• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,370
It's hard to avoid concluding that whether BR or private sector is/ has been/ might have been more or less innovative or more successfully innovating is at least strongly influenced by where you stand politically, and thus the evidence you present to support the conclusion you seek or have already made. It's a kind of optimism bias and an inability to see much if anything good on the other side. If the 'answer' was obvious (a no-brainer) then either all nations would be doing that, or they would clearly be 'politically-inspired/ doctrinaire idiots'.
Whatever any of us might prefer, the people have voted and the Secretary of State has spoken.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

domcoop7

Member
Joined
15 Mar 2021
Messages
240
Location
Wigan
West Coast mainline plans were not as the result of innovation by the private sector.

Here's a screenshot of a page from the "Office of Passenger Rail Franchising Passenger Rail Industry Overview" published in July 1996, before tenders were received for West Coast. It refers to the plans as having been in feasibility studies since 1993 (i.e. before privatisation had even started, albeit after it was known that BR would be broken up).

So it's beyond question based on the historical record that a non-privatised BR would have carried out West Coast Main Line upgrade (subject to government not stopping them). And they wouldn't have had the three / four year gap where nothing happened because the entire senior management teams were spending their time working on privatisation and processes instead of on running trains and improving infrastructure.

It seems to me highly unlikely the government would have tried to stop it. Post privatisation, only two TOCs ever made a profit (to my knowledge) after taking into account subsidies and grants to Network Rail. They were Gatwick Express and the East Coast. Both were a result of BR / Intercity investment and modernisation, and so the history of investment reaping rewards was there to see.
West Coast main line renewal and upgrade - following extensive feasibility studies since 1993, Railtrack is in the process of developing a major programme of renewal of the core infrastructure of the West Coast main line in agreement with train operators. Proposed expenditure includes costs associated with the development, implementation and introduction of a transmission-based train control system which, assuming that such a system proves technically and economically feasible, is intended to replace existing lineside signalling Contracts for design work on the transmission cab based signalling system (for which tenders were invited in July 1995) were entered into by Railtrack during March 1996. The Franchising Director is also discussing with Railtrack the possibility of agreeing enhancements to the West Coast main line infrastructure prior to franchising the lnterCity West Coast TOC, possibly in the second half of 1996.

Screenshot from 2021-05-27 00-50-25.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot from 2021-05-27 00-50-25.png
    Screenshot from 2021-05-27 00-50-25.png
    748.5 KB · Views: 0

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
West Coast mainline plans were not as the result of innovation by the private sector.

Here's a screenshot of a page from the "Office of Passenger Rail Franchising Passenger Rail Industry Overview" published in July 1996, before tenders were received for West Coast. It refers to the plans as having been in feasibility studies since 1993 (i.e. before privatisation had even started, albeit after it was known that BR would be broken up).

So it's beyond question based on the historical record that a non-privatised BR would have carried out West Coast Main Line upgrade (subject to government not stopping them). And they wouldn't have had the three / four year gap where nothing happened because the entire senior management teams were spending their time working on privatisation and processes instead of on running trains and improving infrastructure.

It seems to me highly unlikely the government would have tried to stop it. Post privatisation, only two TOCs ever made a profit (to my knowledge) after taking into account subsidies and grants to Network Rail. They were Gatwick Express and the East Coast. Both were a result of BR / Intercity investment and modernisation, and so the history of investment reaping rewards was there to see.


View attachment 97048
About the same time, there was the sensible development of TPWS as a joint initiative between BR and the nascent Railtrack, not much more than a handful of key people at that point. This split, and in particular the appointment of some capable experts to Railtrack, broke the logjam of what to do about ATP by focusing on getting most of the benefits with a lot less of the potential cost, delay and disruption. This has served us well for 25 years and will continue to do so for decades until superseded by ETCS (or something even newer) across the whole network.

On the other hand, Railtrack, and one key individual in particular, was sold on the idea of transmission-based signalling as a cost effeictive way to renew WCML assets and increase speed, capacity, reliability and cost-effectiveness. This was clearly totally unrealistic, as even after a quarter century of development in multiple countries we still don't have such a system ready for use on a route like the WCML. Inadequate corporate knowledge of technical issues (or at least inadequate attention paid to those who did have the knowledge) was responsible for this, and also for the gauge corner cracking crisis that led to Railtrack being abolished.
 

tbwbear

Member
Joined
28 Nov 2017
Messages
263
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
I don’t think the size of the business makes it necessarily more or less inclined to innovate. You have a lot of small businesses that are incredibly good at innovating and a lot of larger ones that are not.

