British Rail sanity options : 1948 - 2000

What sanity options would you propose regarding the formation and running of British Rail in between the years of 1948 to 2000?

Your replies can include

Rolling stock
Locomotives either steam, diesel or electric
Routes?
Management?
Funding?
Or anything else regarding British Rail?

I'll go first.

InterCity

An earlier break up of British Rail into sectors around 1980-ish and thus formation of the independently run InterCity. This entity as it was profitable is allowed to keep its profits for itself and thus reinvests them to build new high speed lines to be used by the company exclusively or improve it's line network allowing for greater speeds via electrification.
 
1948.

Steam is a dead end, there's no point developing a whole new range of standardised steam locomotives. Put the majority of resources into Diesel and electric locos.

Don't pull down the Euston Arch in an act of cultural vandalism by developers.
 
Hmm...there are lots of things that could be improved...
@Devvy would certainly have some ideas... considering he has made a few TLs that centers around British Rail in particular with the most prominent (and to be honest, probably the best British Rail TL IMO) one (which has since been redone) being specifically based on a POD during The 1955 Modernisation Plan where the funding that were being used for the construction of huge railyards (which most of it would be closed anyway due to lack of freight traffic) instead being reallocated for more electrification and some research .
A minor one, but perhaps the development team of the APT could perhaps include a union representative, and thus avoiding a one day strike that cost them more that the overall development cost of the APT.

1948.

Steam is a dead end, there's no point developing a whole new range of standardised steam locomotives. Put the majority of resources into Diesel and electric locos.
Well, I am a bit skeptical since there is a possibility that the resources being put earlier (than 1951) on specifically the electrification meant that Britain would in the end stuck with a standard based on the older 1.5kV DC system...which in turn put a speed limit on a majority of major main lines....is the diverted resources could instead be used to researching (with the French) on what the Germans had done to developed.
while for diesel, perhaps a more gradual and longer timeline means there would be less teething troubles...
perhaps if the diesel locos were developed in a similar way as the IOTL electric locos were developed...there would be a more streamlined set of reliable diesel locos designs, instead of a hodgepodge of different designs which resulted in manufacturing of lots of locos which turned out to be a dud (*cough* diesel-hydraulics *cough)
Don't pull down the Euston Arch in an act of cultural vandalism by developers.
No comment...the arch had to be moved... perhaps the arch would be put at the park in front of the station perhaps?
 
Last edited:
A minor one, but perhaps the development team of the APT could perhaps include a union representative, and thus avoiding a one day strike that cost them more that the overall development cost of the APT.
Not serving huge amounts of booze to reporters getting 3/4 of them throwing up drunk when they demonstrate the APT to the press would also help. It never lived down the reputation they gave it as a Vomit Comet.
 
I'm not the biggest rail guy bit I'll make a couple of comments.

1. Less management resistant to night freight in the 50s and 60s.
2. More investment in intermodal freight earlier.
 
Not transferring the Great Central London Extension to the London Midland Region. I know that it made sense geographically but it was always going to play second fiddle to the old Midland Line to St Pancras (which served many of the same places). Just keep it open as a Freight Line at least.
Also although Dr Beeching gets a lot of hate, not all of which is unjustified, something had to be done about the plethora of unprofitable lines and road transport is a lot more convenient. Of course, looking back now, we can see that some lines should have been saved (isn't 20:20 hindsight wonderful) but the real solution that of accepting that BR was never going to be profitable but served a public service was not (and still would not) be politically feasible.
 
@Peg Leg Pom I've corrected your post:

not developing a whole new range of standardised steam locomotives is an act of cultural vandalism.
WP_20211003_16_18_15.png
 
To be honest, the sudden change from steam locos to diesel locos actually really screwed both of their return of investments...I think there would still be steam locos would be build as long as Robert Riddles (which had a view using steam locos for the medium term and full on electrification in the long term) is being CME...but perhaps a better way would be that there would still be steam locos being build...but all of them would be from the adequately still modern Big Four design rather than wasting money on designing new design for steam locomotive...with the money saved from that would be spent on reluctantly building diesel locos prototypes (no mass dieselisation yet) and an earlier and bigger electrification trials like the ones build held at the Morecambe branch line....

