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

[Grumpy]

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.


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

Re the class 33, "Heavy express passenger trains" would probably have been double headed so potentially there would have been twice the power available for heating/air con.

Re power doors drawing too much power for DMU's I cant see this as the doors would only be operated when the train was stationary i.e. not needing power for traction. With regard to power for aircon you could have a system where the aircon was temporarily switched off when the maximum power was required for traction (as I believe applied to such as the Deltics). Alternatively just add another engine, admittedly at cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2023 ==

The 33, 37 and 47 were only purchased after experience was gained with the modernisation plan designs.

I believe the class 33 was ordered in 1957 ie before BR had gained any experience with modernisation plan designs.

 

[HSTEd]

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

At that point we might as well ask just how many plants it is reasonable to have.

Mark 3s were all built on a single production line after all.

 

[A0]

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.

The irony being the LBSCR did exactly that using 6.6kv AC overhead. It was grouping which put paid to that as the backward looking LWSR system was rolled put and the 6.6kv system decommissioned.

 

[zwk500]

The irony being the LBSCR did exactly that using 6.6kv AC overhead. It was grouping which put paid to that as the backward looking LWSR system was rolled put and the 6.6kv system decommissioned.

Yes, another interesting 'turning point' in history.

 

[A0]

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).

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

 

[778]

Forget electrification-it rarely shows a good financial return, takes time and causes disruption.

Are you seriously suggesting no lines at all should ever be electrified?

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.

There were express DMUs based on loco hauled carriages (6 car transpennine DMUs and the Class 126 that worked in scotland) but they were all withdrawn by the 1980s. They did not last as long as the DMUs intended for local services.

 

[yorksrob]

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

Why should I answer an irrelevant question ?

The third rail has worked well here for around 100 years and continues to do so. What does it matter what other countries do ?

 

[A0]

Why should I answer an irrelevant question ?

The third rail has worked well here for around 100 years and continues to do so. What does it matter what other countries do ?

It's relevant because if it is such a good system as you claim it is, you might have expected other countries to have adopted it - but nobody has for anything other than basic metro systems.

France, Netherlands, Belgium went for DC OHL of 1.5kv or 3kv as did the Soviet Union. Germany, Switzerland and parts of Scandinavia went for 16kv AC.

So if it's not an "obsolete" system, why has nobody else adopted it beyond a very specific use case ?

 

[Bevan Price]

Are you seriously suggesting no lines at all should ever be electrified?


There were express DMUs based on loco hauled carriages (6 car transpennine DMUs and the Class 126 that worked in scotland) but they were all withdrawn by the 1980s. They did not last as long as the DMUs intended for local services.

One problem is that they were all limited to 70mph; Class 126 had painfully slow acceleration. They may also have contained asbestos insulation, which was commonly used in the 1950s and 1960s.

 

[yorksrob]

It's relevant because if it is such a good system as you claim it is, you might have expected other countries to have adopted it - but nobody has for anything other than basic metro systems.

France, Netherlands, Belgium went for DC OHL of 1.5kv or 3kv as did the Soviet Union. Germany, Switzerland and parts of Scandinavia went for 16kv AC.

So if it's not an "obsolete" system, why has nobody else adopted it beyond a very specific use case ?

They have their system that works, we have ours. Even with the limitations of third rail (and there are some I admit) it doesn't stop it being a generally robust and reliable system now. In the 1940's 50's it would have been a tried and tested quick win that would have served the country for decades to come - I read a couple of years ago that NR were replacing conductor rail on the Brighton mainline that had fed PAN/PUL units, CIG/BIG units and electrostars. That was a good investment.

 

[zwk500]

Why should I answer an irrelevant question ?

The third rail has worked well here for around 100 years and continues to do so. What does it matter what other countries do ?

Purely on a techincal level, 3rd rail has imposed several constraints on train operations such as 90mph ruling linespeed with exceptional clearance to 100mph and heavy cost for completing lighter-trafficked ends of routes so done to lower standards (Seaford Branch, Bournemouth-Weymouth, Lymington). It also requires power to be switched off far more often than OLE when anybody is on the line, and requires substations every 1.5-2km to avoid voltage drop in highly-trafficked areas. And then there's the issue of it rusting or icing up quickly and being very susceptible to flooding short circuiting the whole thing (although that is counterbalanced by OLE's comparative vulnerability to wind).

