How would BR have handled the Intercity Express Programme

[YourMum666]

Once again, because i love asking about what ifs on the railway, here’s today’s discussion, how would BR have handled the intercity express programme

 

[Brubulus]

Given it was a DfT programme, are you saying it would have been BR operated units procured by the DfT or BR procuring a replacement for IC125/225?

 

[YourMum666]

Given it was a DfT programme, are you saying it would have been BR operated units procured by the DfT or BR procuring a replacement for IC125/225?

BR would’ve procured a replacement for the IC125s/225s

 

[Gloster]

Whatever the situation was there would have been a major difference: BR saw itself as in the long-term business of running trains and expected to be operating the trains to the end of their life, not to the end of the contract, when an operator can either demand better terms or walk away and make its profits elsewhere. BR wouldn’t be willing to accept being overruled by the DfT and stuck with something that was below the required standard.

 

[Pdf]

The InterCity 250 program would have likely been completed if BR was still around and so there may have been less need for new trains. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_250

 

[AngusH]

I think the DFT took over the intercity express programme in the idea that by combining all efforts together that costs would be reduced and a more standardised, universally liked unit would be delivered.

If BR had survived in its final form then there would presumably have been only one effort and it would probably be seen by the DFT as in the public sector so there wouldn't have been any need to take over the process from the private sector.

Also BR would probably have been able to get minor issues like seating and buffets specified to their requirements, since they would be both end-user and purchaser. My view is that splitting end-user and purchaser is one of the key reasons for the difficulties. (Plus the expensive and restrictive leasing deal)

Would they engage in a lease and maintenance deal? I suspect yes for a (less restrictive) leasing deal, no for maintenance.


Edit: I agree with Pdf on the effect of the Intercity 250, but at least in part we got that with the 390s on the west coast anyway, so I think something would have been needed for HST replacement (unless much more electrification was built)

 

[Irascible]

What's more interesting is where would they have got them, given BREL was already shredded by privatisation - perhaps not having a disastrous break in the 90s would have meant a little more industry around by the 2010s. Presumably there'd still be some vestige of Derby research labs around to help design it, rather than a bunch of DfT employees. How much input a private company would want from BR is another matter.

 

[AngusH]

The loss of the Derby research labs was a real loss. (even if parts carried on)

On the manufacturer issue, the what if questions are really interesting.

Maybe BR would have been a better customer for the private builders and tried to provide long term orders for standard units reducing R+D costs.

Or there might have been less money and fewer vehicles constructed.
Or more cascading rather than building new units?

Less money might have meant fewer foreign investors interested in the Uk market and less competition for the remaining factories.


edit: added a bit about Derby

 

[coppercapped]

Once again, because i love asking about what ifs on the railway, here’s today’s discussion, how would BR have handled the intercity express programme

This is a rather naive question. Are you aware of what the Intercity Express programme was all about and which organisation 'managed' it?

The simple answer is that if BR had continued to exist in its final form there would not have been an Intercity Express Programme as the political, organisational and financial structure would have been very different compared to that pertaining when the programme was started.

Next question...

 

[Bertie the bus]

BR wouldn’t be willing to accept being overruled by the DfT and stuck with something that was below the required standard.

Who ordered the Pacers then, British Gas?

 

[AngusH]

Next question...

Sure

How do you feel a BR that continued to the 2010 era would have replaced the HST and class 91?

 

[coppercapped]

Sure

How do you feel a BR that continued to the 2010 era would have replaced the HST and class 91?

With new trains..?

 

[Bevan Price]

BR would have been in the early stages of preparing to replace the ECML 91s in the 2030s, and a bit closer to replacing WCML Class 90s in the next year or two. Replacements may have been locos., but more likely to look something like "long" Class 397s.

The HSTs would largely have gone by now, either replaced by an updated new version of HSTs, or possibly by something similar to Voyagers, but longer and with better internal layouts.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Who ordered the Pacers then, British Gas?

Took the words right out of my mouth. People too often look on the past with rose-tinted glasses.

