If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yes, it did. For a subsidy about a third the level of that in most European countries (measured per passenger mile) BR had the highest proportion of trains running at 100mph+, a reaosnable - though far from excellent - punctuality record and invested heavily in new rolling stock. Remember, the 225 (class 91)was a BR project, and it's a whole lot better than anything that any of the private firms have come out with. Yes, it had teething problems, but little worse than any other new design, and they were largely sorted well before privatisation. GNER run a good service because they inherited a good one from BR. And the IC 125s might be old, but I for one would far rather travel on one than a Voyager. A member of Virgin train crew I was chatting to on a notably bad journey last year commented that they were nicer to work on than a Voyager too - more working space and fewer complaints.
I do agree about the 'Beeching mentality' within BR though. The idea that closing lines was a good thing took a long time to shake off, and the attempt to shut the Settle to Carlisle route was, as you say, highly dishonest. But then, among these idiotic congestion charge plans there are also plans to close 'under-used' stations, so perhaps things haven't moved on so far...
You 'believe,' or you know?
Of course new designs take time to come one stream - that's stating the obvious - although I'd be prepared to bet BR could get designs off the drawing board and into practice faster than can be done now. And their shiny new trains didn't spend months sitting in sidings after an argument with Railtrack, as the voyagers did (frankly, they should still be there...).
The new rolling stock that was bought, was stuff either ordered by BR, or extensions of production runs of BR designs. No new designs were produced for a few years, and tbh I don't think you have to look all that hard to see how slow the pace of stock replacement was five years ago, compared to what it is now.
No, I don't think it is. If - as I maintain, along with Christian Wolmar and several others - there was a hiatus in investment in new rolling stock after privatisation, then it follows from that that there is ground to be made up, does it not?
I'm not that clued up on who builds what, and nor am I that bothered. Provided it works, then it's fine by me. But you have to admit, a lot of the new designs haven't - built by Alstom or not.
MOreover, it isn't just about operational reliability. The Voyagers are simply a shit design from one end to another. They're too short, too cramped, underpowered and built with cost-cutting as a priority rather than service. They're suburban trains at best, and totally inadequate for long-distance journeys. None of those remarks apply to the 125 or 225.
Obviously, I disagree that they 'generally work.' Every time - with only the odd exception - I have used one they have been full to capacity because they are too small. I've seen them with air conditioining failures, flooded toilets, dodgy locks on the toilet door (I walked in on some poor sod having a shit last time I was on one because of that) and intermittent lights.
I think that Virgin deserve all the flak they get and more. Most of the TOCs are shit, but Virgin are the worst.
Btw, if BR's punctuality was so bad, why does pretty much everyone agree that the service got worse after 1997 - and especially so after Hatfield, which showed up the organisational fragility of the privatised system?
Btw, read this. it's an isolated case (and a deeply sad individual IMO
So what do you think should happen to the Railwasy then? You can't seriously think they should be allowed to stagger on as they are, can you?
Of course Vermin doubled service frequency then halved capacity, so investments in Voyagers was pointless.
Just a shame that Virgin forgot that trains aren't airlines.
(The issue with the locks is mostly because mongs don't push the huge red button saying LOCK!- the same problem happens on all power toilet doors.)
As for what should be done with the railways, I think the SRA needs to be abolished for starters. I don't think BR was any better, and I think people hark back through rose glasses, but I don't think the system we have now is any good either. We don't have privatisation, we have private companies running a government service, and that has the same problems that BR had: Governments don't know how to run trains. The only exception I'd make is Hull Trains, they are very good precisely because they have no government interference.
Either the government should run trains- and it would be slightly cheaper, no middle man after all- or the private sector should run trains, and be allowed to run them properly. The system we have is neither, and is therefore utter bollocks.
As for how "safety has disappeared" under privatisation, two words: Clapham Junction.
Trying to encourage public transport raising the prices of public transport
slight contradiction of ideas there......
Surely it would make more sense to add carriages to the trains, making more people able to use them more comfortably, therefore making them less likely to either complain or use their cars instead!!!!
