Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[nw1]

Just thought I'd start a thread about controversial railway opinions, which perhaps stem from irrational "feelings" rather than raw logic, and which are perhaps niche.

So I'm not counting things like "Things were better with 50s/87s/HSTs/Kings/Castles/CIGs/VEPs/heritage DMUs/delete as appropriate" because these are common opinions in the rail enthusiast community. Even Pacer appreciation is borderline now, as it's becoming more mainstream now they're gone.

I'm thinking of things which are distinctly "unusual" shall we say, where you might not have many people agreeing with you even on here.

I'll offer two, for starters.

1. Operation Princess was the last great XC timetable.

Why? While I preferred the days of 47s, 86s, and HSTs, I do think Operation Princess was operationally an interesting timetable, connecting different points and offering multiple destinations from a given branch of the XC network (such as, IIRC, Bournemouth alternating Manchester/Newcastle/Glasgow WCML/Edinburgh ECML). It also provided Portsmouth and Brighton with services. I realise it was unworkable, but the whole point of this thread is to throw logic to the wind for a bit.

By contrast XC under Arriva is arguably little more than a glorified metro system. Now metro systems are great in certain circumstances (see below) but I prefer my IC networks to have more in the way of route variety.

2. In the recent (post-2004) era, the high point of Southern/Thameslink was in the early 2010s, prior to the recent Thameslink improvements.

Why? In contrast to the above, for me the current Thameslink is a bit of a sprawling, higgledy-piggledy monster which doesn't feel right for an outer-suburban network. A Thameslink which keeps to a simple, lean network feels "cleaner" to me. So for me the high point of Thameslink was around 2013/4 or so, in the days when it was operated with a mix of 377s and 319s and focused on a small number of core routes. Likewise, Southern was also more interesting in this era, with the "classic" Brighton fasts (rather than the GatEx hybrids) still existing and through services from London Bridge to Tonbridge, which I always thought was nice.

Any more? As I said, there is no need to back up your opinions with hard logic!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Definitely controversial here: it is much more important that the fares system is simple, understandable and fair to all than that people here can use their skills and knowledge to find a cheap fare.

I agree with you on Thameslink - a lot of stuff has been chucked onto it that doesn't fit, it's way too complex and is becoming Castlefield with EMUs. It almost appears that some routes have been put onto it purely to use the post-COVID-less-necessary large 700 fleet and to save money on OBSs without strikes. It should never have become more than Bedford-Brighton and Luton-Sutton loop, basically a longer Lizzie.

 

[Herefordian]

Definitely controversial here: it is much more important that the fares system is simple, understandable and fair to all than that people here can use their skills and knowledge to find a cheap fare.

I agree with you on Thameslink - a lot of stuff has been chucked onto it that doesn't fit, it's way too complex and is becoming Castlefield with EMUs. It almost appears that some routes have been put onto it purely to use the post-COVID-less-necessary large 700 fleet and to save money on OBSs without strikes. It should never have become more than Bedford-Brighton and Luton-Sutton loop, basically a longer Lizzie.

I don't think that's controversial at all. Obtaining the best fares should be as easy as possible.

 

[Taunton]

Best post-war railway leader was Beeching.

He not only did the plan but got the money out of The Treasury (the harder job) for a whole lot of positives - InterCity fast and frequent services; Merry-go-Round; rolling Mk2 stock building; long-welded rail; power signalling; coal concentration depots. The advances went on.

He also identified the complete basket cases of unused local passenger services, where whatever usage they might have once had disappeared once buses and cars became all-year practical in the 1930s, and likewise the local wagonload freight, one wagon at a time, where anything worthwhile had long gone to lorries.

 

[PGAT]

Ironing board seating is fine

 

[hexagon789]

Operation Princess was the last great XC timetable.

Why? While I preferred the days of 47s, 86s, and HSTs, I do think Operation Princess was operationally an interesting timetable, connecting different points and offering multiple destinations from a given branch of the XC network (such as, IIRC, Bournemouth alternating Manchester/Newcastle/Glasgow WCML/Edinburgh ECML). It also provided Portsmouth and Brighton with services. I realise it was unworkable, but the whole point of this thread is to throw logic to the wind for a bit.