 

[RobShipway]

I don't think that we would have had many of the trains that we have had in the last 20 plus years, if BR had still existed today. BR would have been more budgeted, so I doubt that we would have had the amount of Class 8xx trains that have been or are in the process of being built. I also doubt that we would have had trains from the likes of Siemens, Stadler or CAF as BR would have wanted to make sure all trains acquired where built here in the UK.

Even though they may have been planned by BR NSE before privatisation, I think the gap between the last train built under BR ownership, prior to the building of the class 168 would have been a greater period with more redundancies than what took place.

Whilst trains ordered by BR, where not always the best, it was the best that could be afforded at the time so made sense to build the pacers from bus parts, which mostly originally came from Leyland National body parts and engines. It meant new buses could be built cheaply for rural areas as BR could not afford to have built another set of trains such as the class 15x trains.

In many ways the InterCity 250 project was completed in privatisation in the form of the APT successor Pendolino I personally believe.

 

[DanNCL]

I don't think there'd have been an equivalent of the IEP under BR. If BR hadn't been privatised we'd have seen a flagship replacement for the HSTs on the GWML no later than 2010, and probably an ECML fleet of likely different new stock shortly afterwards, but nothing else. Replacements of HSTs elsewhere would have been down to cascades. And BR would probably have expected the 91+Mark 4 sets to carry on in service for another decade, albeit probably not on the ECML.

 

[YourMum666]

I don't think there'd have been an equivalent of the IEP under BR. If BR hadn't been privatised we'd have seen a flagship replacement for the HSTs on the GWML no later than 2010, and probably an ECML fleet of likely different new stock shortly afterwards, but nothing else. Replacements of HSTs elsewhere would have been down to cascades. And BR would probably have expected the 91+Mark 4 sets to carry on in service for another decade, albeit probably not on the ECML.

thank you for actually providing a helpful answer

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Great question. It's probably simple to work out. Let's assume in this timeline the following major works happens under BR:

1986-1991 ECML electrification
1992-1997(ish) Intercity 250 Modernisation
2000(ish) Crossrail electrification to Reading

This leave, by the year 2000, BR with two routes to electrify: Bedford to Nottingham/Sheffield(Wakefield?) and Reading to Swansea/Bristol. Now I have no idea which one would come first, but there are a number of options which BR could take:

1. Cascade 100mph WCML loco-hauled stock onto the MML until the 2010s
2. Cascade WCML MK3s onto the GWML and order a new 125 mph electric loco.
3. Purchase a new fleet of 250s in the late 90s for the ECML and cascade 91s onto the GWML
4. Purchase a new EMU for the GWML in the early 2000s with traction equipment similar to what would be for the class 390s in our universe
5. Purchase the same high speed class 342 EMU that Network SouthEast would have ordered for the CTRL/Thameslink services for Norwich/Bristol services.

Whatever happens, that still leaves by the late 2010s HSTs needing to be replaced on the GWML not covered by electrification and Cross Country, 250s replaced in around 5 years from now, 91s replaced too. I wouldn't be surprised if they took a very uniform approach and ordered an enormous set of what would be MK 6. coaching stock for all of the intercity routes with some kind of bi-mode loco limited to 125 mph.

Of course, we don't know how New Labour would have fiddled around with BR's structure.

 

[XAM2175]

... with some kind of bi-mode loco limited to 125 mph.

If you're going so far as to allow for uncertainty specifically associated with New Labour taking office in 1997, I'd suggest you should also allow for uncertainty as to whether such a locomotive can feasibly be produced for the British network.

I'm also unsure as to what you mean by "for all of the intercity routes"; only the partially electrified ones or actually all of them?

 

[CBlue]

If you're going so far as to allow for uncertainty specifically associated with New Labour taking office in 1997, I'd suggest you should also allow for uncertainty as to whether such a locomotive can feasibly be produced for the British network.

I'm also unsure as to what you mean by "for all of the intercity routes"; only the partially electrified ones or actually all of them?

