LNER Centenary

[the sniper]

I wonder how many people are being ‘fooled’ by this. I’m not sure that anyone seriously believes that LNER has existed as a continuous organisation since 1923.

I wonder how many care?

Ah well, money well spent.

 

[43308]

The average everyday commuters will not care about the centenary and this is clearly to put on events this year for enthusiasts! Stop moaning and be thankful they’re doing anything at all!!

 

[the sniper]

The average everyday commuters will not care about the centenary and this is clearly to put on events this year for enthusiasts! Stop moaning and be thankful they’re doing anything at all!!

They should have predicted that'd be the audience that'd grass 'em up to the ASA.

 

[AngusH]

I disagree on this, I think it's reasonable to say that they are the descendant a descendant of LNER in say 1935.

The operation has been continuous with no breaks as far as I can see and still the same workforce (obviously retiring and replacing at intervals!) and general location.

Consider this slightly simplified chain:
(I think the years are roughly right?)


Driver A works driving passenger trains in 1935 under LNER.
still employed by British railways in 1955
works at same depot with newly appointed driver B driving passenger trains from kings Cross

driver B working for British Rail in 1975
works driving passenger trains from kings Cross at same depot with driver C

driver C working for british rail in 1995
works driving passenger trains from kings Cross at same depot with driver D

driver D works for GNER in 2005
works in a depot driving passenger trains from kings Cross at same depot with driver E

driver E works for LNER in 2022
driver E works in a depot driving passenger trains from kings cross


Legal status is still a government regulated passenger service.

Yes, the ownership has been fiddled around, but the actual work and operation are a straight continuation.

edit: revised to use "a descendant" instead of "the descendant"

 

[gabrielhj07]

I disagree on this, I think it's reasonable to say that they are the descendant of LNER in say 1935.

The operation has been continuous with no breaks as far as I can see and still the same workforce (obviously retiring and replacing at intervals!) and general location.

Obviously have to qualify that by saying the present day LNER route map is far, far smaller than what LNER had in the 1920s and 30s.

 

[william.martin]

It looks like the "new" LNER is appropriating the history of the old London & North Eastern Railway 1923-1947. The Big 4 companies have their centenaries this year, and we should celebrate their highs and lows.

On the other hand, "new" LNER is claiming continuity with the old, which is a very different thing. Their web page is entitled "LNER: 100 YEARS OF PIONEERING PROGRESS FOR PASSENGERS" https://www.lner.co.uk/news/lner-100-years-of-pioneering-progress-for-passengers/

It contains this bold claim:

"The iconic rail company has connected the capital city of England with the far stretching corners of Scotland for a century and is globally renowned for delivering high speed rail services in style, comfort and with beautiful destinations."

Actually, new LNER was announced on 18 June 2018 after Virgin Trains East Coast handed back its franchise. In other words, there was a gap over 70 years when LNER didn't exist, other than as a dormant trademark.

I though azuma's were built in 2017/18?

 

[AngusH]

Obviously have to qualify that by saying the present day LNER route map is far, far smaller than what LNER had in the 1920s and 30s.

Yes, this is definitely true.

Perhaps "A descendant" rather than "The descendant" do you think?

I feel that this should still allow some celebration...

 

[gabrielhj07]

Perhaps "A descendant" rather than "The descendant" do you think?

Yes, although quite a distant relative. Much of what was the territory of the old London & North Eastern Railway became the Eastern & North Eastern Reigons under BR, with some going to the London Midland Region, and quite a lot to the Scottish Region.

At privatisation, the core, inter-city routes along the East Coast Mainline were offered to the private sector under the InterCity East Coast franshise, which represented a much smaller remit of operations than 'old' LNER.

Modern LNER is just a successor to the ICEC franchise, bearing similarities in name only, appearing on some of the former LNER's routes.

 

[AngusH]

I disagree somewhat there, primarily about the closeness of the relation
although I accept that the counter argument is strong.

My thought here is that there is a clear line that can be
drawn with the workers and the operation, thus making it a direct descendant.

Even if parts of it have ended up elsewhere or been discontinued, there is a still a
common core that shows a continuation.

(Which i think allows them to claim the press release and have a party)

 

[Pit_buzzer]

I don't have a problem with it at all, it's all railway, times change and modern day LNER does pretty much what old LNER did
People need to chill out a bit

 

[Master29]

Why except GWR?

Because GWR was the only one of the big four already in existence at the start of the 1923 reshaping.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Because GWR was the only one of the big four already in existence at the start of the 1923 reshaping.

But GWR is similar to LNER in that its present day incarnation is quite far removed from its pre nationalisation state.

 

[jkkne]

I don't have a problem with it at all, it's all railway, times change and modern day LNER does pretty much what old LNER did
People need to chill out a bit

Indeed the marketing team are working wonders already getting it in discussion.

