|
|
Post by edwardfox on Feb 3, 2011 6:20:58 GMT
Many people blame the "Beeching Axe" for the decimation of the rail network. However, I've been researching old long-closed stations that I used to hear about as a kid. It seems that British Railways itself, soon after its formation in 1948 and long before Dr. Richard Beeching, were busy closing small networks of minor lines. It may have seemed logical at the time to close these lines, but these were actually feeder lines which brought passengers to and from the main lines. Not only did the closing of the minor lines cut considerable areas of the country - including eastern seaside resorts - off from the rail network, but the passengers who regularly used those lines to access the main lines could no longer do so. Therefore, the main lines themselves experienced a drop in passenger numbers because people who would have used the main line services now had no way to reach them. My mother used to tell me about a seaside resort called Hunstanton, very popular with Lincolnshire folk in the mid-20th Century, but the actions of British Railways in the years up to 1959 destroyed the resort. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunstanton_railway_station |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 3, 2011 8:50:38 GMT
I think there is no doubt that the railways have always made blunders but the government management of publicly owned railways has always been more about running profitable services than unprofitable ones. In fact the government management of anything and everything in public ownership has followed that pattern to a greater or lesser degree for many decades.
The idea of public services of any kind managed by government is a complete farce because the focus has long been profitability over service.
Of course when I was a youngster in the 1950s and before my father owned a car, we used public transport to get about both locally and nationally. I think the railways were pretty good from a service point of view back then but of course WW2 did lots of damage which could never be repaired in austere times and lots of political decisions were taken eventually leading to the Beeching decimation of branch lines.
I don't think the railways have ever really recovered from those times, really predominantly on daily commuters and freight for revenue and government investment for capital to both improve and maintain what was left. Like painting the Forth Bridge keeping the railways going is a 365/24/7 operation whether they are operating services or not. Your argument regarding feeder services being severed is absolutely correct, from an operations standpoint there was no rhyme nor reason to much of what was discontinued but the government focus was about trying to save what it thought should not be lost, i.e. chopping off an arm and a leg to save the torso. IMO the focus was poorly aimed and not pin sharp, it would have been better to preserve and improve the railways rather than obliterating the land with motorways. In many ways roads have been the demise of railways because without them mr & mrs average would probably prefer to travel in comfort to a destination than spending hours in traffic jams as was often the case in the early 1960s. 'A' roads could be a nightmare unless one travelled early in the morning to get a head start on everyone rushing to the coast in the holiday season and at bank holidays and even though trains were busy they were frequent enough while they existed. These days I think the whole rail system is a mess, the fares are ridiculous and complicated to match the ridiculous and complex privatisation arrangements and the 'targetted' investment which does little to improve the system overall. I actually believe the railways would do better ditching all but freight. I think if Stobart ran the railways as a freight only service they would pay for themselves in short order. Replacing commuter lines with trams for those who really had to travel 'to the office' would be cost effective though the focus of many such jobs could be working from home via the internet and these measures could free up roads for decent and reliable coach services and leisure travel for those who need them.
Of course what I propose is a complete change of what has become the British way of life but it is much closer to the romance of the 1950s when most of us were less steeped in the 'rat race' that the majority seem happy to live in today.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Feb 3, 2011 9:01:37 GMT
This has been an ongoing process since the dawn of railways. The first major rail closure was in the 1860's (Due too a route diversion). The grouping and then nationalisation merely speeded up the process, were the 'Big Four' and then British Railways found themselves with duplicate and competing lines. The problem was that often the wrong lines were closed, often because the person doing the closing was biased towards one particular former company. The classic example is the former Great Central route which was closed instead of the former and inferior Midland route. Having said that if the Midland route had been closed we may well have lost St. Pancras and the Settle and Carlisle.
We have to look deeper into the Beeching era to see what actually occured. The transport minister at that time was Ernest Marples, who had vested interests in reducing the rail network. (He was half of Ridgeway-Marples Construction who built most of the early motorway system).
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Feb 3, 2011 9:10:45 GMT
Just to add a couple of points if I may.
Beechings report was, of course, terrible for the precident it started. One contiunued in earnest by the next Labour government with Barbra Castle. However, once again it wasn't the report itself but the politics behind it. Bechings report came in two parts, the first was to close unrenumerative branches, the second to make massive investments in the core trunk network. Needless to say this never happened. A lot of the problems the railway has tried to overcome in the past 50 years since would have been non existant had this investment occured.
