1955 BR modernisation plan - what would you have done differently?

[GRALISTAIR]

I would have been bolder and kept going with electrification. No excuse for stopping at Weaver Junction for example. Order more of the successful diesels. Class 37 and 47. If everyone can drive them there is less training etc.

 

[uglymonkey]

Let the (almost) brand new steam engines run on until they got their monies worth out of them( some were only 7-8 years old when scrapped)
Look at stopping full staffing,unmanned stations,level crossings, pay trains and minimum infrastructure to keep (some) lines open much sooner.
Prevent building or other use of/ demolishing bridges etc on disused ripped up lines , use as "green corridors" for 100 years, so more easily openings if required.
Stop Marples with the whole conflict of interest and motorways thing.

Have a consistent transport plan for the whole country to work towards and plan and prevent short termism. Include all forms of transport in this.

 

[randyrippley]

I would have been bolder and kept going with electrification. No excuse for stopping at Weaver Junction for example. Order more of the successful diesels. Class 37 and 47. If everyone can drive them there is less training etc.

The difficulty there is that all the unsuccessful designs had already been built by the time the 37 and 47 started production.
The only orders which could have been swapped were 27/33/35/50

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And in the end Class 50 and 33were quite successful

 

[Greybeard33]

Arguably the worse mistakes were made in 1948 - by 1955 it was already too late. Immediately after nationalisation, the BTC should have started a rolling programme of electrification, instead of investing in new steam locomotives. Many other countries had already recognised that steam was an obsolete technology, so no crystal ball needed.

I understand the rationale at the time was that Britain needed to leverage its coal resources rather than switch railway traction to imported oil, but electricity was generated from coal. Electrification, rather than dieselisation or persisting with steam, would surely have been the rational choice. Then many more main lines could have been already electrified by 1955.

Admittedly we would, like France, have been left with a legacy of 1500V DC OLE, since that was the national standard until the mid 1950s. But the need for diesels would have been greatly reduced.

 

[Mike Machin]

Arguably the worse mistakes were made in 1948 - by 1955 it was already too late. Immediately after nationalisation, the BTC should have started a rolling programme of electrification, instead of investing in new steam locomotives. Many other countries had already recognised that steam was an obsolete technology, so no crystal ball needed.

I understand the rationale at the time was that Britain needed to leverage its coal resources rather than switch railway traction to imported oil, but electricity was generated from coal. Electrification, rather than dieselisation or persisting with steam, would surely have been the rational choice. Then many more main lines could have been already electrified by 1955.

Admittedly we would, like France, have been left with a legacy of 1500V DC OLE, since that was the national standard until the mid 1950s. But the need for diesels would have been greatly reduced.

This would definitely have been the best way to go. However, at the time the nation was absolutely completely skint, broke, bankrupt and the high cost of widespread electrification was just not a viable option. Steam was cheap, there was plenty of cheap labour available particularly through encouraged immigration from the commonwealth and so the only viable option was to carry on with tried and tested methods of traction and rolling stock construction.

Although the British network was run into the ground during the war and it suffered some damage, this was relatively light in comparison to the near wholesale destruction of the Continental railway systems. Vast sums of money was made available through the reconstruction 'Marshall Plan' for the rebuilding of Europe and so with the railways of Europe needing rebuilding from the ground up in many places, it made sense to opt for the latest forms of traction, new station design, colour light signalling, heavyweight track, bogie freight vehicles etc.

Had the money been available, I'm sure Britain would have taken the same route.

 

[yorksrob]

Arguably the worse mistakes were made in 1948 - by 1955 it was already too late. Immediately after nationalisation, the BTC should have started a rolling programme of electrification, instead of investing in new steam locomotives. Many other countries had already recognised that steam was an obsolete technology, so no crystal ball needed.