Its very frustrating when you think why dont they just do this or that
i know its not that simple but sometimes im convinced that if more "normal" people were involved in these decisions, more would get done and it would actually work!!
:thumb:
off topic but what is it about hull that gives it its own public servives
i say go back to BR system myself
Of course Hull Trains are now First.
No it's not.
Trying to encourage use of public transport in quiet times is what it's about. I agree with the RPC, cheaper off-peak tickets not more expensive peak tickets.
1. Where are you going to get the extra carriages from?
2. Where are you going to lengthen the platforms to?
Apart from that, I would agree. At commercial risk to themselves Arriva tried to do this in West Yorkshire, and the SRA (that's the government, i.e. the people who would run a nationalised train service) told them to scrap the service. So instead of having a four-carriage intercity train, we had a single carriage railbus train.
I don't think the idea was sound. OK, so halving train size and doubling frequency means that in thoery capacity should remain the same, but the whole point is that capacity needs to be increased on most routes, which Virgin have singularly failed to do. What they should have done was to build new trains with the same capacity as the 125s, and run more of them.
I don't share your assessment of Chris Green. He was a competent BR manager, but he's presided over a disaster at Virgin. He's become just another example of the typical British manager: lazy, self-serving, overpaid when he gets it right and paid little less when he makes a total and utter fuck-up of it. Which he has.
I disagree. in most of Europe (and elsewhere, for that matter) nationalised railways run extremely well - albeit sometimes with private franchisees running certain services over an infrastructure owned, maintained and controlled by a public company.
BR's problem was that it was always too dependent on politicians. Therefore, its budgets fluctuated too much (in good times there was too much money, in bad times BR struggled to stay afloat: railwsy need a steady income) and it was too vulnerable to the pet projects of short-sighted politicians. Beeching is a salutary example. However, I disagree with you completely about rose tints. Even the TOCs admitted that standards had fallen since privatisation, their punctuality record is still well behind that of BR and the system is a vast, unwieldy, self-interested money pit. Britain's railways need massive infrastructure investment: there is no evidence at all that the private sector can or will provide that.
Frankly, I don't see how you can defend it. It's an utter shambles.
Full renationalisation now is unlikely: there isn't the political will. What should happen IMO is that the SRA should be merged with Network rail in a core public company which looks after the infrastructure. That could then be used to crack the whip at the TOCs, effetcively saying 'provide a service that's up to scratch, or you'll be renaitonalised.' That way, companies that can provide an acceptable level of service can continue to operate trains: those that don't should come back into public ownership.
Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potter's Bar. Poorly maintained track, dysfunctional AWS systems, a mess of contractors and sub-contractors, none of whom is prepared to take responsibility for anything, even if there were a means of checking up on them.
Clapham Junction was bad. Very bad. But at least effective action was taken to prevent it happening again - although Thatcherite underfnding scotched BR's attempt to install ATP across the network. Under BR, at least there was someone prepared to take responsibility for accident like that and a willingness to learn from them. These days, as soon as anything happens they go running for the best barrister they can afford to get them off the hook. That's even before you consider how chaotic the industry's response to the Hatfield crash was...
Apart from Germany (who run everything well, private, public or other) I'd disagree. Sure, SNCF can run the rains on time, but with a service frequency as pathetic as theirs I'd be amazed if they couldn't.
Definitely.
I'd argue that nothing has changed. Instead of the private firms being left to run their services as they see fit (subject to the basic service requirements) the Government are effectively telling them what to do. And the SRA are incompetent fools. Arriva, who took an awful lot of undeserved stick in the north, tried to expand their services at their own commercial risk- the SRA forced them to withdraw all the new services, despite good loadings.
The debacle that is Grand Central cannot be pointed at anyone but the SRA. Who, lets remember, are the Government you want to run our trains.
There is some evidence, but the problems come when the SRA interferes. Chiltern Trains paid for the doubling of some of their lines, other companies have paid for new stations and track. Many other projects have been blocked or diluted by the SRA.
