Are Britain’s railways better or worse since privatisation?

1991 – 97 was mostly in the privatised and not BR period.
If you want another comparison between BR and its successors, take the period of bad weather we had a few weeks ago. Entire services were cancelled – Kings Cross to Peterborough especially – whilst he read of horror tales about hundreds having to sleep on the platforms of Kings Cross or in suburban trains at Redhill.
In 1963 we had a far more severe winter with month-long snow that was shoulder-high in parts of the hoime counties. Nevertheless, during this period 53% of all trains in and out of Kingsw Cross, Brioad Street and Moorgate ran to time (which in those days meant right time). 75% ran within ten minutes of right time and in the entire seven weeks of snow only nine (9) trains ran more than half an hour late.
On top of that, the weather was not the only problem we had at that time since we were trying to bring in a fleet of diesels that were generally less use than ornament.

The big difference between the winters of 1963 and 2013/14 is that in ’63 many trains were still hauled by heavy steam locos, if not, almost as heavy diesels. The EMUs and DMUs of today are considerably lighter formations and therefore more severely affected by snow and ice. Nothing whatever to do with privatisation!

Dmu’s were no more affected by snow than loco-hauled trains. Weight was not a factor. Electric trains suffered from ice on the third rail; something that was very difficult to combat. In 1963 we were battling with a brand new fleet of diesel locomotives, very few of which could be relied to complete half a day’s work. I also remember an A2 Paciofic on an up Newcastle sleeper, running hours late and having to throw its fire out on the main line at Ganwick – injectors frozen.

Actually less use is made of the railways today than in years past and the level is now about one-third of what it was during the early 1950’s.
The overcrowding is largely because trains are much shorter then they used to be : in steam days trains of sixteen and seventeen coaches were quite common and the idea of running two or three coach trains on anything but a rural branch would have been laughable.

Totally agree with W.S.Becket. Train lengths used to match the number of expected travellers. It was not unusual for trains to be longer than intermediate stations platforms so you had to move down the train to get off. Now the attitude is to run the shortest trains you can get away with.

I agree that trains used to be longer, but they were often far less frequent than they are today. In other words, there are as many, if not more, carriages traversing many routes, but spread across a more frequent service.

With respect, that is rather a trite observation. The number of coaches moving between two points is largely irrelevant. What matters are the number of coaches on service at the time people want to use them. In addition, trains convey a minimal number of coaches compared to BR years. From North Wales to London, the morning train has five (!) coaches. It used to have seventeen.

Not trite at all Mr Beckett. I would rather have a service that consisted of four x four-coach trains per hour than one x 16-coach train!

Yes, but your trains would cost four times as much to run – for the same income. That is not a way to run a railway – or, indeed, any business.

Nostalgie, my foot. If the service on the railways had kept pace with technology, no-one would be complaining but as trains have become faster, the level of reliability has declined alarmingly. Under BR you could go for a train with the cirtainty that not only would it run as per the timetable but that it would arrive punctually. Nor was there any nonsense about reserved seats – you could change your mind at the last moment and alter your train and route on a whim and without paying extra.

Strange how we once had about 120 railway companies yet they all managed to work as a unified body. This was thanks to an organisation called the Railway Clearing House.

Checking trainline.com it says “Specified train only. No refunds” for a cheap advance purchase. That is why they are cheap. If you want a flexible refundable ticket you need to pay more.

Why not require the companies to give a 50% refund to those who know in advance that they will not be travelling? I know the terms & conditions, but also know that they are unreasonable.

Buy a ticket that gives a refund if you are not certain you will travel. If you want to take advantage of a cheap fare with conditions attached you are given a choice and enter into a two way bargain. Maybe yet more fares could be introduced with different refunds attached? They are already complex enough I would have thought.

I think it is unreasonable to buy something when the terms and conditions are made clear and then wish to change them when it suits you.