I understand the rationale at the time was that Britain needed to leverage its coal resources rather than switch railway traction to imported oil, but electricity was generated from coal. Electrification, rather than dieselisation or persisting with steam, would surely have been the rational choice. Then many more main lines could have been already electrified by 1955.

Admittedly we would, like France, have been left with a legacy of 1500V DC OLE, since that was the national standard until the mid 1950s. But the need for diesels would have been greatly reduced.

This would definitely have been the best way to go. However, at the time the nation was absolutely completely skint, broke, bankrupt and the high cost of widespread electrification was just not a viable option. Steam was cheap, there was plenty of cheap labour available particularly through encouraged immigration from the commonwealth and so the only viable option was to carry on with tried and tested methods of traction and rolling stock construction.

Although the British network was run into the ground during the war and it suffered some damage, this was relatively light in comparison to the near wholesale destruction of the Continental railway systems. Vast sums of money was made available through the reconstruction 'Marshall Plan' for the rebuilding of Europe and so with the railways of Europe needing rebuilding from the ground up in many places, it made sense to opt for the latest forms of traction, new station design, colour light signalling, heavyweight track, bogie freight vehicles etc.

Had the money been available, I'm sure Britain would have taken the same route.

They could have always got going with the Southern Region electrification earlier. No problems with an obsolete OH voltage system.

 

[zwk500]

I understand the rationale at the time was that Britain needed to leverage its coal resources rather than switch railway traction to imported oil, but electricity was generated from coal. Electrification, rather than dieselisation or persisting with steam, would surely have been the rational choice. Then many more main lines could have been already electrified by 1955.

Admittedly we would, like France, have been left with a legacy of 1500V DC OLE, since that was the national standard until the mid 1950s. But the need for diesels would have been greatly reduced.

In 1955, you had the Manchester-Altrincham, Woodhead Line and Shenfield Line still electrified at 1.5KV DC. Given that the modernisation plan chose 25KV AC as the future standard and spent money converting the Shenfield Metro to that standard, I don't see why a hypothetical alternative plan wouldn't have still invested in 25KV AC.

They could have always got going with the Southern Region electrification earlier. No problems with an obsolete OH voltage system.

No, just the problem of an obsolete (for mainline) Top-contact low voltage system . It's an interesting 'what-if' that if Dual-Voltage technology had been more mature in the 50s the Modernisation plan might have done programmes like the Kent Coast electrification as 25KV AC OLE. Would also have been interesting to see how the Basingstoke-Bournemouth electrification might have gone to OLE.

 

[yorksrob]

No, just the problem of an obsolete (for mainline) Top-contact low voltage system . It's an interesting 'what-if' that if Dual-Voltage technology had been more mature in the 50s the Modernisation plan might have done programmes like the Kent Coast electrification as 25KV AC OLE. Would also have been interesting to see how the Basingstoke-Bournemouth electrification might have gone to OLE.

I don't consider third rail obsolete anyway as you probably know

Given that 25kV AC OLE was relatively new in the 1950's, it's a bit of a stretch to imagine dual Voltage as available as well !

Would have been an odd third rail sandwich with the Brighton and Portsmouth lines as third rail and OLE either side !

 

[eldomtom2]

Although the British network was run into the ground during the war and it suffered some damage, this was relatively light in comparison to the near wholesale destruction of the Continental railway systems. Vast sums of money was made available through the reconstruction 'Marshall Plan' for the rebuilding of Europe and so with the railways of Europe needing rebuilding from the ground up in many places, it made sense to opt for the latest forms of traction, new station design, colour light signalling, heavyweight track, bogie freight vehicles etc.

I've often heard this claimed but I'm not sure how accurate it is. It seems from what I know much more like the priority was on getting things back up and running and then upgrading things.