It is shambolic, but that is because it is neither or. If the government owned and ran the trains the service would be just as poor, or the frequency would be cut, but it would be slightly cheaper to run. If the private sector were allowed to truly compete, I think the network would become much better. That only Hull Trains have been allowed to compete because of Government interference is ridiculous: Grand Central and Arriva have both had to withdraw services that "competed" with current services.
But what is a service that is "up to scratch"? Virgin XC's punctuality is about as bad as IC's, but they run twice as many trains on congested track. Reliability is much better, because the trains they replaced were old and crap. Overcrowding is worse at peak times, but better at off-peak, because the Voyagers certainly aren't much smaller than many trains they replaced, and there are more of them.
Were both driver errors. Happened enough under BR too, BR just largely got away with it.
Actually, many people believe that abolishing HMRI was the worst thing that happened to sorting out accidents. Wolmar in particular is scathing about the crapness of the HSE. Don't forget that the mess after hatfield was largely due to HSE interference.
I don't think the system we have is ideal, but I really don't think it is worse than under BR, and I dispute the "three times more expensive" figures mostly because Bob Crow said it. Infrastructure should never have been privatised, and maintenance should have been kept in-house, but as for the TOCs I think commercial gain should be encouraged and supported.
I don't think your comments about Mr Green are very unfair, and they do border on libellous. Most industry analysts do rate him as one of the best railway managers about, because of what he did at NSE and because of what he did afterwards. Virgin XC's Operatin Princess was a bit of a balls-up, but it was radical, and it was something that needed doing. It's much nicer to have a Newcastle-Birmingham express every 30 minutes instead of every three hours, and for all the problems of the trains (which I think are always overstated) they are far better than the very unreliable locos they replaced.
I would also point out that Virgin wanted to keep its HSTs to use as supplementary services to the Voyagers at busy times but- guess what- the SRA forbade them from doing so. Quelle surprise.
people would think you are all train spotters
posh bastard
yeh, so dont go off on a tangent
I don't spot trains any more, they're all the same. Fucking Voyagers.
I think the root of our differences lies in the fact that you have far more faith in the private sector than I do. You think the railways should be left alone to run themselves as businesses: I think the railways should be renationalised and run as a public service.
My scepticism about private enterprise goes back to the beginning of the railways. Sure, the network was built be private capital, but it was built badly. Lack of central direction (unlike across much of Europe) means the network has little natural coherence – it’s a patchwork of local lines linked together – and we’re still saddled with restrictive loading gauges and lines built with too many curves to avoid expensive land purchases in the 19th century. The railways rarely showed much of a profit after the first ‘mania.’ Then the interwar period, which some see as a ‘Golden Age.’ They are the ones with the rose tints: such an image is largely a creation of the publicity departments of the Big Four, who made a big fuss of their flagship expresses, whilst running a generally shit service. Much like today, really. And they didn’t make a profit either. BR therefore inherited a shit situation – worsened by the overly generous compensation deal the Atlee government struck with the shareholder sof the Big Four. It made a fuck-up at the beginning – the 1950s and ‘60s are best forgotten – but by the ‘80s it had largely got its act together. The stats for punctuality, reliability etc all suggest that the railways are less efficient now than under BR – and they’re getting a much bigger subsidy.
So I don’t share your rosy vision of a business-orientated railway system running its own affairs. I think it would all to pieces rapidly – as if it hasn’t nearly self-destructed already on a few occasions in the last ten years. Moreover, if the private railway is so good at sorting out its finances, why the proposal to slam fares right up? Why not address the issue of undercapacity? Why do they go squealing to the government for help with every major piece of capital investment? The idea of privatisation was that it would free the railways form dependence on public money: instead, it’s become a licence for companies to make a ‘profit’ at taxpayers’ expense. Subsidy junkies, the lot of ‘em.
I completely agree with you that bodies such as the SRA are hopeless, but that is mainly because they have an impossible task. They’re trying to exert some control over an industry that is fragmented and pulling in different directions. That’s a virtually impossible task – although it doesn’t excuse some of the stupid decisions they’ve made. You are wrong, however, about the aftermath of Hatfield: the fault for that lies with Railtrack, who panicked when they found themselves confronted with the results of their hopeless mismanagement of the infrastructure.