I'd also say its far from a given that a "Nu BR" would have continued going for loco haulage given the trends they started in the 1980s with multiple units.

 

[XAM2175]

I'd also say its far from a given that a "Nu BR" would have continued going for loco haulage given the trends they started in the 1980s with multiple units.

Yes, I considered that too, but decided to allow a little bit of wiggle-room by assuming fixed-formation use - it's still very a distant second to MU designs, but not as much of a fringe habit nowadays as pure LHCS is.

It does read a bit like the poster just extrapolated their idea of BR's 1980s management to the present day and then wedged the New Labour reference in as an attempt at a cheeky jibe, rather than examining the fact that the railway world is very different now - and that that would be the case even if privatisation had never made it off the brainstorming board.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

If you're going so far as to allow for uncertainty specifically associated with New Labour taking office in 1997, I'd suggest you should also allow for uncertainty as to whether such a locomotive can feasibly be produced for the British network.

I'm also unsure as to what you mean by "for all of the intercity routes"; only the partially electrified ones or actually all of them?

I did some of my MA studying around New Labour transport policy. Their years before government had a lot of their philosophy laid out on what they would have done with transport (before they fully accepted BR privatisation) I've forgotten what it was, but they would certainly have done their fair share of tinkering with the railways had they been kept publiclally owned.

Yes, I considered that too, but decided to allow a little bit of wiggle-room by assuming fixed-formation use - it's still very a distant second to MU designs, but not as much of a fringe habit nowadays as pure LHCS is.

It does read a bit like the poster just extrapolated their idea of BR's 1980s management to the present day and then wedged the New Labour reference in as an attempt at a cheeky jibe, rather than examining the fact that the railway world is very different now - and that that would be the case even if privatisation had never made it off the brainstorming board.

I apologise for engaging in discussions and not having a crystal ball

 

[XAM2175]

I did some of my MA studying around New Labour transport policy. Their years before government had a lot of their philosophy laid out on what they would have done with transport (before they fully accepted BR privatisation) I've forgotten what it was, but they would certainly have done their fair share of tinkering with the railways had they been kept publiclally owned.

That's fair enough, but it leaves the hypothetical situation off-kilter when you inject this level of complex detail into only part of it. Major's government might have made changes to BR's structure but stopped short of privatisation, for example - which would presumably have influenced Labour's response. Perhaps they wouldn't have done anything at all; you say "they would certainly have done their fair share of tinkering" but it's no secret that what happened with the railways after 1997 was quite different to what the talk before the election suggested.

I apologise for engaging in discussions and not having a crystal ball

Coming back with this when somebody finds a hole in your contribution isn't really "engaging in discussions", though. You started off with "It's probably simple to work out" and got it a bit wrong; it's not the end of the world.

 

[popeter45]

i dont think we would have seen modern LHCS, trend was already towards MU and even internationally we are seeing the move away as freight operations split from passenger operations
not out of this world the APT program lead to UK high speed EMU's even if the 370 program didnt progress

 

[tbtc]

I'd also say its far from a given that a "Nu BR" would have continued going for loco haulage given the trends they started in the 1980s with multiple units.

^^ this ^^

BR spent much of their final fifteen years replacing longer loco hauled sets with two (or even one!) coach DMUs, replacing big old brick/stone station buildings with bus shelters, replacing double track junctions with single track chords… so the idea about people ascribing a wishlist to them can feel a little fanciful…

…I think that some people put much more emphasis in the swanky “artists impressions” of new trains that BR wanted to order if money were no object rather than the reality of what BR were doing (chopping up 155s to make single 153s etc)

Put it another way, maybe we could assume that BR’s “New trains fund” was dependent upon government funding much like the electrification budget has been? In which case there’d have been a five year splurge between the latter Brown years and the early Cameron years (which is when central government suddenly found the money to fund electrification after years of relative drought, before turning the taps back off again), maybe we’d have seen a lot of new trains ordered during that kind of era but BR getting quite a parsimonious deal from Brown when he was a “prudent” Chancellor or when Osbourne was in full-on Austerity mode