 

[Bevan Price]

Why should I answer an irrelevant question ?

The third rail has worked well here for around 100 years and continues to do so. What does it matter what other countries do ?

It is OK for local suburban services, but not suitable if you want to run at 110 or 125mph.

 

[yorksrob]

Purely on a techincal level, 3rd rail has imposed several constraints on train operations such as 90mph ruling linespeed with exceptional clearance to 100mph and heavy cost for completing lighter-trafficked ends of routes so done to lower standards (Seaford Branch, Bournemouth-Weymouth, Lymington). It also requires power to be switched off far more often than OLE when anybody is on the line, and requires substations every 1.5-2km to avoid voltage drop in highly-trafficked areas. And then there's the issue of it rusting or icing up quickly and being very susceptible to flooding short circuiting the whole thing (although that is counterbalanced by OLE's comparative vulnerability to wind).

Realistically on the Southern you have to stop more often on the mainline anyway. 90mph is perfectly adequate for London to the Southern coast.

The lower electrical capacities on the Weymouth/Seaford extremities are rarely an issue owing to the passenger demand there.

Yes, it needs more sub-stations, but that's a one-off capital cost that's soon forgotten.

Extra shut-offs are a necessary price for safety, but if they'd started electrifying earlier and more consistantly, we'd be left with more electrified diversionary routes today !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2023 ==

It is OK for local suburban services, but not suitable if you want to run at 110 or 125mph.

Like I say, when would you want to run 125mph on the Brighton line ? Third rail is fine for the Southern Region but I wouldn't use it for the ECML.

 

[Magdalia]

With regard to power for aircon you could have a system where the aircon was temporarily switched off when the maximum power was required for traction (as I believe applied to such as the Deltics).

The Deltics switched ETH power off when starting because the ETH was driven off the main generator and this was to keep the ETH within a voltage range so it didn't blow the fuses in the coaches. It wasn't about saving power for traction.

And the DMUs required maximum power a lot of the time, both starting from stations and on uphill gradients. On lots of routes your aircon would be getting switched on and off every few minutes, and wrecked very quickly.

 

[randyrippley]

At that point we might as well ask just how many plants it is reasonable to have.

Mark 3s were all built on a single production line after all.

In the 1950s just one production plant wouldn't have had the capacity

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2023 ==

Are you seriously suggesting no lines at all should ever be electrified?


There were express DMUs based on loco hauled carriages (6 car transpennine DMUs and the Class 126 that worked in scotland) but they were all withdrawn by the 1980s. They did not last as long as the DMUs intended for local services.

But they weren't "express" sets, they were limited to 70mph.
They needed bigger engines: the Paxman 6ZHXL 450hp in its steel crankcase version would have worked

 

[zwk500]

Realistically on the Southern you have to stop more often on the mainline anyway. 90mph is perfectly adequate for London to the Southern coast.

You're the one advocating non-stop Kent Expresses! Funny how stopping more often isn't a problem when it's in your favour.

The lower electrical capacities on the Weymouth/Seaford extremities are rarely an issue owing to the passenger demand there.

They cause plenty of operational issues. Can't send trains down to hide away as easily, can't boost trains to a popular seaside resort on summer sundays, etc.

Yes, it needs more sub-stations, but that's a one-off capital cost that's soon forgotten.

They all need renewal and maintenance. More substations to visit means more shifts needed to do so.

Extra shut-offs are a necessary price for safety, but if they'd started electrifying earlier and more consistantly, we'd be left with more electrified diversionary routes today !

Diversionary routes are only any good if they go around the blockage, and there's plenty of choke points on the Southern region because of the nature of London-dominated traffic flows. Doesn't take much to bring East Croydon or Clapham Junction to a stand. And it's harder to arrange for temporary earths to restore power to limited sections as you can on OLE (Although offset by 3rd rail having generally shorter sections).

Like I say, when would you want to run 125mph on the Brighton line ? Third rail is fine for the Southern Region but I wouldn't use it for the ECML.

110mph would be useful for the SEML and SWML particularly. Having 100mph on the Brighton line routinely would also help, and OLE would help give greater power at the top end to get there.

 

[yorksrob]

You're the one advocating non-stop Kent Expresses! Funny how stopping more often isn't a problem when it's in your favour.

They cause plenty of operational issues. Can't send trains down to hide away as easily, can't boost trains to a popular seaside resort on summer sundays, etc.

