What would BR have built?

[krus_aragon]

I'd like to ask those with a longer railway memory than myself a question.

If railway privatisation had never raised its head, what type and mix of rolling stock would we be likely to have today? Would the requirements of a single nationalised network be different to a franchise system? And what was BR working on that got shelved because of privatisation?

 

[starrymarkb]

Well Clubmen would have still existed as that was a BR design for a Super Turbo

 

[Bigjop]

Class 38's.

The 37/9's were a testbed for the power units.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I'm not sure BR were working on anything much by that time as privatisation was looming for some time. The Intercity 250 plan was probably the biggest major project shelved in the last few years of BR. As it was, the Pendolinos came in not long (if any time at all) after the 250s would have done.

Since the DfT, rightly or wrongly, still specify new trains, sanction expenditure and infrastructure work, perhaps not much would have been different. I suspect in terms of capital expenditure we would be worse off without private sector involvement though. Then again our fares would surely be lower and we would probably have a less fragmented timetable and network.

 

[Failed Unit]

I'm not sure BR were working on anything much by that time as privatisation was looming for some time. The Intercity 250 plan was probably the biggest major project shelved in the last few years of BR. As it was, the Pendolinos came in not long (if any time at all) after the 250s would have done.

Since the DfT, rightly or wrongly, still specify new trains, sanction expenditure and infrastructure work, perhaps not much would have been different. I suspect in terms of capital expenditure we would be worse off without private sector involvement though. Then again our fares would surely be lower and we would probably have a less fragmented timetable and network.

If the network had not been privatised the South East would have had some derivative of the Turbostars (now electostar). I doubt you would have seen anything new on the IC sector, the mk4 production line had closed and I couldn't see them reopening it. The Voyagers wouldn't exist, the WCML stock would have all been cascade to XC. Regional Railways as another poster had suggested would have been Turbo's

Would we have seen Siemans enter the UK market? Unlikely.
Would we have seen a Pendo type train? Who knows, IC250 wasn't designed to tilt.
Would the Pacers still be with us? Depends on how much money was given to the BR board!
If privatisation didn't come along I don't think the 153 would exist, I think that was really a quick fix because they didn't have time to come up with anything better before privatisation.

 

[Ivo]

Would the Pacers still be with us? Depends on how much money was given to the BR board!

That's a yes then :roll:

 

[driver9000]

If privatisation didn't come along I don't think the 153 would exist, I think that was really a quick fix because they didn't have time to come up with anything better before privatisation.

The 153 wasnt built for privatisation they were a BR project to enable the withdrawal of older 1st generation DMUs and the 'Bubbles' on rural light traffic routes introduced from 1991 before privatisation was announced.

 

[jopsuk]

Networkers. The whole of Network SouthEast, including Thameslink, Crossrail and CTRL domestic services, would have been some form Networker variant (including the likes of the Clubman). There were five electric class numbers allocated for Networkers that were never built.
With appropriate funding, the IC225 would have been fitted with tilt- remember, it WAS designed for it- so the IC250 would perhaps have been deployed to the East with the 225 cascaded to the Birmingham and Glasgow routes.

 

[Failed Unit]

The 153 wasnt built for privatisation they were a BR project to enable the withdrawal of older 1st generation DMUs and the 'Bubbles' on rural light traffic routes introduced from 1991 before privatisation was announced.

Although the network wasn't privatised in 1991 its effects were already been felt. Yes the 153 was to replace 1st get, but BR already knew privatisation was going to happen and savings were been made as a result. For example May 1992 was the year many regional railway services were cut to make the lines more attractive for privatisation as they were going through writing the specification. When the 153 replaced the 156 on my local route (Newark - Cleethorpes) BR had to raise prices, make connections worse etc to reduce the overcrowding. Any services after 2000 were killed off in Lincolnshire,

 

[Kingfisher200262]

I'd like to ask those with a longer railway memory than myself a question.

If railway privatisation had never raised its head, what type and mix of rolling stock would we be likely to have today? Would the requirements of a single nationalised network be different to a franchise system? And what was BR working on that got shelved because of privatisation?

