Talk:British Rail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / in UK / in Scotland / in London (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh 25 railtransportation.svg To-do list for British Rail:

Cycling lions[edit]

The logo which is currently captioned at the cycling lion isn't the one I'd call that. I'm thinking of the one which appeared on loco tenders with BRITISH RAILWAYS with the words separated by a large wheel, with a lion standing over the wheel with its feet on the lettering. Anybody got a photo? -- Arwel 15:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the 1949 "totem" (as logos were called then):
I seem to recall that it existed in two versions (left- and right-facing lion) to accord with the direction of travel. I'm afraid I don't own the image, however. -- Picapica 21:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The one currently in the article, with the lion holding a wheel was (at least according to my railwayman father) the "Ferret and Dartboard". The "Cycling Lion" had the lion standing astride a wheel, on the bar reading "British Railways". Brickie (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


What were the five sectors? Intercity, NSE, and Regional Rlys, gives two more, one infrastructure and one freight, but what were they called? Dunc_Harris| 18:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They were
  1. InterCity
  2. Network SouthEast
  3. Provincial (i.e., all passenger business not covered by the above two)
  4. Freight
  5. Parcels
--Picapica 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Great Locomotive Cull?[edit]

That seems to be a neologism; searches for that phrase bring up Wikipedia mirrors. Is there a more commonly used term? —Morven 19:25, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

This statement ('The Great Locomotive Cull') is a complete anomaly. I have never seen it being referred to in any journal, book or piece of comporary literature. I suggest that we re-write the entire paragraph and delete this rather odd piece of phrasing. Neil


The article refers to six regions, one of which was "North Eastern Region" - ICBW, but I don't remember there ever being such a thing. I think the regions were just - Scottish, LM, Western, Southern and Eastern (Eastern covering all of the former LNER territories in England as of the 1980s; I don't know which region the former Great Central mainline fell under, though).

Oh you youngster! North Eastern Region was based at York and existed until 1967. -- Arwel 22:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not forgetting, of course (as many do), that Anglia Region was split out of the Eastern Region about 1990, a few years before privatisation. -- Arwel (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The Great Central line was originally part of the Eastern Region but was transferred to the London Midland Region in 1958. -- Picapica 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, what happened to North Eastern Region, was it merged into Eastern Region? In which year Anglia Region was split out? --Sascha Claus 16:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the NER was merged into the ER. I can't remember exactly when Anglia Region was split out, other than that it was soon overtaken by "Organising for Quality" and sectorisation, which superseded all the regions, so probably it was the late 1980s. -- Arwel (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Anglia Region was created in either 1984 or 1987, but I can't remember which! 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)James


The text refers to Pacers being "one of BR's less successful designs". I would consider replacing life expired DMU's whilst keeping tens of branchlines around Great Britain open anything but a failure. I dislike Pacers as much as the next person, but I believe credit should be given where due. Could the text be changed to something less pejorative? Slipdigby 20:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I think that's total bollocks mate. What do Pacers do that the Sprinter units can't? Especially in terms of cost.
Sprinters have kept many of the countries rural lines reasonably secure for the last 15 years, I'm thinking of the Cambrian, North Wales, West Highland, Highland, and Far North lines in particular.
The Pacer concept has been nothing if not a complete embarassement to BREL and the railways in general. Neil
Do you have any cost comparisons, Pacer vs. Sprinter? Or are you just guessing?
It seems logical that Pacers should have been quite cheap, given the bus bodies, bus fittings, and rigidly-mounted axles vs. bogies. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
In response to the honourable "Neil", the comparitive costs outlined in "British Rail 1974-97" (Gourvish, T, Oxford University press: 2002, Oxford, Pp:220), the complete authorised cost for the 328 pacer vehicles ordered between 1982 and 1985 came to £57m. The cost for the 568 Sprinter vehicles ordered between 1984 and 1985 was £151m. This means that the average Pacer vehicle cost £0.174m, whilst the average Sprinter vehicle cost £0.266m. Even assuming the effects of inflation on the figures, it is still obvious that there is a significant difference in price between the two types of vehicle.
In regards to how Sprinters have kept the Cambrian, West Highland and so forth open, what of the Esk Valley, Cumbrian Coast, East Lancs, Penistone and Bishop Auckland lines, not to mention the commuter networks of South Wales, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West and South Yorkshire, and Tyne and Wear. All of the former rely on the Pacer fleet for a large percentage of their network. Guesswork suggests that the people of Millom, Milnrow, Marton and Merthyr would prefer a cheap and nasty Pacer to no railway at all.
Neil, please do your research before accusing me of spouting "bollocks". Ta Slipdigby 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah! But the pacers can negotiate tighter bends than Sprinters as they have one wheel at each end only. This means that on the Cumbrian line, for example, Sprinters cannot be used on the Northern sections. The same applies on the Carnforth bend towards Leeds. Dewarw 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tornado Project[edit]

