British Rail's ability to innovate compared with modern day train companies

[Dr Day]

One difference was that BR, subject to funding, could take a longer term strategic multi-disciplinary view rather than have to make a short term profit. Hence the research and development divisions funded centrally could take more of a punt on different technologies whether civil engineering, rolling stock, timetable systems even ticketing and fares products. Some of which would work and some of which wouldn’t. Either way the motivation was to improve the wider railway system in the longer term even if arguably it made the organisation more ‘flabby’ than it could have been if this development activity was left to a market to provide.

 

[tbwbear]

One difference was that BR, subject to funding, could take a longer term strategic multi-disciplinary view rather than have to make a short term profit. Hence the research and development divisions funded centrally could take more of a punt on different technologies whether civil engineering, rolling stock, timetable systems even ticketing and fares products. Some of which would work and some of which wouldn’t. Either way the motivation was to improve the wider railway system in the longer term even if arguably it made the organisation more ‘flabby’ than it could have been if this development activity was left to a market to provide.

I think the multi-disiplinary view is important. A good example perhaps is the introduction of the first air-conditioned coaches for 1st and 2nd class on inter-city services 50 years ago in 1971. People often praise the HST (and rightly so) but the introduction of the Mk2d was actually a revolution in travel in itself. Nowhere else in Europe had really done anything like it. BR led the way.


It was market led though, it resulted from the tying together of BRs increasingly capable market research (they were using market research more and more from the mid-60s and knew the extra commercial benefits that air conditioning would bring) and the engineers who designed the carriages.

I think another aspect to consider is that back in the 1960s after Beeching, BR was fighting for its existence much more than any of the modern companies are. That possibly created a fear that led to more innovation.

After all, if their attempts at winning extra market by selling newspapers in the buffet or serving breakfast on Sundays don't work, the modern companies can go back to their core business of running gyms, buses and airlines or in many cases to managing the state-owned railways of other European countries......

But back in the day, if BR had not successfully met the threat of the motorway network with the inter-city concept (eventually copied in other European countries too) they could have been out of a job.... the network may not have stayed as large as it is for very long.

In that sense, I think actually BR had more commerical pressure than today's companies, and innovation was one of their responses.

 

[tbtc]

I wish I could have the blind faith that some BR fans still have - it must be great to see things so straightforwardly

Of course BR were able to do a lot more, given that they had nationwide control of everything and weren't limited to a "seven" year franchise duration - I don't think you can blame private TOCs for not taking long term decisions given that would take several years to pay off, given that franchises were never that long (other than the initial Chiltern one)

There's also the matter that it wasn't up to TOCs to fund infrastructure improvements like electrification or designing trains themselves (ordering them from other private companies, sure, but not designing the things from scratch) - that's a Government decision - I'm sure BR would have been equally bad if it had survived into the Chris Grayling era!

But it doesn't matter what "modern day train companies" did, because it'll be easy for someone to say "yeah, but BR would have done that too, but better/ faster/ cheaper" - there's no way you can argue with such people - just like every good thing that happened under BR was because BR was great but every bad thing that happened under BR was because the Government didn't fund them sufficiently etc (so ECML electrification was great but all of the route closures were down to the Big Bad Government - there's always an excuse

Midland Mainline were always held to have been hugely innovative both in service provision and rolling stock strategy - the acquisition of their class 170 fleet to provide a standard stopping service on a route that had been a skip stopping Intercity only operation since the 80s/early 90s was one of the most understated success stories of the era I think, and of course things moved on with them being replaced with the Intercity standard 222 fleet.

They were good at the "make all of the passengers feel special" bit of the service proposition too - free cheap tea or coffee to all passengers was a big PR win - rather than being accused of paying lots of attention to first class and not enough to standard as is levelled at GNER. That carried on through to EMT with their "treats" idea - giving people a little freebie like some cakes or a themed meal on board or in stations every now and then that made them feel appreciated for very little outlay. That being said they also opened some great first class lounges and their on board food offer in first was superb.

I think being a small TOC they had the ability to provide attention to detail and innovation without huge cost and they ceased to be before the NX centralisation and stagnation that affected National Express Anglia and East Coast.