Its worth bearing in mind the millions squandered in the BTCs botched modernisation project aswell in the 50s. Having had money litterally thrown at it, the railways' collective failure to deliver could argueably have only lead to one result.
The government ran the railways into the ground during the war, knowing that by doing so it could purchase them out afterwards at rock bottom prices.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 9:26:28 GMT
the second to make massive investments in the core trunk network. Needless to say this never happened. A lot of the problems the railway has tried to overcome in the past 50 years since would have been non existant had this investment occured. The second Beeching report also included further closures. This could have left us with no railways at all in Cornwall, nothing in Wales west or north of Swansea or north of the main line. Nothing north of Glasgow/Edinburgh in Scotland except for the line to Aberdeen and no ECML between Newcastle and Edinburgh. |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Feb 3, 2011 9:34:27 GMT
The Beeching report failed to take another aspect of rail closure into account,which cost BR dear,well into the 1970s.Not only did the closed lines stop "feeding" the remaining routes,but their infrastructure (bridges,fencing etc) had to be maintained even though there was no revenue,until the trackbed was sold.
In some instances this was extremely costly.....and bear in mind that many branches were closed on highly marginal losses.I read that the line fron Shoreham to Christ's Hospital was closed on an average annual deficit of £5,000.
If modern cost-savings had been applied to this line,it would have broken-even,and there would be a useful diversionary route for the Brighton Line,as well as local "feeder" traffic.
In the current climate I feel that a fraction of the road budget should be diverted to rail electrification and selective re-opening of some of those lines which,due to changes in technology and/or popolation expansion in the intervening 40 years,would now be viable.
Large towns such as Maldon,Witney,Cranleigh,Heathfield,Wisbech etc must surely justify a direct rail service to the Capital?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 9:37:59 GMT
If buses were still regulated outside London then you'd have the potential also for revenue from bus fares to go into a budget for public transport investment in general which would be available for rail investment. I'd much prefer it to go there than to the pockets of shareholders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 10:02:51 GMT
Regarding the original post, the pedant in me compels me to point out that "decimate" means "reduce by 10%". Beeching's closures did rather more than that.
But the closures were inevitable. As people turned to the private car, the number of passengers on many lines fell to quite unsupportable levels. To add to the pressures on the railways, the wages of rail workers increased considerably compared to general wage levels, so there was not cheap labour available.
It is arguable that, if the railways had not been nationalised, the "big four" railway companies would have had to make even more closures. They could not call upon the taxpayers to pay for any losses that they made: quite possibly they would have gone bankrupt in the 1960s leaving the UK with no railways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 10:06:28 GMT
If the general public had been banned from owning and driving cars though, the railways could have survived. Goods may have still ended up going by road but remember that the motorways were built for freight, not for the general public.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 21:35:38 GMT
It is easy to blame Beeching for all of the railways ills but the point was made above about the Secretary of State who appointed him. As far as I can recall Sir Ernest Marples was appointed in 1959 by Harold MacMillan. Marples relinquished his interest in motorway construction and the Marples Construction Company necame the Ridgeway construction company. I seem to remember that Ridgeway was his wifes maiden name! The point is that if it hadn't have been Beeching it would have been someone else as it was Marples who wanted the railways decimated. Of course a similar situation would never happen again. I mean the thought that a British Prime Minister could run a government that engaged in building concrete roads all over the country with materials supplied by a company that her husband was a director of while commissioning the Serpel Report to finish what Beeching/Marples started is fanciful....... Isn't it?  Back to the thread, most of the mistakes with regards to line closures only became apparent with the passing of time. The lines were shut because, then, no-one used them! These days I have a prime local example. The branch from Fareham to Gosport was closed to passengers in 1953. Gosport remained open until 1968 for freight traffic but the line was then cut back to a point in Bridgemary where the siding to the Navy depot remained until the end of Speedlink in 1991. The last rain to traverse this piece of line was the Hunslet/Barclay weedkilling train in 1992 with a class 20 each end! During the late 50s and early 60s building work in Gosprt and the surrounding area resulted in a huge leap in the population. Between 1968 and the present day the traffic problems on the roads out of Gosport have escalated to an alarming degree. For many years a light railway/tram scheme was planned but this was a non-starter as the planners insisted on building a tunnel under Portsmouth Harbour to link into Portsmouth itself. The costs involved were astronomical and priced the idea into the realms of fantasy! Eventually the tram was cancelled but the current scheme, now under construction, is to build a guided busway along part of the route of the old railway. This is sheer folly as guided busways have yet to work anywhere in this country. Sorry to be political but a conservative-led council wouldn't even consider the option of looking into re-instating the railway as part of national network. This option is now never to happen as the bridge and embankment at Newgate Lane in Fareham has been permanently removed to provide an interchange for the guided buses. Gosport is now the biggest town in the country without a railway......... |
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Feb 4, 2011 8:47:21 GMT
the wonderfully-named Sir Cosmo Bonsor in his capacity as chairman of the SER was pooh-poohing the up-and-coming motor car as not being a threat to his business.