I have made a slight change to the paragraph mentioning the Tornado steam engine project. The loco being built is a Peppercorn A1 pacific and not a A1 pacific. This loco class was not originally a A3 pacific. The preserved Flying Scotsman is a A3 pacific and was originally a A1 pacific. LNER Pacific’s This link should clarify my minor changes to that paragraph. --LieLestoSbrat 18:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Present Locomotives and rolling stock[edit]

This section (which deals with _current_ matters) is not appropriate to an article which deals with a _historic_ entity. It is also a repetition of the same information in a number of other subjects. I propose that it be deleted or split off as an article in its own right.--MBRZ48 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree (anon)

I also agree - it's a nice section, but it doesn't belong in an article on BR, whose history ends in 1997. The inclusion of stock types introduced since then is particularly incongruous. -- Arwel (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

History section[edit]

As it stands, te history section is about 2,300 words long, only a shade shoter than the supposed "main article" (History of rail transport in Great Britain 1948 - 1994), which is 2,400 words long... and that had only 1,500 words until twelve hours ago! Clearly this is a slightly strange situation.

This article is about a particular historical organisation so any "weeding" ought to be addressed to removal of matters more appropriate to a general history of British railway transport and the deletion/removal of the "off-topic" (as it refers to current matters related to the post-BR period) "Present Locomotives and Rolling Stock" section.--MBRZ48 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose merging any non-overlapping content from the history section into the 1948 - 1994 article, and then replacing the history section with something similar (or identical) the overview of the BR era at History of rail transport in Great Britain. This is a lot shorter (~400 words).... or do people feel this is too short? Is there little that can be said about BR over than its history? Tompw 19:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Don't lose the content if you do prune - put it in one of the other articles.BaseTurnComplete (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. Info has been copied to History of rail transport in Great Britain 1948 - 1994 unless already present. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Article has been massively over-pruned. It now says virtually nothing! I have added a tiny bit back in the history section which gives a bit of background. Also replaced the image I made of the old BR logo, gratuitously removed by someone. There needs to be a balance between brevity and giving enough information. As pruned the article tells readers practically nothing. Xandar (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First Scotrail[edit]

I don't see any mention of First Scotrail in the successor companies section. I'm not a railway buff, but I'm sure this is a major omission. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right.-- (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on format and push for GA status[edit]

Please note that there is an ongoing discussion on the articles for the "Big Four" pre-nationalisation companies here. The discussion is focussing on what needs to be done to improve Top importance articles within the remit of WP:Rail to GA status, including this page. Contributions to the discussion are welcomed. ColourSarge (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Successor Companies[edit]

Who has removed the successor companies information with regard to rail operating companies - and why? The information is important and relevant, and not even a link has been provided as to where it can be found. That is in contravention of WP policies. A lot of people looking at the BR article will potentially be using it as the most memorable and intuitive first point of call to find out about railways in Britain both during the BR period and since. However no links or information to successor and current train operating companies is now provided, leaving readers with a dead end. Xandar 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Find out for yourself ... review the "history".Olana North (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the list of TOCs was removed to reduce the churn in the article (the current situation is rather fluid!). As indicated in the section, there were over 100 companies initially and a great deal of complexity since, far too much detail for this article. Since you have highlighted the omission, perhaps you could investigate the creation of an article that describes the evolution of the current structure, and that addresses your concerns?
EdJogg (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"B. Railways" vs "B. Rail"[edit]

When did "British Rail" first appear? Article just says it was used, but implies this was not from day one.

