POLL: What do you think was the best era for railways in Britain?

It’s hard to believe that we are now only a few years away from the centenary of the formation of the “big four” railway companies, and as time goes on, living memory of that railway era will be lost. It therefore would be a good opportunity to find out which era people on here consider to be the best/greatest in the history of railways. You can interpret ‘best’ however you want, so it could be anything from quality of service to fares, reliability or connectivity etc.

I think your division into eras is a bit crude and anything prior to 1923 is well beyond living memory anyway. Your "private companies" era is 100 years long and includes a whole lot of things which you might call early development (perhaps 1825 to 1840); rapid expansion (1840 to about 1875); consolidation (1875 to 1890); dominance and complacency (1890 to 1914), then WW1 and its aftermath. The "Big Four" period was really only 1923 to 1939 because the railways were under national control in WWII. Your "nationalisation" period includes a whole lot of sub-eras too. If I had to pick one to work in I think it would be the "early development" period which must have been really exciting - but very, very tough and dangerous by modern standards.

From the 60's to the 80's was always exiting as we changed over from Steam to Diesel. So many different types of locomotive were produced (Good & Bad) and we still had plenty of routes, most now long gone, to work over with lots of route learning. I recall when we used to have a brand new class 47 on the depot every couple of week or so. They were always my favourite locomotive along with the Class 60's. Along with some steam I worked on NBL type 2 61's and 63's, Western, Hymeck and Class 800 hydraulics, Teddy Bear and class 08's, 31's, 37's and class 20's. Both the Scottish class 54's and Southern 56's. Routes I have worked over ... Aberdeen - Elgin via Keith and also the Coast line from Carnie Junction via Cullen and Buckie. Keith to Elgin via Dufftown and Craigellachie and Rothes. Peterhead and Fraserburgh via Dyce and Ellon. Fraserburgh to Combe branch. Inverury to Old Meldrum, Inverurie to Turriff via Inveramsey Jctn. Aberdeen to Ballater. Oxford to Worcester. Had one trip over the Swindon To Honeybourne line via Cheltenham and Broadway on diverted parcel train. Maidenhead to High Wycombe (Parcel trains) Oxford to Abingdon via Radley Jctn, Oxford to Morris Cowley via Kennington Jctn, Oxford-Bedford via Verney Junction, Banbury-Woodford Halse, Calvert (Bricks), Aylesbury (Passenger & Wine), Marylebone - Banbury via Greenford and High Wycombe including Old oak Common. Aylesbury to Marylebone via Princess Riceborough and the MET. Didcot to Birmingham and Walsall, Bromford Bridge, Bescot, Coventry-Rugby, Nuneaton, Bletchley to Northampton (Tanks) including Wolverton (Stone) and to Acton Mainline via Leagrave (Stone). Paddington to Westbury, Swindon to Newport and Cardiff. Coal trains Didcot to Avonmouth. Swindon, To Westbury and Taunton via Thingley Junction and Trowbridge (return via Bristol). Didcot, Reading to Southampton, Totton and Marchwood. Basingstoke to Southampton via Salisbury and Romsey and Eastleigh Reading to Redhill. Coal to Tolworth and Chessington South via Kensington and Clapham Jctn . Acton Mainline to Temple Mills and Stratford Freightliner (All three routes via Junction Road Jctn, Gospel Oak, Camden Road and Primrose Hill. Included a coal trip too and from Bow. Kensington to Hither Green. Didcot To Newbury branch during demolition). Twyford and Henley-On-Thames. Didcot to Bramley (MOD). Oxford to Bicester (MOD). Fenny Compton to Kineton (MOD). Didcot to Oxley Sidings via Snow Hill and Wolverhampton Lower). Walsall to Rugely Power Station. Kenilworth to Bescot via Berkswell branch.

We also had a few "Merrymaker" turns that took us to Margate, Hastings with pilotmen.

All together not a bad 42 years of railway experience a very interesting time.