 

[randyrippley]

There's one big problem with these "we should have electrified earlier and stopped building steam" comments: where would we have built the electric locomotives?
The BR workshops and most of the contract builders were steam-only. Exceptions were Brush and EE, though at that stage EE only had the Preston works, not Vulcan, Stephensons nor Hawthorn-Leslie.
BRCW had built diesels, but not pure electrics.
There simply wasn't the capacity to build enough electric or diesels until the late 50's early 60's. Of course if the decision had been to make ALL new passenger stock as EMUs then things might have been different. Multiple units could be built in coach works with little modification, while they couldn't be simply built in steam loco foundries. As it happened, the big DMU deliveries came first because they were easy to build on existing plant, diesel and electric locos came later in new or refurbished works.
Simple fact is, we had massive steam loco production facilities, little in the way of electric or diesel production plant, and as a country little money to invest in new plant or retooling old.
If we'd tried switching production earlier, you would have had all the problems experienced at NBL, only on a much larger scale.

 

[yorksrob]

There's one big problem with these "we should have electrified earlier and stopped building steam" comments: where would we have built the electric locomotives?
The BR workshops and most of the contract builders were steam-only. Exceptions were Brush and EE, though at that stage EE only had the Preston works, not Vulcan, Stephensons nor Hawthorn-Leslie.
BRCW had built diesels, but not pure electrics.
There simply wasn't the capacity to build enough electric or diesels until the late 50's early 60's. Of course if the decision had been to make ALL new passenger stock as EMUs then things might have been different. Multiple units could be built in coach works with little modification, while they couldn't be simply built in steam loco foundries. As it happened, the big DMU deliveries came first because they were easy to build on existing plant, diesel and electric locos came later in new or refurbished works.
Simple fact is, we had massive steam loco production facilities, little in the way of electric or diesel production plant, and as a country little money to invest in new plant or retooling old.
If we'd tried switching production earlier, you would have had all the problems experienced at NBL, only on a much larger scale.

Again, get on with electrifying the Southern Region (which was already an established EMU operator).

 

[zwk500]

There's one big problem with these "we should have electrified earlier and stopped building steam" comments: where would we have built the electric locomotives?
The BR workshops and most of the contract builders were steam-only. Exceptions were Brush and EE, though at that stage EE only had the Preston works, not Vulcan, Stephensons nor Hawthorn-Leslie.
BRCW had built diesels, but not pure electrics.
There simply wasn't the capacity to build enough electric or diesels until the late 50's early 60's. Of course if the decision had been to make ALL new passenger stock as EMUs then things might have been different. Multiple units could be built in coach works with little modification, while they couldn't be simply built in steam loco foundries. As it happened, the big DMU deliveries came first because they were easy to build on existing plant, diesel and electric locos came later in new or refurbished works.
Simple fact is, we had massive steam loco production facilities, little in the way of electric or diesel production plant, and as a country little money to invest in new plant or retooling old.
If we'd tried switching production earlier, you would have had all the problems experienced at NBL, only on a much larger scale.

Nethertheless, having a clear strategy and the money behind it would have enabled private builders to invest in conversion while BR upgraded MPDs and suchlike. There was enough money in the plan, given the investment in diesel production and maintenance facilities.

 

[A0]

I wouldn't have ditched the 1,500v DC electrifcation system so quickly - many countries across Europe continued with the 1,500v DC system - the lines out of Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street were self-contained and there was no practical reason to covert them to 6.25kv / 25kv. To do the WCML as 25kv from the outset made some sense as it was a long distance and 25kv probably made it more cost effective.

On the Southern I wouldn't have allowed more 750v DC 3rd rail, but instead gone for 1,500 v DC overhead - it would have been relatively easy to convert any 3rd rail stock to dual voltage dual source (3rd rail and OHL).

I'd probably have pushed for electrifying the GN suburban as the LNER envisaged before the war using 1,500v DC at least as far as Hitchin.

By the time the 1,500v equipment was life expired - mid 1980s - it would then have been possible to convert those lines to 25kv and order new stock.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

They could have always got going with the Southern Region electrification earlier. No problems with an obsolete OH voltage system.