The real correction is...
Ditching a set of perfectly adequate steam locomotives designs from the Big Four for a newly set of slightly improved set of steam locos is an act of cultural vandalism. And the money saved would be use to developed diesel and electric properly so that when the moment the inevitable retirement of Riddles arrived and mass deployment of diesel and electric being the order of the day...there would be no teething issues...
TLDR: No BR Standards, but no mass dieselisation (just more prototype for as long as Riddle is in BR, and more electrification trials



P/s: I be honest, I like the designs of the BR Standards...but the fact they are being developed given the surrounding circumstances is a bit of a perplexing decision in hindsight.
 
P/s: I be honest, I like the designs of the BR Standards...but the fact they are being developed given the surrounding circumstances is a bit of a perplexing decision in hindsight.
So do I, but designing them when there were perfectly good designs already that would do until the change over could be made was stupid. The money could be better spent elsewhere.

(She may be a bit of an icon now but Evening Star was a complete waste of resources, and yes I'd still happily ride on her footplate if given the chance)
 
The Standard Locos served for etc.
Aside from the failed attempt at humour, it's more a case of I find them more of a cultural asset than a bit of pointless brick - or anything thatched, a random mound or anything remotely attached to the word art, classic or modern. If you want to get into it though, yes some new construction was needed in 51-54 to replace life-expired locos and since all 1st-gen diesels were universally crap, something needed to do the heavy lifting until steam was pushed (it sure didn't jump).

Now I'll happily concede that a total of 999 wasn't necessary and some of the designs were better than others but a complete moratorium on steam locomotive construction in the 1950s and a reliance on the walking-death rattles solely would have been asinine. As for return on investment? How long did the Warships last? Railway history hardly wants for fiscal failures.

Ultimately though, this discussion is pointless. No-one living or dead is going to convince me of the superiority of modern traction over steam. Ever. Which is why I usually strive to avoid these types of topics. I won't mention my anecdote of being behind a certain A4, rescuing people stranded on platforms because it was too cold for the poor modern traction to come out of the shed! No.9 showed resilience that night, when pretty much every other mode of transport in the country was packing up...and I do appreciate a little systemic resilience.
 
Last edited:

Devvy

Donor
What sanity options would you propose regarding the formation and running of British Rail in between the years of 1948 to 2000?

Your replies can include

Rolling stock
Locomotives either steam, diesel or electric
Routes?
Management?
Funding?
Or anything else regarding British Rail?

I'll go first.

InterCity

An earlier break up of British Rail into sectors around 1980-ish and thus formation of the independently run InterCity. This entity as it was profitable is allowed to keep its profits for itself and thus reinvests them to build new high speed lines to be used by the company exclusively or improve it's line network allowing for greater speeds via electrification.

To be honest, I don't think sectorisation could come much earlier. The early days of British Rail were full of efforts to integrate 4 distinct companies in to one company, and all the effort of doing that with different corporate business concepts, as well as being full of people who say British Rail's business model of being "operating trains" in a "operate it and people will come" - the only problem being they didn't, as BR didn't really have a firm grasp of many of the markets they were trying to attract in the early days.