The railway network has been undercut by the private motor vehicle since the end of WW1. Also, the change in labour relations started then are singificant. From then on labour has got more expensive.
When Beeching made the cuts, the railway was losing money, and staff, hand over fist. This was what put the death knell onto steam as much as anything - there simply weren't the people to do the back-breaking manual labour to keep steam going.
This same shortage of people (being drawn off into industry etc) drove mechanisation of farms too - machinery became cheaper as people became dearer. For a fixed-system like the railway, this was hammer-blow to the feeder lines - why wait 2 hrs for a train when you could drive?
Bear in mind that a lot of the innovations since also could not function without the beeching cuts. For, say Cranleigh (Surrey) to have a direct train to London would require not just the line being kept open, but electrified and a coupld of 4-VEPs diagrammed to run it. And would mean one less path for Portsmouth direct trains. Most London termini are working pretty close to full capacity -where would these extra trains run into. The service now is much more intensive in a lot of places. London to Birmingham is a case in point.
When talking about resorts - woud the good burghers of Lincolnshire really have taken a train to Hunstanton when the sun of Torremolinos was only a few hours away by plane?
There were mistakes, and there were lines that should have been kept open, but to say that the cuts were a mistake in their entirety is to miss the changing social and economic times.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 4, 2011 10:07:45 GMT
What everyone seems to have overlooked to a great extent in this thread is planning or should I say lack thereof. It has long been evident that this is a British disease. The Romans had the right idea building nice straight roads in Britain and the country has been going downhill in planning terms ever since. When good plans are both created and implemented they should have lasting effect but in the UK any plan is simply the beginning of a long process of planning, enquiry, objection and repeat ad infinitum until some compromise that is not what anyone really wanted proceeds. Politicians and big businesses seem to conspire together to waste £taxpayers billions repeatedly, the colour of the government makes little difference as the 'game' is based upon the short termism that has long existed as far as financial bugetting of all things of national importance are concerned. There is and has seldom ever been truly joined up thinking in regard to integrated public transport. Now for all the rail enthusiasts this has led to the diversity of rolling stock, signalling systems and standards that we have all come to love and the wonderful preservation of the past in museums and preserved lines. Progress is a wonderful thing as it allows hindsight to see the error of our ways, unfortunately our masters really are too incompetent to learn the lessons of history and so the wicked game of 'waste of resources and finances' will continue to frustrate the travelling public.
Personally I'd like to see air travel taxed more highly to subsidise real and lasting investment in properly planned and operated railways. I have always seen holidays as a form of wasteful extravagance and foreign holidays as such for the richer members of society who can afford to pay for the privilege. Just like everyone else I favour some things more than others!
Also in pedant mode I agree that "decimate" originally meant making an example of (killing in cold blood) every tenth member of a Roman legion that had not performed well in battle. I'd like to see the politicians face a similar fate (okay so killing is extreme but making them live on the average wage instead of a minister's salary and repaying the difference to the taxpayer for poor performance might focus their minds properly and make them truly objective!).