Definitely a 21st Century replacement for the 08 shunter.

Always good to prioritise!

 

[poshbakerloo]

I think we would still have Class 47s and HSTs on the WCML and MK2 coaches...

 

[jopsuk]

I suppose it depends whether the situation would have been "Not privatised and left to rot" or "not privatised and given the same amount of government investment the private railways have had" or even "not privatised and been given investment to carry through some of their more ambitions plans".

 

[tbtc]

Ideally we'd have seen one type of train tweaked to suit local needs (presumably a turbostar equivalent), so that there were diesel/ third rail/ OHLE versions (maybe with "long distance"/ "commuter" versions of each).

Slam door stock would have been gradually withdrawn, partly due to H&S, although without the "big bang" approach that Network South East had.

We'd also have had a fair bit of the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" approach that BR used, whereby stock was shifted round the regions to disguise the fact that there wasn't enough to go round.

At least with regards to "inter city", there'd have been the option to upgrade the coaches *or* engines used, rather than doing it all at once (with the Voyagers etc), so we could have kept (re-engined?) 47s/ 86s pulling non-slam-doored coaches.

Also, there wouldn't have been the massive boom in new freight engines, so we'd had had a lot of "Frankenstein" 37s, with parts robbed from other failed engines to keep them going - there definately wouldn't have been the vast numbers of 66s etc built (the 56s/ 58s may have limped on a lot longer, since BR didn't like to scrap anything they didn't need to)

Worst case scenario would have been lots of "micro classes" like the 175/ 180 which is a waste of resources, but similar to what BR had with the 81/82/83/84/85/86s etc.

 

[jopsuk]

Ideally we'd have seen one type of train tweaked to suit local needs (presumably a turbostar equivalent), so that there were diesel/ third rail/ OHLE versions (maybe with "long distance"/ "commuter" versions of each).

That's exactly what NSE were doing/aiming for with the Networker program- whether Regional Railways would have adopted that design, or gone for something different, is another matter. I guess that if they'd had the money, Pacers wouldn't have existed, with their places mainly taken by 150s, and with a lot more 158s the Turbostars wouldn't have happened- leaving only the electrics to pontificate about.

 

[Oswyntail]

.......Also, there wouldn't have been the massive boom in new freight engines, so we'd had had a lot of "Frankenstein" 37s, with parts robbed from other failed engines to keep them going - there definately wouldn't have been the vast numbers of 66s etc built (the 56s/ 58s may have limped on a lot longer, since BR didn't like to scrap anything they didn't need to)

I wouldn't have said at the time that those classes (or the 60s) were "limping". The 66s were introduced because of the deep suspicion of British locomotives, which were then sidelined. The real question is whether the freight revival happened because of the 66s, or would have happened anyway.

Worst case scenario would have been lots of "micro classes" like the 175/ 180 which is a waste of resources, but similar to what BR had with the 81/82/83/84/85/86s etc.

Class 81-85 were "Modernisation scheme" classes, essentially prototypes. I hardly call 100 86s a "micro class". 90s were originally thought of as 87/2 and 91s were meant to be built in much greater numbers.

... I guess that if they'd had the money, Pacers wouldn't have existed, with their places mainly taken by 150s, and with a lot more 158s the Turbostars wouldn't have happened- leaving only the electrics to pontificate about.

Pacers did exist, as a very effective BR way of replacing worn out 1st gen units on short and inner city routes, within the budget.
Again, the real question is how flexible BR would have been in response to the massive growth in rail travel. I suspect that, without the political distraction of privatisation, the levels of support given to the Networker programme would have continued.There was already a policy to phase out slam-doors and Mk1 stock, so much of the same replacement would have gone ahead. And there might even have been more money available, as a vast proportion of the increase in government funding to rail since privatisation seems to have gone to non-rail areas.

 

[MCR247]

I think we would still have Class 47s and HSTs on the WCML and MK2 coaches...

No. we wouldn't

 

[Wyvern]

Weren't the Turbostars and Electrostars the logical progression from Networkers for medium distance commuting.

