I read Christian Wolmar's book on British Rail (the making breaking of our trains) recently and it basically convinced me we need to go back to British Rail in 1993, although I think basically copying places like Denmark or Germany would work with a level of independence from the Department for Transport (roads). Very good video
Yeah I think I'd agree, there were certainly still issues with how things were done, and not everything would fit today. But BR was one of the best run railways on earth, government meddling is what ruined it.
I agree with your idea. But honestly another thing needed is intergrated ticketing between buses & trains. Like why not make it possible to use a train ticket to get a free bus ride to your destination within the town the station is in. I get it that we have plusbus but it would save people money with an intergrated public transport ticketing system.
Make them all 'not for profit' organisations. So that most of the money generated, goes back into improving the system....or in this case, the network. It's time to cut out shareholders altogether. They're not necessary. They just get in the way, and exert too much influence. Many are also Tory voters who donate to the Tory party.
I see your point 100% but I think we should try and get the middle ground between what you suggest and how it is now. Companies that do make profit and do provide highly skilled and capable workers a good financial incentive to work at them, but also not funnelling all the profits to shareholders/Chief executives who can't relate to the problems the Average Person needs fixing
The starting point would have to be how the system is re-nationalised. Buying out those current franchises that aren’t already under direct government control would cost us the taxpayers a fortune running into £bns. So re-nationalising would have to allow those franchises to expire and not renew the contracts. So to take back the operations would take years to avoid yet another hit to the treasury (us). The time in between now and that could be used fruitfully in planning structures etc. assuming a conservative government (and they lose power next year) didn’t come into power again and just turn it all upside down again. It’s not so simple when you stop to think about it. And I suspect an incoming government would not have renationalisation high on their agenda certainly until a second or even third term. Well that’s my thinking anyway.
There are no Franchises anymore, they are National Rail Contracts. These are very differnt things and i would imagine that the terms of them include clauses to take the service back into public ownership. If not , it is certainly easier for the government of the day to take the keys back now than it was under the franchise model.
@@MrWighteagle I'm sure you're right but I have to admit that it would be a very strange contractual agreement indeed that would effectively write in a no-penalty seizure notice binding on the operator with no recourse to recompense. This especially when you look at the ownership of the TOCs, eg DB, SNCF, NS. They're not daft and their legal teams would spot that a mile off.
The new National Rail Contracts are generally relatively short term, with most expiring within a matter of years or even months. Even if not, though, Schedule 15.1.1 of the franchise agreement states that the DfT is entitled to re-let the franchise early (to themselves, if they wanted to). This wouldn't be preferable, of course, but it is a possibility.
@@GWVillager The point to bottom out would be what the cash penalty for curtailing a contract early would be payable to the TOC. Given the shenanigans we’ve seen, I think that’s inevitably going to be almost certain as there will be something woven into the contract. They don’t broadcast the £mns they quietly pay the TOCs to compensate them for industrial action for example. An example of agreements we aren’t told about.
@@hoof2001 There isn't actually anything in the contract detailing any payments. It may happen, but is unlikely to be insurmountable. Again, though, the contracts don't last long, you could likely just let them expire conventionally.