I can only speak for the Nationalisation era and thereafter. I don't know what it was like before and thus can't make comparisons. But what I've seen, read and heard, the period from 1948, through the 50s and 60s was that of transformation, development and innovation with many new designs and types being introduced. Steam disappeared before I could appreciate it and multiple units and loco-hauled services ruled. My biggest disappointment during the early 1980s was the "destruction" of the Southern 4 Cep units upon refurbishment. Also, it was great to bunk round all of the depots; sad to see the scrap lines of stock though

The Network SouthEast era at the start of sectorisation was a bold departure from tradition - not to mention the toothpaste livery! Rather unorthodox IMO but it worked on certain classes/coaching stock. As long as my train turned up reasonably on time, I didn't really care what colour it was. I did miss the "monastic blue" on suburban stock but intercity blue and grey suited better. Jaffa cake livery (L&SE) worked well on the units in my area

Mixed feelings re privatisation; yes, I appreciate times have changed and things have to move on but my biggest issue is the expense and complexity of ticketing. It was much simpler under BR!

I agree that there needs to be more divisions in the aforementioned eras, for the 20th centuary

1923 Formation of the Big Four
1939 Outbreak of WW2
1948 Nationalisation
1955 Modernisation plan
1962 Beeching report
1968 End of mainline steam
1980 Thatcher decade
1996 Privitiastion
In many ways, for me, today seems the best time. Improvements of the national network such as the GWR electrification (though I realise there are still many shortcomings nationally)
A stable network, for the last centuary railways have been in decline. I grew up with Beeching, then there was Thatcher and Serpell
An extensive network of heritage lines, the past has not been forgotten. Locally, hopefully this year will see regular workings Swanage to Norden, while restoration of the T3 to running order seems certain as well

I only know about the Big 4 and earlier by reading about them. In the early post-1948 BR era, the railways were starting the long, slow recovery from neglect in WW2. Steam still dominated almost everywhere - apart from the Southern suburban network, and on a few electrified lines round a few cities. The modernisation plan was inevitable, but poorly implemented in parts -- too hasty introduction of too many diesel types without assessing reliability; wasting money on out-dated practices such as building large new marshalling yards, etc. But it also gave us the electrified WCML, and extended electrification elsewhere. The Marples/Beeching closures were inevitable, but went too far; closure seemed to be assumed as the only option for many lines, with little or no attempt to reduce costs whilst trying to attract more custom. BR may have been imperfect, but overall, in the last few years, it was showing signs of becoming a good, attractive network - despite shortage of funds and the lack of sensible planning allowed by Governments.

Then came John Major, and his disastrous fragmentation of the passenger network. Some claim that this led to massive passenger growth - but signs of growth were evident before the sell-off, and I expect that similar growth would have occurred anyway - although the DfT & Treasury might have deliberately prevented that by failing to allow BR to obtain enough new trains to cater for additional passenger numbers. IF the railways had to be sold, it would have been much better to have created a single national passenger services company. Instead, they gave us the failed franchise system, with £££,£££,£££ wasted on preparations, consultations, legal fees, etc. -- and in some years, £££,£££,£££ more money coming from the Government than before privatisation.

Sectorisation - marginally. For me the high-point of BR's tenure.

hexagon789 said:

Sectorisation - marginally. For me the high-point of BR's tenure.

Click to expand...

Yeah I went for that one too.
It always felt to me that the idea was sound and with a few tweaks and a bit more investment it could’ve got better and better.
There is possibly a slight hint of rose tinted spectacles from me though (although apparently not just me).

I chose the Big 4 era. Not that I remember it,I'm a BR man,but those interwar years were full of hope for the railways. Many steps were being taken to glamourise rail travel,improve safety,improve locos and look to the future.
Nationalisation bought many changes,notably everyone worked for the same firm. However with the government now watching the bottom line many problems followed. The 1955 modernisation scheme spelt an early end to all of the standard steam locos just being built. The rushed dieselisation cost a packet producing many locos that were next to useless. Then the shortsightedness of Beeching and Marples who decimated lines making 1000s of staff redundant. Again,diesel locos that had just been built saw there work taken away so were subsequently withdrawn.
Sectorisation was a complete nightmare (unless you were an accountant). Separate fleets,stock,even messrooms. You can't use that engine it's the wrong colour etc. Managers fighting against finances and crippling budgets and justifying even the smallest costs.
Privatisation is the worst case. Now the shareholders and government watch the bottom line. Lines and companies receive subsidies to run many services only then for the company to pay out dividends to the shareholders. When will this madness end?