No - instead it would have meant extending an obsolete pick up system which has been discussed at length as to why 3rd rail isn't suitable except on metro systems.

Name me one other country which has electrified medium or long distance mainlines using the 3rd rail system - I'll wait.......

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

No, just the problem of an obsolete (for mainline) Top-contact low voltage system . It's an interesting 'what-if' that if Dual-Voltage technology had been more mature in the 50s the Modernisation plan might have done programmes like the Kent Coast electrification as 25KV AC OLE. Would also have been interesting to see how the Basingstoke-Bournemouth electrification might have gone to OLE.

As I just posted, I'd have done the Southern post war as 1,500v DC OHLE - leaving the 3rd rail which was already there in situ and just extend using OHL. That way it would have been easy to convert units to dual voltage / dual supply as the conversion from 1,500v DC - 750v DC is fairly straightforward, unlike 25kv - 750v DC.

 

[yorksrob]

No - instead it would have meant extending an obsolete pick up system which has been discussed at length as to why 3rd rail isn't suitable except on metro systems.

Name me one other country which has electrified medium or long distance mainlines using the 3rd rail system - I'll wait.......

This is complete nonsense.

The third rail system has served us perfectly well for sixty years (nearer 100 on the Brighton/Portsmouth lines) and continues to do so. It is not obsolete.

Since there was an established limit to third rail electrification, an earlier start would have avoided wasted time and saved some routes which were gotten rid of in the disastrous closure period, simply due to not being electrified (mid-Hants, almost Marshlink).

 

[zwk500]

This is complete nonsense.

The third rail system has served us perfectly well for sixty years (nearer 100 on the Brighton/Portsmouth lines) and continues to do so. It is not obsolete.

It hasn't served us perfectly well. It's cost money, lives and time.

Since there was an established limit to third rail electrification, an earlier start would have avoided wasted time and saved some routes which were gotten rid of in the disastrous closure period, simply due to not being electrified (mid-Hants, almost Marshlink).

Alternatively, getting started on a proper overhead system earlier would have avoided any problems with the safety of third rail and given the operational efficiency of a single system.

 

[yorksrob]

It hasn't served us perfectly well. It's cost money, lives and time.

Alternatively, getting started on a proper overhead system earlier would have avoided any problems with the safety of third rail and given the operational efficiency of a single system.

What nonsense, it's no less robust than OLE and is perfectly safe if you don't misbehave around it (as you're less likely to get runover if you don't misbehave around a motorway).

Operational efficiency is indeed a bonus, but by the time the other regions had caught up, the dual voltage system (that you mentioned earlier) might have been nearer anyway.

The Kent electrification scheme was a proven good investment of the modernisation scheme and a larger version would have been even more money well spent.

 

[HSTEd]

Attempting wider deployment of 25kV based on 50s practices is going to cost an astronomical sum of money, especially on the Southern Region, given the clearances required in that era.

Indeed I expect the entire southern region would have ended up at 6.25kV and have had to be converted later.
In hindsight the third rail programme probably should have been driven faster, given that it achieved the primary objective of electrification - major reductions in the operating costs of steam traction.

 

[Senex]

This would definitely have been the best way to go. However, at the time the nation was absolutely completely skint, broke, bankrupt and the high cost of widespread electrification was just not a viable option. Steam was cheap, there was plenty of cheap labour available particularly through encouraged immigration from the commonwealth and so the only viable option was to carry on with tried and tested methods of traction and rolling stock construction.

Although the British network was run into the ground during the war and it suffered some damage, this was relatively light in comparison to the near wholesale destruction of the Continental railway systems. Vast sums of money was made available through the reconstruction 'Marshall Plan' for the rebuilding of Europe and so with the railways of Europe needing rebuilding from the ground up in many places, it made sense to opt for the latest forms of traction, new station design, colour light signalling, heavyweight track, bogie freight vehicles etc.

