Ben Elton the great railway disaster CH4

[david.hill64]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

When it comes to safety being improved in private hands - I give you RailTrack.

Agreed: Railtrack was naïve: they believed that contractors would do what they said they would without the necessary supervision. But: Railtrack strongly supported the development of TPWS which they rightly realised was a better alternative to nationwide roll out of a country specific ATP system. Railtrack supported the development of TPWS and its implementation pending the implementation of ETCS level 3 which again correctly they had diagnosed as being the most cost effective form of signalling control and safety improvement. What they hadn't realized was that it would take the EU close on 30 years to develop and agree the specifications for the system. So ETCS level 3 has not yet been widely implemented. The decision to implement TPWS was, in my not unbiased opinion, one of the best of the last 30 years, but then as the project manager who led the team that developed TPWS, I am not a disinterested party in the judgement. 

 

Of course Railtrack had history in believing what they were told by engineers who didn't understand UK railways and like the DfT they assumed that UK rail engineers were incompetent. So I give you WCML resignalling which was promised by American consultants as the answer to everything, even though no such system existed. Railtrack even signed a contract with Virgin promising to deliver a system in an impossible timescale. So yes, Railtrack was not an unqualified success.

 

Bur Railtrack was only around for 8 years of the privatised BR era - about 30 years now - and you cannot dispute the clear statistics that UK rail is safer now than it ever was under BR ownership. So, take a cheap shot about Railtrack, but please accept that in this important respect, UK rail is now demonstrably safer than it ever was under BR ownership.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by david.hill64

[62613]

26 minutes ago, david.hill64 said:

Agreed: Railtrack was naïve: they believed that contractors would do what they said they would without the necessary supervision. But: Railtrack strongly supported the development of TPWS which they rightly realised was a better alternative to nationwide roll out of a country specific ATP system. Railtrack supported the development of TPWS and its implementation pending the implementation of ETCS level 3 which again correctly they had diagnosed as being the most cost effective form of signalling control and safety improvement. What they hadn't realized was that it would take the EU close on 30 years to develop and agree the specifications for the system. So ETCS level 3 has not yet been widely implemented. The decision to implement TPWS was, in my not unbiased opinion, one of the best of the last 30 years, but then as the project manager who led the team that developed TPWS, I am not a disinterested party in the judgement. 

 

Of course Railtrack had history in believing what they were told by engineers who didn't understand UK railways and like the DfT they assumed that UK rail engineers were incompetent. So I give you WCML resignalling which was promised by American consultants as the answer to everything, even though no such system existed. Railtrack even signed a contract with Virgin promising to deliver a system in an impossible timescale. So yes, Railtrack was not an unqualified success.

 

Bur Railtrack was only around for 8 years of the privatised BR era - about 30 years now - and you cannot dispute the clear statistics that UK rail is safer now than it ever was under BR ownership. So, take a cheap shot about Railtrack, but please accept that in this important respect, UK rail is now demonstrably safer than it ever was under BR ownership.

 

 

Again, correlation is not causation. In the 1860s and 1870s, the railways were downright dangerous. There was a gradual implementation of safety measures down the years; are you saying that if BR had not been privatised, TPWS wouldn't have been developed and installed? Both would probably have happened, but quite likely at a slower pace.

[lapford34102]

4 hours ago, 62613 said:

We keep on hearing this, but traffic was already growing under BR (from 1992, when the economy was picking up after the Big Bang recession). Correlation is NOT causation.

Well said, that particular bit of propaganda needs a large pointy stick, bucketful of garlic and permanently laying to rest. And in the early days of Privatisation things weren't all rosy for everyone especially if you had to suffer Connex.

Yes, TPWS is a great development but I never remember the railways ever being regarded as a risky mode of transport.

Stu

[woodenhead]

Not forgetting Chris Green turning the lacklustre commuting lines around London into Network SouthEast and driving off peak patronage upwards.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, lapford34102 said:

Well said, that particular bit of propaganda needs a large pointy stick, bucketful of garlic and permanently laying to rest. And in the early days of Privatisation things weren't all rosy for everyone especially if you had to suffer Connex.

Yes, TPWS is a great development but I never remember the railways ever being regarded as a risky mode of transport.

Stu

I do - after Clapham, Bellgrove and Purley happened within six months of each other.  The public view, repeated loudly in the press, was that our railways were dangerous.  Remember the Kings Cross fire was less than two years earlier as well.

