This BBC Inside Story programme from the 1990s is worth a watch.
British Rail did some good things but anyone who thinks it was perfect or that nationalisation would solve everything is sadly misguided.
Yes they were. Partly because passengers smoked on them, (and so did many of the locomotives running on the same tracks as them) plus the legacy of horse-hair stuffed seat squabs and cushions which filled with dust and windows that were opened to let brake dust - as in rusty cast iron particles, in. I regularly travelled on clas309 EMUs, probably the best EMUs in the UK at the time. The trains were as clean as could be expected, but sitting down on what looked like clean seats could put clouds of dust into the air. They were noticeably cleaner in the winter because the windows were often kept closed.How I miss real trains
They might have been old, but they were no dirtier than now.
Yes they were. Partly because passengers smoked on them, (and so did many of the locomotives running on the same tracks as them) plus the legacy of horse-hair stuffed seat squabs and cushions which filled with dust and windows that were opened to let brake dust - as in rusty cast iron particles, in. I regularly travelled on clas309 EMUs, probably the best EMUs in the UK at the time. The trains were as clean as could be expected, but sitting down on what looked like clean seats could put clouds of dust into the air. They were noticeably cleaner in the winter because the windows were often kept closed.
On the other hand, the human detritus on trains (and the railway in general) is far worse, partly because of passengers bringing food, coffee, free newspapers etc., on board and then failing be bothered to dispose of it respectfully. There is rightly regular criticism here of the state of some modern trains, but it is usually misdirected at the TOC. I've yet to see TOC staff throwing rubbish around coaches and leaving half-filled coffee cups on table, - even tipping them over to spill the remaining contents for good measure, so maybe it is the just travelling public that is dirtier.
I think, as so often, this is a case of remembering what you wish to remember, and there were many counterpoints. For example:There is no comparison between today and the British Rail I recall when I was travelling to and from Army Camps over 50 years or so ago. Speed is in so many cases much higher and journey times reduced accordingly. Frequency of services is better and as for Sunday services don't even go there. Anyone who wants to go back to BR should be reminded of the old Chinese proverb, be careful what you wish for. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
It may have been society that smoked, but that played into the general odour of trains at that time. Even no smoking coaches weren't exactly fresh.Smoking was probably more prevalent then, but it was everywhere. That was society - not the trains.
Bit of cast iron break-dust - true but balanced by the benefit of having a proper opening window.
The cushions were a bit dusty - undoubtedly, but in terms of litter and rubbish, graffiti, general grime etc, the trains were no dirtier then than now.
It may have been society that smoked, but that played into the general odour of trains at that time. Even no smoking coaches weren't exactly fresh.
The 'benefit' of the open window was draughts, noise, and railway pollution including brake dust. Not everybody preferred travelling in a mobile sanitorium, and there were frequent conflicts between those who did and those who didn't, just like on some buses nowadays.
Think that's an issue on many railways - nature of today's society. All powered by electronics and air conditioning seems to be an accepted modern necessity (I personally dislike it but most people don't so that's how it is) and vacuum toilets so that waste isn't deposited on the track are more likely to fail. Been on many foreign state owned trains with failed air con, stinking toilets that are locked out (been on French and German trains with no working toilets at all) and a train that decided it's going nowhere (ICE trains that will only go one way seem to be a favourite especially for a 3 hour detour around the Netherlands earlier in the year).I'd still take a bit of odour and draught over the chance of being stuck in a sealed train without air conditioning, failed toilets and not starting for eight hours after a power cut because the computer programme was wrong.
Think that's an issue on many railways - nature of today's society. All powered by electronics and air conditioning seems to be an accepted modern necessity (I personally dislike it but most people don't so that's how it is) and vacuum toilets so that waste isn't deposited on the track are more likely to fail. Been on many foreign state owned trains with failed air con, stinking toilets that are locked out (been on French and German trains with no working toilets at all) and a train that decided it's going nowhere (ICE trains that will only go one way seem to be a favourite especially for a 3 hour detour around the Netherlands earlier in the year).