One important factor, I believe in increased passenger numbers, was running more frequent trains albeit shorter ones, particularly on the Cross Country Route - which was at last keeping to time. Perhaps the 158s might have evolved towards something like the Voyager and Meridian.

 

[Helvellyn]

Although the network wasn't privatised in 1991 its effects were already been felt. Yes the 153 was to replace 1st get, but BR already knew privatisation was going to happen and savings were been made as a result. For example May 1992 was the year many regional railway services were cut to make the lines more attractive for privatisation as they were going through writing the specification. When the 153 replaced the 156 on my local route (Newark - Cleethorpes) BR had to raise prices, make connections worse etc to reduce the overcrowding. Any services after 2000 were killed off in Lincolnshire,

The '92 election victory for the Tories was the one the pundits all got wrong. By most people's reckoning Neil Kinnock should have been in No. 10 when it happened. John Major pulled off a significant comeback, and whilst he had a very small majority the Conservatives actually polled more votes than they ever did in an election under Margaret Thatcher.

Prior to privatisation BR had in many areas become vertically integrated, with the sectors responsisble for their infrastructure. As such the sectors had to watch all their costs. It's one of the reasons the 153s appealed for Regional Railways, as it gave them a fleet of single car units to use on the rural routes.


As to stock in development, well the Class 93 and Mark 5 coaching stock (IC250) would have been built for the West Coast.

The Mark 3 loco-hauled fleet would have been cascaded, probably to CrossCountry (though maybe Anglia too). InterCity had already started prototype development on the next Mark 3 refurbishment, showing the Mark3 still had a future with InterCity.

NSE was looking at the Clubman for longer distance services out of Marylebone - was it to be Class 167, given that the eventual Clubman took the 168 number?

Also as has been said the Networked family was to be NSE's EMU family of choice. After the 465/466 fleet was to be the Class 471 to replace the Kent Coast slam door stock.

Crossrail was to have the Class 341 and Thameslink the Class 371 (after the Thameslink 2000 upgrade).

For Regional Railways the only new design on the horizon was the Class 157, to be built by Hunslet for use on Strathclyde PTE services.

West Yorkshire PTE electric services could also have been handled by a further build of Class 323 units. As it was the Class 308 units had to soldier on until the Class 333 units were eventually ordered.

 

[SWT Driver]

I know it would have been something that was cheap, medium weight, robust & reliable with toilets that flushed properly, Air Conditioning that would have been quiet yet effective & Windows that opened as well for good measure, plus a good large "brake" area to put bikes & wheelchairs.

It probably would have been quite stylish as well & a standard set of couplers to allow everything to couple up to each other & work in multiple with arrogant ease.

Now I must go & take my rose coloured glasses off & take my tablets to prevent delusional thoughts & common sense!

 

[Helvellyn]

Now I must go & take my rose coloured glasses off & take my tablets to prevent delusional thoughts & common sense!

Lol, still a shame they never built those four extra Pigs - 28 units might have been enough to allow SWT to operate the two per hour Weymouth service. Now that is rose tinted glasses!

 

[jopsuk]

It probably would have been quite stylish as well & a standard set of couplers to allow everything to couple up to each other & work in multiple with arrogant ease.

Pfft! Assuming we're talking Sectorised BR, then NSE would have made sure their units weren't interoperable with Regional Railways- and for that matter if Intercity had gone for units later, they'd have made sure those didn't interoperate either I'd wager

 

[Burkitt]

There was a longer term plan to develop the Advanced Multiple Unit, which I believe was a development of the Networker family and would have come in both electric and diesel versions.

This is the photo of the model of it from therailwaycentre.com.

The bogie design carried out for this project is the basis of the Bombardier Flexx Eco bogie, used on the Voyager/Meridian and class 172 Turbostar (see second page of this paper http://www.railtex.co.uk/files/railtex_bombardier_paper.pdf )

There is also mention of it on page 75 of this paper http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/irs/irsh..._hist_files/IRS WP10 Engineering Research.pdf

 

[jon0844]

I do wonder why we didn't end up with a pretty standard fleet, easily cascaded and moved around as necessary.