So my suggestions are:
- Hit the WR (former GWR) hard, and force it to standardise with the rest of BR. The WR had a flair for individuality, and "we are different", and managed to pursue diesel-hydraulic traction power instead of diesel-electric like the rest of BR. Not only is diesel-hydraulic a more niche industry (the Germans being the only real large scale operator of this historically I think), it meant that production runs of British D-H locos were far smaller and thus worse value for money.
- Correspondingly, rather than doing loads of small batches of locomotives in the 1950s/1960s, standardise on a few locomotive types, and do large manufacturing batches for them after finding a reliable design. It might not be a perfect fit for everyone, but it's going to be far more economically viable to do and cheaper.
- Electrification needs a more wide scale roll out early on. Whilst the West Coast Main Line is an awkward mix of branches, it needs rolling out there, and then followed by at least the East Coast Main Line as the two premier long distance high speed routes, and then ideally followed by further work on the Eastern Region as per OTL. This will have a massive effect as the sparks effect was more pronounced in the 1960s/1970s then it would be now.
- Speaking of which, don't ditch steam locomotives right away. Adopt a "roll-down" process for traction; get diesel locomotives in to service on the high speed profitable routes as soon as reliably possible. If and when those services are electrified, roll down the diesel locomotives to the next valuable routes (Great Western, Midland Main Line, SWML to Southampton and Weymouth). When steam is discarded from a route, roll it down to ever smaller routes and branches.
- Reading the writing on the wall, and go whole hog for intermodal container transport early on. This is easy to say with hindsight, but the signs were there that wagon load freight was declining; provide preferable rates for customers who hand over a container for transport rather than small wagons.
- Be a bit more flexible and future-minded with regards to closing routes. Loads needed closing, but there are some routes which should have been kept for a future express network, some which could have been seen much reduced costs to keep operating, and some which could have been closed by the route reserved for re-opening if/when needed. Easy to say know, but needs someone really sat at the top with an eye on long term future rather than just responding to political pressure and the balance sheet.

Do this, and you can demonstrate to the treasury you're less of a cash dumpster fire. Accepting the BR should be a public service rather than a for-profit organisation requires BR to be better with it's cash in the early days, and demonstrate a better understanding of the public service the market (both in terms of goods and people) it is addressing. This can be done by getting more bums on seats on the longer distance profitable trains, as well as cutting losses in the wagon load freight market. The WCML and ECML provide a far better economic case for the APT or whatever kind of updated electric high speed train of future years, and crucially one that isn't so reliant on tilting so can be used whilst tilting mechanisms are "refined" before rollout on the WCML. The sight of an APT doing 150mph from London to Yorkshire will be a massive publicity boost (as well as money earner), and be vital in affording enough time for engineering to refine anything.

Oh and if we are talking about the APT, then the biggest single thing I can suggest is going "seriously" at whomever in health and safety said it was too dangerous to run a 25kV AC cable along the top of the passenger filled coaches as the TGV and every other high speed train does. This was what forced the two powered coaches to be in the centre of the train, and effectively split the train in half with duplication of all services in the front and rear halves of the train. If the coach-top cable is allowed, it allows the powered coaches to be at the very front and end of the train, with coaches in between (as you only want one pantograph raised on the train), avoiding duplication of passenger services.

Sorry for the long brain dump :)

Thank you for the kind comments :)
 
- Speaking of which, don't ditch steam locomotives right away. Adopt a "roll-down" process for traction; get diesel locomotives in to service on the high speed profitable routes as soon as reliably possible. If and when those services are electrified, roll down the diesel locomotives to the next valuable routes (Great Western, Midland Main Line, SWML to Southampton and Weymouth). When steam is discarded from a route, roll it down to ever smaller routes and branches.
Is the problem not that once you start using diesel and electric in any areas then you need facilities for them that are different and incompatible with steam engines and thus running both at the same time over lapping for any time is the worst option as you need to pay for two sets of supporting facilities & workshops? As soon as you have mainline services visiting the area even from a long distance that are electric or diesel, then having the local branch line being steam means having a separate set of higher costs and incompatible facilities? You also really don't want to for example store your nice new expensive electric loco in the same shed as a steam locomotive when it breaks down, or it will get covered in coal dust and might not react well to it?
 