 

TPWS was only part of the issue that has led to improved (in fact unprecedented) safety on our railways and if you look back at the coverage of the time, the Unions were insistent that privatisation would result in more accidents, death and injuries.  They were wrong, which is to the credit of all parties involved; Staff, Unions, DfT, TOCs and Network Rail.

 

I was not in favour of the privatisation of the railways but have to admit that a lot has been achieved that would never have ben funded by government.  But I also look at Nationalisation in 1948, how run-down and closures took place afterwards at an accelerating rate, without much enthusiasm.

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, Northmoor said:

I was not in favour of the privatisation of the railways but have to admit that a lot has been achieved that would never have ben funded by government.  But I also look at Nationalisation in 1948, how run-down and closures took place afterwards at an accelerating rate, without much enthusiasm.

If feels to me though that the government would not invest in BR rather than could not, under franchises the government had to invest in order to see it succeed which is why overall subsidy increased.  BR could have done a lot of things the private railway has done, it had the expertise and could change as demonstrated by sectorisation and initiatives like ScotRail and Network Southeast.  It failed when it had to do things with one hand tied behind it's back, one could argue a lot of the upgrade work that came after privatisation was to clear up the backlog that BR left because it couldn't do everything it wanted.

 

In the early days it did feel like the TOCs wanted to bring in new business, GNER and Virgin both had good offerings but as franchises renewed you witnessed the slow reduction in value add - Cross Country for example rather than expand it's trains when it passed from Virgin they chose to cramp the trains and remove the shops - downhill from there and I still to this day avoid Cross Country preferring to drive.

[Oldddudders]

A couple of trivial, irrelevant asides. I didn't see the programme, not having had a tv capable of receiving any sort of programme in some years. 

 

Someone mentioned Tunbridge Wells - Eridge closure. I was Project Manager for that, and can tell you there was no-one on the trains and the track was absolute rubbish, needing a lot pointless money spent. We also saved money on the Grove Junction interlocking which Tonbridge - Hastings electrification would otherwise have needed. Deb and I enjoyed weekly shopping at Sainsbury on the site a few years later. 

 

About 30 years ago, Ben Elton's brother David wrote a report for me. He worked for one of several consultancies involved in the Tribute ticket issuing system project. I didn't actually meet him, but am sure he contributed to my attempts as a lately-appointed Project Director to get this massively under-managed scheme on track. An in-house supplier comprising three units (Kings Cross, York, Nottingham) which hated each other was hardly going to deliver. My UAT team - the first really independent team in BR IT history, I think - gave those disparate elements a common enemy....

[david.hill64]

8 hours ago, 62613 said:

Again, correlation is not causation. In the 1860s and 1870s, the railways were downright dangerous. There was a gradual implementation of safety measures down the years; are you saying that if BR had not been privatised, TPWS wouldn't have been developed and installed? Both would probably have happened, but quite likely at a slower pace.

BR had committed to ATP and probably would not have commissioned the studies that resulted in the decision to start the SPAD Reduction and Mitigation project, though they did support it. It was mostly a Railtrack initiative.

[david.hill64]

15 hours ago, 62613 said:

We keep on hearing this, but traffic was already growing under BR (from 1992, when the economy was picking up after the Big Bang recession). Correlation is NOT causation. Is it worth pointing out that traffic had been declining since before The Great War, and that nationalisation wasn't the culprit?

I specifically did not claim that increased passenger numbers and improved safety were the result of privatisation: I merely point out that saying that our rail system is a national disgrace isn't supported by hard evidence. I also stated that they might very well have continued to improve under BR.

[uax6]

One thing to note here is that a lot of the improvements done by Network Rail to recover from Railtracks legacy were funded by a 'corporate credit card'. When NR was eventually nationalised, it was strange that this debt wasn't discharged (by whatever means) but has remained and is a huge expense to NR still. I forget the figures for the debt (is it a couple of hundred billion?) but the interest repayments are something like £42 millions a year. Obviously there is no way the borrowed sum is ever going to be repaid, so the interest payments are another long term income source for the lenders.

 

Andy G

[Old Gringo]

On 01/07/2023 at 03:19, david.hill64 said:

I specifically did not claim that increased passenger numbers and improved safety were the result of privatisation: I merely point out that saying that our rail system is a national disgrace isn't supported by hard evidence. I also stated that they might very well have continued to improve under BR.