Ashley Hill said:

I chose the Big 4 era. Not that I remember it,I'm a BR man,but those interwar years were full of hope for the railways. Many steps were being taken to glamourise rail travel,improve safety,improve locos and look to the future.
Nationalisation bought many changes,notably everyone worked for the same firm. However with the government now watching the bottom line many problems followed. The 1955 modernisation scheme spelt an early end to all of the standard steam locos just being built. The rushed dieselisation cost a packet producing many locos that were next to useless. Then the shortsightedness of Beeching and Marples who decimated lines making 1000s of staff redundant. Again,diesel locos that had just been built saw there work taken away so were subsequently withdrawn.
Sectorisation was a complete nightmare (unless you were an accountant). Separate fleets,stock,even messrooms. You can't use that engine it's the wrong colour etc. Managers fighting against finances and crippling budgets and justifying even the smallest costs.
Privatisation is the worst case. Now the shareholders and government watch the bottom line. Lines and companies receive subsidies to run many services only then for the company to pay out dividends to the shareholders. When will this madness end?

Click to expand...

You may be right with sectorisation, and if I remember right you work/worked on the railway? So you would know that side of things far better than me.
As far as it goes with the Big Four though it’s always seemed to me that for every glamorous crack express there were a hundred creaking, rattling slow trains to nowhere crawling along remote pointless railways.
Actually that sounds lovely...
Think I might change my vote.

It’s interesting that 1890 to 1914 is called dominance and complacency. It’s actually the last period in which the private companies made significant infrastructure improvements. Look at the GWR’s various cut-off, the almost completion of the flying junction improvements out of Waterloo (and the start of Waterloo station rebuild) and the almost 8 line completion from Clapham Junction to Waterloo, Euston station approaches rebuilt, the Quarry line avoiding Redhill. I’m sure others will know more, especially dates of main lines being four tracked.

Yes the railways lost market share in the urban market to trams and right at the end buses, but they were dominant in the medium to long distance market and were investing to retain that dominance.

Sectorisation for me. It seemed to combine the best and most forward thinking aspects of the nationalised railway in terms of design and business acumen, but without the disastrous closure programme.

yorksrob said:

Sectorisation for me. It seemed to combine the best and most forward thinking aspects of the nationalised railway in terms of design and business acumen, but without the disastrous closure programme.

Click to expand...

Have to agree that a lot was achieved during this time. Some of this was done "on the cheap", in particular some of the electrifications, however quite a few passenger benefits were achieved. The period compares favourably with the Railtrack and early Network Rail years.

bramling said:

Have to agree that a lot was achieved during this time. Some of this was done "on the cheap", in particular some of the electrifications, however quite a few passenger benefits were achieved. The period compares favourably with the Railtrack and early Network Rail years.

Click to expand...

Indeed "on the cheap" was better than not at all !

They also had the ability to get new trains out at a reasonably steady rate, before privatisation put the kybosh on it.

Depends, do you mean as an enthusiast or as a user?

As an enthusiast it would be the 60’s (Even though Im not old enough to remember)

As a user it would be now.

P

yorksrob said:

Sectorisation for me. It seemed to combine the best and most forward thinking aspects of the nationalised railway in terms of design and business acumen, but without the disastrous closure programme.

Click to expand...

Ashley Hill said:

Sectorisation was a complete nightmare (unless you were an accountant). Separate fleets,stock,even messrooms. You can't use that engine it's the wrong colour etc. Managers fighting against finances and crippling budgets and justifying even the smallest costs.

Click to expand...