Good points about Midland Mainline - the early National Express franchises punched above their weight (the big improvements at ScotRail too)

Free tea and coffee was a great idea, given that a large number of people taking the drinks wouldn't have been buying one otherwise (so you're only cover the net cost of a few tea bags etc) but some will have decided to buy a sandwich/ snack whilst at the buffet - I'm surprised other TOCs haven't copied it

I never know what size of TOCs would be the best (to achieve economies of scale, keep them focussed on everything, remove duplication etc... we go in cycles where Gatwick Express/ Valley Lines used to be separate franchises... but then we remove Caledonian Sleeper from ScotRail and turn it into a separate franchise), but Midland Mainline worked well (doubling the frequency to London, introducing a regular service at the stations south of Leicester, ordering brand new trains then extending them, then replacing them with bigger brand new trains ... what's not to like? (other than the livery, I wasn't a big fan of the livery)

 

[yorksrob]

I wish I could have the blind faith that some BR fans still have - it must be great to see things so straightforwardly

Of course BR were able to do a lot more, given that they had nationwide control of everything and weren't limited to a "seven" year franchise duration - I don't think you can blame private TOCs for not taking long term decisions given that would take several years to pay off, given that franchises were never that long (other than the initial Chiltern one)

There's also the matter that it wasn't up to TOCs to fund infrastructure improvements like electrification or designing trains themselves (ordering them from other private companies, sure, but not designing the things from scratch) - that's a Government decision - I'm sure BR would have been equally bad if it had survived into the Chris Grayling era!

But it doesn't matter what "modern day train companies" did, because it'll be easy for someone to say "yeah, but BR would have done that too, but better/ faster/ cheaper" - there's no way you can argue with such people - just like every good thing that happened under BR was because BR was great but every bad thing that happened under BR was because the Government didn't fund them sufficiently etc (so ECML electrification was great but all of the route closures were down to the Big Bad Government - there's always an excuse



Good points about Midland Mainline - the early National Express franchises punched above their weight (the big improvements at ScotRail too)

Free tea and coffee was a great idea, given that a large number of people taking the drinks wouldn't have been buying one otherwise (so you're only cover the net cost of a few tea bags etc) but some will have decided to buy a sandwich/ snack whilst at the buffet - I'm surprised other TOCs haven't copied it

I never know what size of TOCs would be the best (to achieve economies of scale, keep them focussed on everything, remove duplication etc... we go in cycles where Gatwick Express/ Valley Lines used to be separate franchises... but then we remove Caledonian Sleeper from ScotRail and turn it into a separate franchise), but Midland Mainline worked well (doubling the frequency to London, introducing a regular service at the stations south of Leicester, ordering brand new trains then extending them, then replacing them with bigger brand new trains ... what's not to like? (other than the livery, I wasn't a big fan of the livery)

I think that you forget that BR was around long enough to fall into distinct periods.

I wouldn't consider Modernisation/Beeching/Sectorisation era BR to be the same thing, anymore than we would the immediate post privatisation period as the current period.
.
Personally I think that if we're evaluating the merits of privatisation, we need to do so against the BR that was there at the time of privatisation, rather than the organisation forty years before.

 

[Journeyman]

Personally I think that if we're evaluating the merits of privatisation, we need to do so against the BR that was there at the time of privatisation, rather than the organisation forty years before.

This is true, and BR in its final form only actually existed for a couple of years, so it's a very hard thing to analyse properly.

 

[WesternLancer]

It wasn't and I don't think I said it was.

"either 2nd; 1st, or 1st with breakfast."

Yes, thanks. see my edit.

 

[tbtc]

I think that you forget that BR was around long enough to fall into distinct periods.

I wouldn't consider Modernisation/Beeching/Sectorisation era BR to be the same thing, anymore than we would the immediate post privatisation period as the current period.
.
Personally I think that if we're evaluating the merits of privatisation, we need to do so against the BR that was there at the time of privatisation, rather than the organisation forty years before.

