12:08 - Redux

[Devvy]

1992 - Safety on British Rail

A memorial at Clapham to the victims of the rail crash. (*1)

The 1980s had been a hard time for British Rail. A number of high profile crashes, including loss-of-life had occurred in the late 1980s, with some down to driver error (in one occassion exacerbated by lack of signal visibility due to overhead cables), and one down to faulty signalling equipment. British Rail had accepted blame for a number of incidents, and had been slated by the public at large; newspaper headlines decried "Is the train safe?", whilst coroner's inquests returned rulings of unlawful killing. In addition to this, the fire at Kings Cross tube station also put the spotlight on the related London Underground system, who shared many similar processes and systems as British Rail. The board duly highlighted new concerns for safety, and a renewed drive to resolve them; tackling human safety, implementing best practices, and installing safety technology. As the 1990s turned over, British Rail had a significant amount of work to do.

The response of an external investigation in to British Rail was further damning, and internally BR reformed itself with the incoming (new) Bob Reid as Chairman, bringing a safety committee to the fore in the Board meetings. A large reform in the processes for workers on the physical railway by giving much greater responsibility to the person in charge of work on site resulted in an upswing in safety for them; in later years this took the form of a personally assigned portable "men at work" balise; the person in charge would fit this to the track in front of the area they were working to alert the incab BBS system of any train approaching to either emergency stop, or slow down to either 25km/h or 50km/h depending on the nature of the works being carried out (*2). A reform of working practises to formalise a lunch break with national testing for drugs & alcohol after safety-critical incidents or when reporting for safety-critical jobs attempted to reform the working culture of British Rail, where the job inevitably involved caring for other's safety in some form - but was tempered by the national problem of drug and alcohol abuse within the United Kingdom. (*3)

The major result however, was the problem of signalling attentiveness; making sure the signal showed the correct aspect and was duly acted upon by the train driver. Here, the Pullman service was ahead of the times; it's system of track-based balises, or beacons, allowed the automatic transfer of signal information from track to train, and the display incab of the target speed and speed limit. This was all operated by a single electronic signalling centre based at Rugby, which controlled the entire route from London to Liverpool and Leeds, simplified by the largely segregated nature of the line. Any changes in target speed were accompanied by a bing or buzz depending on whether the speed went up or down, and had to be acknowledged by the driver within a few seconds. This system, for the first time, would be overlaid on existing traditional routes, with the South Western Main Line (*4) and several of the associated branches, from London to the South Coast.

The new "Networker" train (*5), currently under order and construction for Network South East, would include the new cab equipment to support the new signalling systems, whilst also including the rail equivalent of a "black box" for post-incident analysis. The new trains would also feature a new "Cab Secure Radio" (*6) for voice communication (via a radiowave system) between driver and signaller, and the new version of the BBS (British Rail's "Balise Based Signalling") also transmitted the identifier for the local signaller, allowing the driver to press a single button and be connected with the signaller. On the opposite side, with the rebuild of signalling processes to sit in four large electronic signalling centre (Wimbledon, Guildford, Southampton and Poole), the train equipment would transfer the train identifier and last known position (as identified by the last balise) with the call to the signaller, so the signaller knew who they were talking to. An emergency button also allowed the driver to communicate to a special emergency line in the signalling centre. Signallers could then change signals to danger nearby at the flick of switch - the remaining signals, in common with the high speed line would be linked to the balise and show either a red light for danger/stop (showing where to stop, and reduced to a single red light instead of the two red lights on the high speed route), or a blue light to proceed at limited speed until the next balise would refresh signalling information.

A standard BBS signal; lower red indicates stop/danger, upper blue indicates continue past and adhere to incab signalling information.

A few years later, with signalling reforms coming to an end on the South West Main Line "Network", a corresponding rebuilt was begun on the Great Western Main Line and branches - a large job. A new signalling operations centre at Slough would control the entire suburban (and mostly electrified) stretch from London outwards to High Wycombe, Oxford, Swindon, Newbury and Basingstoke (*7). With the new version of BBS also allowing the train to transmit some information back to the signalling system (train identifier), the system could work out punctuality and begin to live inform station staff about the punctuality of incoming services.

-----------------------------------
(*1) This is a real memorial to the victims of the 1988 Clapham Rail Crash; I didn't want to use any real pictures of the crash as personally I think it'd be a bit distasteful.
(*2) The in-cab signalling would then obviously reset back to normal when hitting the next balise.
(*3) Most of that paragraph is roughly OTL.
(*4) So the same system as the Pullman/High speed signalling is rolled out to the South West Main Line (where the crash happened), on it's full length.
(*5) A new electric multiple unit for NSE, to be covered at some point.
(*6) Cab Secure Radio is/was a real thing (rapidly being replaced by the European standard GSM-R), for roughly this purpose. The only real difference here, is the BBS balises tell the train which signalling centre to route "call the signaller" calls to.
(*7) Yes, the Chiltern Line is usually lumped in under the Great Western Main Line brand here in this TL, as it's effectively a suburban branch of the GWML operating out of Paddington station (remember Marylebone closed down).