Nor is it to do with the type of ownership: there are plenty of examples of not-for-profit organisations being more innovative than private ones.

I think it is down to the culture of the company and the circumstances it finds itself in. That BR had a culture of innovation cannot really be questioned, (you could argue that it inherited it from the private Big 4 companies) nor is there any real question that it found itself in difficult circumstances where innovation was necessary.

I would certainly argue that BR was one of the most innovative of the state-owned operators in Europe. Many of these state-owned operators were better financed, provided better service, and of course now own a lot of the “private” companies that operate in the UK. But back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, many were following BR rather than leading.

How many ideas/methods/products have been created in this country by “the private companies” and copied elsewhere in the last 25 years?

I would suggest that because of government interference and the way the system was privatised, the “private” companies have just not had the ability to innovate in the same way as BR had, or that the state-owned European companies or even Network Rail still have.

That is essentially why we are still stuck with the Network Railcard decades after the “Network” ceased to be, and why we are riding around on Japanese trains that are nowhere near as comfortable as the ones in their home country.

It is disappointing. It could have been so much better.

One would hope that the next system (now being created) will solve that….

But that is probably another question / debate.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,996
There is definitely a distinction. However BR only really started prep for privatisation in 1993.
Although I'm guessing at high level decision making at least the work started not many days after the 1992 General Election outcome (so April / May '92)?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Well, do you have any reason to assume that without impending privatisation, NSE wouldn't have got back to its improvement and expansion ?

It’s certainly possible.

Although I'm guessing at high level decision making at least the work started not many days after the 1992 General Election outcome (so April / May '92)?

The white paper was published in Jul ‘92, and I suspect that there was initial planning from then, but only by a few people. The massive OfQ reorganisation went live in April ‘92 so there was little capacity to think about a further, bigger reorganisation any time before then.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,824
Location
Yorks
It’s certainly possible.



The white paper was published in Jul ‘92, and I suspect that there was initial planning from then, but only by a few people. The massive OfQ reorganisation went live in April ‘92 so there was little capacity to think about a further, bigger reorganisation any time before then.

Lots of things are/were possible.

However, given its track record I think the likelihood is that NSE would have gotten back on with its rolling stock replacements, infil electrification and route modernisations.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Lots of things are/were possible.

However, given its track record I think the likelihood is that NSE would have gotten back on with its rolling stock replacements, infil electrification and route modernisations.

I agree, and I expect Uckfield and the North Downs (and possibly Ashford - Ore) would have been electrified, albeit on the cheap. And some other investment would have been restarted - certainly DOO would have been implemented on the South Western and LM. The former was paused in the investment freeze and then privatisation killed it.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I agree, and I expect Uckfield and the North Downs (and possibly Ashford - Ore) would have been electrified, albeit on the cheap. And some other investment would have been restarted - certainly DOO would have been implemented on the South Western and LM. The former was paused in the investment freeze and then privatisation killed it.

DOO was the plan on the south WCML too, though I don't quite know when it was canned. Monitor frames were still there for a while, though I don't think any are left. Berko still has a set of monitors but positioned to assist the guard as it's on a curve.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
A lot of project were kicked into the long grass because of privatization as others have said. IC250 is probably the clearest example. The 1992 timetable also cut a lot of services as they restructured ahead of privatization, in the case of Lincolnshire, come are only just going back into the timetable now - nearly 30 years later.

BR would have modernized the WCML - but they passed it over to the private sector. Virgin took minimal risk themselves, it was the ROSCO and Railtrack that took the financial pain, with the famous credit card with no limit railtrack had (or didn't)
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,546
DOO was the plan on the south WCML too, though I don't quite know when it was canned. Monitor frames were still there for a while, though I don't think any are left. Berko still has a set of monitors but positioned to assist the guard as it's on a curve.

It actually got to the implementation phase. The drivers refused the 321s for DOO-P services for some cab environment issues and refused to depart without a guard and the project was cancelled.

Other projects were considered including the West Midlands suburban services but according to Gordon Pettit in the book "The Regional Railways Story" that never got beyond the consideration phase as the West Midlands PTE refused to fund any DOO-P services.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,870
Yes, I remember getting the Hove - Southampton direct at that time. Think it was to lonk to Gatwick Airport.

Yes, it was the Victoria via Gatwick. Similar to the one that exists now, but routed Hove rather than Horsham.

Although these days I regularly do Southampton to Gatwick, I never did in those days, with the result that Three Bridges to Brighton or Hove is still unclaimed track, in a geographical area where I have done pretty much all the lines (though I could say the same about Ockley to Balham also, or indeed anywhere in the Epsom area).

