Livery under Great British Railways

[61653 HTAFC]

So it’s not really about flags, just people that disagree with you.
If it’s nationalised with a nationwide livery it really should be in national colours, demonstrating that it belongs to the people. Though I would prefer to keep regional liveries for the same reason.

It's not even people that disagree with them- it's people they assume they disagree with based on outdated stereotypes.
If Scotland can have a livery based very heavily on their national flag, why not the English? Wales had one for a while (well, the Valleys did). My personal preference would be for something a bit more subtle than slapping the flag all over the place like the Saltire livery does, but that's based purely on aesthetics... Not because I have any distaste for patriotism.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not even people that disagree with them- it's people they assume they disagree with based on outdated stereotypes.
If Scotland can have a livery based very heavily on their national flag, why not the English? Wales had one for a while (well, the Valleys did). My personal preference would be for something a bit more subtle than slapping the flag all over the place like the Saltire livery does, but that's based purely on aesthetics... Not because I have any distaste for patriotism.

One could say the LNER livery is loosely based on the St George's Cross. No red vertical element but it's the right colour and involves red on white.

 

[generalnerd]

At this point, is it even clear that there will be any kind of unified GBR brand at all, or are we more likely to be in a world of, eg, "Northern by GBR".

In short, yes, in full, no. I would assume that new trains and routes will be branded in a more generic GBR branding and, at some point, a transition will be completed. For a few years we will probably see the current brands but when HS2 launches, we’ll probably see that branded as GBR

One could say the LNER livery is loosely based on the St George's Cross. No red vertical element but it's the right colour and involves red on white.

The only reason we see that livery for LNER is that they needed a new name as virgin is heavily trademarked, and the colour scheme just stuck as it would be easier and cheaper

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only reason we see that livery for LNER is that they needed a new name as virgin is heavily trademarked, and the colour scheme just stuck as it would be easier and cheaper

Oh yes, that is the reason for keeping the red (though I suspect Virgin's choice of it was indeed patriotism as well as it being brash and in your face). However that it wasn't *intended* to be that doesn't make it not that.

 

[m79900]

Oh yes, that is the reason for keeping the red (though I suspect Virgin's choice of it was indeed patriotism as well as it being brash and in your face). However that it wasn't *intended* to be that doesn't make it not that.

That makes me think. Under Virgin would the Azumas have been in the current livery with Virgin logos, or would they have been in the Swirl livery as carried by the first few on delivery?

 

[generalnerd]

Oh yes, that is the reason for keeping the red (though I suspect Virgin's choice of it was indeed patriotism as well as it being brash and in your face). However that it wasn't *intended* to be that doesn't make it not that.

I would assume virgin chose red to fit in with all the other virgin brands. It does look very patriotic in some ways but in that case the ICE and IC services of Germany are the biggest England fans around

That makes me think. Under Virgin would the Azumas have been in the current livery with Virgin logos, or would they have been in the Swirl livery as carried by the first few on delivery?

I believe it was the swirl livery that was planned for the fleet, i once heard that they were trying to bring all the virgin travel brands under one similar identity, including the trains, planes and cruise ships

 

[Meerkat]

But if we don't then move onto consolidation of functions, we don't get much saving.

You could have TOCs whilst still consolidating many functions - isn’t that what the owning groups did?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could have TOCs whilst still consolidating many functions - isn’t that what the owning groups did?

It would certainly be progress, but I fail to see any benefit in still having separate TOCs in their current form other than that it will take time to properly consolidate them.

Quite aside from wasteful duplication of functions, "not my problem mate" is the biggest issue with the post-privatisation railway and it needs to stop.

 

[Meerkat]

It would certainly be progress, but I fail to see any benefit in still having separate TOCs in their current form other than that it will take time to properly consolidate them.

Quite aside from wasteful duplication of functions, "not my problem mate" is the biggest issue with the post-privatisation railway and it needs to stop.

Aligning management to the customers - why have regions etc if its all about consolidation?
Not my problem mate is due to the people whose problem it is under resourcing. Unify it and the Inevitable rationalisation will mean the problem doesn’t go away.
And you could regulate away much of the ‘not my problem’ if needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aligning management to the customers - why have regions etc if its all about consolidation?

Assuming you consider the Mayors to be the customer, then yes to an extent. The primary customer of the railway is those who pay for it, which often isn't the farepayer.