 

[Ogrebear]

Nice chapter there! Good to see Safety taken seriously.

Shame King’s Cross still happens, but I guess that one was more like a natural disaster waiting to go off since the investment in the Underground is not significantly differant to OTL.

 

[Devvy]

Railopedia Article on "High Speed Line: West Yorkshire"
Redirected from "HSL:WY"

Following the opening of Britain's first high speed line (see: HSL:NW), passenger numbers immediately began to rise (*1). The "sparks effect" (*2), in full swing here, brough new comfortable trains, better facilities and faster train times - London to Manchester went down by 15%, but Sheffield dropped by a full 33%, and Nottingham by almost 40%. And importantly, not only were the train times improved, but dedicated and isolated nature of the route meant that punctuality was much improved. Even Liverpool, with a largely unchanged train time to London, saw an increase in numbers due to the far more comfortable travel style. The timing could not have been better either; as the early 1980s recession ended, the economic recovery began and the Pullman services were there to facilitate demand increases. The opening brought politicians, eager for publicity shots, anxious to be associated with the new and fast trainsets - what some previous politicians would have referred to as the "white heat of technology" (*3) in the United Kingdom. More than anything else, it was an important PR win for British Rail - usually few and far between, a publicly effective and efficient service provided to the public, and a clear selling point to use rail transport.

Within a year, people were already looking for extensions, with cities further north eager to be connected to the new rail network. However, without extensive spending, the Pullman services were not going to extend particularly far north without sharing tracks with traditional services - something business managers were eager to avoid given the new found qualities of punctuality, reliability and speed - something which was easily marketable to customers. West Yorkshire turned out to be the only realistic destination within the funding limits present on British Rail. It would also present a solution for the East Coast Route; the Deltic Class 55 locomotives were well over 20 years old in service life, and reliability was suffering. The withdrawal of services to Leeds from these locomotives would provide a larger fleet of locomotives for the East Coast London - Scotland route allowing more proactive maintenance, and would allow spare locomotives to be cannibalised for spare parts.

The Route

Branching off from the existing HSL:NW just east of Sheffield at Beighton; the line north via the Midland "Old Road" towards Rotherham is now electrified at 25kV AC system, and running via Wakefield to Leeds. The line as engineered during the 1980s for Pullman service included provision for another branch to extend further north for the North-East and Scotland if later required.

The station at Rotherham, prior to rebuilding.

Rotherham Masborough (*4), with 5 platforms, continues to serve as both the classic railhead station for Rotherham but also the Pullman service operating to places north. This was the latest in a plan of several new "Parkway" stations (*5), especially for Intercity, acting as a station for many customers to drive to easily and park for significant time. Due to the position of Rotherham Masborough station, it was unlikely that high speed commuter services would be calling here, so it was decided that 2 platforms for classic services would suffice as a costcutting measure, which would allow the station to be used unmodified (except the large car park to be built adjacent!). The Parkway status was also a recognition of the South Yorkshire PTE strategy; they were far more focussed on bus transit rather than rail, and providing a large car park instead of rail connections was simply a neccessity given the dire state of affairs of the railways in South Yorkshire at the time.

The station entrance at Wakefield; it's modern station structure clearly visible.

Wakefield Westgate, historically Wakefield's premier station would provide an additional station in West Yorkshire, for passengers from the surrounding areas. At the end of an embankment, the station was far too constrained too offer any kind of separation for Pullman service bar the line as a whole. Consequently, the track area was narrowed to just two tracks wide, with the platforms being infilled to provide more circulation space, whilst the station building dating back to the 1960s was rebuilt, cleaned and modernised. All other British Rail services would operate through Wakefield Kirkgate. This station separation would be one of the prime motivators behind the 2010s project (currently in early planning stages) for "Wakefield Cross" (*6); a single bi-level station where the two lines cross each other, offering both Pullman and British Rail services, at the cost of being slightly further away from the town centre. Whilst this station debate continues, an almost continually growing car park makes this station a quasi-Parkway station itself, with many passengers opting to drive to the station from their homes in Wakefield, Kirklees or Calderdale Boroughs.

A newer Pullman train, awaits departure at Leeds whilst wearing a promotional livery (*7).