Had the money been available, I'm sure Britain would have taken the same route.

Did we not have the money, or did we choose to spend what we had differently. An article by Corelli Barnett from a dozen years ago on the BBC web-site seems to suggest so — https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml — and seems to flesh out the story I've often heard that we did get a large amount of Marshall Aid — a lot more than Germany did — money but chose not to use it for investment. This on top of a massive US load of $3.75 BN at 2% over 50 years in 1946.

It's certainly true that we came out of it in 1945 with everything pretty well run into the ground but still just about running, whereas Europe had to start by rebuilding much of its stuff from ruins, but ten years later British factories, railways, etc all looked much the same, whereas the picture in France or Germany was already very different.

 

[yorksrob]

Did we not have the money, or did we choose to spend what we had differently. An article by Corelli Barnett from a dozen years ago on the BBC web-site seems to suggest so — https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml — and seems to flesh out the story I've often heard that we did get a large amount of Marshall Aid — a lot more than Germany did — money but chose not to use it for investment. This on top of a massive US load of $3.75 BN at 2% over 50 years in 1946.

It's certainly true that we came out of it in 1945 with everything pretty well run into the ground but still just about running, whereas Europe had to start by rebuilding much of its stuff from ruins, but ten years later British factories, railways, etc all looked much the same, whereas the picture in France or Germany was already very different.

Corelli Barnett may have had a point about the early post war. But surely the real question is why the country exacerbated the situation of neglecting its industrial economy by gifting everything away through globalisation from the 1980's onwards.

Barnett was writing in the 1990's but where was the awareness of current (then) times.

But off topic, apologies.


The Southern was electrifying and churning out good MU's, so not deserving of Barnett's criticism. It even developed a form of electrification for non-third rail lines, in the form of diesel-electrification, so was ahead of most.

 

[Greybeard33]

Did we not have the money, or did we choose to spend what we had differently. An article by Corelli Barnett from a dozen years ago on the BBC web-site seems to suggest so — https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml — and seems to flesh out the story I've often heard that we did get a large amount of Marshall Aid — a lot more than Germany did — money but chose not to use it for investment. This on top of a massive US load of $3.75 BN at 2% over 50 years in 1946.

It's certainly true that we came out of it in 1945 with everything pretty well run into the ground but still just about running, whereas Europe had to start by rebuilding much of its stuff from ruins, but ten years later British factories, railways, etc all looked much the same, whereas the picture in France or Germany was already very different.

Indeed, the UK received $3.3 billion from the Marshall Plan, more than any other country. So the immediate post war period would have been an good time for transformative investment in the railways, as was done in other European countries but not in Britain. By 1955 the financial situation was more difficult. 1948 was also a time of social upheaval and radical change, well suited to a move away from dinosaur industries such as steam locomotive construction and retraining the workforce in the new skills needed for electrification.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Another missed opportunity was that the BTC failed to take advantage of nationalisation to immediately undertake radical restructuring and rationalisation of the railways and create an integrated national network. Inefficient duplication of services and competition between routes could have been eliminated, and more basket case lines pruned. Instead the Big Four were allowed to continue much as before under public ownership.

The road haulage industry was also nationalised in 1948 and so freight transport could have been rationalised across modes, with earlier reform of the common carrier obligation and wagonload freight transferred to road where that was more efficient.

With such earlier modernisation measures, the railways would have been better financial shape by 1955, reducing the need for drastic action.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, the UK received $3.3 billion from the Marshall Plan, more than any other country. So the immediate post war period would have been an good time for transformative investment in the railways, as was done in other European countries but not in Britain. By 1955 the financial situation was more difficult. 1948 was also a time of social upheaval and radical change, well suited to a move away from dinosaur industries such as steam locomotive construction and retraining the workforce in the new skills needed for electrification.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Another missed opportunity was that the BTC failed to take advantage of nationalisation to immediately undertake radical restructuring and rationalisation of the railways and create an integrated national network. Inefficient duplication of services and competition between routes could have been eliminated, and more basket case lines pruned. Instead the Big Four were allowed to continue much as before under public ownership.