B under Arriva is arguably little more than a glorified metro system. Now metro systems are great in certain circumstances (see below) but I prefer my IC networks to have more in the way of route variety.

The current XC offering is poor, it doesn't offer true CrossCountry connectivity as before rather it has become an mixed InterCity/regional operator running only a few core routes.

Princess was the last, in the sense of most recent, great XC timetable. Had it been successful, the connectivity between towns and cities outside of London would've been truly great. I'm sure it would've been tinkered with since, but the failure of it led to some unnecessary culls. I do think that definitely the Paddington and likely the Brighton services would've gone with various frequency uplifts on those corridors since eating paths.

The 1980s offering was good for the time, but the frequencies weren't. Many services were once a day, even the busiest corridors were maybe two or three end-to-end workings.

Princess was let down by lack of infrastructure investment, the timetable introduced in September 2002 was already cut back from the original plan due to lack of all the necessary infrastructure improvements being implemented - so some services were slower, slightly less frequent or started late/ended short compared to the intended timetable.

Best post-war railway leader was Beeching.

He not only did the plan but got the money out of The Treasury (the harder job) for a whole lot of positives - InterCity fast and frequent services; Merry-go-Round; rolling Mk2 stock building; long-welded rail; power signalling; coal concentration depots. The advances went on.

He also identified the complete basket cases of unused local passenger services, where whatever usage they might have once had disappeared once buses and cars became all-year practical in the 1930s, and likewise the local wagonload freight, one wagon at a time, where anything worthwhile had long gone to lorries.

I agree with you, the railway needed Beeching.

He gets blamed for too much, after all he did what was asked - drew up a report.

It was the various ministers responsible that actually closed things, something often overlooked.

The railway needed to cut back, but what should've been done is working more towards integrating bus and train services instead of ending up with poorer quality and often totally disparate rural bus services which sometimes died off through lack of demand - likely because they were so poor, so people either drove or moved to larger settlements.

Ironing board seating is fine

Another, agree.

I'm perfectly comfortable seated in one for up to 90 mins. (90 mins because I've never had a longer trip in one yet, so can't legitimately comment beyond that threshold.)

I don't think that's controversial at all. Obtaining the best fares should be as easy as possible.

Quite. Simplification is definitely needed, but it needs a truly in-depth look at, not mild tinkerings. It needs people that understand the present system (as much as that is possible!) to say what's wrong, why it's wrong, what is needed or wanted by customers and a comprehensive, well considered set of changes implemented.

 

[Magdalia]

2. In the recent (post-2004) era, the high point of Southern/Thameslink was in the early 2010s, prior to the recent Thameslink improvements.

I wasn't a frequent Thameslink user, but on the GN, where I've been a traveller for 50 years, the second half of the FCC period from 2010 to 2014, was definitely the high point.

Thameslink is a bit of a sprawling, higgledy-piggledy monster

I agree with you on Thameslink - a lot of stuff has been chucked onto it that doesn't fit, it's way too complex

This view isn't controversial or illogical, its common sense! What to do about it has been discussed here before.

1. Operation Princess was the last great XC timetable.

The only decent XC timetable was in the 1970s before the arrival of HSTs.

Saying that Operation Princess was wonderful, while at the same time saying that Thameslink is a sprawling monster, is, shall we say, inconsistent.

Definitely controversial here: it is much more important that the fares system is simple, understandable and fair to all than that people here can use their skills and knowledge to find a cheap fare.

I think that this is only controversial for people who regard buying a train ticket as some sort of computer game not a simple commercial transaction.

 

[Ken H]

'Cl 150 are rubbish'

No. they started the sprinterisation of regional railways, they do a mundane but essentail job day after day.

 

[eldomtom2]

Best post-war railway leader was Beeching.

He not only did the plan but got the money out of The Treasury (the harder job) for a whole lot of positives - InterCity fast and frequent services; Merry-go-Round; rolling Mk2 stock building; long-welded rail; power signalling; coal concentration depots. The advances went on.