Leeds Central, (confusingly, the renamed former Leeds Wellington station) has been the main station in West Yorkshire for decades, serving the entire town of Yorkshire even if this role is now slightly shared by the resurrected Leeds Piccadilly (the former Leeds Central station (*8) ). This huge station used to be a bottleneck in operations, but has been much relieved by the conversion of some routes to Pullman services, and the later "East Side Access" (*9) project to divert tracks. The 1990s removal of several terminating platforms on the north side of the station, led to significant fill in work and renovation of the station with a much larger art-deco style retail area with shops, cafes, restaurants and a large Pullman lounge for eligible passengers. Although the Pullman, long-distance, platforms are now on the south side of the station, this has allowed the Pullman tracks to remain separated from the standard BR network and allow quicker / easier access for passengers to local services.

Most of the route is a conversion of existing routes to keep costs down and renovation of existing stations, with classic British Rail services being diverted via other lines and routes. A notable diversion was the East Coast Route from Kings Cross; in order to access Leeds, it now ran north from Doncaster, bypassing Wakefield and used a new south-to-west chord near Selby to access Leeds from the east, where it would usually run on towards Bradford. The main cost came from the renovation and track works in the Leeds area; the track segregation and electrification was awkward with so many junctions, and the Holbeck Viaduct was mostly used with some expensive reconstruction works to accommodate the loading gauge of the Pullman trains on the tight twists outside Leeds Central station.

The Trains

The rolling stock operating the route were an add-on order to the original batch of trains for the North-West route; consequently, all trains were the same model and interchangeable, simplifying operations and processes.

Service

Following the popularity of the High Speed North West route, the West Yorkshire route was also provided with 2 trains per hour. Historically, this route only justified a single train hourly, however the upswing from the North-West was hoped to be replicated, and the extra trains would serve as some relief to Nottingham station directly as well as attract some of the Sheffield commuters to Rotherham instead, spreading the load - and thus increasing the capacity for Manchester and Liverpool passengers who would be paying a more expensive fare for the journey.

London Euston: 00:00
Britannia Airport: 00:31
Nottingham Vic: 01:12
Rotherham Masb: 01:39
Wakefield Westgate: 1:55
Leeds Central: 2:10

--------------------------
A bonus chapter for today; just realised I had this finished chapter ready to post but hadn't actually been posted yet.

(*1) We'll cover this at another time.
(*2) The "Sparks Effect" is the upswing you get in passenger numbers after electrifying a rail route - usually down to the fact you get new (and usually more comfortable) trains, which accelerate quicker (due to electric traction) and thus journey times decrease.
(*3) Just to refer to the 1960s!
(*4) Rotherham Masborough, on the main line past Rotherham, formerly hosted Rotherham's primary station. Here it continues that role, additionally as an interchange between Pullman and other local train services.
(*5) Parkway stations were rolled out by BR (usually Intercity sector) in OTL, as here, at certain locations which had good road access, were near large towns/cities and had main lines running through. Bristol Parkway, Tiverton Parkway and Birmingham International are the classic examples in OTL.
(*6) Just a future "aspiration" to combined Wakefield stations.
(*7) Yes that is a "Eurostar" train (Class 373) at Leeds station. GNER leased some of the shorter ones meant for regional England-Europe for a while to operate London-Leeds services. They couldn't operate much further north then that as they couldn't cross the bridge in to Newcastle station due to loading gauge issues.
(*8) Yes, two stations serving Leeds. More on that at another time.
(*9) The rerouting of some services to access Leeds Central from the east side. Again, more on that at another time.

 

[Devvy]

Nice chapter there! Good to see Safety taken seriously.

Shame King’s Cross still happens, but I guess that one was more like a natural disaster waiting to go off since the investment in the Underground is not significantly differant to OTL.

Much of it is similar to OTL, just they already have a virtually off-the-shelf solution ready to go to implement, with BBS already in use on the high speed lines. It's a faff to implement, but once done you have a far more reliable signalling solution, far more resistant to human error. The crashes were the prompt to change stuff in BR; if there are no incidents, there is de facto no problem to fix (or at the very least no will to fix anything).

 

[Ogrebear]

Interesting chapter on Yorkshire High Speed rail there- seems quite a good setup.

Is there many more lines surviving in the area compared to OTL?

 

[Devvy]

1992 - "The Privatisation of British Rail", by Michael Waldegrave (*0), pt1

Passenger numbers on British Rail since it's inception. The sharp rise in the 1980s is credited to the economic boom as well as the "Pullman effect" being operational at the right time to capitalise on it, although growth has stalled since then.

The moves towards privatisaing British Rail has it's origins in the 1980s, when according to government policy many nationalised industries were privatised and competition introduced. British Rail was present at this point; the privatisation of British Telecom on to the open market fueled the rise of Mercury Communications (later part of NTL) (*1) who leased communications bandwidth from British Rail's nationwide communications network to provide national access. Privatisation of several of British Rail's subidiary businesses also occurred through the 1980s; much of the Anglo-French ferry business was sold off (ostensibly to act as competition against the new Channel Tunnel and avoid a monopoly situation), much of the rolling stock manufacturers (some of which later coalesced with French partners) and the hotels division to name some (*2).

