How was it decided which BR sector managed a station, and when did this designation of stations first start?

[AY1975]

Following on from the thread on how it is decided which train operator manages a station on the present day rail network at https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...d-is-there-any-benefit-in-it-for-them.246803/ I wondered how it was decided which of British Rail's three passenger sectors (Intercity, Network SouthEast or Provincial Services/Regional Railways) managed a station, and when did BR first start designating stations in this way?

As I recall at least in the last few years of BR in the late 1980s and early '90s every station was managed by one of the three sectors, and each station had the standard branding and signage of whichever sector was managing it. All stations in the NSE area were managed by NSE except maybe the London termini that were mainly served by IC. I think NSE signage and branding started to appear at stations earlier than IC or RR branding, though.

I presume it was usually whichever sector was the biggest user (or the sole user) of that station, but in some cases it seemed somewhat arbitrary.

For example, on the Midland Main Line if I remember rightly Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield were Intercity stations and Loughborough and Nottingham were Regional Railways stations. Nottingham was served predominantly by RR trains with the (as I recall) hourly IC service to St Pancras being the only IC presence there, and Loughborough was mainly served by the St Pancras-Nottingham and by RR services but some St Pancras-Sheffields also called there. Likewise Leicester, Derby and Chesterfield were dominated by IC services (including Cross-Countrys in the case of Derby and Chesterfield) but RR also had a significant presence there. Likewise Sheffield had both Midland Main Line and XC IC services but also had a lot of RR trains.

I would guess that if a station was deemed to have a significant IC presence it would often be managed by IC whether IC or RR was the biggest user.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Gatwick Airport was always Intercity

 

[SargeNpton]

When sectorisation came in, all assets were allocated to whichever sector was deemed to be the "Prime User". But that was not necessarily the sector that had most services calling at the station, so some stations that were mostly served by NSE or Provincial services were given to the InterCity sector.

 

[Watershed]

I suppose it's one of those things that, like the allocation of fare setters, was somewhat arbitrary and possibly done in a bit of a rush.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I suppose it's one of those things that, like the allocation of fare setters, was somewhat arbitrary and possibly done in a bit of a rush.

Certainly seems inherently unfair / just plain wrong, that a particular TOC can be a faresetter for some flow between two local stations where it doesn't provides any service whatsoever.

 

[paddy1]

From my recollection, Harwich Parkeston Quay (as it was then) had Intercity station signage, including the illuminated one, on the platform adjacent to the quayside only and no signage at all on the other platforms. London Victoria also had Intercity signage on the Gatwick Express platforms and NSE signage on the others. Don't know if this meant Intercity owned those particular platforms at both stations or not, or whether Intercity would only pay for signage on the platform that they actually used at Harwich, and likewise at Victoria?

 

[Helvellyn]

From my recollection, Harwich Parkeston Quay (as it was then) had Intercity station signage, including the illuminated one, on the platform adjacent to the quayside only and no signage at all on the other platforms. London Victoria also had Intercity signage on the Gatwick Express platforms and NSE signage on the others. Don't know if this meant Intercity owned those particular platforms at both stations or not, or whether Intercity would only pay for signage on the platform that they actually used at Harwich, and likewise at Victoria?

Gatwick Express had dedicated platforms at Victoria, so there was probably a commercial agreement regarding the signage. I think on the old solari boards their services had fixed boards as well.

Having InterCity run Gatwick Airport was because the biggest flows were probably to London and they wanted to get the traffic on the dedicated Express service.

There will always be instances where the allocated operator seems odd with hindsight but it's a case of trying to look at service patterns/profit centres based on 1980s operations.

Carlisle was InterCity West Coast, but also served by the InterCity Cross-Country sub-sector. It had a decent Regional Railways presence but that was split across three sub-sectors - ScotRail (Glasgow & South Western), North West (Cumbrian Coast) and North East (Tyne Valley and Settle & Carlisle).