Of course in the modern age the meaning of 'decimate' today has changed a great deal from its original meaning, Queen's English is wicked innit !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2011 10:43:43 GMT
If buses were still regulated outside London then you'd have the potential also for revenue from bus fares to go into a budget for public transport investment in general which would be available for rail investment. I'd much prefer it to go there than to the pockets of shareholders. The bus industry is extraordinarily heavily subsidised and may even be the most heavily subsidised industry outside the public sector. Total public subsidy to the bus industry in Great Britain was £2.9 billion in 2008/09, which accounts for about 60% of total turnover of the bus industry (estimated at £4.7 billion in 2008/09). I don't know what the last subsidy of the national bus company was, but I'n guessing even allowing for index linking it would not be near £2.9 billion. It's a scandal that has been hidden from the public. A very similar, modern, problem to the "benefits" of the Beeching Plans. Beeching was not allowed to investigate the social/ economic benefits of rail services. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 4, 2011 12:18:10 GMT
If buses were still regulated outside London then you'd have the potential also for revenue from bus fares to go into a budget for public transport investment in general which would be available for rail investment. I'd much prefer it to go there than to the pockets of shareholders. The bus industry is extraordinarily heavily subsidised and may even be the most heavily subsidised industry outside the public sector. Total public subsidy to the bus industry in Great Britain was £2.9 billion in 2008/09, which accounts for about 60% of total turnover of the bus industry (estimated at £4.7 billion in 2008/09). I don't know what the last subsidy of the national bus company was, but I'n guessing even allowing for index linking it would not be near £2.9 billion. It's a scandal that has been hidden from the public. A very similar, modern, problem to the "benefits" of the Beeching Plans. Beeching was not allowed to investigate the social/ economic benefits of rail services. You are right, it is an absolute scandal but I would say exactly the same about the costs of privatisation of British Rail and the LUL PPP and PFI schemes which whether they have improved services or not have put £millions directly into a few shareholders pockets which could have been better spent on the railways. The problem is that the politicians have spun the idea of profit making businesses relieving the taxpayer of the burden of financial support. As anyone with a modicum of common sense must know when shareholders have to be paid dividends the services suffer as does the general public. In the past UK governments have financially raped all things public because they have demanded financial return on investment to cover out of control spending instead of living within the means of the treasury coffers. I can't see that changing even with the present government trying to do the right thing by bringing spending under control. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Feb 12, 2011 21:35:09 GMT
The reason that many lines lost passenger traffic was not just down to the wider ownership of cars. BR deliberately ran down services, thus deteering would be passengers from using them. They then argued that passenger numbers were falling, and thus applied for closure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 12:16:59 GMT
...and bear in mind that many branches were closed on highly marginal losses.I read that the line from Shoreham to Christ's Hospital was closed on an average annual deficit of £5,000. I've read too that some lines were effectively closed because it was too expensive to repair the crossing gates, or station canopy after years of 'transferral of manpower and materials' due to WW2. There was one that I read of, where a set of crossing gates was demolished by the army personnel that had requestioned the line and hired some stock and locomotives. When handed back to BR, they found spending £215 on new gates and equipment etc was too greater an outlay considering the 'losses' the line was returning on the outlay. Granted yes that a lot of lines succumbed to parallel bus routes or hemorrhaged to private motor car ownership. If all the lines that ever existed, would have been kept open, would they have given a return given a decent service? I think most would have broke even. Also, would current lines be at capacity if other routes nearby heading the same way hadn't been closed? The Brighton Main Line is at capacity, theres talk of BML2 through Lewes - Uckfield [that again]... it would make for a decent alternative route and would probably relieve some pressure on the Brighton Main Line. When you look at pictures of the A1, empty and the parallel GCR... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 12:24:20 GMT
A classic example of a line that was closed due to worn out infrastructure down here is the Hayling Island line. It would have survived but for the bridge over Langstone harbour. It would be a gold mine now too. The GC is a fascinating one. There is talk of planning for a new North-South channel tunnel freight route built to European loading gauge for high containers. The GC was built to these standards for that reason. The original plan was for the GC to link into a Channel tunnel. I can just imagine hurtling north through Quainton Road on my 66 and giving the A class on the Brill train a toot on the horn! Perchance to dream....................  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 12:26:57 GMT
...and bear in mind that many branches were closed on highly marginal losses.I read that the line from Shoreham to Christ's Hospital was closed on an average annual deficit of £5,000. I've read too that some lines were effectively closed because it was too expensive to repair the crossing gates, or station canopy after years of 'transferral of manpower and materials' due to WW2. There was one that I read of, where a set of crossing gates was demolished by the army personnel that had requestioned the line and hired some stock and locomotives. When handed back to BR, they found spending £215 on new gates and equipment etc was too greater an outlay considering the 'losses' the line was returning on the outlay. Granted yes that a lot of lines succumbed to parallel bus routes or hemorrhaged to private motor car ownership. If all the lines that ever existed, would have been kept open, would they have given a return given a decent service? I think most would have broke even. Also, would current lines be at capacity if other routes nearby heading the same way hadn't been closed? The Brighton Main Line is at capacity, theres talk of BML2 through Lewes - Uckfield [that again]... it would make for a decent alternative route and would probably relieve some pressure on the Brighton Main Line. When you look at pictures of the A1, empty and the parallel GCR... You can't seriously say that a railway in the UK would break even?! If the currently overcrowded railways can't make money how can a huge number of branchlines? The straphangers pay the dividends! Tell that to the currently heavily subsidised railway that has never had more passengers.... Until the car becomes prohibitively expensive again, duplicate lines and rural branchlines won't break even let along provide any where near a decent cost:benefit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 12:29:17 GMT
What might have been indeed! Interesting perspective. 377's at Cranleigh... or Bramley or even Southwater. Perhaps Slinfold also. Interesting it would have been to see Christs's Hospital with trains in all platforms.