Privatisation of the rail system itself was considered by most to be a step too far in the 1980s (*3), although the private sector became more and more involved in the freight business on BR's network throughout the decade, resulting in the situation of de facto private rail operations for freight businesses; freight companies would often own their own wagons, with a few owning their own locomotives (*4). A flat fee would be paid to British Rail (Railfreight sector) to operate the train between two points, optionally including the hire of the locomotive to do so. An attempt by Stagecoach to retail train seats between London and Scotland did not fare well (*5), and further brought negative opinion on the possibilities of privatised passenger operations. An earlier attempt to run down the operation of the remaining Cambrian Line, from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth, met popular oppposition and was stymied; British Rail then tried to sell the line off by competitive tender to a private buyer, but was again stymied by politics - several constituencies the line ran through were sensitive swing seats for the Government at the time.

However, the 1992 General Election saw the Conservative Party include a manifesto commitment to "privatising the railways and introducing competition" (*6), and so the 1990s saw a great deal of change between the British Rail of 1990, and the British Rail of 2000 at the end of the decade. Various options had been proposed over the years, ranging from the reform in a new vertically integrated (*7) "Big Four", similar to the pre-nationalised 4 companies, a return to a pre-grouping circa-20 vertically integrated companies, a division in to a single track authority and many operating companies, a privatisation of the British Rail sectors, and lastly just a privatisation of British Rail as a whole. All were floated over time, with varying groups advocating for them, or decrying them - although many despised the entire principle of privatisation. The unlikely electoral win of the Conservative Party in 1992 saw the question, to many, become how BR would be privatised rather than if, given the manifesto commitments.

Equally though, British Rail had not been standing still, and it's "Organising for Quality" (*8) reorganisation programme saw the elimination of the last vestiges of the geographical regions, and reform in to a completely sector led business and overarching management company handling strategic services. Almost 110,000 staff worked for the sectors either directly or indirectly, with only 10,000 staff working in the British Rail headquarters with jobs focussed on strategy and common functions. A convoluted financial mechanism to be rolled out in future meant that the sectors would now "pay" for their rail access to the British Rail headquarters, but this was then in conformance with the latest European Community regulations on rail operations (*9). It allowed private freight operators (such as Foster Yeoman) to gain drivers with a WEG-rail driving license and to pay for track access across the British Rail network - and potentially elsewhere in the West Europe Group, and the same mechanism would be used by Eurostar for accessing London via British Rail's high speed lines.

Lots of pre-election analysis predicted the Conservatives would be short of a majority.

Such a plan quickly ran in to trouble within British Rail, with much of BR management opposed in principle to privatisation - especially before the 1992 election, where Labour was expected to win, and many upper management largely in favour of retaining vertical integration - the same organisation operating both track and trains. This was exactly the kind of monopoly that the EEC Directive 91/440 was seeking to avoid; an organisation running their own trains on their own track, with a high risk of interest in disadvantaging anyone else. Although the same kind of model had already been deployed in Sweden - where SJ operated trains, and paid BV for the track usage, it was at loggerheads with the commercial approach imposed on British Rail by the Government; aligning the full BR organisation to commercial sector requirements. And even then; newcomers such as ARC and Chartrail had attempted to enter the market and find new opportunities for railfreight, but both quickly entered financial problems. This had hardly provided a glowing example of the possibilities of the private sector in the rail market, although it took a court case to fully resolve a "private WEG driving permit" versus older British statute law to fully open the tracks (*10).

When the dust settled after the 1992 General Election, the clear victory of the Conservative Party seemingly sounded the horn for rail privatisation; and prevailing opinion was that BR would be broken up in to several dozen smaller focussed companies within the 5 year Parliamentary window.

-------------------------------
(*0) As with almost all the names I've used, they all reference someone related to that topic...
(*1) We'll keep NTL hanging around in this TL, partly because I find Virgin particularly irksome and also I think "NTL" is a better name.
(*2) As mentioned in previous chapters.
(*3) Thatcher herself was purportedly against rail privatisation, at least for BR itself.
(*4) As Foster Yeoman did with the Class 59.
(*5) As per OTL by Stagecoach.
(*6) And as per the 1992 manifesto OTL.
(*7) Vertically integrated means a single company owns track and operating the trains; the exact opposite to today in OTL.
(*8) Roughly as per OTL.
(*9) Again, roughly as per OTL and regulations requiring the adoption of commercial operations and separation of infrastructure and operations.
(*10) There was some question during privatisation over whether British statute law allowed for privately employed train drivers. Whether or not, in this TL, legislation has allowed the WEG train driving permit to come in to fruition for the Eurotunnel trains, cross-border freight, Eurostar, but the notion of a private company gaining a WEG permit as a route to operating in GB would be further step. Here, that's been resolved by court case, and drivers can get a WEG permit to operate (at least in the UK) for private companies.