Can't agree, sorry. Before Beeching, nobody had any idea how much the railway cost. We were better off when the railways simply blundered ahead without any of the financial controls and constraints that Beeching and his successors imposed on them. Fares were lower, services were better, there were more stations and there were more trains and more track. So, have enough financial control to ensure that money from the sale of tickets doesn't get embezzled and the staff and suppliers get paid, and forget about targets, budgets, return on capital employed etc. Yer average passenger doesn't even know what they are, let alone give twopence. Secondly, do not purchase from the existing owners of stock, track, stations, ice cream fridges etc. Requisition from the operators everything they own without compensation. These operators were entrusted with billions of pounds' worth of assets and they have reduced the value of them, in some cases (Teesside Airport station for instance) to zero. They should be requisitioned at the current value of the assets, that is, nothing. Thirdly, forget what colour it should be. What's wrong with trains being different colours? I, too, like the old British Railways maroon livery and the dignified and distinctive British Railways roundel. Instead, cancel all new highway construction and instead begin a fifty year programme of railway construction, restoring most of the lines that Ernest Marples and Tom Fraser closed in the early 1960s. How we miss them all. Fourthly, bring back Sleeper trains, Motorail trains and restaurant cars. A Sleeper train that charges more than £200 for a one way trip from London to Scotland is no service at all. Fifthly, slash fares to about one tenth of their present level. Ken Johnson (MSc Transport Engineering)
Lots of suggestions here!! I think in terms of the branding I liked the “sectorised” branding BR used to have, ie InterCity, Regional Railways, NSE. In your new system I’d retain InterCity, and have two liveries. Mainline trains can use the Swallow livery (the variant planned for the InterCity 250, as this fits multiple units better, with a new more modern font for the word “InterCity”) High speed services (HS2 only, as HS1 domestic is *regional*, not intercity, high speed) should have their own distinct livery, maybe “InterCity Ultraspeed” and an eagle instead of a swallow?! To be honest I’m quite invested in InterCity returning to a heyday of some sort so as well as those slick liveries that really bring out speed, I would significantly raise quality of service. Firstly sort out the ironing board seats once and for all! Also add MUCH better catering to BOTH classes of travel (ideally with a restaurant car, or at least hot food in both classes!) I’d bring back Network SouthEast but I’d also have for example “Network NorthEast” around Newcastle, “Network WestMids” around Birmingham, “Network NorthWest” around Manchester, “Network SouthWest” around Bristol / Exeter etc. All of these will of course be operated by the wider metropolitan area transport authorities you speak of and will have their own unique branding. There will be some longer distance regional services and if needed we could keep a Regional Railways brand to mop those up, I just don’t think InterCity should deal with stoppers.
I actually think the EU regulations on rail were quite good. I understand with a perfect government and transit agency nationalisation is more efficient, but governments change and a government of austerity can replace a government that cares about funding railways. That is what EU regulations prevented.
Except that like many EU Directives certain countries found a way around them. SNCF may have split itself but both the network and the operations are still state owned and good luck any private operator trying to gain access, (I believe the EU did fine SNCF for practices to inhibit private operators), Germany did a number on National Express many years ago when it won a contract to operate rail services in and around Berlin, the tendering process was apparently "flawed" and so rerun and surprise DB won the contract.
Thanks for this video, I’m from Portugal and I had no ideia that your railway was so dysfunctional. One remark tho, you country decided to privatise the railway because they wanted to, almost every country in EU still has its own public rail operator….
Despite the fact all of this would help and this is slightly petty it would be rather boring and uninteresting if all liverys were the same (and possibly all the trains were the same in their separate bodies); i would much prefer somthing like Br late sectorisation or similar where different route categories (regional, stopping, commuter, ect) use different liverys and the trains could be chosen by that categories operator meaning very likely you would see alot more variety and a mix of old and new. Obviously just a thought but would love to see it!
I wonder where would we start if the railways are brought back into public ownership. Might end up with a programme of rationalisation of the locomotives and rolling stock similar to the 1960s National Traction Plan.
Will the operation of railways be much better if the Big Four companies have returned? They would know how to run railways and still have competition amongst themselves.
Privarisation had been a farse, public transit definitionally is for the public good, there can be profitable lines, but, these exist to subsidise the less profitable ones, for this reason, I hope there is always a pathway for private companies to operate trains if they can find a profitable route and wish to compete with GBR Great Britsh Railways. Also very much agree that there should be TFL equivalents for devolved regions once again taken into public ownership. Developing our pwn locos again might be very difficult, especially outside of the EU where those people with the skills are.
Flat singlestripe ends , usually on middle and coach gangways, [■________■] ...__■][■__... / / stripe filled like that with same colour placed so the upper left corner is on the upper front (+ yellow faces/masks ofc) and a center triple beam : ■ □ ■ and below floor a yellow band above a grey/blackish body panel colour Idk the colours tho So imagine colours: ( /==[][]======[][]==| ] This for example would be a networker end
Bring back British Rail and reinstate our railways that is fit for the 21st Century and beyond. As what everyone said’s. And the government to invest more money into keeping our railways efficient and reliable for hundreds of years to come.
It seems to me all these grand plans to reorganise just mask the real problem of the lack of investment. Maybe it makes a small difference, but ultimately the tax payer needs to embrace spending more money on the railways - and not just the railways but public transport in general as people need to be able to get to the station. Switzerland has a much better rail system because of this, not because of how things are organised (although that may be beneficial too).