I don’t want the Sra to ‘run our trains.’ I want a new, national, vertically integrated company created that owns and manages all of the infrastructure of the railways, and runs all of the trains except for some specific exceptions franchised out to private operators. I want that body to be able to dictate to the train companies the level of service they should be providing – in terms of efficiency, obviously frequency etc are negotiable – and take stiff action against them if they fail to do so. That is how franchising arrangements work in those countries in Europe that have them – including Swiss railways, which are a model of efficiency.
Incidentally, there is no way my comments on Chris Green could be construed as libellous – I’ve made no allegations about him, but merely expressed an opinion about his competence. And I stand by it. Virgin trains are among the worst of a very bad bunch indeed.
Btw MrG, I’m a historian and transport is my main interest. I’m not a trainspotter as well. Honest.
It's exactly the same as it used to be: the premium-paying lines subsidise those that need it. Northern will never make a profit at the farebox on many lines they operate on, so it should be subsidised just like rural buses are.
I don't tthink Virgin are very good, but they were much worse before Mr Green came on board. I don't think Virgin are any worse than the InterCity franchises they took over, but Virgin'a black hole finances are a huge problem. That line shouldn't need subsidy, although most of it is because of Railtrack balls ups.
IN many areas there isn't the capacity to extend to. London can't cope with any more trains. Quite rightly, the franchise holders don't see why they should fork out a load of money for another company to come in in six years and reap the rewards. Offer 20 or 30 year contracts and the investment will come, GNER in particular have said that on many occasions.
I don't think the railway should be completely left to its own devices, but I do think that the railways would be in a much better state if the SRA were not involved, apart from for laying down basic service requirements and punctuality levels. The amount of good initiatives the SRA have pulled isn't even funny.
First TransPennine Express is another operator who will have to cut their overnight services, coming just days after GNER was pulling its first and last services to Newcastle, it has been revealed this morning.
The Strategic Rail Authority has recommended that overnight services be cut back to allow more work on the East Coast Main Line to take place. First TransPennine Express run trains throughout the night between Newcastle, York, Leeds and Manchester, and also between Sheffield and Manchester Airport. The latter is expected to be retained as the Hope Valley Line has had many improvements in the past few years.
Services expected to be cut from the December 2005 timetable are 1P05 (02.10 Newcastle Central - Manchester Airport) which will start from Leeds, and 1P02 (01.54 Manchester Piccadilly - York) will terminate at Leeds. First TransPennine Express is expected to oppose the move, as is GNER on its latest service cuts.
From http://www.railwaymovements.myby.co.uk/
GNER states that this has been imposed by the Strategic Rail Authority to allow Network Rail more time for overnight possessions, however the Department for Transport was not in a position to comment on the proposals put forward for the December 2005 timetable change.
Railway Movements is full of SRA hatred.
That is the problem with franchising per se. Either you accept a short-term approach on the part of the TOCs, or you put up with signing away large chunks of a public service to unaccountable, self-interested private firms. That’s why the railways should be renationalised. Moreover, you’re only talking about the TOCs. I’m thinking of much more major infrastructure projects that the private sector simply cannot provide capital for.
Of course the railways are working at and above capacity. The remedy for that is to build more lines. A few tentative projects are being discussed – reopening a few Beeching closures (don’t start me on Beeching…) in the south east, and the old Hull-York line – but IMO what is really needed is a network of dedicated high-speed lines, much like the TGV in France. That would take pressure off the existing network, and allow much faster journey times between cities. But I just can’t see the private sector funding a project like that.
But the problem is the same as with the buses. The franchising system means that firms like Stagecoach <spits> can come in and cherrypick all of the most profitable routes. Yes, the most profitable do pay a levy to subsidise less profitable routes, but because it has to go through the government, the regulator and God knows how many other bodies it’s a much more complicated and wasteful process than if one firm ran the lot. So in fact it isn't 'exactly the same as it used to be.'
Anyway, I’m at work and I’ve spent a lot of time on this so far today, so forgive me if replies are thin on the ground from now on…