The GC... Last into London. Definately built with foresight to the future. Sad to see what has happened. Woodford Halse, Lutterworth now housing. Rugby birdcage bridge... well, won't go there... Nottingham Arkwright Street... Leicester bowstring bridge.
I'll stop there before I get all emotional.
Current subsidy is 50% Government, 50% Fare Payer. In three years, 2014, that has to be 100% farepayer, according to a snippet of news I read in a paper. So, over three years we'll be seeing fare increases of 50%. Try and convince people to stump that.
My views and opinions might be seen as skewed by some, but alas thats just my feeling.
We need to make the railways easier to access; this means getting rid of silly fare structures, but then again, removing ticket restrictions might mean more over crowding. only way to solve that... reopen more lines, increase capacity, longer platforms, more trains. But reduce the fares means the opposite. So its a no win situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 13:47:44 GMT
.........Especially with a Government that is so affected by the road lobby! Sorry, bit political! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 20:49:11 GMT
DMU operation was tried. On the Banbury to Buckingham line passenger figures went up 434% It still shut! Similar figures were recorded for the Braintree branch but that stayed open and was electrified. Parliamentary reasons perchance?
|
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Feb 13, 2011 21:04:26 GMT
Sorry peeps, but we've strayed well OT in several posts, so I'm splitting the thread, and the bus bits are going to "Rant" and we can discuss the finer points of those downfalls there, and leave this thread for trains/Beeching etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 14, 2011 1:48:33 GMT
.........Especially with a Government that is so affected by the road lobby! Sorry, bit political! Why be sorry about that? The point is really that the whole issue is political. Railwaymen would love to run services everywhere, engineers would love to build railways everywhere. If the railways ran everywhere using comfortable rolling stock and frequent services running to timetable people would want to use them in preference to using the private motor car. What we have is a railway infrastructure that seems nowadays to be geared only to weekday commuters on season tickets or freight, the idea of using railways for leisure really has gone. The situation is that instead of having at least one decent means of getting from A to B at any time we have none, the railways are far from perfect as are the roads. Finances are controlled by accountants and the governments, neither of whom seem to comprehend what a public service should be. I recall Margaret Thatcher suggesting ripping up the railways and replacing them with roads and while I didn't agree with it she was pointing directly at the issue, the big investment should be in one or the other rather than both. Of course we do live in nation of sheep who seem to be quite happy herded together in railway carriages or marshalled into long chains in gridlock on the nation's roads. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 14, 2011 2:01:25 GMT
You can't seriously say that a railway in the UK would break even?! If the currently overcrowded railways can't make money how can a huge number of branchlines? The straphangers pay the dividends! Tell that to the currently heavily subsidised railway that has never had more passengers.... Until the car becomes prohibitively expensive again, duplicate lines and rural branchlines won't break even let along provide any where near a decent cost:benefit. Why should a public service break even? Public services are paid for by the taxpayer and the taxpayer should reap the reward of a decent service rather than a minority of shareholders skimming dividends from profits while passengers pay through the nose for a lousy service. As for cars becoming prohibitively expensive they already are! When I began driving 40+ years ago it was not to sit in traffic jams commuting but mostly for leisure, nice drives in the country in the summer, trips to various weekend events etc. Today there is little pleasure in driving and it is a very expensive hobby for those of us who are retired and living on fixed incomes. On the other hand though I have always loved the railways you won't find me travelling on them, the fare 'structure' isn't and while some people may enjoy trawling the internet for cheap tickets I have better things to do. The fares are a complete mess and far too complicated, I have a pal who works out of of Birmingham and he makes an absolute fortune in commission out of all those poor souls who bought cheap tickets online and didn't understand the conditions of travel and the many restrictions which means they forfeit the tickets they bought and then have to pay outrageous full fare on top. There is absolutely no need for railways to make a profit ! |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Feb 14, 2011 2:59:34 GMT
I don't think the apex tickets are far too complicated. Generally, the conditions are well explained and understood - i.e. "I get to go to London for £cheap, in return I MUST catch this train, else I have two expensive bookmarks".