He also identified the complete basket cases of unused local passenger services, where whatever usage they might have once had disappeared once buses and cars became all-year practical in the 1930s, and likewise the local wagonload freight, one wagon at a time, where anything worthwhile had long gone to lorries.

My controversial opinion is that Beeching is underhated. He is judged by what he got and not the far more extensive cuts he wanted (see The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes).

 

[D6130]

Ironing board seating is fine

I'm perfectly comfortable seated in one for up to 90 mins. (90 mins because I've never had a longer trip in one yet, so can't legitimately comment beyond that threshold.)

Like many aspects of the modern railway scene, this is purely subjective. Comfort-wise, a lot depends on the passenger's height, weight, shape and spinal health. I can just about stand a couple of hours in a Fainsa Sophia or similar. Any longer gives me firstly a numb bum....and then an aching back, which becomes worse the longer I sit in it and necessitates frequent walkabouts. The longest such journeys that I have made this year are in the region of two/two-and-a-half hours (Leeds-Kings Cross, Edinburgh-York, Exeter SD-Reading and vice-versa). However, in September I shall be travelling from Kings Cross to Montrose (six and a half hours)....admittedly in first class, but the first class seats in an Azuma are not much better than those in standard, so i'm looking forward to that trip with a certain degree of trepidation.

 

[nw1]

The only decent XC timetable was in the 1970s before the arrival of HSTs.

1970s on BR full stop was before my time I'm afraid

That said, to be controversial perhaps, I will say that 1979 (based on second-hand research, I didn't use BR until 1982) was the first great XC timetable.

(Why? Manchester uplift to roughly hourly, and the introduction of extensive through-working from Reading to the NW).

Saying that Operation Princess was wonderful, while at the same time saying that Thameslink is a sprawling monster, is, shall we say, inconsistent.

As I said, logic doesn't enter into it here

For me, a Princess (or pre-Princess) XC timetable "feels" right, while the current Thameslink does not (but Thameslink c. 2013 or 2014 did).

Perhaps something to do with what I grew up with - the 1980s XC with its random and unpredictable routes, but also the 1980s Southern Region/NSE with its neat and tidy networks. So I have a particular idea in my head about the "normal" for cross-country IC networks and also the "normal" for outer-suburban commuter networks, and they're two entirely different things.

 

[trebor79]

Like many aspects of the modern railway scene, this is purely subjective. Comfort-wise, a lot depends on the passenger's height, weight, shape and spinal health. I can just about stand a couple of hours in a Fainsa Sophia or similar. Any longer gives me firstly a numb bum....and then an aching back, which becomes worse the longer I sit in it and necessitates frequent walkabouts. The longest such journeys that I have made this year are in the region of two/two-and-a-half hours (Leeds-Kings Cross, Edinburgh-York, Exeter SD-Reading and vice-versa). However, in September I shall be travelling from Kings Cross to Montrose (six and a half hours)....admittedly in first class, but the first class seats in an Azuma are not much better than those in standard, so i'm looking forward to that trip with a certain degree of trepidation.

The 700 ironing boards are preferable to the Fainsa seats IMO. At least with the ironing board there are no issues with collapsed cushions (such that they are) leading to a support beam digging into the backs of your thighs.

 

[nw1]

My controversial opinion is that Beeching is underhated. He is judged by what he got and not the far more extensive cuts he wanted (see The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes).

My controversial opinion (with the strong caveat that I wasn't around at the time) was that while some routes serving only small villages and tiny towns-in-name-only, or those duplicating other routes, perhaps should have been closed, Beeching went too far and many sizable market towns lost their only service. Introduction of a more Takt-style timetable to provide good connections into the new and shiny IC network, could have been a better solution in such cases. But I guess this argument has been done to death.

 

[6Gman]

Best post-war railway leader was Beeching.

He not only did the plan but got the money out of The Treasury (the harder job) for a whole lot of positives - InterCity fast and frequent services; Merry-go-Round; rolling Mk2 stock building; long-welded rail; power signalling; coal concentration depots. The advances went on.