-------------------------

Interesting chapter on Yorkshire High Speed rail there- seems quite a good setup.

Is there many more lines surviving in the area compared to OTL?

I wouldn't say lots, but it depends upon your terms of reference. This TL Beeching closed less then OTL, but this still left BR with lines which more slowly got killed off by car and bus.

Duplicating lines have still needed to be closed; so still expect much of, for instance, the Midland & Great Northern Railway to be axed. Lines not really serving anyone; the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway gone.

But other lines are still in service. Norwich-Dereham-Kings Lynn I see as still being in service. Parts of the Somerset & Dorset have survived. And of course, the Great Central Main Line & Woodhead Line have been reused here for Pullman instead of having been closed.

 

[Lindseyman]

What has happened to York? Has the Scarborough line been upgraded? I assume that the OTL changes to the ECML due to the Selby Coal Mines have still taken place.

 

[Devvy]

What has happened to York? Has the Scarborough line been upgraded? I assume that the OTL changes to the ECML due to the Selby Coal Mines have still taken place.

York itself still sees rolling stock manufacture at the works, and is an important interchange spot as per OTL. Deltic hauled expresses call there on their way from Kings Cross to Edinburgh and Glasgow, however the ECML hasn't been electrified as in OTL. The Selby diversion is still in place (although it's route will likely look slightly different as it doesn't need to be as fast as OTL), as that was required due to land subsidence with the underground mining.

I have a rough outline for Yorkshire generally, but it's planned for a few chapters time. I'd expect York-Scarborough to still be operating, but East Yorkshire and the Moors are still slightly in flux at the moment to be honest.

 

[Ogrebear]

I hope Major listens to Maggie and doesn't privatise - or just floats the whole thing off rather than breaking it up.

The OTL breakup was the worst possible outcome for BR.

Hopefully Royal Commissions, judicial reviews, and plain protests just keeps kicking the can down the road until the next election.

Q-Did Maggie get removed as per OTL?

 

[Lindseyman]

York itself still sees rolling stock manufacture at the works, and is an important interchange spot as per OTL. Deltic hauled expresses call there on their way from Kings Cross to Edinburgh and Glasgow, however the ECML hasn't been electrified as in OTL. The Selby diversion is still in place (although it's route will likely look slightly different as it doesn't need to be as fast as OTL), as that was required due to land subsidence with the underground mining.

I have a rough outline for Yorkshire generally, but it's planned for a few chapters time. I'd expect York-Scarborough to still be operating, but East Yorkshire and the Moors are still slightly in flux at the moment to be honest.

As long as you save the Carriage Works!
Oh and get the NYMR into Whitby earlier.

 

[Swede]

Privatisation is going ahead, I see.
Is Railtrack avoided, at least?

 

[Ogrebear]

Privatisation is going ahead, I see.
Is Railtrack avoided, at least?

Might not happen yet- lots of ways for the British system to get tied up in Committee, meeting rooms, reviews, feasibility studies, environmental impact reports, market analysis, political footballs, Royal Commissions, etc etc

Also given the other things happening around this time - recession, lingering poll tax protestors, change of Labour leadership after the election, fallout of the Gulf War, breakup of Yugoslavia in the most bloody way- if something goes slightly different or worse it could throw Rail privatisation out entirely.

 

[Devvy]

I hope Major listens to Maggie and doesn't privatise - or just floats the whole thing off rather than breaking it up.

The OTL breakup was the worst possible outcome for BR.

Hopefully Royal Commissions, judicial reviews, and plain protests just keeps kicking the can down the road until the next election.

Q-Did Maggie get removed as per OTL?

Yes, the whole of this TL, I've tried to stick to the existing political system unless specifically mentioned. The Thatcher years were lean and low on subsidy, with money only for the major flagship flashy projects. Thatcher gone and replace by Major in 1990 as per OTL.

As long as you save the Carriage Works!
Oh and get the NYMR into Whitby earlier.

I expect the carriage works to survive, and Whitby is an open question at the moment

Privatisation is going ahead, I see.
Is Railtrack avoided, at least?

Might not happen yet- lots of ways for the British system to get tied up in Committee, meeting rooms, reviews, feasibility studies, environmental impact reports, market analysis, political footballs, Royal Commissions, etc etc

Also given the other things happening around this time - recession, lingering poll tax protestors, change of Labour leadership after the election, fallout of the Gulf War, breakup of Yugoslavia in the most bloody way- if something goes slightly different or worse it could throw Rail privatisation out entirely.