The road haulage industry was also nationalised in 1948 and so freight transport could have been rationalised across modes, with earlier reform of the common carrier obligation and wagonload freight transferred to road where that was more efficient.

With such earlier modernisation measures, the railways would have been better financial shape by 1955, reducing the need for drastic action.

We were better against the Communist threat, with the V-force. Money better spent on the UK.

 

[Grumpy]

Best to do your thinking before your spending . So install some managers at the top who can work out what part of the network is to be retained/developed, and what has no future. So no investment in trackwork/rolling stock for the latter.
Forget electrification-it rarely shows a good financial return, takes time and causes disruption.
Just buy one design of diesel loco-the pushpull fitted class 33. Licence build at more than one works. Double head where necessary. Similarly buy one type of DMU-a 1950's equivalent of the class 170-with power doors, air con, and better bogies. Tweak the interior furnishings for the market eg 2+2 or 2+3 seating. Stop building MK1 carriages and replace by a loco-hauled version of the DMU.
Reduce number of marshalling yards . Improve journey times by investing in infrastructure.
Simple

 

[Magdalia]

Just buy one design of diesel loco-the pushpull fitted class 33.

The class 33 only worked for the Southern Region because it didn't need a boiler and a tankful of water. It also did not have the brake force needed for heavy unfitted freight trains.

Push-pull only came in the mid 1960s for the Bournemouth electrification.

Double head where necessary.

Plenty of examples where that happened with Type 1 and Type 2 locos. And with the class 33s working the cement trains on the ECML.

Similarly buy one type of DMU-a 1950's equivalent of the class 170-with power doors, air con, and better bogies. Tweak the interior furnishings for the market eg 2+2 or 2+3 seating.

Most of the Modernisation Plan DMMU fleet is almost exactly that. Power doors, air con and better bogies were not a feasible proposition in the early 1950s. The Modernisation Plan DMMU fleet just look different because they don't have standard coachwork: they could and did work interchangeably.

 

[Grumpy]

The class 33 only worked for the Southern Region because it didn't need a boiler and a tankful of water. It also did not have the brake force needed for heavy unfitted freight trains.

Push-pull only came in the mid 1960s for the Bournemouth electrification.


Plenty of examples where that happened with Type 1 and Type 2 locos. And with the class 33s working the cement trains on the ECML.


Most of the Modernisation Plan DMMU fleet is almost exactly that. Power doors, air con and better bogies were not a feasible proposition in the early 1950s.

The class 33 didn't need the boiler and water tank because it wasn't intended to steam-heat trains-it had electric heating. Carriages would be built as new with electric heating and older carriages (i.e. with years of life left) converted to dual heat (as actually happened). With regard to brake force the plan include the replacement of unfitted freight trains. Brake tenders were also an option.

Push-pull was used in the UK in steam days and in Europe i.e. well before the Bournemouth electrification.

Why weren't power doors feasible in the early 1950's? The worked on such as the Wirral and Shenfield EMU's, designed pre-war. Also on LT.
Similarly British manufacturers were exporting carriages with air-conditioning. The Gresley bogie, as fitted to some EMU's would have given a better ride. The Commonwealth bogie was available in the 1950's.

 

[JohnElliott]

They could have always got going with the Southern Region electrification earlier. No problems with an obsolete OH voltage system.

In this timeline there were points in the 4-SUB production run when the SR could only build trailer coaches, because motors weren't obtainable. More widespread electrification would run up against the same supply bottlenecks.

That said, I've sometimes wondered what would have happened if, at nationalisation, the railway had been organised more like the 1980s business sectors than the 1948 regions, so there'd have been a London / South East division, probably mainly staffed with ex-Southern people, wanting to electrify everything within commuter distance of London with third rail.