EdJogg (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the nationalised company was initially called British Railways in 1948 (though one could also argue that the 'Big Four' private companies were effectively one national railway already during the war). I think it was 1965 that the name was shortened to British Rail. I believe the double-arrow logo that still serves as the 'National Rail' symbol was introduced at the same time. David Arthur (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason for asking was that someone had amended a hatnote on an article from "British Rail" to "British Railways"...and someone else objected and reverted. Now the context required the name of the organisation at nationalisation, so I restored the longer name!
The second reason for asking is that this fairly important date is not covered in this article yet...
EdJogg (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
British Railways was always the official title (i.e. British Railways Board) but from the mid-1960s abbreviation was made from "British Railways" to "British Rail." and then "British Rail" at first probably unofficially, it then gradually gained official as it appeared to be more modern. In the same way, "British Telecommunications" was shortened to "British Telecom." to British Telecom. Tony May (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I have found a booklet (actually a Post Office book of railway stamps with accompanying history!) that says the name change occurred in 1965 with the adoption of the Corporate Image (double-arrow symbol, rail blue paint, etc). The initial unofficial abbreviation, etc, use sounds plausible. Haven't managed to add as a ref yet.
EdJogg (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Network halved so therefore we have congestion on some routes" Eh?[edit]

I deleted this because the citation given doesn't support any of the statements made.

Passenger levels have since increased to the levels of the later 1940s, and as the network 
is only half its former size[,] it is significantly congested in some areas.
[ref]The UK Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), specifically Section 1.2 from National Rail Trends 2006-2007 Q1 (PDF file)

Also it is fatuous to say that the loss of the Nether Bottom branch line is responsible for congestion in the south east. If something like it is to be reinstated, it needs citations that support what is being said. See WP:SYN. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


I've popped a {{Failed verification}} right down the bottom of the section History, on the sentence "The Conservative government under John Major predicted that privatisation saw an improvement in passenger services.", as a consequence of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#British Rail ref check please. I've re-read the cited web page and it doesn't back up the sentence "The Conservative ...". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed drive-by tag[edit]

I've removed the tag on the history section. I'm sure the section isn't perfect, but I've done a lot to clean it up, including removing or rewording the more opinionated paragraphs and citing the more critical details. It needs more citations, but those individual sentences are marked - the section itself doesn't need a redundant tag.

Generally speaking, if you have an issue with an article, don't just tag it, which to my mind is a form of unintended vandalism, you're just putting up a notice saying you don't like something without in any way being constructive. You need to ALSO explain your reasoning, which means a short paragraph on the Talk: page explaining what the issues you see with the section are. And that's assuming you really can't just make the edits yourself. As it happens, I agree the section was awful and badly needed cleaning up, and I hope anyone considering re-inserting assertions that I removed will consider how they word those assertions and ensure they're properly cited, assuming they were legitimate in the first place (Wikipedia is not the place for a debate, nor still unsubstantiated attacks on strawmen.

If you do decide to re-add the tag, please, please, please, please explain your reasons, otherwise all that happens is the article goes unchanged while readers have to put up with distracting and unprofessional attacks on the article they're reading without having any guidance as to why the article deserves the attacks given. -- (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland[edit]

Is there any need to have a section on Northern Ireland in this article? The railways in NI were not part of BR. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and have deleted. If someone comes up with a convincing reason it can go back but NI didn't even have the same gauge as GB, (see Rail gauge in Ireland) let alone have any connection with BR or its antecedents. . --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
apart from the Dundalk, Newry and Greenore Railway and the Northern Counties Committee that is... both were part of the LMS, but became part of the UTA not BR. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Transport Act 1947 mentions Northern Ireland, mainly in section 127 (p. 141). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"This article has multiple issues"[edit]

The article had a big 'multiple issues' box up front. The most basic requirement of anyone adding such a tag is that there be a discussion section at the talk page to say what the tagger thinks is wrong and what needs to be done to fix it. Where is it? [If it has been archived, where is the link to the archive?]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mention some of BR successes?[edit]

The article seems a bit negative. Allot of money _was_ wasted during dieselisation and/or the modernisation plan but some good designs came of it: Class 47, 37, 33, Mark 1 coaches, early series E/DMU's that kept on going and going. The HST programme was in the shadow of the APT but was a massive success. The standard steam classes were a good stop gap with designs taken from the best on offer - pity the run down of steam wasn't better handled (unless you like preserved loco's :-) as so many be scrapped with a few still quite new made preservation easier!) Could we have some more info on these BR successes to balance other poorer performance by BR (that, at times, was caused by BR being at the beck and call of politicians or distracted by work disputes)? I could add something but I'm not an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Elimination of steam traction[edit]