Part 2 is coming in a few days!

 

[El Pip]

This was exactly the kind of monopoly that the EEC Directive 91/440 was seeking to avoid; an organisation running their own trains on their own track, with a high risk of interest in disadvantaging anyone else.

This is the key point. Almost everyone else in Europe ignored this directive utterly until forced. When forced it was implemented in a just about to the letter but not in spirit way - for instance Deutsche Bahn became a holding company that owned DB tracks and DB trains (not the real names ) that had separate financial reports and on paper broke the vertical integration. In practice it made sod all difference to how the company ran.

For a variety of reasons the British civil service never thought that way and would issue dire warnings about what happened if you didn't fully implement EU directives. John Major was in favour of a return to the OTL Big Four, regional companies that owned the track and ran the trains, with a degree of subsidy for key social routes (because all passenger railways everywhere run at some sort of loss, even the Japanese railways don't cover their infrastructure costs). This was killed off by terrible threats that it wasn't compatible with EU law and the Treasury not liking the idea of the ongoing subsidy. Given the Treasury ultimately signed off on the franchising deal that problem could be overcome, leaving only the EU directive issue.

Getting a British government to realise that you could just ignore inconvenient EU directives (OK not ignore, but implement in such a way that nothing changes) would have massive political butterflies domestically and about Britain's relationship with Europe. This is something I don't think our esteemed author wishes to go into, so I suspect something like the OTL split is going to have to happen.

Maybe, maybe, BR management might be allowed to bid for bits this time around. Or they transition into being an actually effective Strategic Rail Authority (or whatever it is called) to provide the organisation and leadership that the Department of Transport regularly fails to.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

Perhaps the butterflies Robert Adley's heart attack for 12-18 months. And perhaps someone else survives theirs.
With Major's majority in @ (and perhaps ITTL) Adley would only need to persuade a few Tory MPs to rebel over privatisation. If enough Tory MPs jump ship, then the Opposition would probably look to defeat the government.

 

[Devvy]

1992 - "The Privatisation of British Rail", by Michael Waldegrave, pt2

Following the election of the Conservative Government in 1992, privatisation was very much "on" for British Rail. Relations between the British Rail Board & Reid (the Chairman) in particular, and the Department of Transport nosedived as clashes occurred on several fronts, and many think this was at least partly responsible for the Government's poor view of British Rail's organisational structure, and thus it's admiring looks at Sweden with a separate track authority and rail operator (*1). Also influential was the Treasury view, backed by the Adam Smith economic group who opined for a separation of track and train, where the train operating could be "franchised" out to the highest bidder, earning considerable funds for the Treasury (*2). Such an approach would also fulfil the requirements of the EC regulations, "allowing" third party train operators and providing an independent control of the track. Things were not helped either by Ministers publicly backing private consultants Arup's proposal for finishing the high speed link from London to the Channel Tunnel (or more accurately London to the Medway), in which Arup proposed accessing central London via eastern London (where public authorities were eager to see a rail link for regeneration purposes) over British Rail's proposal via southern London (where public authorities and residents were highly against the link for disruption and "blight") (*3).

It was not to be however, as the provisionally named (and succinctly named, for the changes it envisaged) "Railways Act" of 1993 proved politically difficult. Critics focussed on British Rail's leaked opinions about the better efficiency of vertical integration, whilst others focussed on British Rail's slow but steady turnaround; "we haven't spent decades getting British Rail working just to sell it off!". A large groundswell of people were just opposed to the privatisation of what they saw as a "public good", and asked if the motorways were going to be privatised next and operated as toll roads - a loaded question considering the toll charges on the new Severn Bridge under construction. It's envisaged structure underlined the Government's belief that British Rail could not be privatised as it is (nor as the sectors), as it's financial losses were too great and would continue to be dependent upon continuing large subsidies from the taxpayer (*4). Thus the Government opted to pursue a course of separating track and train operations in to separate organisations, with train operations slowly sold off or contracted out to the private sector. Railfreight operations, as well as Mail & Parcels, will be fully privatised in to the private sector, with operators free to run services as they see commercially fit, paying British Rail for track access.