 

[yorksrob]

In this timeline there were points in the 4-SUB production run when the SR could only build trailer coaches, because motors weren't obtainable. More widespread electrification would run up against the same supply bottlenecks.

That said, I've sometimes wondered what would have happened if, at nationalisation, the railway had been organised more like the 1980s business sectors than the 1948 regions, so there'd have been a London / South East division, probably mainly staffed with ex-Southern people, wanting to electrify everything within commuter distance of London with third rail.

That's a fair point. I don't think they could have made the 1st gen SUB's last much longer as they were falling apart by all accounts.

 

[Magdalia]

The class 33 didn't need the boiler and water tank because it wasn't intended to steam-heat trains-it had electric heating.

Indeed. But only for relatively short trains without air conditioning.

I agree that the other regions were slow in switching from steam to electric heat, but a satisfactory solution for electric heat from the locomotive to heavy express passenger trains only came with the Brush dual wound alternator in the late 1960s.

Why weren't power doors feasible in the early 1950's? The worked on such as the Wirral and Shenfield EMU's, designed pre-war. Also on LT.

They did, and lots of slam door EMUs built for A/C suburban electrifications should have had power doors.

Why weren't power doors feasible in the early 1950's? The worked on such as the Wirral and Shenfield EMU's, designed pre-war. Also on LT.
Similarly British manufacturers were exporting carriages with air-conditioning. The Gresley bogie, as fitted to some EMU's would have given a better ride. The Commonwealth bogie was available in the 1950's.

All of these would have added too much weight and/or drawn too much power from DMUs mostly powered by 150hp bus engines.

 

[Bevan Price]

The class 33 didn't need the boiler and water tank because it wasn't intended to steam-heat trains-it had electric heating. Carriages would be built as new with electric heating and older carriages (i.e. with years of life left) converted to dual heat (as actually happened). With regard to brake force the plan include the replacement of unfitted freight trains. Brake tenders were also an option.

Push-pull was used in the UK in steam days and in Europe i.e. well before the Bournemouth electrification.

Why weren't power doors feasible in the early 1950's? The worked on such as the Wirral and Shenfield EMU's, designed pre-war. Also on LT.
Similarly British manufacturers were exporting carriages with air-conditioning. The Gresley bogie, as fitted to some EMU's would have given a better ride. The Commonwealth bogie was available in the 1950's.

Yes, power doors were feasible - but you could cram more seats into compartment stock. A typical coach had 9 compartments, each contained 12 rather cramped seats, i.e. 108 seats per coach -- and at peak hours, maybe another 5 or 6 standing in each compartment. That is why compartment stock was preferred. Now, they care less about making more people have to stand.

 

[randyrippley]

Best to do your thinking before your spending . So install some managers at the top who can work out what part of the network is to be retained/developed, and what has no future. So no investment in trackwork/rolling stock for the latter.
Forget electrification-it rarely shows a good financial return, takes time and causes disruption.
Just buy one design of diesel loco-the pushpull fitted class 33. Licence build at more than one works. Double head where necessary. Similarly buy one type of DMU-a 1950's equivalent of the class 170-with power doors, air con, and better bogies. Tweak the interior furnishings for the market eg 2+2 or 2+3 seating. Stop building MK1 carriages and replace by a loco-hauled version of the DMU.
Reduce number of marshalling yards . Improve journey times by investing in infrastructure.
Simple

The 33, 37 and 47 were only purchased after experience was gained with the modernisation plan designs. By the time they were put into production large numbers of other classes had already been delivered. So just buying one design wasn't feasible.

As for stopping building mk1 carriages, that would have required complete new tooling. Maybe affordable for one plant, but not for all. Far better to have built higher powered inter-city 90mph DMU/EMU fleets based on the existing mk1 tooling. That way there would not have been such a need for so many locos