Devvy

Donor
Is the problem not that once you start using diesel and electric in any areas then you need facilities for them that are different and incompatible with steam engines and thus running both at the same time over lapping for any time is the worst option as you need to pay for two sets of supporting facilities & workshops? As soon as you have mainline services visiting the area even from a long distance that are electric or diesel, then having the local branch line being steam means having a separate set of higher costs and incompatible facilities? You also really don't want to for example store your nice new expensive electric loco in the same shed as a steam locomotive when it breaks down, or it will get covered in coal dust and might not react well to it?
To a certain extent yes; steam locomotives are very specialised and maintenance heavy creatures. But the existing railway industry is built around that to start with.

I'd say that for the WCML/ECML, they are "fairly" self contained routes at the southern end, and electric locomotives require very little maintenance compared to steam, and even to diesel. I agree you want them to be stored in a nice separate facility - but there are plenty of areas to build electric-orientated depots at London and other areas. Given they don't require fuelling and are quick to start up (compared especially to steam), there's no requirement to have them right next to the terminal station - they can be a little way away (although not to far as you don't want to be running them back and forth for 40 minutes just to stable them!). But because diesel and electric require so little maintenance compared to steam, and thus fewer diesel/electric locos are needed, you need less maintenance areas, so there should be plenty of space to have separate areas. Pretty much every UK city had large rail areas which have been lost since the 1960s in the city centre for goods yards, locomotive servicing and/or train stabling.

For diesel, you don't want to build and then not use granted, but if heavier diesel facilities are built in non-London cities, there are ample other routes the locomotives can be used on when there first use case is done (and only lighter/refuelling points around London). Ie. diesel depot at Manchester can be used by WCML diesels to start with, and then being reassigned to Transpennine services. At Glasgow/Edinburgh, locomotives can be reassigned from WCMl/ECML operations to run Scotrail longer distance routes.
 
While this is going to be unpopular Beaching's axe should have fallen earlier, though of course it would be someone else swinging it. Trimming the dead wood earlier may have allowed some lines that were axed t survive longer.
 

Devvy

Donor
While this is going to be unpopular Beaching's axe should have fallen earlier, though of course it would be someone else swinging it. Trimming the dead wood earlier may have allowed some lines that were axed t survive longer.

The branch lines committee of British Rail closed approx 3,000 miles of railway before Beeching was involved - approx 1/7 of the network in 1948. Notable closures included the midland and great northern in east anglia, also known as the “meandering and going nowhere” for good reason!

The closures hastened with Beeching as a consequence of wasting an substantial sum with the modernisation plan of the 1950s.
 
1948-60

Start work on developing range of diesel locomotives and multiple units earlier than IOTL and centralise development rather than devolve it to the regions. This would have ensured that tried and tested locomotives and rolling stock were available for service from the mid and late 1950s and would have butterflied the unsuccessful or non-standard classes i.e. the Western Region diesel hydraulics and the Class 17, 21, 22, 23 and 28 locomotives.

Instead of developing a new range of standard steam locomotives, continue production of the best examples of locomotives from the Big Four to meet short-term needs such as replacing worn-out or obsolete locomotives. This could be:-
  • Express passenger - LMS Coronation and LNER A1 and A2.
  • Secondary express - Southern Light Pacific (Battle of Britain and West Country).
  • Large mixed traffic - LMS Black Five, GWR Hall and LNER B1.
  • Small mixed traffic - LMS Class 4 Mogul.
  • Branch line passenger - LMS Class 2 Mogul and Prairie Tank.
  • Heavy freight - LMS Class 8F.
  • Shunting and light freight - GWR 5700 and LNER J72.
The only standard class that could be justified is the 9F.

End production of steam locomotives once diesel replacements have been proven to cope with the demands of service (probably 1955 or 1956).

Earmark the WCML and ECML for electrification and start work. By 1960, electric services should have reached Birmingham, Nuneaton and Peterborough.