A lot of things I do agree in the video. Forst off out of the park is the infamous directive 91/440 which basically was the final nail in the coffin for BR, personally. Integration is a big dealbreaker. I've seen a comment or two mention about integration with other forms of transport to get you to your final destination. A good idea for sure, but feel as if a lotnof collaboration between the types woukd have to be big time. Probably a big hill to climb, but not an impossible one. Funding of course is the big deal. Our governments demand that seevices like rsjl mist run at a "profit" which isn't universal across everything. For example, roads are constantly at a severe loss but that sometomes isn't brought up when people moan about the costs of operatong a system such as rail. Why must something like rail make a profit? Ive always believed, and will believe, that rail is a servive first and foremost. Some folk have brought up systems such as DB, NS etc. Essentially a "joint stock" firm with the government as a sole investor. To me, that is a lainfully liberal way of going by it. It should be simpler. Seperation of managment from government as you mentioned I highly agree. Goverment providing the funds that the taxes are designed for. As for private firms. Thats more a grey area for me. I still stand firm that private operators aren't really necessary. Railways are an inherent monopoly and rightly so. Some say the competition allows companies to invest and innovate. I disagree. Theres many routes to the same solution. An idea could be government sets targets for the national operator to constantly increase standards for the benefit of the passenger. Constant liberalisation doesn't does not always equal a better passenger experience. But for the sake of argument, I'm willing to compromise. If private operators have to be a requirement, they would need to be under the watchful eye of government to ensure they are treating all passengers and staff fairly. The "free market" won't really bother sll that much. They'de rather take the cheapest option as time has shown on countless occasions.
This plan will go the way of the NHS, work great for a period of time then when politically expedient it'll be underfunded, under-maintained and everything will be cheaped out on. We'd be back to pacers on the rails
Generally, quite a reasonable proposal, although I differ (of course) on a couple of items. Rail freight is the only part of the privatisation that I would regard as a success, and I would be quite happy to leave it in the hands of the private operators, but there should be more support in the infrastructure to accommodate them- e.g.. doubling and electrification of freight routes. This could also improve passenger services which also use those routes. The name "Great British Railways" just grates- Go back to "British Rail" and definitely keep the double arrow. That inspired many other operators to design their own variations. The business sectors of British Rail were a success, more efficient and less demanding of subsidy than the current mess. I particularly benefited from the improvements brought in by Network South East (Well done Chris Green- the best Chairman that British Rail never had!) Perhaps Wales, Scotland and the English regions could carry on from what was once Regional Railways sector- just a thought. The sector liveries were inspired and there would be nothing wrong with restoring them. Of today's train liveries, the only one that I like is the GWR green which does look very smart. It is probably too late to return to in-house manufacturing, as all the expertise and patents were not lost, but given away to foreign companies through privatisation. Political dogma trumps common sense every time. Whatever happens, keeping the organisation out of the incompetent hands of the DfT is paramount, and design trains for comfort.
Can't be saved until the grip of the unions is removed. Then the railways can be modernised with the removal of outdated working practices in order to adopt an up to date attitude and culture. As for those who say "bring back BR" they obviously have very short memories or are too young to have experienced the original.
Have we finally found a Brexit benefit? Then again, unfortunately, this plan probably won't happen, so we're still searching for a benefit that actually exists.
In my humble, yet expert, opinion it is quite obvious that the solution to all the problems faced by the rail network in the uk (from disorganised and fractured systems, dwindling passenger numbers (due to multiple reasons (cars being more convenient, online working being more prevalent and so on)), increasingly lacklustre service reliability and quality, with bad rolling stock and the such, to the insane price tag on travelling even a meagre distance by train or any public transport for that matter (having it way more expensive than comparable systems on the continent)) and the issues that are currently facing them (strikes being prevalent (due to the greed of both the working class and the bosses of the companies that are running the rail network and all its pieces) and the dwindling quality of the infrastructure as it starts to collapse as many a bridge and tunnel are doing nowadays) is to just decrease the funding given to network rail and the train operating companies by the draconian national rail contracts and to instead make a truly free market system where actual private companies can actually compete to provide a proper service with profit as their motive, not these stupid German or Dutch or Italian state companies running our network as they have no idea and they should not be here anyway (Brexit got done!!!), this truly free way of competing without any kind of government regulation or manhandling would lead to a much better service for the rail network. Thank you great western villager, I hope you take my (expert) opinion in mind when following up on this topic as it is a very good and well thought out piece.