If there weren't all the different liveries, you could swap easily - just changing the route maps onboard. BR would have built the variations needed for 3rd rail, OHL and diesel - or made dual voltage as standard and diesel separate - but that would be it.

Think how sensible this would have been for adding new stock to meet demand in the future - just build more trains to that specification and give them to where they're needed.

I know there are issues on seat configurations but I am sure that could have been sorted, perhaps by splitting the stock again once more to have high and low capacity seating. Or mixing them on each train, as per some 377s.

Intercity would be separate again.

So simple, yet it could even work on a privatised railway if we had private operators running trains but without having their own liveries and designs. Seeing as the DfT controls the rolling stock anyway, it makes more sense anyway. The operator still gets paid to run the service, but why does Joe Public care who it is?

Anyway, my rose tinted specs just cracked and I've returned to reality....

 

[SWT Driver]

All I can say is you can damned well shove Dellner couplers where they hurt, they're nothing but a pain in the arse in this weather, they either freeze solid so you can't uncouple or freeze solid so that you can't couple up at all or freeze up so that they'll only couple mechanically.

Spent nearly 40' trying to couple a 444 & 450 together and it wouldn't work at all, it would only couple mechanically, not both mechanically & electrically and that was despite de-icing the blasted things!

Whatever happened to the old concept of buckeye's & jumpers?

 

[royaloak]

Whatever happened to the old concept of buckeye's & jumpers?

You volunteering to get out and put them across then?

 

[yorksrob]

Indirectly related to rolling stock, I suspect Oxted-Uckfield and Ashford-Hastings would have been electric for some time now.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Indirectly related to rolling stock, I suspect Oxted-Uckfield and Ashford-Hastings would have been electric for some time now.

Interesting point, what other electrification projects do the railwaymen think may have been completed by now?

GWML?

Manchester - Sheffield/Doncaster and Leeds/York?

It was GNER who wanted York to Leeds done, would BR have done it?

 

[tbtc]

I do wonder why we didn't end up with a pretty standard fleet, easily cascaded and moved around as necessary.

If there weren't all the different liveries, you could swap easily - just changing the route maps onboard. BR would have built the variations needed for 3rd rail, OHL and diesel - or made dual voltage as standard and diesel separate - but that would be it.

Think how sensible this would have been for adding new stock to meet demand in the future - just build more trains to that specification and give them to where they're needed.

Thats a good plan. Say build Intercity (diesel/ electric) trains for the ECML/ WCML/ GWML for ten/ fifteen years. Then, when you build a replacement, cascade these trains to Cross Country/ MML/ East Anglia (and other "secondary" routes). You'd get the benefit of planning everything in advance which would keep the production lines at a level output of "standard" designs, which would mean the railway was constantly updated with modern trains, and avoid the need to build/ scrap lots of trains at the same time

 

[jon0844]

If you had a standardised connection system and electrics, then any new train would be 'backwardly compatible'.

I know this is a rather bizarre comparison, but think of loads of different PCs all have to work with a standard OS (albeit with drivers), standard ports and so on - or Sky making every company that makes a set top box run Sky's software etc etc.

When you put out a contract to tender for a new fleet, you'd tell each manufacturer that it must be compatible with the previous/current trains. They would then be able to mix and match (as some classes obviously can today).

I guess that with privatisation and EU rules on competition, we're in a situation where it might seem like an illegal restriction on free trade, as it could stop some companies competing. The other problem would be a high cost if trains had to be specially adapted.

Of course, this brings it back to the argument that you just have one company building the trains for you.. except that's not possible under EU rules.

Still, it's nice having these thoughts!

 

[krus_aragon]

On the idea of standardised couplings, anything built today needs to conform with the loading gauge, AWS, and other aspects of the infrastructure, so the DfT ought to be able to specify standard couplings on new builds, if they have the foresight to do so.

Here's another question. BR were still following the policy of semi-fixed formation LHCS express trains, whereas all post-privatisation builds have been multiple units. Would you say this is due to BR sticking with what it knew, TOC franchises being 'modern', the separation of passenger and freight responsibilities, or something else?