But if you’re wanting a word where a state owned railway was dependent upon government funding then you’re probably going to have to look at the way they handled things like electrification than the glossy brochures for a Class 471 or whatever

 

[Ken H]

BR was firmly wedded to the idea of cascading. So they would have found a use for the Cl91 + Mk 4 trains long before they were life expired. Maybe even ordered new Mk 5 coaches but kept the Cl 91 a little longer, and given the Mk4's to Trans Pennine or Scotrail. I know Inter City sector management didnt like cascading but the main bard would have overruled that in the interests of the whole railway.

I am not convinced they would have gone so whole-heartedly for the Hitachi bi-modes. They may well have orders some decent diesel co-cos to drag whatever was the train ordered for east coast.

I'm not even convinced they would have gone for full replacement of LCHS on the west coast. Cl87 + Mk 3s would do for Eustome - Brum - Wolverhampton.

Regional Railways may have struggled. Would BR have bought so many units or gone for steady state? Remember, BR investment would all have been subject to Treasury scrutiny by bean counters.

 

[coppercapped]

The OP specifically asked about the Intercity Express Programme, from the post I can only assume that if the question had been intended to refer to the type of rolling stock that could have been built then that would have been stated. The point I was trying to make in my earlier post was that the searches for replacements for the HSTs and Class91/Mark 4 coach sets only became the Intercity Express Programme when the DfT decided to take over the procurement of potential replacement trains from the relevant franchisees and the ROSCOs with whom they were working.

In my post #9 I tried to show that the political, organisational and financial structure at the time of initiation of the IEP were very different to those in force at the end of BR's existence. With all due respect to the various responses on the type of hardware that could have been developed I would suggest that the question as posed is unanswerable: there would have been no Programme for BR to handle.

One of the significant reasons that the DfT decided to perform the procurement itself was that during the days of Railtrack and the early days of Network Rail there were a series of delays, embarrassments and extra costs connected with kinetic gauging of lines of routes, electrical compatibility with signalling and similar issues for each new type of rolling stock. The DfT considered that these problems could be reduced or eliminated if it bought a standardised type of rolling stock in larger numbers.

If BR had continued without privatisation occuring then for an Intercity Express Programme to exist as it is now understood would mean that the DfT would have usurped the position of the BR Board and the Chief Mechanical and Electrical Engineer's department. This is not impossible but it may not have been possible under the then current legal framework but almost certainly the BR Chairman at least and possibly the whole Board would have resigned as such an action on the part of the DfT would be essentially a vote of no confidence.

 

[MattRat]

If you're going so far as to allow for uncertainty specifically associated with New Labour taking office in 1997, I'd suggest you should also allow for uncertainty as to whether such a locomotive can feasibly be produced for the British network.

New Labour actually brings up loads of interesting thoughts. While the Conservative government at the time would have curtailed a lot of the railway had there been no privatization, do we know for certain what New Labour would do in response?

Because even if BR remained nationalized, that doesn't stop foreign trains companies, for example, getting involved, especially under New Labour who valued what I'll term foreign intervention.

 

[Irascible]

Getting considerably off topic & into a large alt history area there - the EU took our privatisation as some sort of model ( :facepalm: ), so we may have ended up semi privatised anyway at some point with someone else's great idea.

I think the DfT tried to fill the role various departments of BR would have filled, but well after the necessary skills & frameworks had degraded and they're not really the organisation that should have been doing that in the first place. BR *did* have the right departments but whether they'd have survived until the program start is another matter. BRR's original remit was to support BREL, and that was already sold off.

 

[geoffk]

I know this thread is specifically about IET but, if BR has continued in its present form, we wouldn't have had the multiplicity of different train types with incompatible coupling/electrical connections, and presumably we would still have a single rate of pay and uniform terms and conditions for train crew, albeit with various mileage allowances. EU membership would have required separate accounts for "track and trains", not necessarily the separate organisations we ended up with.