Okay, so if we are only including the BR that was around immediately prior to privatisation then we're talking a railway that wasn't electrifying anything but was still closing lines/stations (Attercliffe and Brightside were two Sheffield stations that closed in the years before privatisation but also branches to Sinfin, Ongar and others were closing around that period), stopped ordering new trains in around 1993 (I think that was when the order for the 365s went in, could have been earlier)... however they did find time to keep introducing new versions of the InterCity livery and did some snazzy design work... that version of BR?

I can't remember when the last bit of DOO was brought in prior to privatisation, or when the last national strike was, my memory isn't as good as it used to be for such details

 

[WesternLancer]

I wish I could have the blind faith that some BR fans still have - it must be great to see things so straightforwardly

Of course BR were able to do a lot more, given that they had nationwide control of everything and weren't limited to a "seven" year franchise duration - I don't think you can blame private TOCs for not taking long term decisions given that would take several years to pay off, given that franchises were never that long (other than the initial Chiltern one)

There's also the matter that it wasn't up to TOCs to fund infrastructure improvements like electrification or designing trains themselves (ordering them from other private companies, sure, but not designing the things from scratch) - that's a Government decision - I'm sure BR would have been equally bad if it had survived into the Chris Grayling era!

But it doesn't matter what "modern day train companies" did, because it'll be easy for someone to say "yeah, but BR would have done that too, but better/ faster/ cheaper" - there's no way you can argue with such people - just like every good thing that happened under BR was because BR was great but every bad thing that happened under BR was because the Government didn't fund them sufficiently etc (so ECML electrification was great but all of the route closures were down to the Big Bad Government - there's always an excuse



Good points about Midland Mainline - the early National Express franchises punched above their weight (the big improvements at ScotRail too)

Free tea and coffee was a great idea, given that a large number of people taking the drinks wouldn't have been buying one otherwise (so you're only cover the net cost of a few tea bags etc) but some will have decided to buy a sandwich/ snack whilst at the buffet - I'm surprised other TOCs haven't copied it

I never know what size of TOCs would be the best (to achieve economies of scale, keep them focussed on everything, remove duplication etc... we go in cycles where Gatwick Express/ Valley Lines used to be separate franchises... but then we remove Caledonian Sleeper from ScotRail and turn it into a separate franchise), but Midland Mainline worked well (doubling the frequency to London, introducing a regular service at the stations south of Leicester, ordering brand new trains then extending them, then replacing them with bigger brand new trains ... what's not to like? (other than the livery, I wasn't a big fan of the livery)

Loads of faults with BR - but the fact that the privatised successors are so lacklustre in so many regards really tells you how poor they are. I mean how difficult would it have been for them to be better than BR...? But they have not really managed to rise to the challenge on the whole. Certainly not been transformational.

Okay, so if we are only including the BR that was around immediately prior to privatisation then we're talking a railway that wasn't electrifying anything but was still closing lines/stations (Attercliffe and Brightside were two Sheffield stations that closed in the years before privatisation but also branches to Sinfin, Ongar and others were closing around that period), stopped ordering new trains in around 1993 (I think that was when the order for the 365s went in, could have been earlier)... however they did find time to keep introducing new versions of the InterCity livery and did some snazzy design work... that version of BR?

I can't remember when the last bit of DOO was brought in prior to privatisation, or when the last national strike was, my memory isn't as good as it used to be for such details

Yep - a real indictment of BR that they somehow, try what may, were unable to innovate enough to boost passenger levels at err places like Brightside.

 

[Wolfie]

Okay, so if we are only including the BR that was around immediately prior to privatisation then we're talking a railway that wasn't electrifying anything but was still closing lines/stations (Attercliffe and Brightside were two Sheffield stations that closed in the years before privatisation but also branches to Sinfin, Ongar and others were closing around that period), stopped ordering new trains in around 1993 (I think that was when the order for the 365s went in, could have been earlier)... however they did find time to keep introducing new versions of the InterCity livery and did some snazzy design work... that version of BR?

I can't remember when the last bit of DOO was brought in prior to privatisation, or when the last national strike was, my memory isn't as good as it used to be for such details

I may be wrong but I believe Ongar was London Underground not BR.

 

[Journeyman]

I may be wrong but I believe Ongar was London Underground not BR.