The planned structure for British Rail

A opposition motion "that this House opposes the privatisation of the railways" came very close to passing, with single digit votes between the "Ayes" and "Noes" after several MPs went "missing" (*5), and put further pressure on the Government actions. Eager to be seen fulfilling their manifesto promises however, the legislation was "reformed"; keeping much of the structural & organisational changes and railfreight privatisation, but leaving much of the controversial passenger changes out apart from some "test cases". The hope purportedly being, to lay the groundwork for privatisation at a later stage, and also prove that privatisation could work. Legislation was then presented to Parliament in 1994 as the "Rail Reform Act", which had three key strands. The first was the reform of British Rail; a new British Rail Board subsidiary "Railtrack" (*6) (and later renamed "Network Rail") would be responsible for operating the track, and maintaining it to it's defined specification - bringing British Rail in to legal compliance with EC directives. It would be funded by money cross-charged to the train operating sectors - Intercity, Network South East, Regional Railways, and all other operators. Secondly, railfreight would be fully privatised (*7), with each business area being moved out to a shadow subsector and then sold off to the private sector - locomotives, rolling stock, depots and all, with the designated staff transferred across. Freight via road, sea or air was not subsidised, and the Government saw no reason why it should subsidise railfreight; a financial judgement on the concept, rather than anything else. Freightliner was privatised via a management sellout after little interest from the private sector (and helped by a block financial grant to cover track access charges until 2000).

There remained a few areas of privatisation for the passenger operations were designated "test" areas; areas of the network reasonably easy to separate from the bulk of British Rail's passenger network. BR Railtrack would remain the track owner, however passenger operations were to be leased out to the private sector for 10 years;

• The LTS Route (deemed "Essex Thamesside")
• The Isle of Wight Network
• The Wherry Network predominately in Norfolk
• The Wharfedale Route
• The Ayrshire Coastal Network

The Schengen Agreement had removed virtually all traces of an international border between many European Community countries.

Lastly; Eurostar, and thus British Rail's "European Passenger Services" as originally intended would be amended after discussion with the other WEG countries. The signing of the Schengen Treaty between France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and West Germany had fundamentally altered the balance of the original BLAP centred network, and West Germany's adherence to 25kV AC (instead of the 15kV AC used on their classic network) allowed interrunning between the countries for certain service. A new consortium, jointly owned by SNCF (France), SNCB/NMBS (Belgium) and NS (Netherlands) would see a single international high speed operator along much of the European side of the BLAP network, with agreements to even operate as far as Frankfurt once high speed line construction was finished west of Cologne. This led to the breakdown of the agreement for Eurostar; the French and Belgians wanted to see the route folded in to the new "Thalys" combined network, but the British refusal to even entertain the idea of joining the Schengen Treaty complicated matters; the British maintained the future idea for running direct trains from the northern regional cities to Europe.

The final proposal would be found due to realities on the ground (*8); Brussels was a through station, Paris was not. Thalys run direct trains from Belgium, Netherlands and Germany via Brussels to London and Britannia Airport (UK domestic travel not allowed, but European cities to Britannia Airport flights allowed to transfer directly without UK immigration), whilst British Rail's Pullman service would eventually be allowed to operate non-stop to Paris. In both countries, land would be leased to the opposing country, so that Thalys platforms in both London and at Britannia Airport would be legally French, with passengers going through Schengen emigration and then UK immigration checks upon leaving the train. This legal fiction meant asylum seekers and other people who lacked UK entry permission would be turned back at Schengen emigration given they were still legally on French soil, with just Schengen emigration checks at Britannia Airport to allow direct transfer to departures. The exact inverse situation would apply in Paris, whereby both UK exit and Schengen entry checks would be done upon arriving, and Schengen exit and UK entry checks done prior to boarding a departing train from Paris.

----------------------------
Reserving the right to amend where needed after commentary! BR privatisation had many facets and cogs working together which created the OTL situation, so it might need some fiddling in a bit!
(*1) Swedish Railways were split in to SJ who continued to operate the trains, and BVK who were the track manager.
(*2) With such a view being successful in OTL.
(*3) Arup's proposal being the one built in OTL.
(*4) As evidenced in Hansard and the Tory whitepaper on privatisation.
(*5) OTL was 309 for privatisation, 270 against. Here there are a few more against, and some who have abstained or are conveniently not present in Parliament for whenever reason for the vote.
(*6) Railtrack exists! Just not how it does OTL. And just before I get ElPip'd (patent pending!) on this; the Govt/Tory whitepaper on privatisation ( https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_WP001.pdf ) references the infrastructure owner remaining under British Rail at least to start with, and I quote: " The Government believes that track and train operations should be separated at an early stage and that a new track authority - Railtrack - should be established initially within BR with responsibility only for track and associated infrastructure." Here that structure has been left in place due to Parliamentary opposition, so they can get the first bit through to at least separate track/train operations, and privatise later. Also from Parliamentary briefing papers ( http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01157/SN01157.pdf ) : "He (Devvy: meaning MacGregor, Transport Secretary) announced that Railtrack would not, as originally intended be a subsidiary of BR but would instead become a separate ‘Government-owned company’.18 Other changes made during the passage of the Bill included...."
(*7) As laid out in the white paper, and no where near as controversial as the passenger service privatisation.
(*8) I think I've covered the bases here which would allow UK and French acceptance of the new international entry/exit checks. It's far from ideal, as arriving trains will end up dumping hundreds of people in to passport checks suddenly, but it "works". I think longer term it could be simplified for European Union nationals to have a single electronic exit & entry mechanism which would cover the bulk of passengers, but still.