BR/NR/whatever you want to call them at the moment, however, is far too fragmented. So many different companies and brands, each with their own twist on how they do things - for instance, if you catch an East Coast train from a station with a ticket office, you can only buy an open ticket, whereas if you catch a Hull Trains Train you can buy a ticket onboard. (I'm not sure how the latter works at stations with those pointless ticket barriers they insist on wasting our fare revenue from, though).
There's a distinct lack of co-ordination between the different companies. Not so long ago, a friend was stuck on a train which was failed just north of Peterborough. Those who know the area will know that just north of Peterborough is a large freight depot, which usually (as in this case) has a large number of locomotives standing there. A passenger asked the guard why one of those locomotives couldn't pull the train rather than (as happened) everyone waiting for a loco to come from London. "It's a different company" - the locos stabled at Peterborough are GBRF's, not EWS's... when the locomotive did arrive, it was merely used to pull the train back to the station, with the passengers being forced to cram onto the next train - rather than dragging the coaches up north.
Another common one is when catering isn't provided - "Don't blame me" say the staff, "It's the fault of the contract caterers". Who employs them, then?! Or when the loo is overflowing - "You need to tell the cleaner that", says the guard - do I indeed?!
Meanwhile, all rolling stock is micromanaged by the DFT who have their ways of doing things. This also gives rise to strange workings - the 17:09 Fife Circle, for instance, is operated by Scotrail, with an EWS locomotive and driver, a Scotrail guard, and rolling stock hired in from a ROSCO which says "InterCity" on the side?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 7:04:33 GMT
As an aside to this topic if you look at videos of British Railways of the 1950's and very early 1960's many will show stations that were well maintained and a joy to visit with well kept embankments, gardens etc. Just look at the Jim Clemems videos of the Withered Arm and Cornwall and you will see some truly beautiful scenes with staff on hand to help who were friendly and really enjoyed their work.There was also spare stock which could be used at busy periods and relief locos strategically located on many parts of the network BR maintained many of the good practices of companies such as the GWR and SR . Compare this to the environment today of the railway with ticket barriers everywhere, decimation of embankments and trees due to the problems with "leaves on the line" . It would we wrong of me to say it is all bad now, as companies like Chiltern do aspire to the stands are the past and in the main do a good job. My experience of the London Underground overall good with helpful staff and excellent information on services wherever you go on the network. OK it has it''s problems but compared to my local TOC  - whose current accolade is that in runs 7 out 10 of the most crowded trains in the South East it is far more customer focus organisation. So in summary BR may have made blunders before Beeching but in my opinion the railway was a far better experience for the traveler than it is now. Xerces Fobe |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 9:28:06 GMT
If you watch a BTF clip, I can't remember which one it is, but it shows a timetable change coming in, some locals have known about at, but one, who has been on vacation, did not. So the Station Manager, dutifully looks up his address in the ledger. Not being on the phone, the SM then decides he would drop a note about the timetable change at the house on his way home.
I doubt that this was specially set for the BTF, but it does show just how anti 'public spirited' the railway has become.
There was one occasion, way back in 1992, that I was caught up in a delay... It was between Maidstone East and Ashford. A previous freight train had somehow ripped up and dislodged the conductor rail in several places. As the train I was on was an EMU, it would be unable to continue. After a while, the freight train was put away in sidings, and the Loco summonsed with a wrong line order to hitch up and pull out EMU forward, slowly. Arrangements were made for onward journeys and connections to be made. Granted the whole operation of getting authority for the wrong line order and proceeding slowly took time, around 2 hours from delay to arrival at Ashford.... but if something similar happened today.....