It was indeed London Underground, and the issues that led to closure were closely linked to the Central Line upgrade, rather than the run up to privatisation, or other issues affecting the industry at the time.

Ongar was taken over by London Transport in the late forties, although BR provided steam traction until 1957.

 

[yorksrob]

Okay, so if we are only including the BR that was around immediately prior to privatisation then we're talking a railway that wasn't electrifying anything but was still closing lines/stations (Attercliffe and Brightside were two Sheffield stations that closed in the years before privatisation but also branches to Sinfin, Ongar and others were closing around that period), stopped ordering new trains in around 1993 (I think that was when the order for the 365s went in, could have been earlier)... however they did find time to keep introducing new versions of the InterCity livery and did some snazzy design work... that version of BR?

I can't remember when the last bit of DOO was brought in prior to privatisation, or when the last national strike was, my memory isn't as good as it used to be for such details

Actually, I don't think it's reasonable to use the last couple of years when BR was subjected to the organisational equivalent of planning blight, when resources and personnel were diverted to carving up the network for impending privatisation.

You really have to take the final period when BR was free to manage the railway without a Sword of Damoclese hanging over it. For the avoidance of doubt, that is the period of Sectorisation which saw the progress in electrification, rolling stock renewal, reopenings etc.

If you're talking about Brightside, the station was pretty much superceded by Meadowhall which turned out to be a far more useful and popular destination for passengers. Surely a good example of innovation.

 

[edwin_m]

Okay, so if we are only including the BR that was around immediately prior to privatisation then we're talking a railway that wasn't electrifying anything but was still closing lines/stations (Attercliffe and Brightside were two Sheffield stations that closed in the years before privatisation but also branches to Sinfin, Ongar and others were closing around that period), stopped ordering new trains in around 1993 (I think that was when the order for the 365s went in, could have been earlier)... however they did find time to keep introducing new versions of the InterCity livery and did some snazzy design work... that version of BR?

I can't remember when the last bit of DOO was brought in prior to privatisation, or when the last national strike was, my memory isn't as good as it used to be for such details

Attercliffe and Brightside were entirely sensible closures given the much better service provided by Supertram and Meadowhall station. Sinfin had only a Parliamentary service, operated by taxis, by the time of privatisation. But it wasn't actually closed until 1998 (per Wikipedia).

 

[tbwbear]

I would still maintain that there is a strong link between adversity and innovation.

In the whole period that BR was around the railway faced much more adversity. There were external pressures from falling market share due to increased competition from other modes and internal pressures due to lack of adequate funding. BR was forced to innovate to survive, and it was particularly good at innovating to save money or spend sparce resources more wisely.

By comparison, the "privatised" era has (until COVID) been marked by rising passenger numbers and much higher levels of financial support/interference from the government. There has been less need to innovate to survive.

That is not to say that the "private" companies have not innovated, or that BR was a better operator.

I think BR had more innovative spirit in its DNA though. To answer the OP's question: BR had more ability to innovate.

 

[WesternLancer]

I would still maintain that there is a strong link between adversity and innovation.

In the whole period that BR was around, the railway faced much more adversity. There were external pressures from falling market share due to increased competition from other modes and internal pressures due to lack of adequate funding. BR was forced to innovate to survive, and it was particularly good at innovating to save money or spend sparce resources more wisely.

By comparison, the "privatised" era has (until COVID) been marked by rising passenger numbers and much higher levels of financial support/interference from the government. There has been less need to innovate to survive.

That is not to say that the "private" companies have not innovated, or that BR was better.

I think it had more innovative spirit in its DNA though. To answer the OP's question: BR had more ability to innovate.

These points very well made.

I think another issue is that the structure created seems to have served to prevent elements of innovation since privatisation, even if the TOCs had wanted to innovate, or so it seems to me. Revenue grew through passenger number increases (mostly I think due to wider economic and social factors, not so much that TOCs grew the market via innovation), so less incentive to grow passenger numbers by innovative fares and marketing initiatives perhaps - it often seemed that as much effort went into things like ORCATS raids, delay attribution claims against Railtrack / NR and 'gaming' the annual fares increases via basket of fares averaging techniques.