The lede states that steam traction was eliminated on British Rail in 1968. This is not so, as British Rail operated steam trains until 1989 when the Vale of Rheidol Railway was sold to a private concern. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That, and Alan Pegler's special dispensation to run Flying Scotsman until 1972 (which in the event he only exercised until Spring 1969), were the only exceptions. How about "... which saw steam traction eliminated by 1968 (except on one narrow-gauge tourist line), in favour of ..." --Redrose64 (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Pegler's trains weren't operated by BR, were they? Maybe ...which saw standard gauge steam traction eliminated in 1968 (a narrow gauge tourist railway operated with steam until sold in 1992), in favour of ...
by 1968 is incorrect, it's either "in 1968" or "by 1969". Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I have never liked the construct "by year", since it's ambiguous (it wasn't mine, that was already there: I added the parenthesis). I think that it's better to be explicit, as in "by the start of year" or "by the end of year". But why not be more exact? It's not particularly unverifiable. The official last day of steam was 4 August 1968, although specials were run on 11 August, these were not regular timetabled workings. I'd go for "in August 1968" to cover both. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
That is indeed verifiable, but is it worth mentioning in the lead? Wouldn't it be better to give a general date there and be more specific in the history section? I'd go for "...which saw standard gauge steam traction eliminated in 1968 (the narrow-gauge Vale of Rheidol Railway operated with steam until its sale in 1992), in favour of ..." Alzarian16 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Clapham Junction rail crash - why here?[edit]

In the 'Post Beaching' section there is a paragraph (and unnecessary extra line linking to 'main article') to the Clapham Junction rail crash. This does not flow with the other text and seems to be out of context with the rest of this section. This needs to be linked in by someone putting a lead in or other description in this section of the article to help the reader understand the relevance or removed. The Clapham crash _was_ very serious (preceded and followed by others) but IMHO reflected more on middle and lower _regional_ management failures, not on the structure or operation of BR as a whole (which this article seems to be about). The possible link to BR operation could be the Clapham inquiries recommendation (and refusal to fund by the government) of widespread use of TPWS or ATP systems. Something that proved to be costly (and recommended again and again) in later accidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was very relevant to "the structure or operation of BR as a whole". If you read the report you'll be aware that the tech's mistake was put down to fatigue because he hadn't had a rest day in a considerable amount of time. This led to the recommendations by Anthony Hidden QC (No more than 13 shifts in a 14 day period, 12 hours maximum on and guaranteed 12 hours rest) and these are used through out the industry. Clapham had a huge impact on the railway. (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have read (most of) the report, technician also had sloppy work practices that were not related to overwork and not picked up by regional management, also workers checked their own work a practice which was approved by regional management. However, regardless of the cause and effect, some context needs to be put in this article so the text makes more sense. From above - "This does not flow with the other text and seems to be out of context with the rest of this section. This needs to be linked in by someone putting a lead in or other description in this section of the article to help the reader understand the relevance or removed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above (I was just about to make the same comment). Although a very serious accident, there have been many more crashes which have changed railway policy, and the worst accident at Harrow isn't mentioned earlier. So, I'm going to remove this presuming we have consensus. Bob talk 10:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


This section is getting rather long and I think is now a bit too long for the article. I know that it cannot be moved to British Rail Class 99, as not all ships had TOPS numbers, but could it live elsewhere, such as Ships of British Rail or British Rail ships? Tim PF (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, British Railways ships is another good title. Thanks. Tim PF (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact that British Rail owned ships should mentioned. (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
In what way does British Rail#Ships not say it owned any? Tim PF (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It should at least state the number and types of ships. Where they super-tankers? You shoudl not have to hit a link to find out. (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Railways were mainly viable[edit]