> "greed of the working class" > suggesting private companies have free reign over a public service 'for profit' > thinks Brexit was meant to get rid of all foreigners I find it hard to believe you're not an obvious troll and actually believe this crap.
True free competition would lead to great rail services, but only between major towns and cities and only during rush hour when it's profitable. Maybe they could do what they do in some parts of the US and Canada: trains run in one direction into the city for the morning rush and then in the other direction at 5pm.
and NO to a british anything. - there's no such over-arching culture (or actual nationality, despite official insistence). the UK is a Union OF cultures. ''british'' is to readily conflated with english, too associative of imperialism and faff, a Norman elite's whitewash of a term used to possess and bury seven distinct cultures. U.K. actually dropped ''of great britain etc'' in 1920 anyways. look it up. -UK was founded in 1920, quietly, but no-less officially a different Union from the pre-WW One Union. a post-imperial Era UK needs a post-imperial name. UK rail is fine ta'
I read Christian Wolmar's book on British Rail (the making breaking of our trains) recently and it basically convinced me we need to go back to British Rail in 1993, although I think basically copying places like Denmark or Germany would work with a level of independence from the Department for Transport (roads). Very good video
Late BR did have a lot sorted out, but I do think there are still areas in which it was flawed, and I wouldn't go back to then exactly.
No doubt it had issues, I was just using 1993 BR as a point of reference @@GWVillager
Yeah I think I'd agree, there were certainly still issues with how things were done, and not everything would fit today. But BR was one of the best run railways on earth, government meddling is what ruined it.
German railways are a mess.
I agree with your idea. But honestly another thing needed is intergrated ticketing between buses & trains. Like why not make it possible to use a train ticket to get a free bus ride to your destination within the town the station is in. I get it that we have plusbus but it would save people money with an intergrated public transport ticketing system.
I'll discuss this in another episode, it's definitely coming!
100% Agreed there. It's why I love travelling around The Netherlands so much.
@@MaverickHunterDaniel I live in Denmark we also have intergrated ticketing though I hate how there is train price & bus price.
I stopped going to London and Manchester when I couldn't just turn up at a station, pay my fare, and wait no more half an hour for a train.
I can't wait to see Rutland's local transport authority
Part 2 should be better infrastructure (trains, rails, stations) make railways nicer and more efficient to run
We’ve gotten a lot of new trains recently but they need to be upgraded to have better seats etc.
A fantastic and fascinating video, the UK railways is in desperate need of change
Make them all 'not for profit' organisations. So that most of the money generated, goes back into improving the system....or in this case, the network. It's time to cut out shareholders altogether. They're not necessary. They just get in the way, and exert too much influence. Many are also Tory voters who donate to the Tory party.
I see your point 100% but I think we should try and get the middle ground between what you suggest and how it is now. Companies that do make profit and do provide highly skilled and capable workers a good financial incentive to work at them, but also not funnelling all the profits to shareholders/Chief executives who can't relate to the problems the Average Person needs fixing
The starting point would have to be how the system is re-nationalised. Buying out those current franchises that aren’t already under direct government control would cost us the taxpayers a fortune running into £bns. So re-nationalising would have to allow those franchises to expire and not renew the contracts. So to take back the operations would take years to avoid yet another hit to the treasury (us). The time in between now and that could be used fruitfully in planning structures etc. assuming a conservative government (and they lose power next year) didn’t come into power again and just turn it all upside down again. It’s not so simple when you stop to think about it. And I suspect an incoming government would not have renationalisation high on their agenda certainly until a second or even third term. Well that’s my thinking anyway.
There are no Franchises anymore, they are National Rail Contracts. These are very differnt things and i would imagine that the terms of them include clauses to take the service back into public ownership. If not , it is certainly easier for the government of the day to take the keys back now than it was under the franchise model.
@@MrWighteagle I'm sure you're right but I have to admit that it would be a very strange contractual agreement indeed that would effectively write in a no-penalty seizure notice binding on the operator with no recourse to recompense. This especially when you look at the ownership of the TOCs, eg DB, SNCF, NS. They're not daft and their legal teams would spot that a mile off.
The new National Rail Contracts are generally relatively short term, with most expiring within a matter of years or even months. Even if not, though, Schedule 15.1.1 of the franchise agreement states that the DfT is entitled to re-let the franchise early (to themselves, if they wanted to). This wouldn't be preferable, of course, but it is a possibility.