I do suspect increased service frequencies probably helped grow the market, but much of that needed delivery via NR infrastructure upgrades and DfT approval at franchise stage, so not something the private sector alone delivered - apart from perhaps with the exception of Chiltern as pointed out to me above.

So perhaps BR was more innovative because it had the ability to be, as well as needed to be to survive in the cold climate it often found itself in.

 

[nw1]

Actually, I don't think it's reasonable to use the last couple of years when BR was subjected to the organisational equivalent of planning blight, when resources and personnel were diverted to carving up the network for impending privatisation.

You really have to take the final period when BR was free to manage the railway without a Sword of Damoclese hanging over it. For the avoidance of doubt, that is the period of Sectorisation which saw the progress in electrification, rolling stock renewal, reopenings etc.

If you're talking about Brightside, the station was pretty much superceded by Meadowhall which turned out to be a far more useful and popular destination for passengers. Surely a good example of innovation.

That's the thing, 1991-93 was a period of marked decline, as I have mentioned elsewhere.
I still maintain that in 1986-90, BR innovated and modernised a good deal.

As for delays and overcrowding, it was certainly no worse, perhaps better, under BR. I travelled to school on BR in 1982-89 (so about half 'plain BR' and half NSE) and delays and overcrowding were rare. Contentiously, perhaps in recent years the privatised railway has almost been a 'victim of its own success' in that increasing passenger numbers and peak-style frequency at off peak have inevitably led to a less reliable, more overcrowded railway.

On the other hand, some parts (but not all) of early 80s BR was quite shocking for some frequencies, specifically on the Western and London Midland regions (Newbury as I've already mentioned, High Wycombe, and I don't know if anyone has looked at the '310' timetable out of Euston in 1981). It seemed to be that while the Southern and Eastern Regions offered good commuter rail at that time, the London Midland were sorely and badly neglecting their commuter lines out of London. (Thad said, InterCity in 1981 out of Euston and Paddington seemed to be more 'clockface' than a little later, in 1984, but that's going OT).

But around 1989/90 BR seemed to be running a modern, clockface railway with much new stock and recent electrifications, and sensible but not OTT frequencies.

 

[yorksrob]

That's the thing, 1991-93 was a period of marked decline, as I have mentioned elsewhere.
I still maintain that in 1986-90, BR innovated and modernised a good deal.

As for delays and overcrowding, it was certainly no worse, perhaps better, under BR. I travelled to school on BR in 1982-89 (so about half 'plain BR' and half NSE) and delays and overcrowding were rare. Contentiously, perhaps in recent years the privatised railway has almost been a 'victim of its own success' in that increasing passenger numbers and peak-style frequency at off peak have inevitably led to a less reliable, more overcrowded railway.

On the other hand, early 80s BR was quite shocking for some frequencies (Newbury as I've already mentioned, and I don't know if anyone has looked at the '310' timetable out of Euston in 1981). It seemed to be that while the Southern and Eastern Regions offered good commuter rail at that time, the London Midland were sorely and badly neglecting their commuter lines out of London. But around 1989/90 BR seemed to be running a modern, clockface railway with sensible but not OTT frequencies.

It's an interesting point. In the early 90's Britain was in recession, but in my corner of NSE even then we had a lot of rebuilding going on for the Chunnel, replacement of EPB's by Networkers and associated infrastructure upgrades, the first through services to Brighton via the Marshlink, so it still seemed quite an innovative time.

 

[nw1]

It's an interesting point. In the early 90's Britain was in recession, but in my corner of NSE even then we had a lot of rebuilding going on for the Chunnel, replacement of EPB's by Networkers and associated infrastructure upgrades, the first through services to Brighton via the Marshlink, so it still seemed quite an innovative time.

Yes, on the South Western we had the introduction of 442s to Weymouth; Weymouth electrification; and Solent electrification with many brand new services, including the introduction of a fast service along Coastway West from Southampton (haven't checked, but even though a change at Hove was required, I suspect the Southampton - Brighton journey time in 1990 was shorter than now due to said service being limited stop!)