 

Ben Elton's programme was broadcast a month ago and I would recommend it to all those interested in Britain's railways and railway transport in general.  Especially so, as it would appear that today's railway 'system' is costing the British taxpayers, a huge sum of money in subsidies, for a service that is less reliable, or cost effective than when British Rail ran the operations.

 

Over the years, many individuals have written in defence of our of railway - Sir John Betjeman and Jonathan Glancey being two of the most well-known and respected commentators.  Probably everything in my post has been said before, although not necessarily in this topic.  However, Ben Elton's exposure of current operations has annoyed me enough to want to respond in this topic. 

 

Apologies in advance to all those who are working (or have worked) on our railway system, no doubt trying to provide the kind of services we could enjoy a century ago, when the railways operated the most important transport network across the British Isles.

 

Apologies also for adding the under-linings to David's earlier post in the paragraph below for extra emphasis.  However, IMO, these statements highlight some of the key issues, since the act of privatisation was imposed upon the railway system.  And after watching Ben Elton's programme a couple of times, I've added my reaction to the comments, followed by some extra notes.

 

David said, "I specifically did not claim that increased passenger numbers and improved safety were the result of privatisation: (good) I merely point out that saying that (the statement) our rail system is a national disgrace isn't supported by hard evidence. (after watching the programme, how much more would you want?) I also stated that they (rail services) might very well have continued to improve under BR". (agree)

 

"History is an endlessly recurring nightmare" is a quote by the French essayist Claude Roy (1915-1997) and it is a particularly apposite comment regarding the history of the British railway network, during his lifespan.  Maybe this is the moment to compare another quote made by a former railway figure, who actually had a hand in the operation of our railways?

 

"The railway, as a system under British Rail, was totally integrated and one person, or group of people were able to balance the system.  Performance, Safety, Efficiency, Capacity, Growth; It is all one system.  I think that privatisation fragmented that system into over 100 different parts".

 

"That fragmentation did mean that the accountabilities were diffused and many different parts were set up with an economic architecture which by definition pointed them in different directions. 

I think it is the fragmentation and the economic incentives and the lack of clarity of accountability that actually makes it harder now to balance the system . . ."

 

Who do we think might have made those statements?  And how long after privatisation had been inflicted on our "deeply inefficient railway system" by Major's government; squealing, squabbling, sliding and squirming up and down the shiny, green leather benches in the House of funny stuff and throw-away inaccurate comments?

 

The four sentences are not much of a defence for the recently privatised railway system, in which this person hadn't long been assisting with reorganising the operations and re-purposing large amounts of the increased tax-payers' subsidies (which since he left are now running at £5 Billion per annum).  And the answer is - Gerald Corbett on November 10th 2000, when he gave evidence to the Cullen Inquiry.  [See note below for the reference source].

 

I've been a railway enthusiast and studied the history of railways all my life and I watched Ben Elton's thought provoking programme with interest and disgust in equal measure.  Over the last 60 years, I've been saddened to watch how the once comprehensive and co-ordinated network (which Britain still had in 1963) has been remodelled and reduced, by changes of direction and poorly conceived policies, imposed by successive 'tarmac sniffing, car-mad' governments.

 

It's never been a lot of fun to be a railway enthusiast and I see that David has opened another topic (180411) in this section to discuss, "What changes do we want for the railway?"  I hope it generates some interesting and constructive responses.

 

References:

The quote (with added underlined emphasis) is from 'The Crash that Stopped Britain', by Ian Jack, 2001 (p77). Seven days later, Corbett was sacked and with Railtrack shares plummeting, he went on holiday (p81), after a salary and benefits in his last year of £398,000 (p91).

 

The reference for Major's "deeply inefficient" comment is from page 5 of  'Spotlight on BR', by Colin Booc0ck, 1998 Atlantic Publishing.  Discussing the question Success or Failure? it is an articulate defence of British Railways 1948 - 1998.

 

PS: The privatisation Act became effective from All Fool's Day 1994 and from this date, the railway 'system' is rarely referred to as a national network, except perhaps by those who remember it.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

In modelling terms I tend to ignore the privatisation era, it holds zero interest to me. I was against it then and remain against it now, and in my own opinion it has led to travelling by train being a dull astronomicallly expensive experience rather than the fun it once was.  Following that I've only used a train twice in the last four years*

 

*Admittedly the pandemic had a lot to do with that

 

[Northmoor]

I finally got around to watching the programme this week and was pleasantly surprised by Ben Elton's articulation of the issues.  I did have one shout-at-the-telly moment when he criticised a Minister for pointing out that the DfT was responsible for all transport, not just trains and that something like 65% of all journeys did not involve rail.  Elton's blaming this on government closing railways or allowing poor services showed a very metro-centric view; people in the 1950s and 60s didn't start using cars because the railways were closing. the railways were closing because people started to use cars, out of convenience and not generally, by being forced off poor services. 