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 ;)

The direct, Stafford-avoiding route? (sorry, never heard of Hixon, that's why I ask). Madness surely, that would significantly slow down the Manchesters via Stoke.

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.

That'd be the same treasury, led by Norman 'Yoghurt Pot' Lamont, that appeared to be responsible for Black Wednesday? ;)
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
The direct, Stafford-avoiding route? (sorry, never heard of Hixon, that's why I ask). Madness surely, that would significantly slow down the Manchesters via Stoke.

Yes. There was only 1 an hour back then, and the market (and journey time!) was very different.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
Yes, it was the Victoria via Gatwick. Similar to the one that exists now, but routed Hove rather than Horsham.

Although these days I regularly do Southampton to Gatwick, I never did in those days, with the result that Three Bridges to Brighton or Hove is still unclaimed track, in a geographical area where I have done pretty much all the lines (though I could say the same about Ockley to Balham also, or indeed anywhere in the Epsom area).



The direct, Stafford-avoiding route? (sorry, never heard of Hixon, that's why I ask). Madness surely, that would significantly slow down the Manchesters via Stoke.



That'd be the same treasury, led by Norman 'Yoghurt Pot' Lamont, that appeared to be responsible for Black Wednesday? ;)

South Central ran Bournemouth - Soton - Hove - Gatwick - London in BR days ! - (did quite well too)

About the worse meeting of the rationalisation period was one where it was considered to "de-quadrify" north of Peterborough (a row about the allocation of costs for the slow lines as RES did not want to pay) , even in the cut and thrust of the sectors , this was worth discussing , looked over the precipice and we all agreed it was really not the thing to do. Such was the pressure then.

Ah yes Mr Lamont - really messed up the economy - he of the "green shoots of recovery" - never have I been on a more subdued commuter train (a 319 actually) , when interest rates doubled overnight - you could sense the desperation of the mortgaged passengers.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,824
Location
Yorks
South Central ran Bournemouth - Soton - Hove - Gatwick - London in BR days ! - (did quite well too)

About the worse meeting of the rationalisation period was one where it was considered to "de-quadrify" north of Peterborough (a row about the allocation of costs for the slow lines as RES did not want to pay) , even in the cut and thrust of the sectors , this was worth discussing , looked over the precipice and we all agreed it was really not the thing to do. Such was the pressure then.

Ah yes Mr Lamont - really messed up the economy - he of the "green shoots of recovery" - never have I been on a more subdued commuter train (a 319 actually) , when interest rates doubled overnight - you could sense the desperation of the mortgaged passengers.

I've long thought that mortgages are 21st century feudalism.

Still, I did read that someone is now offering a full term fixed rate mortgage. Assuming its not preposterously overpriced, it might make the mortgage experience less perilous.

Anyway, I digress......
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
A lot of project were kicked into the long grass because of privatization as others have said. IC250 is probably the clearest example. The 1992 timetable also cut a lot of services as they restructured ahead of privatization, in the case of Lincolnshire, come are only just going back into the timetable now - nearly 30 years later.

BR would have modernized the WCML - but they passed it over to the private sector. Virgin took minimal risk themselves, it was the ROSCO and Railtrack that took the financial pain, with the famous credit card with no limit railtrack had (or didn't)
I think people fail to realise BR would not have been given the funding for full WCML upgrade and fleet renewal.
The upgrade project was approved ONLY because the track and TOC were privatised, which released the cash from the money market.
The same applied to the rolling stock renewal, and to the Thameslink upgrade.
Railtrack was then the darling of the market - it looked a bit different 5 years later.
Virgin might not have innovated or invested much, but they (with the SRA) supplied the "informed customer" role which BR never had, to get the project delivered.
BR's WCML would likely have been a series of drip-feed "like for like" projects and Mk3s for another decade or two, depending on what annual HMG funding was allowed.
 
Last edited:

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,870
Yes. There was only 1 an hour back then, and the market (and journey time!) was very different.