Each of the three timetables 1988, 1989, 1990 seemed to be a significant upgrade; 1988 brought in the 442s and Weymouth electrification, as well as an innovative but sadly short-lasting service on the Reading lines bringing off-peak direct trains from Camberley to Waterloo (or Aldershot to Staines and Richmond, etc) and hourly fasts from Bracknell etc (Ascot-Richmond-Clapham-Waterloo only, IIRC!); 1989 brought the Greyhound CIGs and the Bournemouth/Alton dividers became separate trains, speeding up both ('89 was a fascinating year for unusual stock, IIRC; some of the '93' stoppers on the main line were 73s push/pulling TCs!); and 1990 brought the Solent electrification. Sadly it all went wrong in 1991... peak hour services on the Portsmouth Direct were cut in May, and I vividly remember one rather depressing peak-hour at Waterloo in late September 1991 when the tannoy was constantly announcing 'as from next week, the 17:xx to YY will be reduced from 10/12 to 8 coaches'... HAP withdrawal without any replacement, together with the recession, were I suspect to blame.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, on the South Western we had the introduction of 442s to Weymouth; Weymouth electrification; and Solent electrification with many brand new services, including the introduction of a fast service along Coastway West from Southampton (haven't checked, but even though a change at Hove was required, I suspect the Southampton - Brighton journey time in 1990 was shorter than now due to said service being limited stop!)

Each of the three timetables 1988, 1989, 1990 seemed to be a significant upgrade; 1988 brought in the 442s and Weymouth electrification, as well as an innovative but sadly short-lasting service on the Reading lines bringing off-peak direct trains from Camberley to Waterloo (or Aldershot to Staines and Richmond, etc) and hourly fasts from Bracknell etc (Ascot-Richmond-Clapham-Waterloo only, IIRC!); 1989 brought the Greyhound CIGs and the Bournemouth/Alton dividers became separate trains, speeding up both ('89 was a fascinating year for unusual stock, IIRC; some of the '93' stoppers on the main line were 73s push/pulling TCs!); and 1990 brought the Solent electrification. Sadly it all went wrong in 1991...

Yes, I remember getting the Hove - Southampton direct at that time. Think it was to lonk to Gatwick Airport.

 

[LAX54]

Sure, the Mk4 took some cues from the APT and potentially could have been modified into a tilting design. But those plans were knocked back several times.

My mistake with the class 350. The bit of Silverlink that got them wasn’t the bit that ended up as Overground.

Though probably a more pertinent comparison would have been with Merseyrail. Running the same rolling stock, both moved from a national franchise to a local concession. Given the very different levels of investment since suggests the ‘nationalisation’ wasn’t quite the panacea the previous poster suggested.

Didn't the Italians buy the patent for the APT, and developed it, which has resulted in the Pendolinos.

Fiat acquired patents for the tilting technology used in the UK’s Advanced Passenger Train (APT) project in 1982. APT was an unsuccessful experimental project developed by British Rail.

Fiat made several improvements over the original technology and introduced an advanced first generation-ETR 450 on the Rome-Milan route. It was the first Pendolino to enter regular service.

 

[tbtc]

Loads of faults with BR - but the fact that the privatised successors are so lacklustre in so many regards really tells you how poor they are. I mean how difficult would it have been for them to be better than BR...? But they have not really managed to rise to the challenge on the whole. Certainly not been transformational

Private companies tendered to operate the train services that the Government agrees to over a seven year period in a specific local area don't innovate as much as an all encompassing public sector organisation that owned boats/ hotels etc - yeah, no real surprise - I don't think anyone was expecting the Valley Lines franchise to set up its own engineering department or build their own trains directly

Okay, private companies have significantly increased capacity on many routes, have seen a massive increase in passenger numbers, but if you want to think they were lacklustre then fair enough

I may be wrong but I believe Ongar was London Underground not BR.

Apologies, yes

I think that you forget that BR was around long enough to fall into distinct periods.

I wouldn't consider Modernisation/Beeching/Sectorisation era BR to be the same thing, anymore than we would the immediate post privatisation period as the current period.
.
Personally I think that if we're evaluating the merits of privatisation, we need to do so against the BR that was there at the time of privatisation, rather than the organisation forty years before.

