and I know in advance what my costs of running the fleet will be.

All of that may not translate to buying a loco fleet, but the principle does.

I've been told of this principal before and it sounds like bunkem to me.

Our trains are not from all the same supplier. In truth, BR's trains didn't all come from the same supplier, but at least if you do your own design and development, you can specify compatibility and use your own components.

The reliability argument is a red herring as well. All trains have teething troubles, but BR built many reliable trains that have lasted many years.

 

[LateThanNever]

I go back to my car scenario. If I want 100 cars I don't make them myself, and I don't buy them from a mix of suppliers. I do a deal with Ford for 100 Focuses. The deal will include a maintenance contract including all parts and labour and possibly a guaranteed buy-back/trade-in price for when they need replacing.

That way I get reliable cars that can be delivered quickly, and I know in advance what my costs of running the fleet will be.

All of that may not translate to buying a loco fleet, but the principle does.

That is very appealing and rather like road vehicle contract hire, but if you are big and can spread risk you may have the desire to give it a try and potentially save considerable money. Not successful for BR in most instances but it is more than likely the Pendolino would have been cheaper if BR had stuck with it rather than throwing up the sponge and loosing the staff to Italy!

 

[Bill Stanier]

Let's put it more simply...

"Don't re-invent the wheel".

 

[yorksrob]

Let's put it more simply...

"Don't re-invent the wheel".

"Be the person who invents the wheel first".

 

[Bill Stanier]

"Be the person who invents the wheel first".

But not if it's a square one....

 

[yorksrob]

But not if it's a square one....

Quite. But the British train manufacturing industry didn't spend hundreds of years inventing "square" wheels. You have a skewed view of industrial history if you think that is the case.

 

[Manchester77]

Let's put it more simply...

"Don't re-invent the wheel".

What so by that reasoning we'd still be ordering 1st gen DMUs because no one re-invented them into 2nd gen and modern units because it was easier to buy off the shelf.

 

[Bill Stanier]

You're mis-quoting me again. I never said that.

I said that the privatised rail freight companies, when they needed new diesel motive power, looked to manufacturers who produced proven products and ordered that technology (such as class 66) instead of starting again with new unproven designs.

 

[Bald Rick]

I may be wrong but I worked for BR from the end of 1989 til 96 and I don't recall a total national shutdown due to a strike during that time until fairly soon after Railtrack took over when the signalmen held several strikes pretty much shutting most of the system down for about 24 hours each time

I think you are wrong. I worked for BR in the early 90s and there was definitely a system wide strike in April 1993. Or at least sufficiently widespread to cause me to drive halfway down the country rather than take the train.

The signallers' strikes were indeed in the early days of Railtrack; 18 months before it was privatised and still very much under Government ownership and control.

 

[WatcherZero]

Lets add another dimension, if it was still BR, how would it have faired over the last 4 years when every local and national government department has had between 25 and 40% cuts. Would we not now be in the middle of another Beeching without the protection of multi-year private contracts the Government cant break.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Lets add another dimension, if it was still BR, how would it have faired over the last 4 years when every local and national government department has had between 25 and 40% cuts. Would we not now be in the middle of another Beeching without the protection of multi-year private contracts the Government cant break.

However if passengers numbers had doubled (and revenue) as has happened in Northern Ireland anyway with BR's lower cost base how much Govt money would be gong into the railway anyway? The growth in the last 20 years is down to external factors anyway so BR would have benefited too - anyway remember passenger numbers were increasing before privatization.

 

[Carlisle]

I think you are wrong. I worked for BR in the early 90s and there was definitely a system wide strike in April 1993. Or at least sufficiently widespread to cause me to drive halfway down the country rather than take the train.

The signallers' strikes were indeed in the early days of Railtrack; 18 months before it was privatised and still very much under Government ownership and control.

Yes on second thoughts I think I can remember something happening around then ,Think me and few others were rest day anyway and most of the other folk were encouraged to take a days annual leave by the boss and it think most did

 

[Beveridges]

Rolling stock wise, very little would have changed from today. Most services would still be in the hands of Units except the ECML, GWML and Anglia. I think BR would have ordered a better unit than the Voyager and Pendolino. They are just unfit for purpose.

Low spec 142s/150s would continue to run local services.

On the freight side, 66s 66s and more 66s. BR was even talking about GMs before privatisation even happened. I reckon classes 20, 31, 37, 47, 56, 57 and 73 would be entirely withdrawn. It is only through smaller FOCs like DRS, Colas, DCR, West Coast Railway Co that these smaller classes have survived.


We probably wouldn't have such horrible liveries. BR paint schemes would have far superior deaign and match the rolling stock far better than what the TOCs have applied (I.e. something designed to suit a Bus).


Subsidiaries would be far less than today, privatisation has cost the government far more than it cost when it was nationalised. No shareholders and ROSCOs to pay for.

Staff wages would have remain poor as they were in 1995.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I said that the privatised rail freight companies, when they needed new diesel motive power, looked to manufacturers who produced proven products and ordered that technology (such as class 66) instead of starting again with new unproven designs.

Why do you think that was? Do you think it was because General Motors were so much better at making trains than anybody else, or do you think it was because BREL, Hunslet-Barclay and MetroCammell had all gone to the wall because of the Conservative government?

And what do you have to say about the number of "manufacturers who produced proven products" who sold us trains that had horrendous teething troubles? The 380s were a nightmare when they were delivered, and you can't get much more proven than a Siemens Desiro.

As for the MkIIIs, they have faults, but BR were not stupid enough to put the toilet retention tank right next to the exhaust pipe. That idiocy came from the Canadian "proven manufacturer" Bombardier.

 

[Bill Stanier]

Why do you think that was? Do you think it was because General Motors were so much better at making trains than anybody else, or do you think it was because BREL, Hunslet-Barclay and MetroCammell had all gone to the wall because of the Conservative government?

None of the above, though GM must have been doing something right to be in a position to have a proven reliable technology in widespread use.

Your dig at the Conservative government perhaps belies where you are really coming from on this issue.

The decision makers at the Railfreight companies are not hampered by such hang-ups, and made a very sensible procurement decision based on purely business issues.