 

Cars are now being made out as a toxic choice but the transformation of Britain (in fact the Western World post WW2) has been because private transport has allowed people so many more job opportunities that would simply never have been available if they relied on public transport.  There are large parts of the UK where railways - indeed any form of public transport - does not, never has and never will, be a realistic option for the journeys people make.  Metro-centric planning is an unfortunate recurring theme in transport policy in the UK - e.g promotion and then the demonization of diesel vehicles - that it is written for Londoners first, for regional cities second then everywhere else just has to lump it, even if the "problem" being addressed has never impacted them.

 

Yes our railways could be better. much better, but believing that railways can be made to provide something they were never especially good at, is not the way forward because eventually, the wheel will turn full circle and people will question why we are subsidizing empty trains (which are not good for the environment).

[whart57]

You have "metro-centric" planning because that's where most people actually live. I could also be cynical and say that the problem with most rural gripes is that the moaner wants to live in a quiet, beautiful, rural location with few neighbours and none of the dirt and noise of towns and cities but still wants superfast broadband and a frequent train service.

[Northmoor]

1 minute ago, whart57 said:

You have "metro-centric" planning because that's where most people actually live. I could also be cynical and say that the problem with most rural gripes is that the moaner wants to live in a quiet, beautiful, rural location with few neighbours and none of the dirt and noise of towns and cities but still wants superfast broadband and a frequent train service.

I completely agree and have experienced the extremes, having lived in one of the most rural bits of rural Wales and commuted into Central London, but this is the problem with One Size Fits All legislation and planning.

[phil-b259]

On 29/06/2023 at 13:12, woodenhead said:

 

In this new world we now inhabit, I cannot but imagine re-opening closed bits of the London Extension as a classic line between Marylebone and Rugby with a new junction to the WCML might have been a better option.  HS2 had its time, but politics, Covid and cost of living crises seem to have pulled the rug from under it.

What part of ‘The Chiltern route / Marylebone doesn’t have the capacity do you not understand!

 

Even if the GC formation was reused (which in itself id not so straightforward as it’s been built upon in Brackley, cuttings turned into landfill and several viaducts destroyed) you would still require a brand new railway from the London terminal (be it Marylebone or Euston or Paddington) to north of Aylesbury!

And even if the speed was lower don’t kid yourself that would make a new railway would be any more acceptable to those living in the Chilterns - so you are still going to spend loads of money on tunnelling .

 

Similarly the existing route from Rugby towards Birmingham is already totally full up so you would similarly need a new railway from Rugby to Birmingham plus a new fermi in Birmingham as New Street has no spare capacity either.

 

OK so re-using the Aylesbury - Rugby bit might have saved a little bit of cash - but given you still need to build the bits either side and they are the most expensive bits of HS2 it’s hardly the solution you are pretending it is!

 

[30368]

6 hours ago, Old Gringo said:

Ben Elton's programme was broadcast a month ago and I would recommend it to all those interested in Britain's railways and railway transport in general.  Especially so, as it would appear that today's railway 'system' is costing the British taxpayers, a huge sum of money in subsidies, for a service that is less reliable, or cost effective than when British Rail ran the operations.

 

I am pleased that you watched this programme Old Gringo. Ben Elton presented his evidence very well and is well informed on railway matters, I totally agree with your views regarding the programme.

 

What I find a bit odd about some of the comments regarding the programme is the view that in some way it is anti car or anti personel transport and that as a result we must be careful that we do not subsidise "emty trains".

Well I think the issue is that we are all subsidising (and not just our railways) a series of local and national monopolies, for the benefit of the private owners of these privatised services. The level of subsidy is far, far higher than when these services were in public hands. It is a licence to print money until it is time to invest and then owners either bail out or get the taxpayer to pay one way or another. It is, as I have mentioned, a new form of Capitalism where all risk is removed - Taxpayer Funded Capitalism. It stinks.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by 30368

[Old Gringo]

On 22/07/2023 at 14:56, Northmoor said:

I finally got around to watching the programme this week and was pleasantly surprised by Ben Elton's articulation of the issues.  I did have one shout-at-the-telly moment when he criticised a Minister for pointing out that the DfT was responsible for all transport, not just trains and that something like 65% of all journeys did not involve rail.  Elton's blaming this on government closing railways or allowing poor services showed a very metro-centric view; people in the 1950s and 60s didn't start using cars because the railways were closing. the railways were closing because people started to use cars, out of convenience and not generally, by being forced off poor services. 