Let’s be honest, outside a few yoghurt knitters on this forum, nobody else will no or care on the details…they’ll take a nice free pen, sticker and a hashtag though

 

[Master29]

But GWR is similar to LNER in that its present day incarnation is quite far removed from its pre nationalisation state.

Indeed, but nonetheless GWR had existed as a company prior to the period concerned.

 

[Seehof]

I think that because their service is so appalling I would not be celebrating anything. Out of 6 trips booked on LNER between York and London in December by family members only one ran as scheduled.

 

[birchesgreen]

Yeah historical facts don't really matter at the end of the day.

 

[Pinza-C55]

It must have hurt the pride of the other pre grouping companies in the LNER that its name was created by simply adding London to North Eastern Railway ?

Ah, a strawman fallacy argument.

It's more like Argumentum Ad Extremum.

 

[DanNCL]

No doubt this wasn't what was intended but the campaign does make it seem like LNER are trying to claim they're the same company as was part of the Big 4 in 1923. It is a bit misleading, but really what does it matter? Nobody is going give a damn if the TOC is 5 years old (bloody hell already?!) or 100 years old as long as they do their job properly, so this is a non-issue.

The average everyday commuters will not care about the centenary and this is clearly to put on events this year for enthusiasts! Stop moaning and be thankful they’re doing anything at all!!

Not only that but when we consider the retro repaints on the HST set and 91119 in 'standard' years, it makes you wonder what they have planned for a 'special' year. I'm certainly not moaning!

 

[Stan_Butler]

This is an issue for the Advertising Standards Agency - complaints can be filed here and the more it receives, the more likely it is to act.

As LNER (2018) seems to be basing a significant marketing campaign on the false premise that it's somehow related to LNER (1922) and can take credit for its achievements, this is very much the sort of case where they'd take action.

The ASA are unlikely to do anything about this. They didn’t do anything when similar complaints were raised about The Rangers F.C. (2012) making claims on the false premise that it’s somehow related to Rangers F.C. (1872) and can take credit for their achievements.

 

[jumble]

I have already made a complaint to the ASA - not something I would normally do, but this press release is rather egregious in its claims

The ASA are unlikely to do anything about this. They didn’t do anything when similar complaints were raised about The Rangers F.C. (2012) making claims on the false premise that it’s somehow related to Rangers F.C. (1872) and can take credit for their achievements.

Indeed I imagine that ASA would not want to set themselves up for a barrage of complaints from people moaning about reopened/rebuilt Narrow Gauge Railways such as

The Ffestiniog
Welsh Highland
Corris
Lynton and Barnstable

 

[WAB]

Indeed I imagine that ASA would not want to set themselves up for a barrage of complaints from people moaning about reopened/rebuilt Narrow Gauge Railways such as

The Ffestiniog
Welsh Highland
Corris
Lynton and Barnstable

Mind you, the Ffestiniog is still operated by the original FR Co. and had drivers from the 1930s working on the railway post-preservation!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Obviously have to qualify that by saying the present day LNER route map is far, far smaller than what LNER had in the 1920s and 30s.

In many ways Greater Anglia operates a more old-LNER-like route structure with inter-city, regional and local services over an area pretty much LNER-owned.
None of the current TOCs have freight though, or hotels or ships, all formerly part of the Big 4 corporate operations, not to mention rolling stock manufacture.
Network Rail inherited the infrastructure of course, and its LNE route is essentially the ECML in England.

 

[DarloRich]

it is a bit of PR fluff - nothing more. I knew this board would be in uproar about it and have a complete lack of perspective on how important this actually is. It isn't worth getting upset about.

Although showing no HST's or Deltics is a crime that cant be forgiven.

This is an issue for the Advertising Standards Agency - complaints can be filed here and the more it receives, the more likely it is to act.

As LNER (2018) seems to be basing a significant marketing campaign on the false premise that it's somehow related to LNER (1922) and can take credit for its achievements, this is very much the sort of case where they'd take action.

To complain would be Nigelish pedantry of the highest order. Life is too short.

Why on earth the producers thought they would get away with this without people noticing is beyond me!

because the people this is aimed at ( you know, real people not obsessives like us) wont care.

 

[fgwrich]

I think that was a FGW initiative, as the First brand was toxic. They thought by slapping green paint/vinyl on everything, getting rid of the f-in-circle and using a pastiche of the original GWR logo (i.e. play the heritage card) that people wouldn't realise it was the same bunch running the show. It also happened to fit with the DfT wanting neutral brands.

Not only that, but if people are getting worked up about this - First GWR spent many a year in the early “relaunch” of the GWR Brand going saying proclaiming they are evoking the spirit of Brunel. There was even a large banner at Ealing Broadway with that on - it’s not seemingly stopped them, with the rather tediously titled “project churchwood” either.