1960-80

Continue with ECML and WCML electrification. By 1964, the wires should have reached Manchester and Liverpool on the WCML and Leeds and York on the ECML. By 1970, electric services should be running to Edinburgh and Glasgow. By 1980, the wires should have been extended to Aberdeen and branches leading off the ECML and WCML i.e. to Blackpool, Bradford, Hull, Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Windermere have also been electrified.

Electrify all the London and Birmingham suburban lines.

Proceed with the Picc-Vic link in Manchester and electrify Manchester suburban services.

Continue with programme to replace steam with diesel but over a longer timeline. Although more labour-intensive to operate, steam technology was tried and tested (and its value was proved during the winter of 1962-63 when freezing conditions put a lot of the diesels and electrics out of action). Steam operation of passenger services to end by 1975-76 and freight services by 1980. Worth noting for comparison that West Germany did not replace steam until 1977.

Maintain a stock of steam locomotives for use on special services after the end of regular steam operation. These are likely to be profitable.

The Beeching cuts were necessary because a large number of lines were losing money, but the process could have been smarter. To demonstrate, several lines closed in the 1960s and 1970s have since been reopened by the national rail networks e.g. the Nottingham-Worksop line, the Vale of Glamorgan line, the Cynon Valley and Ebbw Vale branches and the Border Rail line in Scotland. The following options should have been explored:-
  • Converting unprofitable lines to light railway status and transferring responsibility to local authorities or community trusts. This would have cut running costs through fares being collected by onboard conductors and by reducing stations to unstaffed halts.
  • Using unwanted main lines as freight corridors, which would free up capacity on main lines. Examples are the Great Central main line, the Settle and Carlisle line (which in OTL is being used for freight), the Waverley line and the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton line which would have provided a freight artery from the North and Midlands to Southampton docks.
Complete 3rd rail electrification of remaining Southern Region services by 1980. This will include the main line to Weymouth and the lines to East Grinstead, Hastings, Salisbury and Uckfield.

Start planning for the next phase of electrification for the Great Western Main Line to Bristol and Cardiff and the Midland Main Line to Sheffield and Nottingham.

1980-2000

Proceed with electrification of the Great Western and Midland main lines. Electrification to have reached Leicester (1983), Bristol Temple Meads (1984), Derby and Nottingham (1986), Bristol Parkway (1988) and Cardiff and Sheffield (1990). Next phase of electrification will be to extend the GW main line to Birmingham via Oxford and Swansea and the Midland main line to Barnsley and Wakefield and to Rotherham and Doncaster to link to the ECML.

Work starts to electrify the main line to the West Country. The wires reach Exeter (1994) and Plymouth (1997), and is expected to reach Penzance by 2001.

Replacement of the first generation of diesel multiple units to start. Instead of the hated Pacers, British Rail to standardise on the Class 210.

Replacement of the first generation of diesel locomotives to start. British Rail orders the Class 58, the Class 66 and Class 67.

The main lines to Norwich and King's Lynn are electrified as OTL.

The Trans Pennine main line from Liverpool to Hull is electrified.

The Oxford to Cambridge line is reopened and electrified.

Work to build HS1 starts in tandem with the construction of the Channel Tunnel and is ready by 1993.

Instead of privatisation, British Rail becomes a state-owned corporation but is independent of the Government and can decide its own development priorities.
 
1948-60

Start work on developing range of diesel locomotives and multiple units earlier than IOTL and centralise development rather than devolve it to the regions. This would have ensured that tried and tested locomotives and rolling stock were available for service from the mid and late 1950s and would have butterflied the unsuccessful or non-standard classes i.e. the Western Region diesel hydraulics and the Class 17, 21, 22, 23 and 28 locomotives.

Instead of developing a new range of standard steam locomotives, continue production of the best examples of locomotives from the Big Four to meet short-term needs such as replacing worn-out or obsolete locomotives. This could be:-
  • Express passenger - LMS Coronation and LNER A1 and A2.
  • Secondary express - Southern Light Pacific (Battle of Britain and West Country).
  • Large mixed traffic - LMS Black Five, GWR Hall and LNER B1.
  • Small mixed traffic - LMS Class 4 Mogul.
  • Branch line passenger - LMS Class 2 Mogul and Prairie Tank.
  • Heavy freight - LMS Class 8F.
  • Shunting and light freight - GWR 5700 and LNER J72.
The only standard class that could be justified is the 9F.

