matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,504
I can't see a single innovation that appeared during the period of privatisation that would not have appeared under British rail.
......eventually.I can't see a single innovation that appeared during the period of privatisation that would not have appeared under British rail.
......eventually.
......and using twice as many staff as necessary !
Got anything to back up that supposition.......eventually.
......and using twice as many staff as necessary !
I can't see a single innovation that appeared during the period of privatisation that would not have appeared under British rail.
Ditto Independent freight operators, Open Access and new entrants (all mandated by EU regs)
Indeed.Remember that EU rail policy has been modelled, at least in part, on rail privatisation in the UK.
An evidence-free ideological assertion.......eventually.
......and using twice as many staff as necessary !
AbsolutelyLatter-day BR was an extremely efficient organisation.
Had BR remained some of the innovations that you mention, which in part were responses to current situations, likely would not have been necessary. For example BR would likely have electrified faster thus removing the need for Inter City bimodes.Would they have produced a 125mph tilting WCML with Pendolinos within 5 years?
Inter-city Bi-modes (769s don't count)
ETCS and ROCs
HS1 and St Pancras/King's Cross development
How long would it have taken them to develop a retail ticketing web site and ATMs to match
Trainline/Realtime trains (ie releasing operational information for 3rd parties to develop added value apps)
Delay-repay (when did BR ever refund any money for poor performance?)
5-year route/service development plans for public consultation (Route utilisation strategies)
Rapid LT&S upgrade (the BR misery line)
Rebuilt Reading and Birmingham New St.
Electrification blitz (GW, NW, Scotland)
I don't doubt some of this would have happened, but would it all have happened in 25 years?
And would HMG have signed off these projects under BR?
It was very difficult for BR to get more than one major project at a time, or one fleet replacement at a time, funded.
BR had a hierarchy of lines, IC at the top and Regional at the bottom.
Franchises meant a degree of equality of franchises, and they all got a bite of the cherry, notably the Regional routes.
How would BR have handled Devolution (Wales, Scotland and within England).
Ditto Independent freight operators, Open Access and new entrants (all mandated by EU regs)
It's too easy to say that BR would have done as well or better than the semi-private railway we have had since 1996.
I don't think they would ever have been given the money to do it "their way".
A lot of external events have happened since then, all affecting the railway.
I'm not really sure about that assertion - the funding for electrification would still have been coming from the same place!BR would likely have electrified faster thus removing the need for Inter City bimodes.
You need to look at the hiatus in any development that privatisation caused and the relative subsidy levels pre and post privatisation. I don't doubt that Inter City electrification would have continued not least as a spend to save measure.I'm not really sure about that assertion - the funding for electrification would still have been coming from the same place!
You need to look at the hiatus in any development that privatisation caused and the relative subsidy levels pre and post privatisation. I don't doubt that Inter City electrification would have continued not least as a spend to save measure.
That's a good point actually which I hadn't really considered. The spending in an electrification scheme - assuming the rolling stock is up for replacement reasonably soon anyway - is mostly in the infrastructure, while the savings are mostly to be made in the operation of trains. With the infrastructure company separate from the train company, and the train company changing every decade or so, electrification is probably seen as less attractive - what is the incentive, after all, to spend lots of money to save another company money, and why would said other company want to put money towards something where they could cease to exist before it's finished?You need to look at the hiatus in any development that privatisation caused and the relative subsidy levels pre and post privatisation. I don't doubt that Inter City electrification would have continued not least as a spend to save measure.
No more than building EMUs does.Choose how beneficial they may be, the bi-modes put money in the coffers of the foreign nations who build them.
Would they have produced a 125mph tilting WCML with Pendolinos within 5 years?
Quite likely, given they had one of the largest research and development divisions in europeInter-city Bi-modes (769s don't count)
Again quite likely for reasons aboveETCS and ROCs
HS1 and St Pancras/King's Cross development
The br website predated the trainline website, so again quite likely.How long would it have taken them to develop a retail ticketing web site and ATMs to match
The municipally owned operator TfL had open data before the nationalised network rail decided to implement itTrainline/Realtime trains (ie releasing operational information for 3rd parties to develop added value apps)
Mandated by the dFt not the tocs. And london underground has delay repay on more generous terms than most TOCs despite being nationalised and then municipally ownedDelay-repay (when did BR ever refund any money for poor performance?)
5-year route/service development plans for public consultation (Route utilisation strategies)
Rapid watford dc line upgrade under TfL known as the stinkylink beforeRapid LT&S upgrade (the BR misery line)
Br did have tilting trains on the wcml it was called the APT , likely they would have refined that design and continued that trend
Quite likely, given they had one of the largest research and development divisions in europe
BR had a website? Really? The World Wide Web was only starting to take off with the general public in 1994 when BR was on the way out.The br website predated the trainline website, so again quite likely.
