In the age of steam, express trains averaged over 80mph… today they’re lucky if they beat 60
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
MANY train journeys on Britain’s busiest routes are much slower than they were under British Rail and some even take longer than in the age of steam. The high-speed inter-city routes are slower now than in the 1980s, according to an analysis of train timetables.
Nationalised BR tempted people on to trains by advertising reductions in journey time, but the privatised companies have switched the focus to reliability rather than speed and several have added extra minutes to the timetable to avoid penalties for delays.
Journeys on the Great Western Main Line now take up to 20 minutes longer than in 1980, using the same trains. The fastest journey from London to Edinburgh took just under four hours in the 1990s but now takes ten minutes longer. On some regional routes, journeys were faster when Queen Victoria was on the throne.
The occasional steam train was faster than the equivalent service today, usually because stretches of line were closed by Richard Beeching in the 1960s, necessitating longer routes today, or because the Victorians prized their express services and therefore made fewer stops en route. According to Bradshaw’s Threepenny Railway Guide from 1900, three express trains an hour linked Liverpool and Manchester, taking just 40 minutes. A century later, it takes seven minutes longer. It took 35 minutes to travel from Portsmouth to Southampton in 1898, compared with 46 minutes today. In the 1930s, steam expresses regularly averaged more than 80mph.
More surprising is the slowdown since the 1970s, when trains were often faster with the same stopping patterns and using the same diesel or electric engines. In the 1970s, BR branded its new high-speed train the Intercity 125 to underline its top speed of 125mph. But the average speed has steadily declined and is now only 61mph b
I think the problem is mainly to do with infrastructure - the rail system was effectively drip-fed just enough to keep it alive during the Thatcher years (the government of that era’s dislike of public transport is well known!) with the result that now there’s a need to repair the ravages of that era. The fact that we’ve not managed to improve upon the 1970’s-vintage HST design (which is now more reliable and comfortable than the units intended to replace it) is shocking. I’d say the HST is doing sterling work considering it was intended as a short-term solution before the planned APT was introduced (in fact, the APT program was cut despite being very promising, and millions of pounds worth of brand-new stock was scrapped - see www.apt-e.org for more details). To my mind it went wrong at this point - there wasn’t the political willpower to keep the UK a front-runner in rail technology.
In the mid-1930s, the newly electrified Pennsylvania RR’s GG-1’s were designed to carry passenger trains to cruise at 80 mph and peak at 100 mph. I believe the better trains like The Afternoon Congressional and The Clocker did the two hundred twenty-some miles in about three hours.
Thirty years later, in the mid-sixties, the Pennsy tested its new Metroliner, which was to have speeds of 100 mph sustained, 125 tops. Later that was changed to 90-95 mph sustained, 110 tops. In reality, travel time could only be gotten down to the neighborhood of 2.5 hours by instituting a so-called “express” service, which merely meant that the train stopped only in Philly and Newark (no suburban D.C. stations then), and cruised on through the passenger stations at Baltimore, Wilmington and son on on slow orders. It saved 20 minutes or so, and royally annoyed the citizens of Baltimore, Wilmington, etc. – That part reminds me of how the trains of BR’s descendents add ten minutes or so to their schedule by providing extra service in the form of providing extra stops.
In our case, the Metroliner Express was both elitist and lost passengers. Was Metroliner speed by the mid-1970s that much worse than the GG-1 hauled heavysides of the Great Depression era?
Ten minutes saved? Hah! The Accela can do better than that. Best train in the world, when it’s in service every now and then, and the roadbed was a fright.
If only Captain Deltic (aka Roger Ford of Modern Railways) were a regular contributor to these Fora, I’m sure he could give you the true picture of which UK Political Party has the best record of authorising railway investment as opposed to being in power at commissioning.
If my 57 year old memory is correct, the only major investment authorised by the Labour Party was the Weaver Junction to Lanark Junction, Electrification project (thus completing the Euston-Glasgow line).
I’m no Conservative supporter (too many forebears were thrown out of work under their policies) but the Heath and Thatcher years did see quite a bit of major investment. In particular I’m thinking of the virtual rebuild of the Great Western Mainline in time for the HST Service, Bournemouth - Weymouth Electrification. and most of all the East Coast and East and West Anglia Electrifcation projects.
What Mrs. Thatcher was fundamentally opposed to was waste in Public Investments, and each of the scheme
I think we actually agree on this one - I wasn’t criticising BR, more the way in which they were funded. I’m also no fan of Labour or the Conservatives, neither has a great record on these things. If I’m wrong on some details, then I stand corrected. I’m only 22 so have limited knowledge of the era beyond what I have read of HST and APT development and history.