He also identified the complete basket cases of unused local passenger services, where whatever usage they might have once had disappeared once buses and cars became all-year practical in the 1930s, and likewise the local wagonload freight, one wagon at a time, where anything worthwhile had long gone to lorries.

Whether he was the best is arguable (and it also depends on what is meant by "leader") but I would agree with that and add that if he hadn't proposed what he did in the early 60s someone else would have been brought in potentially to do something much worse.

 

[sp503]

My controversial opinion is that the railway in UK is actually quite good and reasonably priced. Take the intercity express services in Japan (Shinkansen) and the NE corridor in the USA (Acela) as examples. They are not cheap at all, despite enjoying a much denser population that theoretically should push the price further down. And basically you can turn up and go here (most of the times) without planning your trip weeks in advance is also making railway travel much more convenient.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 700 ironing boards are preferable to the Fainsa seats IMO. At least with the ironing board there are no issues with collapsed cushions (such that they are) leading to a support beam digging into the backs of your thighs.

Agree, the Comrail is a better Fainsa offering than the Sophia, definitely. The contoured base as used by Northern and ScotRail makes it a very comfortable seat to me, and the thin back means lots of legroom. Give it a fake leather headrest and it even looks good.

As for Operation Pumpkin, it would have worked if twice as many Voyager vehicles had been ordered. Capacity was the main problem with it. It was obvious from the start that such a massive service upgrade with what was a very slight capacity reduction couldn't do anything but end in disaster.

 

[yorksrob]

My controversial opinion is that in terms of comfort, the EPB has never been bettered for a suburban commuter train.

Also, VEP's could be perfectly pleasant to travel on (if not overcrowded).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Saying that Operation Princess was wonderful, while at the same time saying that Thameslink is a sprawling monster, is, shall we say, inconsistent.

High frequency suburban metros (I know it extends out a fair way, but it still is that in nature) are not the same thing as long distance intercity routes and don't necessarily share the same solutions.

The railway needed to cut back, but what should've been done is working more towards integrating bus and train services instead of ending up with poorer quality and often totally disparate rural bus services which sometimes died off through lack of demand - likely because they were so poor, so people either drove or moved to larger settlements.

Yep. The idea of combining both into the British Transport Commission was a great one, but the two were just treated as subsidiaries and never really worked together.

I could have accepted Beeching closing slightly more if it had come with quality, truly integrated bus operations.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

My controversial opinion is that the UK railway claims to have a safety culture to be envious of, whereas in reality it’s not.

Don't get me wrong, it is very good that we have had so few major accidents / fatalities / injuries to staff and passengers over the last couple of decades. However the flip side of that is that the safety culture is increasingly placed above everything else, including practical operational needs and customer convenience. An enviable safety culture would achieve the same results without obstructing railway operations and driving cost up to unmanageable levels. To my mind, we have a functioning railway despite the safety culture, rather than because of it.

 

[Dr Hoo]

My controversial opinion is that in terms of comfort, the EPB has never been bettered for a suburban commuter train.

Also, VEP's could be perfectly pleasant to travel on (if not overcrowded).

Good play of the ‘totally irrational’ card there, Rob. Well done!

 

[yorksrob]

Good play of the ‘totally irrational’ card there, Rob. Well done!

Perfectly rational to my posterior (but I will admit, somewhat controversial )

 

[Gloster]

My controversial opinion is that in terms of comfort, the EPB has never been bettered for a suburban commuter train.

Also, VEP's could be perfectly pleasant to travel on (if not overcrowded).

I agree that the EPB was a comfortable train and efficient at its job: moving people moderate distances in reasonable comfort most of the time and large numbers of people at times when getting there was more important than comfort. VEPs were a reasonable substitute, but never quite as good on old EPB duties, except for those who demanded toilets or First Class.

 

[ar10642]

My controversial opinion is that in terms of comfort, the EPB has never been bettered for a suburban commuter train.

Also, VEP's could be perfectly pleasant to travel on (if not overcrowded).

Can't agree with you on VEPs sorry, godawful things. The only train I've liked less than them were the 165s I used to have to travel on between Gatwick and Wokingham years ago.