@@GWVillager The point to bottom out would be what the cash penalty for curtailing a contract early would be payable to the TOC. Given the shenanigans we’ve seen, I think that’s inevitably going to be almost certain as there will be something woven into the contract. They don’t broadcast the £mns they quietly pay the TOCs to compensate them for industrial action for example. An example of agreements we aren’t told about.
@@hoof2001 There isn't actually anything in the contract detailing any payments. It may happen, but is unlikely to be insurmountable. Again, though, the contracts don't last long, you could likely just let them expire conventionally.
Can't agree, sorry. Before Beeching, nobody had any idea how much the railway cost. We were better off when the railways simply blundered ahead without any of the financial controls and constraints that Beeching and his successors imposed on them. Fares were lower, services were better, there were more stations and there were more trains and more track. So, have enough financial control to ensure that money from the sale of tickets doesn't get embezzled and the staff and suppliers get paid, and forget about targets, budgets, return on capital employed etc. Yer average passenger doesn't even know what they are, let alone give twopence.
Secondly, do not purchase from the existing owners of stock, track, stations, ice cream fridges etc. Requisition from the operators everything they own without compensation. These operators were entrusted with billions of pounds' worth of assets and they have reduced the value of them, in some cases (Teesside Airport station for instance) to zero. They should be requisitioned at the current value of the assets, that is, nothing.
Thirdly, forget what colour it should be. What's wrong with trains being different colours? I, too, like the old British Railways maroon livery and the dignified and distinctive British Railways roundel. Instead, cancel all new highway construction and instead begin a fifty year programme of railway construction, restoring most of the lines that Ernest Marples and Tom Fraser closed in the early 1960s. How we miss them all.
Fourthly, bring back Sleeper trains, Motorail trains and restaurant cars. A Sleeper train that charges more than £200 for a one way trip from London to Scotland is no service at all.
Fifthly, slash fares to about one tenth of their present level.
Ken Johnson (MSc Transport Engineering)
Lots of suggestions here!!
I think in terms of the branding I liked the “sectorised” branding BR used to have, ie InterCity, Regional Railways, NSE.
In your new system I’d retain InterCity, and have two liveries.
Mainline trains can use the Swallow livery (the variant planned for the InterCity 250, as this fits multiple units better, with a new more modern font for the word “InterCity”)
High speed services (HS2 only, as HS1 domestic is *regional*, not intercity, high speed) should have their own distinct livery, maybe “InterCity Ultraspeed” and an eagle instead of a swallow?!
To be honest I’m quite invested in InterCity returning to a heyday of some sort so as well as those slick liveries that really bring out speed, I would significantly raise quality of service.
Firstly sort out the ironing board seats once and for all!
Also add MUCH better catering to BOTH classes of travel (ideally with a restaurant car, or at least hot food in both classes!)
I’d bring back Network SouthEast but I’d also have for example “Network NorthEast” around Newcastle, “Network WestMids” around Birmingham, “Network NorthWest” around Manchester, “Network SouthWest” around Bristol / Exeter etc.
All of these will of course be operated by the wider metropolitan area transport authorities you speak of and will have their own unique branding.
There will be some longer distance regional services and if needed we could keep a Regional Railways brand to mop those up, I just don’t think InterCity should deal with stoppers.
A peregrine falcon would be good for the high speed services, fastest animal in the world when it dives
Great video!
I actually think the EU regulations on rail were quite good. I understand with a perfect government and transit agency nationalisation is more efficient, but governments change and a government of austerity can replace a government that cares about funding railways. That is what EU regulations prevented.
That is true, but a truly high quality rail network is likely to be appreciated and receive consistent Government support. See Switzerland.
Except that like many EU Directives certain countries found a way around them. SNCF may have split itself but both the network and the operations are still state owned and good luck any private operator trying to gain access, (I believe the EU did fine SNCF for practices to inhibit private operators), Germany did a number on National Express many years ago when it won a contract to operate rail services in and around Berlin, the tendering process was apparently "flawed" and so rerun and surprise DB won the contract.
Thanks for this video, I’m from Portugal and I had no ideia that your railway was so dysfunctional. One remark tho, you country decided to privatise the railway because they wanted to, almost every country in EU still has its own public rail operator….
Indeed, but they are usually split into two, with one section being for infrastructure and one for the trains. Ideally, they'd be run as one.