The railways were nationalized because they failed in private ownership. Not because a government wanted to own them. They were stripped of their wealth - the land values they inflated was were the real money was, not in ticket sales. The windfalls from land values around the stations and tracks was not cycled back into the rail network to keep it running. See George Hudson in the Victorian railway frauds. The ramshackle network was essential to the country needing the government to take over post WW2. Public money paying, while the real profits were syphoned off via the land market. Rail companies owned masses of land - not just dedicated railway land. This land was of course not on railway companies books and held by entirely different companies. The later Railtrack was primarily a land company. It is clear this article puts it across that nationalization was bad, without any understanding of the economics around the railway network and its ownership and why they fell into the arms of the state. Whoever was in charge state intervention would have happened, either in direct ownership (nationalization) or massive subsidies. (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You added three pieces of text:
  1. Under private ownership the British railway system had been neglected, was ramshackle being primarily still Victorian. Very little investment had been seen for decades. The initial Victorian railway companies had sold out seeing massive increases in the values of the land they owned because of growth the railways brought. The railways were vital to the country and were bound to fall into the arms of the state, who picked up the tab.
  2. The railways did create economic growth, which never showed up on the accounting books giving the impression they were not viable. For example, a railway in Shropshire, the Bishops Castle Railway, ran for 69 years under the administrators. The railway created economic growth along its length, yet only drew even in running costs, so was kept running until 1936.
  3. Private monopoly company Railtrack was bound to fail, as the private railways failed in the mid 20th century falling into the arms of the state. It was a repeat of the 19th century rail Railway Mania rip-offs, however created and backed by the government of the time who encouraged small investors to buy shares in Railtrack. Thousands of small investors lost a lot of money on failure of Railtrack. Instead of the private rail magnets preying on the small investors, as in the 1800s, it was the government of the day. Railtrack was replace by a non-profit making organisation, Network Rail in 2002 by a later government.
Much of this reads as personal opinion, violating the neutral point of view core policy. Some is easily refuted: a flick through
shows that the GWR certainly invested quite heavily right down to 1939;
  • Moody, G.T. (1958) [1957]. Southern Electric (2nd ed.). Hampton Court: Ian Allan. 786/262/100/558.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
shows that the wholesale electrification of the suburban network (and some of the main lines) of the Southern Railway was unrivalled before WWII; and any student of LMS locomotives knows that thousands of locomotives on that railway were replaced by modern designs particularly after 1932.
I don't understand the phrase "drew even in running costs, so was kept running until 1936".
It would help if you had provided more comprehensive reference information than "Ricardo's Law by Fred Harrison". Some page numbers, at the very least; preferably also the publisher and year of publication, and the ISBN. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
None is my personal opinion. All from an economist. (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bishops Castle Railway was operated until 1936. I will give detail of pages and ISBN. The book has a section on rail. THere is even a Youtube video on it as well. I even gave a wiki link to a 1800s rail fraudster, Hudson. He made his money from the increased land values not the rails. Even in California the biggest landowner is a rail company. The article gave the political impression the Atlee government nationalized (which costed) for dogma. They never. The rail network was a shambles under private rip-off sharks. (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You can't blame George Hudson for any railway events in the 1930s - he died in 1871; and in any case he had been exposed as a fraudster as early as 1849 - almost 100 years before nationalisation. Just because Hudson was out to fleece good-faith investors doesn't mean that all railway promoters acted similarly. Edward Pease most certainly didn't.
I don't dispute that the Bishop's Castle railway operated until 1936. What bothers me is the ambiguity of the phrase "drew even in running costs, so was kept running until 1936" - does this mean that they kept fares down in order to avoid making a profit, so could have kept the line going for longer than they did; or that they would have make a loss so raised fares to just break even so should really have closed the line earlier. I also don't see the relevance of the BCR to British Railways. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
You fail to see the point the economist is making. The real motives for rail companies, as was the previous canals, was to increase land values along and around the tracks. Land which they owned. The increased land values was where the real money was, not in ticket sales. Many economists have pointed out that 95% plus of the railways were always viable, but by using 1700s accounting methods the viability did not show up. The rails created economic growth. It is getting hold of this growth and feeding it back into the mechanism that made assisted in making the growth to keep the cycle turning. They tend to use taxes, calling it "subsidies", as if it is a gift, like funding the arts. The London Underground does not make money on ticket sales. Close it down tomorrow and London will collapse. Get it? The only time LU did make money was in the 1981 Fares Fare scheme. The tickets were reduced by 1/3 and the passenger levels took a massive hype. So much so they were considering lowering the Rates (Council Tax today). Political pressure stopped it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


Anyone in the Harrow and Wealdstone area - on 'a hording' close to the station associated with a footpath leading to the carpark is a sign referring to the car park being British Rail property. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll drop a line to Sunil060902 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
What exactly are we looking for exactly? I went there today. Sunil060902 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Think I found it!