 

[43066]

Quite aside from wasteful duplication of functions, "not my problem mate" is the biggest issue with the post-privatisation railway and it needs to stop.

I’m not sure how nationalisation removes “not my problem mate”. In fact, surely it can only make it worse? There will be zero commercial incentive to deliver the service, as there’s nobody to take revenue risk, and no risk of franchise loss (the ultimate sanction under privatisation). Of course we already have a sneak preview of that with the “zombie” TOCs operating under the national rail contracts.

Fully agree with you on the flag based livery point - no reason why the colours of the union flag or the George Cross shouldn’t be used in some form. Albeit I’m not sure a nationwide livery will be particularly useful, given the different regions will remain in existence in some form, as we touched on earlier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m not sure how nationalisation removes “not my problem mate”. In fact, surely it can only make it worse? There will be zero commercial incentive to deliver the service, as there’s nobody to take revenue risk, and no risk of franchise loss (the ultimate sanction under privatisation). Of course we already have a sneak preview of that with the “zombie” TOCs operating under the national rail contracts.

Northern is dire, I'll give you, but it's not as awful as it was under Arriva. Arriva really do seem to have anything they touch turn to the proverbial.

I don't have direct experience of Southeastern, but I've not heard much to suggest it to be specifically bad - commuter operations can rarely do better than "meh" in any context anyway, as most of their customers are unwilling ones. TPE seems OK these days now they've finally had the money to increase their fleet to reduce overcrowding. LNER, well, I dislike their fares policy and fake compulsory reservations, but aside from that it seems pretty well run. And swingeing fares increases are not purely the domain of the public sector - Virgin Trains probably perpetuated the worst one of all time with the Manchester-London Anytime Return (then the Standard Open Return) having been shoved up from about £100 in BR days to about £350 now when if it had followed regulated fares increases it'd not be more than about £170.

 

[Sorcerer]

There will be zero commercial incentive to deliver the service, as there’s nobody to take revenue risk, and no risk of franchise loss (the ultimate sanction under privatisation).

Ironically, commercial incentive to deliver service is partially why Thatcher, the queen of privatisation herself, wasn't keen on privatising British Rail back in the 1980s. Only the most profitable lines would be left and the ones operating at a loss would likely end up being shut down (I know Beeching did that anyway under public ownership, but I'd argue there was a bit more to it in that case). As for risk of franchise loss, I think the bar would have to be set really low for that one since despite Avanti's controversial performance they have still seen contract extensions, albeit under different conditions than franchising.

Fully agree with you on the flag based livery point - no reason why the colours of the union flag or the George Cross shouldn’t be used in some form. Albeit I’m not sure a nationwide livery will be particularly useful, given the different regions will remain in existence in some form, as we touched on earlier.

I think that a nationwide livery would be preferable in the long term to give the impression of a single brand, even if we must have different liveries for different services similar to how South West Trains did so. That said I wouldn't be too opposed to Scotrail keeping it's Saltire if Transport for Wales adds a bit of green to their fleet while English operations have a red and white colour scheme, and of course the InterCity services serving all three communities have a Union flag based livery. Keeps a sense of regionalism while also incorporating a mostly single brand.

 

[Meerkat]

I think that a nationwide livery would be preferable in the long term to give the impression of a single brand,

What’s the advantage of a single rail brand? A nationalised railway won’t be a good brand, and a single brand carries across damage from poor services to good ones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What’s the advantage of a single rail brand? A nationalised railway won’t be a good brand

Won't it? Trenitalia is, for example.

 

[Sorcerer]

What’s the advantage of a single rail brand? A nationalised railway won’t be a good brand, and a single brand carries across damage from poor services to good ones.

Simplicity. There is also no reason to have different brands on the railway if they are all going to be under the same ownership since they won't be offering any competing services or products. It's also quite simply the most logical thing to do for a nationalised railway company, as we see elsewhere in the world such as with OBB and SBB. Even flagship services elsewhere like the TGV, ICE, AVE or Frecciarossa are all operated under the brand of their national operators.

 

[generalnerd]

A nationalised railway won’t be a good brand, and a single brand carries across damage from poor services to good ones.

Yeah, if you look at DB they have some awful services but other, quite good, services also get dunked on.