Despite the fact all of this would help and this is slightly petty it would be rather boring and uninteresting if all liverys were the same (and possibly all the trains were the same in their separate bodies); i would much prefer somthing like Br late sectorisation or similar where different route categories (regional, stopping, commuter, ect) use different liverys and the trains could be chosen by that categories operator meaning very likely you would see alot more variety and a mix of old and new. Obviously just a thought but would love to see it!
I completely agree and think that several brands would also be helpful for the passenger. I'll have a whole episode of this series on the topic!
I wonder where would we start if the railways are brought back into public ownership. Might end up with a programme of rationalisation of the locomotives and rolling stock similar to the 1960s National Traction Plan.
Didn’t expect to see tisbury in the video 😂
Will the operation of railways be much better if the Big Four companies have returned? They would know how to run railways and still have competition amongst themselves.
i’ll save the railways single handedly
Personally I think community interest companies would be a way forward similar to the way the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway is run.
The Railway's Need Fixing Big Time 👍
Privarisation had been a farse, public transit definitionally is for the public good, there can be profitable lines, but, these exist to subsidise the less profitable ones, for this reason, I hope there is always a pathway for private companies to operate trains if they can find a profitable route and wish to compete with GBR Great Britsh Railways.
Also very much agree that there should be TFL equivalents for devolved regions once again taken into public ownership.
Developing our pwn locos again might be very difficult, especially outside of the EU where those people with the skills are.
Livery: GWR's racing green livery with silver doors. For all rolling stocks and locos.
Flat singlestripe ends , usually on middle and coach gangways,
[■________■]
...__■][■__...
/ / stripe filled like that with same colour placed so the upper left corner is on the upper front (+ yellow faces/masks ofc) and a center triple beam :
■
□
■
and below floor a yellow band above a grey/blackish body panel colour
Idk the colours tho
So imagine colours:
( /==[][]======[][]==| ]
This for example would be a networker end
Bring back British Rail and reinstate our railways that is fit for the 21st Century and beyond. As what everyone said’s. And the government to invest more money into keeping our railways efficient and reliable for hundreds of years to come.
I think all major Cities should have overgrounds like the S bahns in germany
Railways must be run by Railway people!
It seems to me all these grand plans to reorganise just mask the real problem of the lack of investment. Maybe it makes a small difference, but ultimately the tax payer needs to embrace spending more money on the railways - and not just the railways but public transport in general as people need to be able to get to the station. Switzerland has a much better rail system because of this, not because of how things are organised (although that may be beneficial too).
Indeed, but the current system is extraordinarily wasteful. Reforms will enable a more effective spending of funds.
A lot of things I do agree in the video. Forst off out of the park is the infamous directive 91/440 which basically was the final nail in the coffin for BR, personally.
Integration is a big dealbreaker. I've seen a comment or two mention about integration with other forms of transport to get you to your final destination. A good idea for sure, but feel as if a lotnof collaboration between the types woukd have to be big time. Probably a big hill to climb, but not an impossible one.
Funding of course is the big deal. Our governments demand that seevices like rsjl mist run at a "profit" which isn't universal across everything. For example, roads are constantly at a severe loss but that sometomes isn't brought up when people moan about the costs of operatong a system such as rail. Why must something like rail make a profit? Ive always believed, and will believe, that rail is a servive first and foremost. Some folk have brought up systems such as DB, NS etc. Essentially a "joint stock" firm with the government as a sole investor. To me, that is a lainfully liberal way of going by it. It should be simpler. Seperation of managment from government as you mentioned I highly agree. Goverment providing the funds that the taxes are designed for.
As for private firms. Thats more a grey area for me. I still stand firm that private operators aren't really necessary. Railways are an inherent monopoly and rightly so. Some say the competition allows companies to invest and innovate. I disagree. Theres many routes to the same solution. An idea could be government sets targets for the national operator to constantly increase standards for the benefit of the passenger. Constant liberalisation doesn't does not always equal a better passenger experience. But for the sake of argument, I'm willing to compromise. If private operators have to be a requirement, they would need to be under the watchful eye of government to ensure they are treating all passengers and staff fairly. The "free market" won't really bother sll that much. They'de rather take the cheapest option as time has shown on countless occasions.
This plan will go the way of the NHS, work great for a period of time then when politically expedient it'll be underfunded, under-maintained and everything will be cheaped out on. We'd be back to pacers on the rails
Select competent managers by merit and get the DfT out of the way.