End production of steam locomotives once diesel replacements have been proven to cope with the demands of service (probably 1955 or 1956).

Earmark the WCML and ECML for electrification and start work. By 1960, electric services should have reached Birmingham, Nuneaton and Peterborough.

1960-80

Continue with ECML and WCML electrification. By 1964, the wires should have reached Manchester and Liverpool on the WCML and Leeds and York on the ECML. By 1970, electric services should be running to Edinburgh and Glasgow. By 1980, the wires should have been extended to Aberdeen and branches leading off the ECML and WCML i.e. to Blackpool, Bradford, Hull, Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Windermere have also been electrified.

Electrify all the London and Birmingham suburban lines.

Proceed with the Picc-Vic link in Manchester and electrify Manchester suburban services.

Continue with programme to replace steam with diesel but over a longer timeline. Although more labour-intensive to operate, steam technology was tried and tested (and its value was proved during the winter of 1962-63 when freezing conditions put a lot of the diesels and electrics out of action). Steam operation of passenger services to end by 1975-76 and freight services by 1980. Worth noting for comparison that West Germany did not replace steam until 1977.

Maintain a stock of steam locomotives for use on special services after the end of regular steam operation. These are likely to be profitable.

The Beeching cuts were necessary because a large number of lines were losing money, but the process could have been smarter. To demonstrate, several lines closed in the 1960s and 1970s have since been reopened by the national rail networks e.g. the Nottingham-Worksop line, the Vale of Glamorgan line, the Cynon Valley and Ebbw Vale branches and the Border Rail line in Scotland. The following options should have been explored:-
  • Converting unprofitable lines to light railway status and transferring responsibility to local authorities or community trusts. This would have cut running costs through fares being collected by onboard conductors and by reducing stations to unstaffed halts.
  • Using unwanted main lines as freight corridors, which would free up capacity on main lines. Examples are the Great Central main line, the Settle and Carlisle line (which in OTL is being used for freight), the Waverley line and the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton line which would have provided a freight artery from the North and Midlands to Southampton docks.
Complete 3rd rail electrification of remaining Southern Region services by 1980. This will include the main line to Weymouth and the lines to East Grinstead, Hastings, Salisbury and Uckfield.

Start planning for the next phase of electrification for the Great Western Main Line to Bristol and Cardiff and the Midland Main Line to Sheffield and Nottingham.

1980-2000

Proceed with electrification of the Great Western and Midland main lines. Electrification to have reached Leicester (1983), Bristol Temple Meads (1984), Derby and Nottingham (1986), Bristol Parkway (1988) and Cardiff and Sheffield (1990). Next phase of electrification will be to extend the GW main line to Birmingham via Oxford and Swansea and the Midland main line to Barnsley and Wakefield and to Rotherham and Doncaster to link to the ECML.

Work starts to electrify the main line to the West Country. The wires reach Exeter (1994) and Plymouth (1997), and is expected to reach Penzance by 2001.

Replacement of the first generation of diesel multiple units to start. Instead of the hated Pacers, British Rail to standardise on the Class 210.

Replacement of the first generation of diesel locomotives to start. British Rail orders the Class 58, the Class 66 and Class 67.

The main lines to Norwich and King's Lynn are electrified as OTL.

The Trans Pennine main line from Liverpool to Hull is electrified.

The Oxford to Cambridge line is reopened and electrified.

Work to build HS1 starts in tandem with the construction of the Channel Tunnel and is ready by 1993.

Instead of privatisation, British Rail becomes a state-owned corporation but is independent of the Government and can decide its own development priorities.
 
Top