I too was going to go for Sectorisation as at the time it seemed to herald the start of an exciting bold new era. However it may well have brought the railway to prominence in the politicians eyes as something which would 'benefit' with being unschakled from monolithic BR and able to compete in the free market.

This has led to the current situation where the freedom of being able to jump on virtually any train no longer exists and companies focus solely on their services often to the detriment of passengers.

So I'll go with Nationalisation even though it wasn't without its faults especially in the undue haste of the implementation of the modernisation plan.

Whilst I still stand with my vote for the Big Four,and I pointed out BRs faults during nationalisation in my post BR also had many good points up until 1988. It still had that "can do" attitude. Red Star parcels was still a leading contender in the parcel market. All grades on the same rates of pay countrywide and national collective bargaining with the unions for staff to list but a few. After 1988 sectorisation became a monster for beurocracy and red tape and a practice session for eventual privatisation. It adopted a "too hard to try" attitude which led to the "can't do unless someone else pays" attitude of privatisation. Perhaps the only exceptions to this were Scotrail and NSE under Chris Green.

As a passenger at the time of the sectors, the railway definitely seemed "on the up". The trains and stations seemed more cared for and the new trains and projects (including line reopenings) continued, at least up until the forthcoming privatisation put everything on hold.

I agree that pre-sector BR achieved a lot, however I can't bring myself to vote for a period which included such a wholesale and poorly considered destruction of the passenger network.

True,but there's more to be said than painting lamp posts red or tidying up the waiting room. That's already an easy win for TOCs, tart the stations up at minimal cost and everything will be better. Staffing,service improvement and comfort is what matters at the end of the day.

I'd say now is the best era, in terms of frequency of service, safety and the sheer volume of people the network carries.

Chris Green (Network SouthEast director) realised that you had to get people (staff and passengers) to buy into change - painting all lamp posts red at the start signified to all that NSE wanted to stand out and be different.

I'd wager if privatisation hadn't happened we'd still have the red lamp posts and toothpaste trains today, even now we still have and its still called, the Network railcard!

I voted sectorisation, we still had the national network with the culture changing from old arrogant surly customer experience of the old nationalised railway era to a more customer focused service and improved investment in stocks and livery, especially intercity service I remembered taking a sleeper service from Lime Street to London, with it you got a comfortable bed, complimentary coffee and biscuits from the smartly dressed staff to each compartment.

I think it's the best era, privatision has undone some of the good works and created a fragmentary way of operating a national railway.

In terms of overall atmosphere the coalition period of 2010-2015 was pretty good. In hindsight it doesn't stand up but at the time there was a lot of optimism about the future and fewer attempts by politicians to make a name for themselves on the back of rail policy.

The Sectorisation era would have been good if there had been more money available, but there wasn't. So my overall winner would have to be 1899-1914; maximum size network and most companies operating profitably. WW1 proved to be a shock that the private companies never recovered from and nationalisation was the start of too much ill-informed political interference.

Ashley Hill said:

True,but there's more to be said than painting lamp posts red or tidying up the waiting room. That's already an easy win for TOCs, tart the stations up at minimal cost and everything will be better. Staffing,service improvement and comfort is what matters at the end of the day.

Click to expand...

Indeed, which is where reopenings and electrification came into it.

Cricketer8for9 said:

It’s interesting that 1890 to 1914 is called dominance and complacency. It’s actually the last period in which the private companies made significant infrastructure improvements. Look at the GWR’s various cut-off, the almost completion of the flying junction improvements out of Waterloo (and the start of Waterloo station rebuild) and the almost 8 line completion from Clapham Junction to Waterloo, Euston station approaches rebuilt, the Quarry line avoiding Redhill. I’m sure others will know more, especially dates of main lines being four tracked.

Yes the railways lost market share in the urban market to trams and right at the end buses, but they were dominant in the medium to long distance market and were investing to retain that dominance.

Click to expand...