File:British Rail sign abandoned footpath near Harrow & Wealdstone.jpg

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Disused railway station?[edit]

Isn't this a disused railway station? 50°41'34.92"N 1°26'1.55"W It sure looks like it from the air. I'd have asked this in the discussion area of the disused railway stations list but no one ever looks at that. -- (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

50°41′34.92″N 1°26′1.55″W / 50.6930333°N 1.4337639°W / 50.6930333; -1.4337639 Yes, that is Ningwood (Isle of Wight) railway station, which is listed at List of closed railway stations in Britain: M-O#Ni. Unfortunately the coords on the station article were about a mile off: I have fixed them using your data, but rounded to whole seconds of arc (see WP:OPCOORD for why fractional seconds is rarely necessary). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There wasn't a wikipedia icon over the site before, that's why I thought it looked odd. -- (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean; but I presume that you're viewing some mapping service which was built by a web crawler. These are only as good as the data that they gather, and if the data is bad, the info they give out will also be bad. As you initially suspected, not every railway station has an article; but for those that do, not all data is necessarily 100% correct. The person who added the incorrect coords to Ningwood (Isle of Wight) railway station way back in October 2007 was the article's creator; all I can say is that he seems not to have checked them properly. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I was using Google Earth. -- (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
OK... well, since our side is now correct (to within 100 metres or better), but I know of no way of fixing the data on Google's side, we'd better hope that they periodically re-examine the pages that they got data from, rather than assuming that it was correct first time. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nationalised narrow gauges?[edit]

"Narrow-gauge railways, like the Ffestiniog Railway were also excluded, apart from two already owned by a company that was itself nationalised."
So apart from the VoR, which was the second? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Could it be a reference to the Corris (as part of the GWR)? If so, there was a third - the Welshpool & Llanfair (also part of the GWR). Lamberhurst (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like my bad, I must have miscounted. The VoR and W&L were both acquired by the GWR at Grouping as part of the Cambrian Railways. The Corris was excluded from Grouping because it was a narrow-gauge line: however it was purchased by the GWR in 1930. All three were still in operation (and still GWR-owned) at nationalisation, but an unsafe bridge at Machynlleth forced closure of the Corris in October 1948. The essential thing is that these three lines only became part of BR because they were already owned by a BR constituent: had they been independent companies, they would have been excluded from the Transport Act 1947. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. I'd always thought it was the VoR & the W&L, but I've been reading Tom Rolt biography lately and was surprised to find that the Corris lasted into BR, which then made me doubt the W&L. I'd thought the Corris folded pre-war. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disused railway station site?[edit]

Is this an old station? I'd have posted the question in the "Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom" talk area but nobody will check that for a year or two. 51° 1'11.25"N 2°49'27.83"W --RThompson82 (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe so. That's a disused section of the Yeovil to Taunton Line and the nearest stations were Langport West to the north and Thorney and Kingsbury Halt to the south. In future, it may be better to post these sorts of questions directly to the project talk page at WP:UKT. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW for what its worth, I just noticed these two markers are along side each other but they don't look like they're supposed to be?
Those for Seend were wrong; I've fixed them. But as Lamberhurst says, the best place for raising general points like this is WT:UKRAIL - this is the talk page specifically for the article British Rail.
There is a feature shown at 51°1′11.25″N 2°49′27.83″W / 51.0197917°N 2.8243972°W / 51.0197917; -2.8243972 on old 1:2500 maps for 1887, 1904 & 1930, but this is most likely a crossing keeper's lodge; the 1973 sheet (surveyed after the railway was lifted) names it as "Westover Crossing Cottage". --Redrose64 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Errors in article[edit]

This article is heavily skewed and contains some errors and a lot of non-encyclopaedic phraseology.

For now I have focussed on the Regions; it would helpful if someone—I don't have access to the reference books—could say when the Regions were created. They most certainly were not created on 1/1/1948; I think it was about 1951. The list of Regions omits Anglia Region, and states that the Sectors replaced the Regions. They ran in parallel, not to say in competition, for some considerable time.

