Re-reading some of this thread, the pro-BR camp seems to be split between "we should bring back BR so we'd get droplights, guards vans, MotorRail and full restaurants on most lines" and "we should bring back BR so that the Government would be able to determine fare increases, order new trains and insist upon the liveries"...
It's not really surprising that the Gatwick Express didn't have the same restaurant facilities as the Highland Chieftan. It was a bit of a short journey for a full sit down meal.
Okay, so you agree that it's a bit naive to suggest there should be one identical standard for all InterCity journeys, or that there ever was one identical standard?
Don’t remember any BR intercity service being done with anything other than 125s and other assorted loco hauled stuff
You could have InterCity services run by 47s, 73s, 158s - all much slower than 125mph - it certainly wasn't all HSTs.
Apart from 2 anomalies where I had a trip from Kings cross to Leeds on a WYMetro branded 321 EMU and a trip From Birmingham to Manchester on a very old commuter EMU but can’t remember the class. Both of these were obviously unscheduled changes but it does highlight what some have said earlier that the BR system did have some flexibility when things went wrong unlike today, as all the stock and staff were working for the same organisation. Don’t think you’d get much cooperation to fix things like this today
You mean like FGW/GWR putting a 143 on a Devon - Paddington service when there wasn't a fit HST available? From what people have said, the Pacer ran as far as Reading, rather than continuing as a 75mph train all the way into London, but such things do happen (I've mentioned earlier the way that EMT ran HSTs to Lincoln and Skegness each year, or 222s to Liverpool).
Even if you had a nationalised railway, you'd still need to deal with the fact that staff are only trained on so many types of train and routes - if you want the flexibility to run the same stock that does the Leeds - Doncaster stopper all the way to London in the event of disruption then that's going to require a lot of route/stock knowledge retention, to ensure that sufficient staff kept their boxes ticked. All this "resilience" comes at a price.
The 158 workings on XC (introduced under BR but extended to the privatised era) were effectively an overlay to the underlying core IC routes, a flexible way of allowing through connections to be retained that matched the demand on routes that were not so core to the operation at the time.
It made a lot of sense(to run the service with 158s), but BR didn't pretend that all InterCity services had the same level of comfort/speed/ facilities - twenty five years later though, some people like to pretend that InterCity meant a consistent level of such things.
That's probably true, tho I was mainly considering BR's high fare increases, but they have to be seen in the context of the prevailing inflation at the time. The only really valid comparison is how much above or below inflation fare increases are year on year or course, over time. But there were indeed BR increases above inflation during that period as the govt sought to increase passenger share of costs, as they have done again in recent years of course
That's fair.
All too often people blame the Government of the day for all of the "bad" under BR (e.g. it wasn't BR's fault, the nasty Government made them increase fares, slash services and only order two new carriages for every three that were being scrapped) whilst praising BR for all of the "good" that happened (even if that was just an artist's impression of stock that they wanted to order but didn't)
Its not rose tinted specs, BR had many shortcomings and problems. However it is Public transport run for the public and not the profit. If government could put the same resources into operating a public transport system which was efficient and cost effective. Then profits could be reinvested in the network and not the shareholders. Yes it is controversial but what is better a £1 given to a shareholder or a £1 reinvested for the public and the countries economy
Where does that logic end up though? The money used to give staff a pay rise could be used to spend on infrastructure instead, the money used to improve safety could have been used on buying new trains...
Are you so politically biased that you'd rather have BR-run newsagents at big stations, or are you okay with WH Smith taking profits from running such shops (that is money that could have been used for the public good)? Is it okay for the buffet cars to buy food from catering companies or should "the railway" grow its own food to ensure that no money leaked out into the dreaded private sector? Should BR own its own clothing company or is it okay to buy uniforms from a third party? Or is it okay for some private sector involvement, because that is cheaper/ more efficient than everything being provided by the state?
But there isn't really a profit is there anyway - the railway needs more subsidy than it brings in (globally) - so the profit is taken by a contractor for running part of it (in the same way that the company that builds the photocopier in the network rail office makes a profit when they sell the photocopier - that profit could have been re-invested in Ntwrok Rail if NR could build photocopies for themselves more cheaply, let us say)
When BR was nationalised in 1948 it did make a profit and it was thought that that would carry on - and the state cream off the profits (as they did with say Royal Mail for many years), like a dividend - the 1945 Lab Govt felt that essential public services should not make profits for shareholders, but make profits for 'society' aka govt. Those profits were declining so the Modernization Plan of 1955 was meant to turn things around, it didn't. The Beaching Report was then meant to turn things around, but it didn't. There were still losses.
So the system is not about profit - there isn't any - it's about the least level of subsidy required to run it.
Which is why it's pretend capitalism.
So that begs the real question - which is 'can a private contractor run the railway for less than a government owned organisation?'
It should be possible to compare say DoR run LNER with a private TOC to find out - well that is what DfT should have been doing these last few years anyway, and that is what the Williams Review ought to have looked at. I suspect Williams was not allowed to do that however.
Mind you I tend to agree with your view personally - and it should be perfectly possible for a govt owned operation to run a good quality service, and if it is feasible to do so, generate a dividend. As others have said, BR was a mixed bag, but more good than bad on balance I would say. Most private operators have been weak, and only upped their game when they got Br trained leaders leading, or so it often seemed. The worst of the private operators have been shocking, with very poor customer service and a poorly presented product.
Fair points.
I'd like to keep an open mind and see whether DOR/LNER were more efficient at running the ECML franchise than GNER/ NXEC/ VTEC, based on an agreed set of benchmarks (premium repaid to the Treasury, punctuality etc) - if the State can provide things better then I've no problem with the State doing so (even if "the State" is actually some expensive Management Consultants).
I think that, for the most part, the Government has ended up with the TOCs that it deserved, given the requirements that they gave them - e.g. if you have a tight set of requirements that ScotRail's "SQUIRE" then you'll keep the TOC on its toes - if you allow the winning bidder to run the franchise for ten years with no commitment to increase the number of services/ carriages/ seats then you can't blame the private sector if they take the easy route and do the bare minimum. But the Government needs to decide what it wants to pay for and how carefully to manage the relationship.
)
