Can we tone down the vulgar flag waving?

 As a rule (with the exception of loyalist communities in Northern Ireland), we Brits have historically not gone in for overt displays of patriotism and flag waving. However the post-Brexit culture wars have resulted in a recent trend of tying flags to lamp posts for some reason. This is seen by many people as rather vulgar at best and eerily reminiscent of certain political movements from the mid 20th century at worst. In Scotland, where 45% of voters voted to leave the UK in 2014, many see the union flag as a symbol of oppression, as is also the case among nationalist communities in Ireland and Wales. What was originally intended as a symbol of national unity has been co-opted by the far right, and its image has been tarnished by racism and politics. So the adoption of this livery by Great British Railways has been somewhat controversial, with the Chief Executive of Transport Scotland apparently being "furious" at the branding appearing at Glasgow Central low level station. Ironically, Scotrail uses a stylised Saltire in its livery.

Back in 1948, British Rail experimented with a blue livery before settling on green for express locomotives, with black used for freight locos. Carriages were initially carmine and cream, with all-over maroon becoming standard later on. Blue was eventually introduced for electric trains, then after the modernisation of the 1960s, blue was adopted as a standard colour. However it was plain blue with grey window surrounds; there was no attempt to add any union flag elements until Network SouthEast introduced its "toothpaste" livery in the 1980s. Even then, the colour scheme was restricted to a subtle red and white stripe that ran the length of a train. 

Great British Railways isn't even the first organisation to slap a union flag on its vehicles, either. In 2014, P&O Cruises for some reason decided to do away with its traditional plain white hull and buff funnel and slap a stylised union flag on the front of its ships. The result looks honestly rather vulgar, and detracts from P&O's traditional image.

The name, as well, is an odd choice. "Great British Railways". Why not just "British Railways" or even "British Rail"? It's a recognised brand and won't be confused with GB Railfreight (a private freight operating company). The addition of "Great" feels like it was inspired by Boris Johnson, makes the name more of a mouthful to say and is honestly rather cringey. Are the government afraid that "British Rail" is associated with run-down trains, line closures and pre-packaged sandwiches? Is the rename meant to imply that the trains will be great? If so, I expect a lot of people will be disappointed. 

The Highland Sleeper route makes no sense.

The Caledonian Sleeper is one of my favourite ways to get to London. You can sleep while you travel overnight, so you don't waste time during the day. There are, in fact, two Caledonian Sleeper trains, each with multiple portions. The Lowland Sleeper serves Glasgow and Edinburgh, splitting and joining at Carstairs. Sensible enough. But then there's the Highland Sleeper, which serves Fort William, Inverness and Aberdeen, but it splits and joins at Edinburgh. Why Edinburgh and not Carstairs? OK, for the Aberdeen portion, Edinburgh isn't much of a diversion, but for the Fort William portion, it seems rather inefficient to drag the portion to Edinburgh, to have to take it all the way back to Glasgow to get to the West Highland Line. Plus it runs for a fair old distance on diesel power under the wires. 

Which brings me to the other issue: traction choice. Back when DB Schenker were providing the traction, the sleeper was hauled by Class 90s for the electric part of the journey down the West Coast Main Line, and by Class 67s (which replaced Class 37s) north of the central belt. Sensible enough. However, when GBRF took over the contract, they switched to Class 92s for the electric-hauled part of the journey (still sensible enough), but for the diesel-powered part of the trip, they chose... Class 73s. What? These were electro-diesels built for the Southern Region of British Railways, primarily for routes that were electrified by DC 3rd rail in the south-East of England, with a diesel engine for bits of track where 3rd rail power was unavailable. They were certainly not built for dragging sleeper trains over the mountainous West Highland Line. Anyway, GBRF overhauled them, installed new engines, and had them double-head with Class 66s when more power was required.

Now let's be honest, the Sleeper doesn't need to be fast. It's a sleeper train; people expect it to take 8 hours or more so they can get a good night's sleep. However, routing the Fort William and Inverness portions via Edinburgh does seem highly inefficient from a fuel use standpoint if nothing else. So, how would I improve its efficiency? First of all, forget Edinburgh. Route the Highland Sleeper through Motherwell instead. Take off the Fort William portion there and send it via Whifflet and Gartcosh to join its current route via Queen Street low level. The Aberdeen portion can take the Falkirk Grahamston route to the Forth Bridge and Fife to join its present route, and the Inverness portion can carry on to Stirling, Perth and Inverness. Alternatively, if we take Fife off the Highland Sleeper's itinerary, the two portions could split at Perth, however this would still require changing to diesel traction at Stirling. As an alternative, Fife could be served by extending the Edinburgh portion of the lowland sleeper to Dundee via the Forth and Tay bridges.

As for traction, GBRF is planning to replace its current locomotives with bi-mode Class 99s, so that problem is likely to solve itself fairly soon.