In the most recent example the company that had set up a meeting cancelled it, just after I had bought my tickets. Most shops will accept returns of unused goods, though I very rarely take advantage of this.

“I think it is unreasonable to buy something when the terms and conditions are made clear and then wish to change them when it suits you.” Isn’t that what you want to do with penalty charges for parking, Malcolm? 🙂

If you had bought a more flexible ticket I assume it would have cost more, but you would have been able to use it at another time or get a refund. You took a decision that did not end up in your favour (perhaps you could make a claim for expenses on the company that caused your loss by cancelling the meeting?).

When you park you also accept the terms and conditions. I want to see those published penalties changed to more realistic levels.

I know how the system works but I would like to change it for the benefit of the public, much the same as you want to see an end to large penalties for infringing the rules for parking.

In the case that I referred to the company would have had notice of two weeks that I did not intend to travel. Yes I could have made a claim for expenses but it’s not the money that concerns me, just the principle. In the same way, I want to see an end to punitive overdraft charges though I have not had an overdraft.

There seems no need to change the system when you had a choice as to the ticket you bought. You went for the cheap option with restrictions, and the gamble failed. Had you paid full price you would not have had the problem.

I don’t see how “punitive” charges correspond to your experience – you are not paying any penalty charge. You are simply paying the minimum price you could, with conditions attached that you presumably knew of, for a service you then no longer required, and were not entitled to a refund.

In the case of overdrafts, the charges are published and taking unauthorised money from the bank attracts a penalty. Don’t take the money and you won’t be charged, or arrange an overdraft facility.

When parking, you have four choices: park elsewhere if you don’t like the terms, don’t pay at all – when a penalty can be expected, pay for the minimum time you think you’ll need and if you are late back you’ll pay a penalty, or if you are not sure how long you will need to stay, buy enough time to cover yourself. The issue is not whether a penalty is fair, but the size of the penalty. But you do have choices, as with rail tickets.

Hmmm. If a train company sells you a ticket for a journey and you don’t make that journey but the train company still manages to fill the seat I suspect it’s not entirely quite fair. Ticket prices vary immensely. An advanced ticket with seat reservation in 1st class North Wales to London is around £98. Now, a 1st ticket for exactly the same journey is around £480. That’s quite a difference.

Last time I encountered this problem, I discovered that my non-refundable tickets could have been exchanged for a trip on another date but could not have been refunded.

Some cheap advance hotel rooms are non refundable too – it is all down to the booking conditions.

Thanks Derek. I will look into that next time. As it happened, I used my tickets to visit a museum, an art gallery and then have a meal with an old friend who worked in the city where I had planned to go for a meeting. On the previous occasion when a meeting was cancelled by the same company, I used my tickets to travel to visit an Apple Centre and it was fixed free of charge despite being two and a half years after the guarantee had expired.

It seems unreasonable that most retailers offer refunds on unused goods yet we have train tickets that are non-refundable. Your views are noted, Malcolm, but I disagree.

To hopefully conclude this, as I said above, with a choice of rail tickets if you choose to buy the one that is cheap, but has the condition that it cannot be refunded, I do not see how then you think you are entitled to ignore your acceptance of the conditions and get a refund. Contracts bind both parties. You cannot have it both ways 🙂 Making use of your ticket for your entertainment seems the sensible way out – or giving it to someone else to use.

I am NOT ignoring the terms and conditions, Malcolm. I’m wanting fairer terms and conditions – just like you would like fairer penalties for parking.

It seems strange to accept a deal and then renege on it when it doesn’t work in your favour, that’s my view. It is not at all analagous to a parking penalty as I commented earlier.

However may I suggest we agree to differ.

One commenter suggested joining up the timing of various forms of transport so minimising journey times. That would need some overriding body that maybe licensed all the operators and was able to impose this requirement. I’m not sure with so many separate transport companies how that would be done. You would, however, have thought it in each company’s commercial interests to do this.