The fares structure is mind boggling. An example I will use is London to Bournemouth. From Waterloo on South Western Trains it is 2 hours 21 minutes with a fare of £38.40. Now, If I go from Victoria to Southampton via Redhill on Southern, and then change, its £22.20 It takes slightly longer, about 25 minutes, but if it saves around £15 each time...... I'm sure there are countless other examples of similar 'errors'. If people were aware of this, then I'm sure other operators would realise, 'hey we're losing traffic as passengers have changed routes, we need to reverse that...'
Both fares are for walk on 'Cheap Day Return' tickets.
If people know how the system works, by careful planning and checking, you can save an absolute fortune. The TOC's won't like it one bit, but there you go... En route to Bournemouth on Saturday, even the Conductor checked my ticket carefully... He knew what I'd done! Sort of looked at me with that sort of 'you clever so and so' grin! ;D
I still enjoy leisure trips by train, but for long distance travel its either an open ticket which is exorbitantly priced, or buy an APEX, and be locked onto using THAT train... granted if there is an issue, delay or whatever, then the TOC might pass the restriction and allow you to use another service, but even then, that'd probably be done grudgingly!
What annoys me even more is that you can have a Railcard, pay £25 for it for a year, but then you get minimum fares [so its no use on short journies] AND also you get ticket restrictions [No cheap Day returns before 9am] AND you get restrictions on when you can use the Railcard. Its completely barmy, needs to be addressed NOW. Yes, the railway is geared towards Season ticket holders, they pay a huge amount, but through the year, I'd probably pay something similar! The railways primary purpose when first conceived was for freight, which is why you sometimes see pictures of 3rd class passengers in open trucks which were little more than coal wagons, whitewashed and had a few planks of wood nailed into them!
Joined up thinking?
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 14, 2011 11:03:20 GMT
If you watch a BTF clip, I can't remember which one it is, but it shows a timetable change coming in, some locals have known about at, but one, who has been on vacation, did not. So the Station Manager, dutifully looks up his address in the ledger. Not being on the phone, the SM then decides he would drop a note about the timetable change at the house on his way home. I doubt that this was specially set for the BTF, but it does show just how anti 'public spirited' the railway has become. There was one occasion, way back in 1992, that I was caught up in a delay... It was between Maidstone East and Ashford. A previous freight train had somehow ripped up and dislodged the conductor rail in several places. As the train I was on was an EMU, it would be unable to continue. After a while, the freight train was put away in sidings, and the Loco summonsed with a wrong line order to hitch up and pull out EMU forward, slowly. Arrangements were made for onward journeys and connections to be made. Granted the whole operation of getting authority for the wrong line order and proceeding slowly took time, around 2 hours from delay to arrival at Ashford.... but if something similar happened today..... The fares structure is mind boggling. An example I will use is London to Bournemouth. From Waterloo on South Western Trains it is 2 hours 21 minutes with a fare of £38.40. Now, If I go from Victoria to Southampton via Redhill on Southern, and then change, its £22.20 It takes slightly longer, about 25 minutes, but if it saves around £15 each time...... I'm sure there are countless other examples of similar 'errors'. If people were aware of this, then I'm sure other operators would realise, 'hey we're losing traffic as passengers have changed routes, we need to reverse that...' Both fares are for walk on 'Cheap Day Return' tickets. If people know how the system works, by careful planning and checking, you can save an absolute fortune. The TOC's won't like it one bit, but there you go... En route to Bournemouth on Saturday, even the Conductor checked my ticket carefully... He knew what I'd done! Sort of looked at me with that sort of 'you clever so and so' grin! ;D I still enjoy leisure trips by train, but for long distance travel its either an open ticket which is exorbitantly priced, or buy an APEX, and be locked onto using THAT train... granted if there is an issue, delay or whatever, then the TOC might pass the restriction and allow you to use another service, but even then, that'd probably be done grudgingly! What annoys me even more is that you can have a Railcard, pay £25 for it for a year, but then you get minimum fares [so its no use on short journies] AND also you get ticket restrictions [No cheap Day returns before 9am] AND you get restrictions on when you can use the Railcard. Its completely barmy, needs to be addressed NOW. Yes, the railway is geared towards Season ticket holders, they pay a huge amount, but through the year, I'd probably pay something similar! The railways primary purpose when first conceived was for freight, which is why you sometimes see pictures of 3rd class passengers in open trucks which were little more than coal wagons, whitewashed and had a few planks of wood nailed into them! Joined up thinking? No, definitely no joined up thinking, either the railways should carry all the freight or the roads should carry all the freight or else the two should be separated completely except for the last few 'local' miles where the is no option but for freight and people to require the same space. Of course people shouldn't have to commute on this day and age, so many 'office' jobs can be done without going to 'the office' as long as one has excellent internet connectivity and that is something that should have been addressed years ago. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the government usually does everything except what is best for the voters. Because it always worries about lobbying from various groups, organisations and industries everything it does is a compromise and IMO compromise serves nobody well at all. Commuters may pay large amounts for season tickets but they don't have to travel so far to work, it's a choice to reside in one place and commute to work in another. The idea that commuters keep the railways alive is a fallacy, what they pay is a drop in the ocean compared to what the railways could earn if all they carried was freight. Private enterprise serves only the shareholders, the entire public transport system would be better in public hands and properly managed by rail experts. This is something that simply never happened in the past, private rail companies could never run at a profit thus they were nationalised but then hamstrung by politicians who looked to the railways as an investment rather than a service. Much the same can be said about everything any government ever had financial control of and it all boils down to the fact that governments are inherently corrupt, until that environment changes to one of public service and accountability expect the railways to remain user unfriendly along with almost all 'services'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 11:19:41 GMT
Before I joined the railways I found out first hand how the fare structure could be manipulated by Government. In December 1992 I travelled from Fareham to Loughborough to witness the steaming of the Stirling 'Single'. The cheap day return fare was £13.00. That month the Government proudly announced that there was to be no fare increase that winter but cheap day return tickets were to be abolished for distances over 50 miles outside the London and SE area. In March '93 I again journeyed to Loughborough for the 'Single'. The 'Saver Return' fare was now £25.50! No fare increase but as near as dammit a doubling in the fare.
As an employee of the railways since 1986 I noticed a real change in the attitudes of the railway hierarchy during the run-up to Privatisation. It seemed as if anyone with any railway experience was deliberately passed over for senior management posts. I could cite specific examples but I cannot afford the legal fees! This change had been going for years before I started. In some places change was necessary but most of the changes seemed to have been made for changes sake.
Did BR make mistakes? Hell, yes. But they are nothing compared to what has followed!
Finally, what did Thatcher have in common with Beeching? Both attended a locomotive naming ceremony at Kings Cross, arriving and departing by road!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 11:44:27 GMT
I mean, we hear of 'railways carrying 60% more passengers than 10 years ago, running 10% more trains than 10 years ago.'
BUT! Its on a network half the size it was!
People compare our railways with those abroad, and its something I often have to intervene with when talking to passengers. They say or ask why our railway can't be like the Japanese. Why? Because their Gov't has invested in their railway, same too with Germany, Spain, France, Italy......
By taking freight off the railways you adversely affect the haulage industry. And it would take up much passenger capacity resulting in moaning from the commuter groups, who seem to think its their railway.
Freight hauliers could work hand in hand with the rail industry, drop your trailer off, onto an intermodal wagon, transported, and then picked up by another truck working for the same firm, or on behalf of, the firm that originally wanted it transported.
Its when you look at fares also, you see the Open Return from London to Edinburgh is like £376, where as if you buy it a month in advance its more like £20!
I certainly have noticed a change, a drastic change over the years... and I speak from an enthusiast point of view there... In 1990, it seemed to me, that everyone wanted to help each other. Network South East loaning units to Regional Railways in Cornwall. I'm blind to what exactly went on to acheive this seemingly easy way of doing things, but it looked good on the face of passenger services! Then it all seemed to nosedive after Privatisation with the shadow franchises and what followed is just an inordinate mess. Take WSMR for example... huge losses because they could not serve anywhere useful. Virgin had the monopoly on Birmingham! It all sounds like Pre-Grouping squabbles all over again!
Now, if you need to change an engine due to failure say, theres a penalty payment to Network Rail for delays, penalty payment to other TOC's for delays, forms to be signed, checked, faxed off, countersigned, agreed, the right crew member to be hired who is trained on that stock and route... Huge stupid logistical mess. I cite the case of that Swansea to Paddington HST... Great Western refused to have it turned so that the loco with the faulty AWS was at the back... why? Because £800 was at stake for using a part of the network without agreement previously. They ended up paying a huge price later in the journey.
|
|
- whose current accolade is that in runs 7 out 10 of the most crowded trains in the South East it is far more customer focus organisation.