PS: Some of those "test privatisation" networks were mentioned in the papers as candidates for privatisation or early franchising, or "vertically integrated privatisation".

 

[Ogrebear]

Hum... better than OTL's mess, but still a massive breakup of BR, though keeping Railtrack 'inside' BR might help prevent the "alphabet soup of contractors/sub-contractors that plagued the rail network" afterwards (to quote a rail worker I know) if they can stay with BR for maintainance.

Hope the Management get to bid for lines.

Is this reversible? I understand the OTL situation was done in such a way to utterly prevent the reformation of BR.

Who's the Rail Minister pushing this through?

 

[Workable Goblin]

Freight via road, sea or air was not subsidised, and the Government saw no reason why it should subsidise railfreight; a financial judgement on the concept, rather than anything else.

Hah hah, good joke! I'm sure the government is totally ready to privatize all roads, seaports, and airports, and not spend any more upgrading or improving them.

It's far from ideal, as arriving trains will end up dumping hundreds of people in to passport checks suddenly, but it "works".

Well, so do the bigger airplanes (A380s, 747s, 777s...) and although customs and immigration is a perennial complaint of international travelers everywhere it usually works.

 

[QTXAdsy]

So privatisation still happens...hopefully it works better here.

One thing I have only noticed which I failed to see a while back is that the Royal Deeside Railway, or at least half of it, survives here and that in the North Wales update that Prince Charles uses the train for environmentalism issues.

Wonder if the Deeside route still has Royal Train, in keeping with the environmentalism thing as I mentioned above, use in someway or if Ferryhill Shed is preserved more than just the turntable as OTL for use for steam charter trains? (Carnforth of Scotland surely!) I could picture a museum somewhere on the route giving a history of Royal Trains, come to think of it, a Royal Train update might be an idea in future.

 

[Devvy]

Hum... better than OTL's mess, but still a massive breakup of BR, though keeping Railtrack 'inside' BR might help prevent the "alphabet soup of contractors/sub-contractors that plagued the rail network" afterwards (to quote a rail worker I know) if they can stay with BR for maintainance.

Hope the Management get to bid for lines.

Is this reversible? I understand the OTL situation was done in such a way to utterly prevent the reformation of BR.

Who's the Rail Minister pushing this through?

MacGregor, as per OTL, is the Transport Secretary involved in conducting privatisation; only tempered by the House in this TL. As to whether it's reversible; well Railtrack is currently still within British Rail, effectively that's only an organisational structure, but one that is underpinned by EC Directive, on paper similar to SNCF or DB. Interestingly, this structure might end up being OK, as long as accounts are separated and political influence minimised as per this: https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...oes-not-require-institutional-separation.html

For the "test" passenger privatisation cases; my current working thought is a 20-25 lease/franchise for passenger train operation. Whether that proves workable, or if finances get them down will make or break the case for privatisation!

Hah hah, good joke! I'm sure the government is totally ready to privatize all roads, seaports, and airports, and not spend any more upgrading or improving them.

Well, so do the bigger airplanes (A380s, 747s, 777s...) and although customs and immigration is a perennial complaint of international travelers everywhere it usually works.

Believe it or not, that's taken from the white paper and Hansard debates. I'll grant them there are no direct subsidies to the likes of Eddie Stobart and other freight companies, but as we'll all agree, indirect subsidies are aplenty such as motorway construction costs, I'm assuming air traffic control, et al.

So privatisation still happens...hopefully it works better here.

One thing I have only noticed which I failed to see a while back is that the Royal Deeside Railway, or at least half of it, survives here and that in the North Wales update that Prince Charles uses the train for environmentalism issues.

Wonder if the Deeside route still has Royal Train, in keeping with the environmentalism thing as I mentioned above, use in someway or if Ferryhill Shed is preserved more than just the turntable as OTL for use for steam charter trains? (Carnforth of Scotland surely!) I could picture a museum somewhere on the route giving a history of Royal Trains, come to think of it, a Royal Train update might be an idea in future.

I have a half written royal train chapter, but it's been on a back burner until I have enough material to fill out a chapter.

And for the Deeside Railway; yes I envisaged it still being open, but trimmed back to Banchory/Bridge of Dee instead of Ballater. Probably means Royal Train to Aberdeen and then road transfer I think; actually Grantown in Spey is actually closer and is easily accessible by train.