On the other hand I would have expected the London to Manchester of the early 1990s to have a higher proportion of business travellers and lower proportion of leisure travellers, and presumably business travellers are more time-sensitive (as they need to get quickly to and from meetings etc) which would actually support the Colwich to Stone link as it would result in faster journeys.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,996
I think people fail to realise BR would not have been given the funding for full WCML upgrade and fleet renewal.
The upgrade project was approved ONLY because the track and TOC were privatised, which released the cash from the money market.
The same applied to the rolling stock renewal, and to the Thameslink upgrade.
Railtrack was then the darling of the market - it looked a bit different 5 years later.
Virgin might not have innovated or invested much, but they (with the SRA) supplied the "informed customer" role which BR never had, to get the project delivered.
BR's WCML would likely have been a series of drip-feed "like for like" projects and Mk3s for another decade or two, depending on what annual HMG funding was allowed.
The problem is there is a lot of 'what ifs' in that view (what if the Tories had not proposed privatization in '92 / what if Labour had not inherited a privatized fragmented railway in '97 etc).*
On the theme, if the Treasury had known the amount of public money they were going to have to ultimately put into WCML modernisation when Railtrack failed to deliver I suspect they would have told DfT to look differently at the proposals to start with.
I assume it was thought the private sector would solve the problem and it didn't.

Of course in an expanding economy (and economy started to expand post 1995 IIRC), but in the 1980s, BR did get funding for ECML modernisation...

* edit: I guess we can perhaps look to labour's proposed PPP for the tube as a guide to what they may have tried to do ref rail investment if they had inherited BR in 1997, ref funds for modernisation plans like WCML etc.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
On the other hand I would have expected the London to Manchester of the early 1990s to have a higher proportion of business travellers and lower proportion of leisure travellers, and presumably business travellers are more time-sensitive (as they need to get quickly to and from meetings etc) which would actually support the Colwich to Stone link as it would result in faster journeys.

The proportion was about the same. The number of passengers was however about a quarter of the number now (well, pre Covid)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
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.

You can't come up with a system that only gives firms a seven year period to operate a line (which means that, even if they tendered for new rolling stock on day one, we'd be at least half way through the franchise before the full fleet was in squadron service) and then blame the private firms for not taking long term financial commitments - e.g. given that rolling stock is expected to last for decades, and it may take a few years of operation before passenger numbers reflect the improvement in service

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.

I'm still trying to understand when you want to use as the benchmark for BR's golden years - now you're saying that we can't use any of the years from 1992 onwards (since that was when privatisation preparations began)... but from what you've said before we can't use the 1960s/1970s... so that only really leaves the 1980s (when they were closing Woodhead and trying to close the Settle & Carlisle)?

Or is this that your memories of your local line were favourable since it was getting some investment when you were growing up, but the rest of the BR network was seeing cuts/ stagnation?

So the benchmark needs to be that brief period (during fifty years of BR) in between the 1989 announcement that the S&C wouldn't close and the 1992 election (when the privatisation planning began)?

Are you saying that the period when you think BR was doing best was the period where they were chopping up dozens of 155s to turn them into 153s, so that routes that had been opened by longer trains and then replaced with two coach 155s were now run by single carriage DMUs?

See, that's the thing with BR fandom - you need the cognitive dissonance of praising BR for all of their ambitions in one corner of the country whilst also blaming the Government for the fact that BR were chopping their Sprinters in half at the same time - nice that they found time to commission all the swanky artists impressions of 371s etc at a time when other services were being cut/ fares increased/ trains literally halved - but all of the good stuff is Because BR and all of the bad stuff is Because Government

Lots of things are/were possible.

However, given its track record I think the likelihood is that NSE would have gotten back on with its rolling stock replacements, infil electrification and route modernisations.

As above - they talked a good game but couldn't deliver in other areas at the time - they had a long list of ambitions but without the money to pay for them - I'm sure the passengers who saw their services downgraded to single 153s were happy that BR spent so much time on their drawing boards though
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,824
Location
Yorks
You can't come up with a system that only gives firms a seven year period to operate a line (which means that, even if they tendered for new rolling stock on day one, we'd be at least half way through the franchise before the full fleet was in squadron service) and then blame the private firms for not taking long term financial commitments - e.g. given that rolling stock is expected to last for decades, and it may take a few years of operation before passenger numbers reflect the improvement in service



I'm still trying to understand when you want to use as the benchmark for BR's golden years - now you're saying that we can't use any of the years from 1992 onwards (since that was when privatisation preparations began)... but from what you've said before we can't use the 1960s/1970s... so that only really leaves the 1980s (when they were closing Woodhead and trying to close the Settle & Carlisle)?

Or is this that your memories of your local line were favourable since it was getting some investment when you were growing up, but the rest of the BR network was seeing cuts/ stagnation?

So the benchmark needs to be that brief period (during fifty years of BR) in between the 1989 announcement that the S&C wouldn't close and the 1992 election (when the privatisation planning began)?