As I have said, I would like to see fairer terms & conditions and I suspect other users would like the same, Malcolm. Why should most shops voluntarily allow customers to return most unused products for a full refund or credit note whereas the train companies do not allow any refund on some tickets, even if the customer finds that they no longer need them weeks before.

Every time I travel by rail there is the risk that I might not use the tickets. Over the years, I could have spent considerably more if I had chosen more expensive tickets.

Thankfully, Derek has provided a possible solution and I hope that consumers will fight for fairer terms & conditions.

The condition I thought you did not want to accept was the non-refundable one. Have I misunderstood?

I have accepted the terms & conditions and would like to see them to be fairer in future.

I’ve mentioned free refunds on most goods bought from many shops. Go into a Marks & Spencer shop after Christmas and there will be a very long queue for refunds on clothing.

I rarely use rail but understand there are many different fares available. I’d see a “regular” flexible fare – anytime, any train; a cheaper off peak fare – flexible; a cheaper still day return and a family (off peak) bought on the day. I suppose cheaper advance fares give rail companies an idea of how full their trains might be and guarantee a journey at lower cost before other, later, full-fare travellers might fill the train. But that bargain must have some conditions attached.

I wonder what others think of fare structures.

OK, but what interests me is having the opportunity to exchange or obtain a refund on unwanted tickets prior to the travel date.

Terms and conditions are not always adhered to. I have a Senior Railcard which I am required to present with my ticket for a journey. I explained that I had left my card at home on both the outward and return journey and was not asked to pay the relevant fee. I now put my Railcard in my wallet and then buy tickets online.

You’ve probably got an honest face, wavechange. 🙂

As Malcolm has said, there is a range of different rail tickets available,and as Derek has said exchanges are available for tickets that cannot be used [but there is an admin fee].

Advance tickets offer the biggest discounts but there are only a limited number available on each train [and the number differs per train according to loading] and the discounts reduce as the departure date approaches. They also come with a seat reservation. I presume that refunds are not available for administrative simplicity rather than customer convenience. At present on most trains the reservations are shown on a card at the top of the seatback [as done in Victorian times]. When all trains have digital reservation screens associated with each seat so changes can be applied up to the last minute and displayed automatically these limitations would no longer be justifiable.

I frequently travel on trains that run from Norwich to Liverpool and seats sometimes have three reservations printed on the seatback cards for separate sections of the route. People seem to avoid sitting in seats with reservation cards attached even if their journey is outside the reserved portions. I only go thirty miles to the next stop but often find that the best seats are still available just before departure because the reservations are for Nottingham to Manchester, for example.

People not presenting a valid railcard will also be given a ‘let’ in future on the first occasion. There is no reason why the railcard could not be carried on a smartphone but this development is still in gestation.

Cross Country Trains now allow people to book a seat right up to the time of departure and if it is already occupied the occupant has to surrender it. This must cause some friction on crowded trains; perhaps very few people attempt to make use of this facility being fearful of a confrontation as they try to assert their rights. I cannot believe this is a good policy but I suppose a marketing man got a medal for it.

Thanks for this information, John. I am an infrequent traveller and prior to retirement, most of my journeys were steam hauled on preserved railways.

It would be useful to have railcards (and others) stored on smartphones.

So far as I recall the terms and conditions for Advance, Super Advance, Saver, and Super Saver tickets under British Rail were identical to those for the current equivalents.

And the terrific thing is, Tony, that it’s only £10 to go from London to Norwich even though that is a far superior experience in so many ways!

You are so right about British Rail. Although it had many good developments to its credit it was not a customer-facing organisation – and it also smashed up its trains [and it passengers’ lives] too often. Some of its problems were not its own fault but, apart from in the dining cars, travelling in a BR train was not usually a pleasant experience.

Ah – the dining car… I remember with great fondness the waiter, clinging for dear life with one hand to the seat back, whilst attempting to pour gravy with the other. Great fun.

Ah, the gravy. One lump or two, sir?

LOL!