 

Cars are now being made out as a toxic choice but the transformation of Britain (in fact the Western World post WW2) has been because private transport has allowed people so many more job opportunities that would simply never have been available if they relied on public transport.  There are large parts of the UK where railways - indeed any form of public transport - does not, never has and never will, be a realistic option for the journeys people make.  Metro-centric planning is an unfortunate recurring theme in transport policy in the UK - e.g promotion and then the demonization of diesel vehicles - that it is written for Londoners first, for regional cities second then everywhere else just has to lump it, even if the "problem" being addressed has never impacted them.

 

Yes our railways could be better. much better, but believing that railways can be made to provide something they were never especially good at, is not the way forward because eventually, the wheel will turn full circle and people will question why we are subsidizing empty trains (which are not good for the environment).

 

Thanks Northmoor, for posting another note with some more thought provoking comments.

 

I'm pleased that you found "Ben Elton's articulation of the issues" interesting and agree that it probably appears as a more 'metro-centric' view of the railway system.  As both of us are regular contributors to RMweb, I hope that you like railway transport and also support the weed-strewn network that British Rail passed on to the current 'privatised' operators.

 

In the immediate reply to your comments, Wharf 57 succinctly summed up why current transport plans are aimed in general at those who live in the conurbations on the big island in the 'modern' world.   Wharf said:  "You have "Metro-centric" planning because that's where most people actually live".   and might I add - that they too will all want super-fast broadband and would really like a frequent and reliable train service!

 

Although Ben touched upon several issues from our railway history', in the time-slot available, the programme could not possibly discuss everything that we have lost - which of course began many years before the act of privatisation was imposed on the BR network.  Very few people nowadays appreciate or understand the history behind the current railway system and several of the comments in your post are worth considering against that history.

 

For example, "There are large parts of the UK where railways - indeed any form of public transport - does not, never has and never will, be a realistic option for the journeys people make".  does not recognise that by 1900, the railway companies were by far the most powerful businesses in the British Isles.

 

By 1914, very few communities (and only a very small percentage of the population) were far from access to a rail-operated-service, which had also both assisted and created the industrial power of Great Britain and Ireland (references include: RCH maps and Handbooks, England & Wales, Ireland & Scotland pre-Grouping, pre-WW1 editions - Railway Year Books, 1900 to 1930 editions, etc.).

 

From 1868, government attitudes towards the railways and railway regulation had begun to change and following the formation of the Railway Companies Association (1870 -1948), a more co-ordinated and co-operative attitude towards necessary reforms, operating practices and safety regulation was engendered.

 

By the outbreak of WW1, the railways and their integrated ancillary services had become the basis of an extremely reliable and cost effective transport network.  Note that previously I used the words rail-operated-service, as the railway companies used ships, buses, lorries and eventually even aeroplanes, to provide a comprehensive and co-ordinated transport network for the Isles.  Therefore,  "our railways could be better. much better, but believing that railways can be made to provide something they were never especially good at" does not equate to the history.  [Please see notes below for further references.]

 

However, powerful monopolies make powerful enemies, even when they provide a much-needed public service and keep the country running against all odds throughout two World wars.  Plus, in the 20th century, the British government could not/would not settle on a consistent approach to our transport requirements.  And as time goes by, they also appear to find it more and more difficult to understand both of the terms 'serving the public' or 'providing quality services for the population' in any number of areas: viz: air quality, water, energy/power, the NHS, etc. !

 

The constant fiddling with how the railways operated occurred at least four times during the last century; 1923, 1948, 1963 and 1994 and each government reorganisation and the connected policies reduced the railway's competitive edge to provide a comprehensive service.

 

Any real revival of our railway network has often been spoiled - and the first was the missed opportunity of nationalisation following WW1.  Although favoured by the first Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes (ex-NER), and the P.M., Lloyd George, it was torpedoed by greedy politics coupled with the realisation of the railway network's complete power to stop everything at a stroke (the memories of the 1911 strike were exacerbated by the 1919 strike).