There is still no unified smart ticketing standard on the british rail network 17 years after the oyster card was introduced in London. Quite likely if British rail existed it would have adopted a unifed smart card system pretty quickly
Mandated by the dFt not the tocs. And london underground has delay repay on more generous terms than most TOCs despite being nationalised and then municipally owned
Rapid watford dc line upgrade under TfL known as the stinkylink before
Will there be standard T&Cs though? So a platform operative lets say R02 will be paid the same in Cornwall as someone employed in Newcastle.?
I guess we don’t k know yet.
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.The APT had gone in the bin long before privatisation. Surely the institutional memory of BR would be that it was a failure, it took the fresh thinking of Virgin and Railtrack to envision a 140mph WCML that needed the Pendolino. (Of course that didn't entirely work out, but they took the risk).
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.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.
Won't address the rest of your comments in detail except to wonder what the heck class 350s have to do with London Overground and also to question, if BR had not been broken up and privatised, if class 350 would even have existed.
Maybe, but who is to know if they may have revisited the idea later on?The APT had gone in the bin long before privatisation. Surely the institutional memory of BR would be that it was a failure, it took the fresh thinking of Virgin and Railtrack to envision a 140mph WCML that needed the Pendolino. (Of course that didn't entirely work out, but they took the risk)
But where was the drive for this back then? The world has changed. I’m sure that if BR existed now, they would either already have, or would be developing bi-mode trains.But despite this, apart from the Class 73 and 74, BR didn't produce any bi-modes. The conditions for their use were there, especially on the ECML where there are routes that extend off the end of the electrification that seem ideal for bi-modes. Instead they chose to have a mixed fleet and run diesels for long distances under the wires.
Yes, really. Many years ago I discovered it. But by then BR had already started to be broken up.BR had a website? Really? The World Wide Web was only starting to take off with the general public in 1994 when BR was on the way out.
The books of the BR terms and conditions still exist (and parts of them are still used, as they are still applicable). Both the RMT and Network Rail have them available. RMT on their web site and Network Rail on Connect (their internal intranet).Were the T&Cs standard in the BR days? There's certainly been many threads on here about how even within a TOC they're not standardised as different areas/regions have had different T&Cs and they've been unable to get agreement with the Unions.
Day 1, employees will almost certainly be TUPEd across with their current conditions to whichever operator gets the concession for their area. Although new standard conditions for new starters would seem the obvious way forward, those are also unpopular with the Unions who bargain on the basis that all their members should be equal.
Hmm, I’ve seen plenty of contractors propping up shovels doing nothing, all being paid for by private engineering companies working on behalf of a private railway company.........eventually.
......and using twice as many staff as necessary !
One thing is certain though. If BR had been running the railways, it is highly unlikely that we would have had to wait for years before the Southall crash inquiry could be held. So it is perfectly possible that BR would have taken action to improve safety before the Ladbroke Grove crash occurred. It may well have driven ATP to be fitted to more trains and lines. Or maybe speeded up the development of a different system (maybe TPWS).
Iit was delayed because none of the private railway companies involved wanted to admit liability and therefore risk prosecution in court. Or to provide evidence and information that could be used in a court case against them in a prosecution.The Southall Inquiry was delayed by the criminal proceedings against the driver and GWT. Surely exactly the same process would have had to be followed if BR still existed?
John Major's Citizen Charter brought in refunds or extensions to season tickets linked to delays and poor performance on British Rail.Delay-repay (when did BR ever refund any money for poor performance?)
It's possibly woth considering commercial activities under this umbrella topic as well.
Possibly an extreme example of this is Northern's £10 (£17.50 weekend) rover ticket. Go anywhere off-peak for a day (or two). But only on Northern services.
1: How would you similarly define which routes (and in some cases, which services on those routes) this would be limited to, absent disparate TOCs?
2: Would BR have had the marketing drive to do such a thing anyway?
There are other examples of commercially-driven "offers" - beyond simple fare competition.
Such schemes are of clear benefit to users and, presumably, of revenue benefit to the Railway.
Sure - a single Railway could make similar offerings, but it seems likely that if one were (for example) allowed to use what is presently a Avanti West Coast long-distance service between Preston and Oxenholme alongside a Northern service en route to (say) Windermere, as opposed to being restricted to the "local" then it seems likely such a ticket would cost more; and that is self-defeating.
Exactly my thought.NSE did with its Network days.
It's possibly woth considering commercial activities under this umbrella topic as well.
Possibly an extreme example of this is Northern's £10 (£17.50 weekend) rover ticket. Go anywhere off-peak for a day (or two). But only on Northern services.
1: How would you similarly define which routes (and in some cases, which services on those routes) this would be limited to, absent disparate TOCs?
2: Would BR have had the marketing drive to do such a thing anyway?
There are other examples of commercially-driven "offers" - beyond simple fare competition.
Such schemes are of clear benefit to users and, presumably, of revenue benefit to the Railway.
Sure - a single Railway could make similar offerings, but it seems likely that if one were (for example) allowed to use what is presently a Avanti West Coast long-distance service between Preston and Oxenholme alongside a Northern service en route to (say) Windermere, as opposed to being restricted to the "local" then it seems likely such a ticket would cost more; and that is self-defeating.