I think what some people are forgetting in this thread is that a livery doesn’t have to be based on a country flag. In fact (and I welcome you to correct me if I’m wrong) I can think of a single nationalised operator with the counties flag as the branding. I could see the flag appearing briefly, however I think none of our flags really lend themselves to branding, with them all have int awkward shapes. Scotrail does it pretty well but there is nicely designed and isn’t too show off-y. The risk you run with putting the flag on all services is the trains become massive long vehicles covered head to toe in flags (at least that’s what it will look like to the general public)

 

[43096]

What’s the advantage of a single rail brand? A nationalised railway won’t be a good brand, and a single brand carries across damage from poor services to good ones.

Then sort out the poor performers, then.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Then sort out the poor performers, then.

It'll be interesting to see whether a single GBR brand also = a single overall P&L, or separate profit centres (in whatever way GBR is divided up).
In BR sectorisation years, I recall Provincial operated overall at a loss but BR mitigated that through Network Southeast's profitability.

 

[azOOOOOma]

Not what I'd go for, but I expect a white livery with a bit of "patriotic" union flag branding. Bit like Hovertravel.

(Image from Hovertravel website)

Would look great. Nothing wrong with a bit of patriotism. I know some Swiss trains are adorned with their flag in addition to the rest of the train being the colours of the flag and we all know that people round here love to compare to Swiss railways…

 

[generalnerd]

It'll be interesting to see whether a single GBR brand also = a single overall P&L, or separate profit centres (in whatever way GBR is divided up).
In BR sectorisation years, I recall Provincial operated overall at a loss but BR mitigated that through Network Southeast's profitability.

Yes, I believe it went down a similar path, but it was just intercity making a profit in the provincial days, it was only in the early 90’s NSE lost its (major) subsidy

 

[physics34]

What’s the advantage of a single rail brand? A nationalised railway won’t be a good brand, and a single brand carries across damage from poor services to good ones.

Think weve touched on this before, the idea of strong 'brands' diminishes a bit in the public sector. The railways become a service rather than a business. In essence it doesn't matter if the 'name' is damaged....there are no shareholders to kneel down too.

One basic livery or a few variations makes sense for operational reasons for a start. We've seen the oddities around during various cascades. Kinda looks a mess and takes a lot of money to rectify.

 

[Meerkat]

Won't it? Trenitalia is, for example.

In this country 'nationalised' is heavily associated with 'rubbish'. and British Rail was widely derided. In a social media/24hr news world GBR is going to take a battering.

There is also no reason to have different brands on the railway if they are all going to be under the same ownership

There is if they do different things, and if you want them to have local 'ownership'

The railways become a service rather than a business. In essence it doesn't matter if the 'name' is damaged....there are no shareholders to kneel down too.

If the name is damaged then revenue will suffer and the Treasury will be on their backs.
I reckon managers will find that the DfT/Treasury is a much harder task master than shareholders! And the political expectation will be huge.

 

[generalnerd]

In this country 'nationalised' is heavily associated with 'rubbish'. and British Rail was widely derided. In a social media/24hr news world GBR is going to take a battering.

The hacks love reporting on any rail project going slightly budget, but that massive new junction costing double the original price tag is quietly moved to the bottom of page 12…

 

[Tobberz]

When we take into account devolution, both current (London, Wales, Scotland) and developing (future London expansion, the Metro Mayors), quite a decent proportion of the rail services will be under the influence, and thus brand-control, of non-GBR institutions.

I'd wager that almost all the commuter services in the country might end up not being run by GBR, especially if the likes of Thameslink are gobbled up by Khan (as he seems to want).

In that sense, GBR will only ever be running InterCity, and non-metropolitain regional trains. I'm not really actually saying anything specific here, simply that the scope of GBR's branding operation will be smaller than that of British Rail.

 

[Sorcerer]

In this country 'nationalised' is heavily associated with 'rubbish'. and British Rail was widely derided. In a social media/24hr news world GBR is going to take a battering.

It doesn't have to be rubbish though, and a properly integrated organisation with joined-up-thinking and clear deliverable goals with a passenger-first attitude can most definitely not be rubbish. The 24hr news cycle makes everything seems worse than it is, including the railways as they are now, so that shouldn't really be a factor.

There is if they do different things, and if you want them to have local 'ownership'

What different things would they be doing? Running trains and managing infrastructure will be the basic services provided, and realistically there isn't much else you can or should do beyond that. For what it's worth I also wouldn't want GBR to have split ownership between regions. Maybe different areas of operations and management to cater more to a region's needs, but certainly not full-on ownership.