Actually, I don't think it's reasonable to use the last couple of years when BR was subjected to the organisational equivalent of planning blight, when resources and personnel were diverted to carving up the network for impending privatisation.

You really have to take the final period when BR was free to manage the railway without a Sword of Damoclese hanging over it. For the avoidance of doubt, that is the period of Sectorisation which saw the progress in electrification, rolling stock renewal, reopenings etc

So, we need to use the BR that was there at the time of privatisation, but not the actual BR that was there at the time of privatisation?

But presumably not the BR of the distant past either... so what you're saying is that during the fifty years of BR there was a brief period around 1990 when they were quite good (but it'd be unfair to use any periods of BR earlier or later than that)?

If you're talking about Brightside, the station was pretty much superceded by Meadowhall which turned out to be a far more useful and popular destination for passengers. Surely a good example of innovation.

Attercliffe and Brightside were entirely sensible closures given the much better service provided by Supertram and Meadowhall station. Sinfin had only a Parliamentary service, operated by taxis, by the time of privatisation. But it wasn't actually closed until 1998 (per Wikipedia).

I'm perfectly fine with lightly used stations like Brightside/ Attercliffe/ Sinfin being closed - I'm just making the point that the BR era that was being held up as this golden era did see them continue their regular closures

Whereas, if stations like Brightside/ Attercliffe had contiued post-privatisation then I doubt we'd have been able to close them, there'd have to be some token service, since the railways are scared of shutting anything down these days (plus the odd million pounds on new footbridges etc to keep them accessible)

Any suggestion that we close a station like Brightside/ Attercliffe now would bring lots of complaints, suggestions that we should really increase the service for a five year trial before any decision could be taken, claims that by closing these lightly used stations we'd end up with significantly fewer people connecting onto InterCity services, people worrying that this was the thin end of the wedge and resisting any closure whatsoever (I think @yorksrob 's definition was that we should never close any station that is used regularly by any person?)...

... yet BR regularly closed lightly used stations like these and the world kept turning, the difference on national passenger numbers was negligible, even though the usual suspects would be against private companies trying to close similar stations today

Just watch - we'll see the same complaints if Cottingley is proposed to close as part of the proposal for a station at White Rose (which seems a pretty similar situation to Brightside closing whilst Meadowhall opened) - we'll hear how "useful" Cottingley is to the people who use it and someone will suggest that "if we allow them to close this one station, they'll try to push through closure of hundreds of stations" etc

 

[Bald Rick]

That's the thing, 1991-93 was a period of marked decline, as I have mentioned elsewhere.

It was. Fares revenue dropped off a cliff, various services were withdrawn (particularly on Sundays), and investment stopped on everything except that which was essential to maintain safety and the Channel Tunnel commitments.

I still maintain that in 1986-90, BR innovated and modernised a good deal.

Because it was flush with money. The explosion in London commuting filled the coffers nicely, and enabled much investment, until the taps were turned off in 91/92.

It's an interesting point. In the early 90's Britain was in recession, but in my corner of NSE even then we had a lot of rebuilding going on for the Chunnel, replacement of EPB's by Networkers and associated infrastructure upgrades, the first through services to Brighton via the Marshlink, so it still seemed quite an innovative time.

As above, the upgrades for the tunnel traffic were about all that happened in that period.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Spot on - and of course urgent cuts driven by Treasury dogma forced BR to take out about 15% of services at the end and beginning of the day quickly , and even the flagship Thameslink route was down to 1 tph semi-fast from Bedford on a Sunday morning. A good number of staff were let go , under a "special severance package"

As Bald Rick says - apart from safety works and Channel Tunnel route works , improvements pretty well stopped. Not a great time really.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, one of my first tasks in my first job in the early 90s was to work out if it was worth closing Colwich - Stone via Hixon. First cut of the figures suggested it was. I made sure the second run of the numbers was different

 

[43096]

Suggest that you really need to look up the Inter City 225. Reportedly drew up to 80% of it's engineering from the APT Operated in non-tilt mode on the ECML but was designed to take tilt and operate at 140mph with in-cab signalling. The latter version was at least in part intended for the WCML.