 

[43096]

Not only that, but if people are getting worked up about this - First GWR spent many a year in the early “relaunch” of the GWR Brand going saying proclaiming they are evoking the spirit of Brunel. There was even a large banner at Ealing Broadway with that on - it’s not seemingly stopped them, with the rather tediously titled “project churchwood” either.

Incidentally, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that an advert by GWR as part of the re-branding that implied that it was publicly owned should be banned.

Train operator's adverts banned for suggesting service owned by public

GWR ‘railway belongs to the region it serves’ campaign misleading, finds Advertising Standards Authority

www.theguardian.com

Train operator's adverts banned for suggesting service owned by public

GWR ‘railway belongs to the region it serves’ campaign misleading, finds Advertising Standards Authority

Gwyn Topham Transport correspondent
@GwynTopham
Wed 30 Mar 2016 00.01 BST
311
The train operator Great Western Railway has been banned from running adverts that suggest its service is publicly owned.

A poster campaign introducing the company formerly known as First Great Western when it rebranded last September stated: “The railway belongs to the region it serves.”

Complainants to the Advertising Standards Authority pointed out that GWR belongs to its owner, FirstGroup, a multinational transport company listed on the London Stock Exchange, and not the people of south-west England.

The ASA ruled that the advert was misleading and “might encourage consumers to use or enquire about using the service, for example, out of regional loyalty or because they believed profits directly belonged to the local region”. It told GWR not to suggest in future that the railway franchise was publicly owned, if that was not the case.

Cat Hobbs, director of the campaign group We Own It, said: “Privatisation is now so unpopular that train companies can get good PR by pretending to be publicly owned. The GWR advert is misleading – it’s also a sign that it’s time for real public ownership.”

The RMT union said it was good news that the ASA had reprimanded GWR for an “outrageous stunt”. The union’s general secretary, Mick Cash, said: “The truth is that the private rail companies know that they are deeply unpopular for good reason ... RMT will continue to fight for real public ownership of the railways that sweeps away this whole rotten, profiteering system.”

A GWR spokesman said: “We are disappointed by the ASA’s decision. This campaign was designed to highlight the significant social and economic benefits the railway and our train services bring to the region we serve.

“It was never our intention to suggest GWR is a publicly owned company, instead we are proud of the work we do as a private company to benefit the region, and we are sorry if this wasn’t clear.”

The ASA did not upheld a complaint about another GWR advert that described Isambard Kingdom Brunel as “our illustrious founder”, ruling that consumers were likely to understand founder in a broad sense, rather than the founder of the company itself.

FirstGroup rebranded as GWR in 2015 after receiving another extension to run trains on the west of England mainline, a network it has run since privatisation with varying degrees of success.

First Great Western was embroiled in controversy after declining to extend its franchise in 2013, avoiding paying large premiums to the government – but since continuing to run it anyway, on preferential terms.

 

[gabrielhj07]

LNER have this morning named 801228 ‘Century’.

Modern Railways on twitter

 

[Irascible]

GNER happened to be an old one that was outside DfT control.

Probably because there wasn't a historical Great North Eastern Railway. There was a GNER of a different name but it only lasted 5 years before being absorbed, so I don't think that's much of a heritage to borrow...

Anyway the 90s GNER was it's own. Great Western Trains were vaguely green - the only green bit of the original GWR were the engines - & vaguely trying to remind everyone of the GWR, but not in a we-are-the-second-coming way like TOCs now, everyone else was trying something new.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If anything, Network Rail is the inheritor of the old LNER's legacy, and is the custodian of the whole ECML following on from LNER/BR/Railtrack.
But NR doesn't run flashy trains with "LNER" on the sides, and hasn't got the same PR reach as the new LNER.
GBR might inherit the whole "Big 4 " legacy when it gets going, if it includes TOCs as well as infrastructure.

LNER (1923) itself, of course was the amalgam of its longer-lasting components (NER, GN, GE, MS&L/GC etc), which is where the real railway legacy lies.

 

[TreacleMiller]

LNER have this morning named 801228 ‘Century’.

Modern Railways on twitter

Rumour has it the ASA were chasing it down the track....

 

[plugwash]

But GWR is similar to LNER in that its present day incarnation is quite far removed from its pre nationalisation state.

I feel that modern LNER is more removed from old LNER than new GWR is from old GWR.

New GWR have a "territory" within which they are the main operator of passenger trains. Yes there is a bit of overlap with TFW to the North and SWR to the south and of course there are crosscountry who run into pretty much everyone's territory.

New LNER OTOH basically only run the intercity service on a single mainline and a few branches from said mainline. The local and regional services are run by a mix of other operators. Local and regional services are all provided by other operators (GTR, EMR, TPE, Northern and Scotrail) . They also share their line with a bunch of open access operators, something that doesn't happen in the rest of the uK..