 

[paul1609]

Gatwick Express had dedicated platforms at Victoria, so there was probably a commercial agreement regarding the signage. I think on the old solari boards their services had fixed boards as well.

Having InterCity run Gatwick Airport was because the biggest flows were probably to London and they wanted to get the traffic on the dedicated Express service.

Gatwick Express being Intercity was a cynical financial ploy by BR to make out that the Inter City sector was profitable. It made no sense whatsoever operationally.
The Gatwick profits were needed to offset the huge losses made by Cross Country and midland Mainline routes at that time.
If Gatwick Express had been part of NSE, NSE would have made a profit. Intercity would have been a loss maker.

 

[LowLevel]

Nottingham was an odd one. Regional Railways station (they operated most of the train services and had significant unit stabling and the carriage sidings) but Intercity ran the booking office, and that continued until the Eastern side of Central Trains and Midland Mainline merged in 2007.

 

[paddy1]

Gatwick Express had dedicated platforms at Victoria, so there was probably a commercial agreement regarding the signage. I think on the old solari boards their services had fixed boards as well.

Having InterCity run Gatwick Airport was because the biggest flows were probably to London and they wanted to get the traffic on the dedicated Express service.

There will always be instances where the allocated operator seems odd with hindsight but it's a case of trying to look at service patterns/profit centres based on 1980s operations.

Carlisle was InterCity West Coast, but also served by the InterCity Cross-Country sub-sector. It had a decent Regional Railways presence but that was split across three sub-sectors - ScotRail (Glasgow & South Western), North West (Cumbrian Coast) and North East (Tyne Valley and Settle & Carlisle).

I was just curious about Harwich PQ and London Victoria due to the 'part signage' only whereas as at other Intercity stations, even where Intercity were not the main operator, such as at Carlisle, had the Intercity signage etc applied throughout.

 

[AY1975]

I was just curious about Harwich PQ and London Victoria due to the 'part signage' only whereas as at other Intercity stations, even where Intercity were not the main operator, such as at Carlisle, had the Intercity signage etc applied throughout.

Except that as I recall some London termini, such as Euston and King's Cross, had NSE signage and branding on the platforms that were used mainly or exclusively by NSE trains and IC signage on the rest of the station. I presume Paddington was the same, can't remember how it was done at Liverpool Street.

Also, Manchester Piccadilly was IC West Coast and I think it had IC signage throughout the main part of the station but Greater Manchester PTE/Regional Railways signage on Platforms 13 and 14.

I think Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Luton, Bedford and Stevenage had NSE signage throughout. I can't remember whether Reading had NSE signage throughout or IC signage on the through platforms and NSE signage on the terminal platforms.

I would guess that where sector A was the prime user of a station but sector B was the main user of a particular part of that station, sector B would simply have some kind of agreement with sector A to apply its own signage and branding to its own part of the station.

 

[paddy1]

Except that as I recall some London termini, such as Euston and King's Cross, had NSE signage and branding on the platforms that were used mainly or exclusively by NSE trains and IC signage on the rest of the station. I presume Paddington was the same, can't remember how it was done at Liverpool Street.

Also, Manchester Piccadilly was IC West Coast and I think it had IC signage throughout the main part of the station but Greater Manchester PTE/Regional Railways signage on Platforms 13 and 14.

I think Watford Junction, Milton Keynes Central, Luton, Bedford and Stevenage had NSE signage throughout. I can't remember whether Reading had NSE signage throughout or IC signage on the through platforms and NSE signage on the terminal platforms.

I would guess that where sector A was the prime user of a station but sector B was the main user of a particular part of that station, sector B would simply have some kind of agreement with sector A to apply its own signage and branding to its own part of the station.

I didn't realise, or failed to notice, that some of the other London terminals and Manchester Piccadilly had differential signage. Yes, Watford, Milton Keynes, Luton, Bedford and Stevenage all had NSE signage throughout and Reading had IC signage on the main platforms and NSE on the bays.