Are you saying that the period when you think BR was doing best was the period where they were chopping up dozens of 155s to turn them into 153s, so that routes that had been opened by longer trains and then replaced with two coach 155s were now run by single carriage DMUs?

See, that's the thing with BR fandom - you need the cognitive dissonance of praising BR for all of their ambitions in one corner of the country whilst also blaming the Government for the fact that BR were chopping their Sprinters in half at the same time - nice that they found time to commission all the swanky artists impressions of 371s etc at a time when other services were being cut/ fares increased/ trains literally halved - but all of the good stuff is Because BR and all of the bad stuff is Because Government



As above - they talked a good game but couldn't deliver in other areas at the time - they had a long list of ambitions but without the money to pay for them - I'm sure the passengers who saw their services downgraded to single 153s were happy that BR spent so much time on their drawing boards though

Point one, as I've said previously, I believe the period of sectorisation to be the one we consider to be the development of BR. You make a good point (indirectly) that during part of this period, BR was still considering the closure of the S&C. It's to be expected that any period would have its faults. No rose tinted spectacles here.

On the second point, BR didn't just talk a good game. They got things done. The milage of electrification achieved in the 1980's as an example, compared with most of the privatised period, speaks for itself.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
Ah yes Mr Lamont - really messed up the economy - he of the "green shoots of recovery" - never have I been on a more subdued commuter train (a 319 actually) , when interest rates doubled overnight - you could sense the desperation of the mortgaged passengers.
Always remember that day. Our most highly mortgaged director in his new house came into the office in the afternoon and rapidly started slamming through his last 6 months unclaimed expenses!

As always in such events, there were a range of different culprits to blame dependent on your political persuasion. The rates did not double, incidentally, they went from 10 to 12 to 15%, were back to 12 by the evening and 10 the next day, and many of us never even adjusted the rate. However, in the days when print newspapers were prominent they had all gone to press while things were at their highest.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
On the second point, BR didn't just talk a good game. They got things done. The milage of electrification achieved in the 1980's as an example, compared with most of the privatised period, speaks for itself.
And yet, when Railtrack had morphed into the public sector Network Rail, its boss (John Armitt) said: "Electrification is just another interface to go wrong".
And the freight TOCs (and passenger TOCs to a degree) were shunning electrification, running ever more diesels under the wires (by SRA decree, to cut costs).
When the signals were all green, BR certainly got things done.
But the signals were often of different colours, and occasionally went from green to red (as they do today).
Total route modernisation was the BR policy around 1990, and a good one too.
But only one line at a time, while the rest of the network became even more dilapidated (not BR's fault, it's what the Treasury forced on them).
Privatisation opened the coffers, and network-wide (although I'd agree the money was not necessarily went spent).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,824
Location
Yorks
And yet, when Railtrack had morphed into the public sector Network Rail, its boss (John Armitt) said: "Electrification is just another interface to go wrong".
And the freight TOCs (and passenger TOCs to a degree) were shunning electrification, running ever more diesels under the wires (by SRA decree, to cut costs).
When the signals were all green, BR certainly got things done.
But the signals were often of different colours, and occasionally went from green to red (as they do today).
Total route modernisation was the BR policy around 1990, and a good one too.
But only one line at a time, while the rest of the network became even more dilapidated (not BR's fault, it's what the Treasury forced on them).
Privatisation opened the coffers, and network-wide (although I'd agree the money was not necessarily went spent).

TRM was a good policy.

It helped that different bits of the network were reaching maturity at different times. For example the rolling stock for kent and Sussex Coast services was ten to twenty years younger than the EPB's, so didn't really need replacing at the same time as the Kent Link scheme.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
Always remember that day. Our most highly mortgaged director in his new house came into the office in the afternoon and rapidly started slamming through his last 6 months unclaimed expenses!

As always in such events, there were a range of different culprits to blame dependent on your political persuasion. The rates did not double, incidentally, they went from 10 to 12 to 15%, were back to 12 by the evening and 10 the next day, and many of us never even adjusted the rate. However, in the days when print newspapers were prominent they had all gone to press while things were at their highest.

Amazingly , mortgage rates really matter in both the short , medium and long term. Especially in those days.

We won't mention the end of tax relief on them either a few years earlier which sparked off a buying boom , worse even than the last franchises to be let !
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
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
Not that it affects me personally, but Cottingley is different to Brightside in that it serves, and is close to a large housing estate, whereas there was/is a low residential population close to Brightside. Replacing Cottingley by a station for White Rose Centre seems a very bad idea to me, causing great inconvenience to many residents - in the hope of attracting more visitors to (what seems to me) a rather indifferent shopping centre.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top