YourMum666
Member
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
BR would’ve procured a replacement for the IC125s/225sGiven 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?
This is a rather naive question. Are you aware of what the Intercity Express programme was all about and which organisation 'managed' it?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
Who ordered the Pacers then, British Gas?BR wouldn’t be willing to accept being overruled by the DfT and stuck with something that was below the required standard.
Next question...
With new trains..?Sure
How do you feel a BR that continued to the 2010 era would have replaced the HST and class 91?
Took the words right out of my mouth. People too often look on the past with rose-tinted glasses.Who ordered the Pacers then, British Gas?
thank you for actually providing a helpful answerI 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.
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.... 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?
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.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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.I apologise for engaging in discussions and not having a crystal ball
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.
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?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.