If the name is damaged then revenue will suffer and the Treasury will be on their backs.
I reckon managers will find that the DfT/Treasury is a much harder task master than shareholders! And the political expectation will be huge.

If GBR is structured like SBB or DB then the government will be the shareholders. But the truth is passengers don't really want much from the railway beyond a reliable affordable service, which with clear goals and proper management is not exactly a pie-in-the-sky expectation. A single unified GBR brand will help make things simpler and more integrated.

I'd wager that almost all the commuter services in the country might end up not being run by GBR, especially if the likes of Thameslink are gobbled up by Khan (as he seems to want).
In that sense, GBR will only ever be running InterCity, and non-metropolitain regional trains. I'm not really actually saying anything specific here, simply that the scope of GBR's branding operation will be smaller than that of British Rail.

You make a good point. We might end up with a network similar to Switzerland where as well as SBB there is also operators such as Sudostbahn (SOB) that are jointly-owned by the cantonal and federal governments. As for GBR, I do agree that some commuter networks should remain devolved.

I think networks such as the London Underground, Overground and Merseyrail should remain local, but I'm not quite sure about Thamslink or the Elizabeth Line. Maybe joint ownership like the RER network in Paris that's split between RATP (which for those who don't know is the Parisian transit authority equivalent of TfL) and SNCF.

The subject of the structuring of GBR is a different topic all together so I won't go into it too much on this thread, but all things considered I still believe a properly integrated and single-brand would be more beneficial than having many different ones across the network wherever possible, obviously with some exceptions such as Merseyrail.

 

[Meerkat]

It doesn't have to be rubbish though, and a properly integrated organisation with joined-up-thinking and clear deliverable goals with a passenger-first attitude can most definitely not be rubbish. The 24hr news cycle makes everything seems worse than it is, including the railways as they are now, so that shouldn't really be a factor.

It will be run on a shoestring, with no big private operators to kick off to stop cuts, and with more political interference. The news matters as bad news damages the brand - much better if it just damages Northern and not your flagship intercity products.

What different things would they be doing?

Intercity v regional v metro. And 'ownership' is partly about making staff and users think of 'our trains' rather than just the central state blob.

A single unified GBR brand will help make things simpler and more integrated.

Having plain white trains and no brand would make things simpler if that's the main concern, and the branding doesn't have to affect the main factors in integration.

 

[Sorcerer]

It will be run on a shoestring, with no big private operators to kick off to stop cuts, and with more political interference. The news matters as bad news damages the brand - much better if it just damages Northern and not your flagship intercity products.

But again, brand damage wouldn't be a problem with proper management and joined-up-thinking with clear goals. If services that are running on the Northern network are performing abysmally, the solution isn't to break up the brand so the InterCity services don't get tarnished images, the solution is to sort out the services so they aren't performing abysmally. It's not an unrealistic goal, just one that hasn't had a lot of political willpower behind.

Intercity v regional v metro. And 'ownership' is partly about making staff and users think of 'our trains' rather than just the central state blob.

Strictly speaking these kind of services don't have to be differently branded. GBR could choose to do it like SNCF or Trenitalia where different services have different liveries while still running under the same brand, but they could also go the way of SBB where these distinctions are merely the kind of service you'll be receiving but still under the same branding. At the end of the day the basic service is still running trains and maintaining infrastructure.

Having plain white trains and no brand would make things simpler if that's the main concern, and the branding doesn't have to affect the main factors in integration.

Nobody is saying that branding has to be the main factor with integration, but a single unified brand is still less fragmented than having different ones across the network even if operationally some management teams differ by region (which is a normal part of doing business anyway).

 

[styles]

In all honesty I think I'd prefer the simplicity afforded by operators like SBB or DB.

A simple two or three colour scheme applied across the network, without especially fancy logos.

I much prefer LNER or EMR branding to the likes of Southern (what on earth is with that font), Northern (why's my cab got tricolour bubbles on it), Avanti (an attempt at a contemporary logo but seemingly meaningless unless you can make the connection to what I assume is a simplified route map), TfW (because nothing says passenger identity like 'access to egress points' as TfW describe their logo), or indeed ScotRail (because clearly a 1990s website-style adaption of the saltire is what a national rail operator needs in 2025).

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I really got a great feeling from this flag, and I was very sad to have that taken away.

View attachment 173934

But the people that took that flag away from you are only going to feel more emboldened in their decision to do so following your particular worldview.