 

Next, following WW2, we had the desultory re-branding of the (Victorian-infrastructured) railway as 'old-fashioned' and the "poor bag of assets" inherited by British Railways in 1948 from 'the Big Four'.  Tag lines regurgitated and promoted throughout the 1950s by the road lobby and later assisted by poor management and confused investment policies.  (For a sample of these uncompromising attitudes and ill-considered ideas, please read 'Twilight of the Railways, What Roads they'll make', published in 1957 along with similar drivel).

 

But worse was to come, because from 1960 onwards, a succession of short-sighted, governments (always looking at costs rather than benefits) have further reduced the overall effectiveness of the network to provide the world-class service that other countries receive from their railways.

 

Nowadays, too many people fail to recognise that it was the railway network, which was the driving force behind the industry and beginning of the conurbations, which dictate a 'Metro-centred' approach to today's transport requirements and the "one-sized fits all" solutions by these short-term governments.  Over the last 60-plus years, this has resulted in a smaller percentage of the much larger population even registering that the railway is still an effective and reliable mode of transport!

 

But, what a wonderful mode of transport the railway is:  The steel wheel running along the steel rail (and preferably driven by electric power) is still the most economic, environmentally efficient and safe method of rapid mass overland transportation, between large settlements in a densely populated country like the U.K.

 

A long time ago, back in those dark days of December 1964, when I read in my brand-new copy of 'Trains Annual' about the new generation railway, 'The Shinkansen', I naively thought that we too might just be on the point of planning and operating our own dedicated high-speed line from the capital city to the North . . . . . . . . . . . .  but I'm still waiting.

 

Please keep watching those trains running up and down above our solid Victorian infrastructure.

Apologies for the length of this mini-essay, hopefully it's all good therapy   Perhaps I should have spent the last 60 years studying British birds and small parrots, instead of wandering along the tracks of those iron-dinosaurs!  

 

All the very best,

John

 

References: For confirmation of just how good the spread of the network was and how effective the services were by 1914, I recommend the series of books dealing with the 'Victorian Railway' written by Professor Jack Simmons (1978,1986, 1991, 1994).  'Once upon a time', long ago before television and the internet, the railway was referred to as 'the great connector' (and also 'the British gift to the world').  The social changes and economic developments that followed the connections and subsequent developments are part of the reason why both our economy and society could withstand the two world wars, but that's quite a different topic for discussion.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Old Gringo
to clarify the high speed comment

[david.hill64]

Just had chance to watch this. I thought it was thought-provoking and interesting, apart from the cheap political shots, but I guess they were inevitable. When he discussed the winners from privatisation he forgot to mention staff, especially drivers whose remuneration is considerably better than it was before. No mention either of the (until recently) significantly increased level of service or safety improvements, and how running too many trains on a network inevitably leads to problems when things start to fall apart, nor of the fact that when Labour were in power they did nothing to reverse privatisation of the TOCs.

 

I think that the points about Leamside and Castlefield are particularly telling. London got Crossrail - Manchester gets little.

[ess1uk]

On 30/06/2023 at 20:40, Oldddudders said:

A couple of trivial, irrelevant asides. I didn't see the programme, not having had a tv capable of receiving any sort of programme in some years. 

I found it on YouTube and watched it that way

[62613]

On 30/06/2023 at 18:11, Northmoor said:

I do - after Clapham, Bellgrove and Purley happened within six months of each other.  The public view, repeated loudly in the press, was that our railways were dangerous.  Remember the Kings Cross fire was less than two years earlier as well.

Or the press was trying to form "Public Opinion" about the railways. They have a habit of doing that, in many fields. For the sake of clarity, I haven't read a newspaper for about 30 years 

[woodenhead]

On 22/08/2023 at 16:41, david.hill64 said:

I think that the points about Leamside and Castlefield are particularly telling. London got Crossrail - Manchester gets little.

The Castlefield fiasco is a real humdinger of a farce and I can remember the massive delays to trains afterwards because the timetable could not cope with the volume of traffic.  My train would arrive off the CLC and sit on the viaduct before Deansgate waiting for space to get to Oxford Rd and I'd be wondering if I would make my connection to get a train out of Manchester.

 

My opinion is that the viaduct was built because off the back of it a lot of other land around it would be regenerated i.e. the prize was land sale and regeneration not more trains.  Whilst the route of the curve was not fixed the regeneration could not take place, build the curve and that was resolved with the railways left to sort out how to use it.  We've known for years how congested that corridor is made worse because in BR days they diverted the Trans Pennine services along it and away from Victoria when it was being rebuilt into something with less capacity and placed under a soon if not already white elephant venue.