And I think that calling the logo "ferret and dartboard" is more appropriate for the saloon bar than an encyclopaedia. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The BR Regions were created on 1/1/1948 - as Michael Bonavia says in "The Birth of British Rail" (p. 32) - the Regions "overnight replaced the Companies", these companies of course being the 'big four'. I'm pretty sure that Anglia wasn't one of the BR regions and that it came about as a result of sectorisation when it was known as "InterCity Anglia". Lamberhurst (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why do you think that they were created in 1951? I have books published in 1948 which refer to the six Regions. As for Anglia Region, this was created very late, by splitting off the easternmost portion of the Eastern Region - mainly the former GER and LT&SR lines. It's not shown in
  • Baker, Stuart K. (1984) [1977]. Rail Atlas of Britain and Ireland (4th ed.). Poole: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0-86093-281-8. 
but first appears in
  • Baker, Stuart K. (1988) [1977]. Rail Atlas Great Britain & Ireland (5th ed.). Yeovil: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0-86093-419-5. T419. 
so was created some time between 1984 and 1988. The major Sectors had already appeared by then; IIRC the first was "London and South East", later renamed "Network SouthEast". The Sectors were created mainly for business purposes, with the role of the Regions being restricted to maintenance and timetabling - indeed, the present day Working Timetable is divided into several sections, each having a two-letter code, and the first letter of these codes may be one of six: C, G, L, P, W or Y, which correspond to the six former Regions: London Midland; Scottish; Anglia; Western; Southern; and Eastern respectively.
According to Baker (1988), the Anglia Region boundary points were: a short distance to the west of Whittlesea; just north of Royston; between Harringay West Junction and Harringay Park Junction; about halfway between Crouch Hill and Upper Holloway; just east of Dalston Kingsland. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Terry Gourvish's "British Railways 1948-73" (p. 41) cites minutes of a meeting of the Railway Executive and British Transport Commission on 27 October 1947 in which the Executive is said to have accepted Cyril Hurcomb's recommendation to create six regions. The names of the Chief Regional Officers were announced in a press conference in November 1947 (p. 44). Lamberhurst (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
And the Anglia Region was created in April 1988 (Terry Gourvish, British Rail 1974-97, p. 132). Lamberhurst (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
According to
in October 1947 there was a proposal to have eight regions, with a separate Welsh Region, and the ex-LMS lines in England split into two Regions; the next proposal was for five, somewhat similar to the 1967-88 situation, before six were settled upon "by the beginning of November", although the eight-region idea was not finally ruled out until "the middle of 1948". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Accidents and Incidents, Needed here? - Replace with link?[edit]

A large section has been generated on this page called 'Accidents and incidents'. I'm sure this has been done with the utmost diligence however it replicates much of the information in '1948–1994: British Rail' section of the page at 'List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom'

I propose this section on this page is replace with a link to the section above to (in no particular order):

Reduce this page size

Reduce replication and hence possibility of inconsistency

Make one list that is more complete and hopefully accurate

Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talkcontribs) 13:28, 16 July 2014

Mjroots, one for you I think. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I see no harm in duplication here. All entries are referenced, and presented in a logical order, which is more than can be said for the List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom. That list, by its definition, covers the whole of the United Kingdom over a much larger timespan and is missing several significant accidents and incidents; whereas the section in the BR article deals solely with accidents and incidents occurring the time BR was in existence. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no criticism of the accuracy of each incident or the refs. The accidents section now dominates this page. Many of the accidents don't seem to fit in the general thrust of the article (history of BR as an entity), e.g. how does "On 21 April 1952, an express passenger train was derailed at Blea Moor Loops, Cumberland due to a defect on one of the locomotives hauling it, causing points to move under the train." help the reader understand BR? Most accidents on the railway were not down to the operator (BR here), some had connections to, and implications on, BR as a body so could be here, e.g. provide a link to Clapham Jnc. crash.
On the duplication front the overlap with the UK accident page makes any corrections / improvements / additions a headache as the editor has to do it twice or (if they don't realise there are 2 lists) we end up with 2 versions which become divergent. Better to have all the incidents in one place only (the List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom is becoming large but could be split into time periods with a host page for directing the reader).
I realise beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If all this info _has_ to be here it would be better to reduce the domination on the rest of the article by making the list hidden for the reader to drop down on selection. 2ghoti (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@2ghoti: I think that a hidden list undesirable for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons, Redrose64 will no doubt be able to confirm. What do you think about splitting it off into a List of accidents on British Rail or some similar title.? The section can be retained with a link to the list. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, see MOS:COLLAPSE (another accessibility problem is blank lines within indented posts, see WP:INDENTGAP). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mjroots: That would cover the dominance issue. 2ghoti (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)