I would suggest you might like to research the history of IC225 vs APT. APT - built by BREL, traction system from ASEA (both later Bombardier). IC225 - designed and built by GEC-Alsthom (later Alstom). Totally different parentage.

 

[Wolfie]

I would suggest you might like to research the history of IC225 vs APT. APT - built by BREL, traction system from ASEA (both later Bombardier). IC225 - designed and built by GEC-Alsthom (later Alstom). Totally different parentage.

I am no expert BUT there are countless sources which suggest you are at least in part wrong. Indeed other posters have offered information that shows that earlier on this thread.

 

[WesternLancer]

Okay, private companies have significantly increased capacity on many routes, have seen a massive increase in passenger numbers, but if you want to think they were lacklustre then fair enough

Generally private companies have increased capacity because the govt has paid them to do so (as it were) - they did not do it at their own financial risk, in general terms. It's 'pretend' privatisation.

If govt had told BR to increase capacity, I'm sure they would have done so.

 

[43096]

I am no expert BUT there are countless sources which suggest you are at least in part wrong. Indeed other posters have offered information that shows that earlier on this thread.

I’m not seeing anything that suggests up to 80% of IC225 engineering was derived from APT in this thread, and nothing that is definitive.

 

[yorksrob]

Private companies tendered to operate the train services that the Government agrees to over a seven year period in a specific local area don't innovate as much as an all encompassing public sector organisation that owned boats/ hotels etc - yeah, no real surprise - I don't think anyone was expecting the Valley Lines franchise to set up its own engineering department or build their own trains directly

Okay, private companies have significantly increased capacity on many routes, have seen a massive increase in passenger numbers, but if you want to think they were lacklustre then fair enough



Apologies, yes





So, we need to use the BR that was there at the time of privatisation, but not the actual BR that was there at the time of privatisation?

But presumably not the BR of the distant past either... so what you're saying is that during the fifty years of BR there was a brief period around 1990 when they were quite good (but it'd be unfair to use any periods of BR earlier or later than that)?





I'm perfectly fine with lightly used stations like Brightside/ Attercliffe/ Sinfin being closed - I'm just making the point that the BR era that was being held up as this golden era did see them continue their regular closures

Whereas, if stations like Brightside/ Attercliffe had contiued post-privatisation then I doubt we'd have been able to close them, there'd have to be some token service, since the railways are scared of shutting anything down these days (plus the odd million pounds on new footbridges etc to keep them accessible)

Any suggestion that we close a station like Brightside/ Attercliffe now would bring lots of complaints, suggestions that we should really increase the service for a five year trial before any decision could be taken, claims that by closing these lightly used stations we'd end up with significantly fewer people connecting onto InterCity services, people worrying that this was the thin end of the wedge and resisting any closure whatsoever (I think @yorksrob 's definition was that we should never close any station that is used regularly by any person?)...

... yet BR regularly closed lightly used stations like these and the world kept turning, the difference on national passenger numbers was negligible, even though the usual suspects would be against private companies trying to close similar stations today

Just watch - we'll see the same complaints if Cottingley is proposed to close as part of the proposal for a station at White Rose (which seems a pretty similar situation to Brightside closing whilst Meadowhall opened) - we'll hear how "useful" Cottingley is to the people who use it and someone will suggest that "if we allow them to close this one station, they'll try to push through closure of hundreds of stations" etc

Yes. I don't understand the difficulty with making a distinction between BR when it was able to operate according to its own philosophy at arms length from the government, and later when it was preoccupied with breaking itself up for sale.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't see the distinction.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes. I don't understand the difficulty with making a distinction between BR when it was able to operate according to its own philosophy at arms length from the government, and later when it was preoccupied with breaking itself up for sale.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't see the distinction.

There is definitely a distinction. However BR only really started prep for privatisation in 1993.

 

[yorksrob]

There is definitely a distinction. However BR only really started prep for privatisation in 1993.

Well, do you have any reason to assume that without impending privatisation, NSE wouldn't have got back to its improvement and expansion ?