British Rail for the name please plus a modern Intercity Swallow Livery for the Hitachi A trains
How to fix the railways in one (not so) easy move:
Look at how the UK are doing things then do the opposite.
The audio is a bit too quiet, the commentary especially.
Yes, I shall turn it up further for other videos.
No:1 priority should be to replace the shithatchi 800's
Generally, quite a reasonable proposal, although I differ (of course) on a couple of items.
Rail freight is the only part of the privatisation that I would regard as a success, and I would be quite happy to leave it in the hands of the private operators, but there should be more support in the infrastructure to accommodate them- e.g.. doubling and electrification of freight routes. This could also improve passenger services which also use those routes.
The name "Great British Railways" just grates- Go back to "British Rail" and definitely keep the double arrow. That inspired many other operators to design their own variations.
The business sectors of British Rail were a success, more efficient and less demanding of subsidy than the current mess. I particularly benefited from the improvements brought in by Network South East (Well done Chris Green- the best Chairman that British Rail never had!) Perhaps Wales, Scotland and the English regions could carry on from what was once Regional Railways sector- just a thought.
The sector liveries were inspired and there would be nothing wrong with restoring them. Of today's train liveries, the only one that I like is the GWR green which does look very smart.
It is probably too late to return to in-house manufacturing, as all the expertise and patents were not lost, but given away to foreign companies through privatisation. Political dogma trumps common sense every time.
Whatever happens, keeping the organisation out of the incompetent hands of the DfT is paramount, and design trains for comfort.
Can't be saved until the grip of the unions is removed. Then the railways can be modernised with the removal of outdated working practices in order to adopt an up to date attitude and culture.
As for those who say "bring back BR" they obviously have very short memories or are too young to have experienced the original.
Liberal spotted!
Very insulted by the Discord dissing...
Well, not you!
@@GWVillager are you sure abt that...?
Have we finally found a Brexit benefit? Then again, unfortunately, this plan probably won't happen, so we're still searching for a benefit that actually exists.
Hi.
Hello.
In my humble, yet expert, opinion it is quite obvious that the solution to all the problems faced by the rail network in the uk (from disorganised and fractured systems, dwindling passenger numbers (due to multiple reasons (cars being more convenient, online working being more prevalent and so on)), increasingly lacklustre service reliability and quality, with bad rolling stock and the such, to the insane price tag on travelling even a meagre distance by train or any public transport for that matter (having it way more expensive than comparable systems on the continent)) and the issues that are currently facing them (strikes being prevalent (due to the greed of both the working class and the bosses of the companies that are running the rail network and all its pieces) and the dwindling quality of the infrastructure as it starts to collapse as many a bridge and tunnel are doing nowadays) is to just decrease the funding given to network rail and the train operating companies by the draconian national rail contracts and to instead make a truly free market system where actual private companies can actually compete to provide a proper service with profit as their motive, not these stupid German or Dutch or Italian state companies running our network as they have no idea and they should not be here anyway (Brexit got done!!!), this truly free way of competing without any kind of government regulation or manhandling would lead to a much better service for the rail network. Thank you great western villager, I hope you take my (expert) opinion in mind when following up on this topic as it is a very good and well thought out piece.
> "greed of the working class"
> suggesting private companies have free reign over a public service 'for profit'
> thinks Brexit was meant to get rid of all foreigners
I find it hard to believe you're not an obvious troll and actually believe this crap.
True free competition would lead to great rail services, but only between major towns and cities and only during rush hour when it's profitable. Maybe they could do what they do in some parts of the US and Canada: trains run in one direction into the city for the morning rush and then in the other direction at 5pm.
I was trying to figure out how to tackle this comment, then I saw the name...
@@Talon5516-tx3ih that’s a terrible idea, unless it’s satire, like mine is
@@GWVillager I’m a master at baiting (masturbator)
This comment won’t get popular
can i fix that?
and NO to a british anything. - there's no such over-arching culture (or actual nationality, despite official insistence). the UK is a Union OF cultures. ''british'' is to readily conflated with english, too associative of imperialism and faff, a Norman elite's whitewash of a term used to possess and bury seven distinct cultures. U.K. actually dropped ''of great britain etc'' in 1920 anyways. look it up. -UK was founded in 1920, quietly, but no-less officially a different Union from the pre-WW One Union.
a post-imperial Era UK needs a post-imperial name. UK rail is fine ta'