They all need renewal and maintenance. More substations to visit means more shifts needed to do so.

Diversionary routes are only any good if they go around the blockage, and there's plenty of choke points on the Southern region because of the nature of London-dominated traffic flows. Doesn't take much to bring East Croydon or Clapham Junction to a stand. And it's harder to arrange for temporary earths to restore power to limited sections as you can on OLE (Although offset by 3rd rail having generally shorter sections).

110mph would be useful for the SEML and SWML particularly. Having 100mph on the Brighton line routinely would also help, and OLE would help give greater power at the top end to get there.

- The network expresses I advocate are perfectly practical because we ran them on the third rail in the 1980's -90's. I have not advocated 125mph on the Kent mainlines.

- an issue I admit, but better than no electrification at all - which would have been the reality of waiting for 25kV AC.

- They need maintenance, but how often does a sub-station require maintenance ? Small fry.

- You'll note that the BML and the Sussex Coast has precisely no diversionary routes. Given the preference for closing non-electrified lines during the disastrous closure programme, if one of the Sussex routes had been electrified (say Christs Hospital - Shoreham) it would still be here as a diversionary route today.

- Yeah, higher speeds are good, but in 1945, we didn't even have 25kV ole. Better to have gotten on with what we had.

In conclusion, thank goodness for the Kent Electrification scheme - probably the best and most successful of all the Modernisation schemes - still benefitting us to this day. People bang on about steam loco this, and diesel loco that in relation to the modernisation plan, but they completely forget the real successes.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Remembering that this thread title refers to 1955, long before the days of social media and the widespread usage of the internet, you would normally have had a mindset applicable to that time period. Rationing had not long ended and I was only 10 years old then.

 

[zwk500]

- You'll note that the BML and the Sussex Coast has precisely no diversionary routes. Given the preference for closing non-electrified lines during the disastrous closure programme, if one of the Sussex routes had been electrified (say Christs Hospital - Shoreham) it would still be here as a diversionary route today.

You'll notice it has precisely 1 - and Christs Hospital-Shoreham would have been little improvement on the existing route via Littlehampton today. The fact it wasn't worth keeping even when the freight connection onto the West Coastway line was suggests there wasn't any traffic for a sparks effect to pick up.

- Yeah, higher speeds are good, but in 1945, we didn't even have 25kV ole. Better to have gotten on with what we had.

In 1906 we had 6.25KV OLE, on the Brighton. The Germans and Swiss had a 15KV OLE system in the 30s (when the Southern was laying 3rd rail at 660V).

In conclusion, thank goodness for the Kent Electrification scheme - probably the best and most successful of all the Modernisation schemes - still benefitting us to this day. People bang on about steam loco this, and diesel loco that in relation to the modernisation plan, but they completely forget the real successes.

Depends on how you rate these things I suppose, personally I think London-Crewe-Manchester electrification was a more successful output.

 

[yorksrob]

You'll notice it has precisely 1 - and Christs Hospital-Shoreham would have been little improvement on the existing route via Littlehampton today. The fact it wasn't worth keeping even when the freight connection onto the West Coastway line was suggests there wasn't any traffic for a sparks effect to pick up.

In 1906 we had 6.25KV OLE, on the Brighton. The Germans and Swiss had a 15KV OLE system in the 30s (when the Southern was laying 3rd rail at 660V).

Depends on how you rate these things I suppose, personally I think London-Crewe-Manchester electrification was a more successful output.

- Actually, via Littlehampton is a comparatively long way round. The route via Steyning would have at least been largely parallel to the BML. It must be at least half the distance as via Littlehampton. For someone so concerned about line speeds, that surely counts as a big difference.

- The route had a lot of opposition to closure. The fact that this failed owes more to retaining other routes being politically more expedient during the disastrous closure programme. I expect it boils down to West Sussex not being marginal enough.

- London - Crewe etc was definitely a good-un, but Kent Coast was/is better.

Put it this way - in the 1990's, the WCML had already had most of its rolling stock and loco's replaced. Our CEP's were still going strong.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2023 ==

Remembering that this thread title refers to 1955, long before the days of social media and the widespread usage of the internet, you would normally have had a mindset applicable to that time period. Rationing had not long ended and I was only 10 years old then.

Indeed, but the "sparks effect" was already well established !

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Indeed, but the "sparks effect" was already well established !