 

[Intercity110]

The smaller the franchise, the better. Post-privatisation was better then any period after and most before it.

 

[Taunton]

The railway needed to cut back, but what should've been done is working more towards integrating bus and train services instead of ending up with poorer quality and often totally disparate rural bus services which sometimes died off through lack of demand - likely because they were so poor, so people either drove or moved to larger settlements.

OK, here's another one. "Integrated rail and bus arrangements don't work".

Typically the bulk of the bus passengers are local, not going on the train, who have different timing needs and want to go to different places near the railhead, especially given the number of those sited nowhere near the centre of commerce in the town they are ostensibly named after. Not for nothing did bus companies build bus stations nowhere near train stations.

The railway regularly rearranges their times to suit themselves, which aside from high frequency operations will break any planned connections with various buses, who will likely not wish to change to suit because the bulk of their passengers do not wish so.

The vast majority of the "rail replacement" buses put on during the Beeching-era closures did not work out, and were given up once the railway subsidy to get them going ceased.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree that the EPB was a comfortable train and efficient at its job: moving people moderate distances in reasonable comfort most of the time and large numbers of people at times when getting there was more important than comfort. VEPs were a reasonable substitute, but never quite as good on old EPB duties, except for those who demanded toilets or First Class.

Can't agree with you on VEPs sorry, godawful things. The only train I've liked less than them were the 165s I used to have to travel on between Gatwick and Wokingham years ago.

I thought the VEP's were lovely for a gentle amble through the Kent countryside. Particularly if you managed to bag one of the second class compartments.

 

[D6130]

Can't agree with you on VEPs sorry, godawful things. The only train I've liked less than them were the 165s I used to have to travel on between Gatwick and Wokingham years ago.

I have to agree with you there....noisy, draughty, rattly things - although fast, efficient, reliable and good for rapid loading and unloading in the peaks. When I commuted on the Portsmouth Direct Line in the 1970s, my morning train up to London was diagrammed for 12 VEP but - on the rare occasions when a CIG was substituted, it was a much more pleasant and relaxing journey....although not for those passengers boarding further up the line who had to stand as a result. By contrast, my homeward journey in the evening was usually on a 12CIG/BIG/CIG....tea and hot buttered toast in the buffet car. Mmmm....

I thought the VEP's were lovely for a gentle amble through the Kent countryside. Particularly if you managed to bag one of the second class compartments.

They didn't have any second class compartments when I travelled on them regularly....although the CIGs an BIGs had one in each unit. I used to enjoy ambles through the Kent countryside at weekends on 2-HAP units....provided that you could travel in the coach with the toilet - especially if the journey involved beer or cider!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Typically the bulk of the bus passengers are local, not going on the train, who have different timing needs and want to go to different places near the railhead, especially given the number of those sited nowhere near the centre of commerce in the town they are ostensibly named after. Not for nothing did bus companies build bus stations nowhere near train stations.

They did that due to them building their own empire. It was, and is, an attitude problem.

"Bus und Bahn, starker zusammen". Work together and both grow.

What doesn't work is one side or the other (and I agree it's sometimes the railway) going "stuff you, you change to suit us". It's about having shared management, shared ideals and goals, and shared success.

 

[Pdf]

Lumo is the best service on the railway today because it pulls people from other modes primarily by being cheap (at yet it still presumably makes money). It should be emulated in other places (other intercity routes mostly such as London to Manchester and London to Glasgow).

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Why? In contrast to the above, for me the current Thameslink is a bit of a sprawling, higgledy-piggledy monster which doesn't feel right for an outer-suburban network. A Thameslink which keeps to a simple, lean network feels "cleaner" to me. So for me the high point of Thameslink was around 2013/4 or so, in the days when it was operated with a mix of 377s and 319s and focused on a small number of core routes. Likewise, Southern was also more interesting in this era, with the "classic" Brighton fasts (rather than the GatEx hybrids) still existing and through services from London Bridge to Tonbridge, which I always thought was nice.

I totally agree with this. Plus the FCC livery looked amazing on the class 377s. I wish Thameslink just kept using Electrostars rather than the Desiros.