Outside of Scotland and Wales, there are pathetically few new railway lines.In my opinion it’s defintiely better:
There’s quite a lot more railway (lines and stations)
Trains run across more hours of the day and week on many routes
Trains run more frequently on many routes - in some cases significantly so
Information is far more readily available, and to a far higher standard
You can get much cheaper fares on long distance routes, by trading flexibility (which many people are very happy to do)
It is, on balance, easier to get around stations and trains, particularly if you have any form of difficulty with mobility
It is much, much safer for passengers and staff alike.
I will caveat all the above by saying tha the will never know whether BR would have made similar strides in all the above were it not for privatisation. I suspect it would have done on most.
In my opinion it’s defintiely better:
There’s quite a lot more railway (lines and stations)
Trains run across more hours of the day and week on many routes
Trains run more frequently on many routes - in some cases significantly so
Information is far more readily available, and to a far higher standard
You can get much cheaper fares on long distance routes, by trading flexibility (which many people are very happy to do)
It is, on balance, easier to get around stations and trains, particularly if you have any form of difficulty with mobility
It is much, much safer for passengers and staff alike.
I will caveat all the above by saying tha the will never know whether BR would have made similar strides in all the above were it not for privatisation. I suspect it would have done on most.
Outside of Scotland and Wales, there are pathetically few new railway lines.
I wouldn't quibble with most of your points (and I agree with your caveat - many of them are the result of other societal and technological changes affecting all industries).
Just on the first one ...
"There’s quite a lot more railway (lines and stations)"
.. could you fill that out a bit. I'd have thought that there are maybe net +4% national rail stations and - I'd guess - an even lower increase in route mileage (but I could be wrong.)
There’s more new railway line been opened in England than there has been in Scotland and Wales combined since 1994... but I know you don’t like hearing this.
Piffle - you're obviously fixating on London Overground and various tramways, than opening of the railway network in England.
On any measure, it’s right though. Whether it be mileage of new railway constructed where there was none in (official) existence, or mileage of railway reopened to passenger service where there was none, then there’s more in England. This is for what counts as the national heavy rail network, which of course includes HS1 and the East London Line. It doesnt include the tube and light railways - if it did then the equation would be much more favourable to England.
Please could you provide route mileage and passenger usage to support your claimThere’s more new railway line been opened in England than there has been in Scotland and Wales combined since 1994... but I know you don’t like hearing this.
Fair point, yes it’s not that much proportionally. However I suppose it’s how you define ‘more railway’. Take HS1 for example. Yes it’s only 70 odd miles of new railway, but it does a lot more (and thus creates more social and economic value) than the average 70 mile stretch of railway in the country. Similarly, the average new station will, I guess, be adding rather more value than the overall average station. (Excepting Edinburgh Gateway and East Midlands Parkway )
Also, arguably, the ‘stretching’ of service hours: more early morning and late nights, plus much better Sunday services, is ‘more railway’. In my view BR wouldn’t have done this: it’s often the result of stakeholder pressure which BR was rather good at resisting.
On the other hand, the human detritus on trains (and the railway in general) is far worse, partly because of passengers bringing food, coffee, free newspapers etc., on board and then failing be bothered to dispose of it respectfully... so maybe it is the just travelling public that is dirtier.
At the time I was talking about there was no such thing as a Saver or Supersaver, just singles and returns. No rail cards either.I think, as so often, this is a case of remembering what you wish to remember, and there were many counterpoints. For example:
- I could rock up at the ticket office and buy a SuperSaver, say Euston to Liverpool (which I did from time to time) mid-morning, and it didn't seem ruinously expensive. I didn't have to book ahead further than most people plan their lives.
- There was always a seat, and the train wasn't mostly "reserved" for people who never turned up.
- No 2-car sets provided for 250 passengers.
- There was no stampede at the starting point where the train, sat there for the past hour, was only announced 10 minutes before departure.
- If things went wrong, they were fixed much quicker.