The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway were seemingly not averse to electrification but the Great War came along to put an end to their ambitions.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps, in the end, myself and @zwk500 are almost arguing the same point.

Electrification was the clear and outstanding success of the modernisation plan, and with hindsight, we should have done more of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2023 ==

The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway were seemingly not averse to electrification but the Great War came along to put an end to their ambitions.

I do wonder what might have been if their Bury line side contact system had been extended !

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I do wonder what might have been if their Bury line side contact system had been extended !

Do not forget that the line from Bury onwards to Holcombe Brook was electrified by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, in order that a manufacturer could use the line to test their train units for overseas markets

 

[yorksrob]

Do not forget that the line from Bury onwards to Holcombe Brook was electrified by the Lancahire and Yorkshire Railway, in order that a manufacturer could use the line to test their train units for overseas markets

Indeed. The area looks populated enough. It's a shame it never survived as part of the Manchester network.

 

[A0]

In 1906 we had 6.25KV OLE, on the Brighton. The Germans and Swiss had a 15KV OLE system in the 30s (when the Southern was laying 3rd rail at 660V).

Depends on how you rate these things I suppose, personally I think London-Crewe-Manchester electrification was a more successful output.

Minor correction - LBSCR didn't go for 6.25kv, it was either 6.6kv or 6.7kv depending on the source you read.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2023 ==

Indeed. The area looks populated enough. It's a shame it never survived as part of the Manchester network.

It does now - not so much 50+ years ago.

 

[yorksrob]

It does now - not so much 50+ years ago.

Perhaps. Shame though, it would have been a decent add on now.

 

[A0]

Put it this way - in the 1990's, the WCML had already had most of its rolling stock and loco's replaced. Our CEP's were still going strong.

The WCML rolling stock had been worked far harder than the SR stock had though. And the 4CEPs were given a full refurbishment when they were ~20 years old.

On the WCML, the first 5 loco classes 81-85 had largely completed 20 years when some were withdrawn, but by that time they were non standard. The 90s were built to replace most of the first gen locos and were more powerful.

On the EMU side the Class 310s were replaced in the late 80s by 317s, then 321s, with the big difference being these were 100mph units, compared to the 310s 75mph. That meant journey time improvements and also easier to path 100mph units on the fast lines than 75mph ones.

 

[mike57]

The irony being the LBSCR did exactly that using 6.6kv AC overhead. It was grouping which put paid to that as the backward looking LWSR system was rolled put and the 6.6kv system decommissioned.

I believe the LBSCR had aspirations to electrify to Brighton which WW1 and its aftermath put on hold which were then replaced by the 3rd rail plans of SR. One wonders what UK electrification would have looked like had the LBSCR system prevailed. Being a low frequency system (25Hz) transformers are heavier, but longer term would it have remained at 6.6kV and just moved to 50Hz once the ability to rectify 'on board' become technically practical (I deliberately use practical because there were ways of doing it pre semiconductors, but they were not easy). If 6.6kV had then become the de-facto UK main line standard would 1.5kv DC or 25kV have happened in the UK? (Classic lines, ignoring HS1 and HS2), with 3rd (or 4 rail) systems just being local metro systems and the London Underground.

 

[A0]

I believe the LBSCR had aspirations to electrify to Brighton which WW1 and its aftermath put on hold which were then replaced by the 3rd rail plans of SR. One wonders what UK electrification would have looked like had the LBSCR system prevailed. Being a low frequency system (25Hz) transformers are heavier, but longer term would it have remained at 6.6kV and just moved to 50Hz once the ability to rectify 'on board' become technically practical (I deliberately use practical because there were ways of doing it pre semiconductors, but they were not easy). If 6.6kV had then become the de-facto UK main line standard would 1.5kv DC or 25kV have happened in the UK? (Classic lines, ignoring HS1 and HS2), with 3rd (or 4 rail) systems just being local metro systems and the London Underground.

1.5kv DC would have happened because the NER were already looking at that for York - Newcastle and post grouping that was the LNER's standard as they inherited the NERs knowledge.

I think we can safely say in the parallel universe where the LBSC system prevailed, nobody would be posting on Railforums demanding the expansion of 3rd rail.....

 

[uglymonkey]

Ok With the wall making things better for batteries for now, but won't climate change, rising sea levels etc.negate the new wall, making drenching as likely or more likely that it was historically?