I once followed the Branson family up the aircraft steps at Heathrow for a (Swissair) flight to Zurich.
and in Calgary instead of Cagliari (1990 World Cup)!
I work with enough of the general public to know that they find it complex too. Whether I'm the one selling and asking if a more restrictive ticket is worth the 10p saving to them, or if I'm checking and find that they've boarded with an invalid ticket they bought from the TVM or online.
Though in all of these cases they weee presumably on the correct flight - but had chosen an incorrect destination, which is a bit different.
The cost of adding passengers on a great many trains is essentially marginal.
I agree. It would be open to confusion and misinterpretation. It infers "one nation" - that might cause friction with Scottish and Welsh compatriots.
I am not sure that National Rail is that strong of a brand, excluding Londoners I have heard more people refer to it as British Rail despite British Rail being gone for 20+ years.
The devolved nations and regions will be closely linked with GBR through the functions of the Rail Delivery Group being transferred to GBR and GBR entering agreements with devolved nations and regions (They have already started processes with TfW and have already agreed to partnerships with TfGM and West Midlands Rail Executive.). Open access operators were left alone for political reasons ranging from it would "cost too much to nationalize them" to maintaining free market competition. The great in the term Great British refers to the island of Great Britain not the concept of greatness.
Privatisation was a stain on the national consciousness, privatisation has led to a railway that cost the government more than BR did and has increased government involvement in the railways with all the bad and good that comes with that. Putting that passenger growth down to privatisation is likely incorrect as passenger numbers started rising 18 months before the privatisation began, and outside factors such as fuel prices and congestion have arguably had more effect on how many people want to use the railway than anything the railways is doing. Realitisicly privatisation has likely harmed railway technology as the privatisation of British Rail played the role in most railway engineering companies being bought up by overseas companies and led to the sale of the British Rail Research Division meaning there are a lot fewer railway engineering companies especially British ones to develop railway technology and all the ones operating in the UK are solely driven by the profit motive.
Good luck with coming up with a decent name that is not historical or geographic in nature that does not seem like a foolhardy attempt to avoid such branding or would quickly become dated.
People who are alienated by that will likely be alienated by any state-owned national railway company as proven by the 1970s BR memes from right-wing press about GBR, it is likely better to provide a great service to prove them wrong than to try to name it in a way that will not alienate them. There are many people who actually remember what BR was like and want BR to be brought back because they rightly blame the DfT and the government for British Rail’s problems.
That is not going to happen unless the parliament is going to rewrite trademark law or NRM is going to start a TOC or related business there is no way for NRM to maintain that trademark as you need to be active in a given sector to be able to defend your ownership of the trademark in that sector.
Lumo branding has nothing to do with that, it could be called East Coast Trains and have completely white trains and still be known as the Ryanair of the railways. It is their marketing and business model that has led to so many people knowing of them and how they operate.
It’s the political reality of one country being formed of 3 (kind of 4) nations. Let’s be honest if it wasn’t called the UK and made up of 3 nations it would just be greater England.
Multiple brands do not prevent GBR from operating as a fully integrated system, whether in regard to ticketing or anything else. TfL has multiple brands and transit modes yet they have a close to nearly fully integrated transit system (London River Services and the London Cable Car are the only places that it majorly falls short within London.) that even integrates National Rail services.
It also has lead to the highest frequncies and ridership in history.
Devolved rail services are still going to be devolved and will not incorporate gbr branding iirc
All of the above would equally be considered as 'muscular unionism'. Like all other European nations which have no issue with the concept of overlapping national railway systems, it is just that both Wales and Scotland have their own identity and character, whilst remaining in the GB ticketing system.
Most people will remember the railways of today will imagine uncomfortable IET's and major infrastructure projects being scaled back (HS2 and Great Western Electrification) while more and more people are crammed onto voyagers that never had enough capacity in the first place. At least BR completed most of its infrastructure projects! However people will probably miss some things about todays railways in the future so in my opinion; it's a case of the grass is always greener. Don't forget that the privatised railway stuck with pacers for 20 years so many people's memory of privatised railways will be of pacers anyway.
peak public optimism in my opinon felt around the time HS1 was just completed and Virgin et al was bringing in tons of shiny new trains and frequncies where getting better every year.
As addressed in previous post
Despite the polarised nature of politics, one can in fact have a pragmatic opinion of compromise. Nothing in your post disagrees with what I have already stated.Your previous post is kind of contradictory though, whilst yes there are devolved regional railways, they are still united both physically and administratively under the GB Rail system. That is a statement of fact, if it winds up nationalists, then...?