Yes, there really were huge infrastructure improvements made by the principal main-line companies from about 1880 onwards, very much in line with what was going on overseas in the same period. It is notable that from WW1 onwards there was remarkably little major infrastucture work—things were weighted very heavily in favour of locomotive and rolling stock engineering (and in the case of the LMS major organisational reorganisation). The result was a railway that in the 1960s and 70s shewed an infrastructure with no significant improvement on what was there sixty and more years earlier (especially in the forgotten areas like the north-west).

Senex said:

Yes, there really were huge infrastructure improvements made by the principal main-line companies from about 1880 onwards, very much in line with what was going on overseas in the same period. It is notable that from WW1 onwards there was remarkably little major infrastucture work—things were weighted very heavily in favour of locomotive and rolling stock engineering (and in the case of the LMS major organisational reorganisation). The result was a railway that in the 1960s and 70s shewed an infrastructure with no significant improvement on what was there sixty and more years earlier (especially in the forgotten areas like the north-west).

Click to expand...

Thanks. Locomotives are usually cheaper than infrastructure, so the post WW1 focus on locos suggests much less money to go around. One wonders what plans were canned in 1918 because of the new financial realities.

There were some major infrastructure projects in the inter-war years, but largely thanks to cheap government loans and outright grants, intended to relieve unemployment. The Southern had its extensive third-rail electrification programme; the GWR an extensive station rebuilding programme (Cardiff, Newport, Newton Abbot, Leamington, Plymouth NR (curtailed by WW2), the Westbury and Frome cut-offs and the Cogload Jcn. flyover. The LNER made a start on Shenfield and Woodhead electrifications (both curtailed by WW2). The LMS, however, seemed particularly lethargic; I can only think of the Wirral electrifcation and the rebuilding of Leeds City (which went hideously over-budget and only partially completed.)

Asked out of interest, but were the GWR station rebuilds of the buildings only or of the tracks, platforms as well?

Cricketer8for9 said:

Asked out of interest, but were the GWR station rebuilds of the buildings only or of the tracks, platforms as well?

Click to expand...

Complete rebuilds of the track layout , public buildings and of course new signalling.

Sir Felix Pole said:

There were some major infrastructure projects in the inter-war years, but largely thanks to cheap government loans and outright grants, intended to relieve unemployment. The Southern had its extensive third-rail electrification programme; the GWR an extensive station rebuilding programme (Cardiff, Newport, Newton Abbot, Leamington, Plymouth NR (curtailed by WW2), the Westbury and Frome cut-offs and the Cogload Jcn. flyover. The LNER made a start on Shenfield and Woodhead electrifications (both curtailed by WW2). The LMS, however, seemed particularly lethargic; I can only think of the Wirral electrifcation and the rebuilding of Leeds City (which went hideously over-budget and only partially completed.)

Click to expand...

The LMS did indeed seem especially lethargic, though it did have its plans, like the quadrupling on the Coventry-Birmingham corridor, the by-pass for Shap, the Hazel Grove Chord, and so on. It also did the rebuilding for a much higher speed of the Queensville Curve, and there was the mile-a-minute campaign for main-line timetables on the principal LNW and Midland routes. And, of course, there were huge developments in motive power once Stanier was appointed. I wonder if the 20s seem to have been so wasted because so much effort was going into reorganisation of management structures and the introduction of American ideas. The LNER too had its plans and was rather late starting, as you note with both those electrifications cut off by the war — but, of course, both of them representing the chosen new way forward with 1500 volts overhead. The Southern got on with it, but regrettably of the two systems already in use chose to electrify third-rail rather than expand on the LB&SC overhead system. And then the Western, which really seized that government money and put it into those stations (Taunton was another major one, of course) and the really significant improvements of the West of England main line. But I would still argue that none of that was on the scale of what the LNW, the LSW, the Midland, the NE, and even the GE were doing in the period from about 1880 up to about the end of Edward VII's time. The writing was already on the wall by then: the companies were coming up with schemes for rationalisation of services, working together, and even amalgamation, but parliament wasn't having any of it—though it was ready enough to force through the amalgamations a dozen years later, having run the railways into the ground without adequate compensation during the war years and then allowing very unfair competition from the growing road transport industry in the years after war and for a long spell onwards.