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

[randyrippley]

If you're going to wonder on the lines of "what could have been..........." don't forget the Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham electrification was running at 6600 V AC at 25 Hz in 1908
Could easily have become the precursor to a national system

 

[mike57]

If you're going to wonder on the lines of "what could have been..........." don't forget the Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham electrification was running at 6600 V AC at 25 Hz in 1908
Could easily have become the precursor to a national system

I assume this was a similar system to the LBSCR system? Interestingly this and the LBSCR predate the 1500v DC Newport to Shildon by a few years. The NER system was started in 1913 although no doubt the ideas were 'being investigated' before this date. I wonder how the two competing systems were viewed at the time.

Maybe 6600v AC was seen as better for higher speed MU operation and 1500v DC for lower speed freight?. There are some interesting resources in the Smithsonian Library, the 'Electric Railway Journal' I think its called.

Its an area of personal interest to me as I have been and Electrical engineer all my life, allbeit not in the rail industry, but with an interest in railways.

 

[eldomtom2]

I assume this was a similar system to the LBSCR system? Interestingly this and the LBSCR predate the 1500v DC Newport to Shildon by a few years. The NER system was started in 1913 although no doubt the ideas were 'being investigated' before this date. I wonder how the two competing systems were viewed at the time.

Maybe 6600v AC was seen as better for higher speed MU operation and 1500v DC for lower speed freight?. There are some interesting resources in the Smithsonian Library, the 'Electric Railway Journal' I think its called.

Its an area of personal interest to me as I have been and Electrical engineer all my life, allbeit not in the rail industry, but with an interest in railways.

This 1912 report of the LSWR's electrical engineer setting out his reasons for choosing 1500v DC should be of interest. The focus was firmly on electrification to improve passenger services - the LBSC's AC system was rejected as requiring heavier electrical equipment on the trains, which was estimated to double maintenance costs compared to using DC.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

It just goes to show that the CEP's were well enough built to be considered for refurbishment and uprating.

Incidentally, the earlier CIG's weren't much younger than the CEP's and were still going strong into the noughties with only a light facelift. I would say that they were the better for it.

Additional modernisation plan money spent on 3rd rail electrification would have been money well spent and might even have left us with a better network than we have today

 

[A0]

It just goes to show that the CEP's were well enough built to be considered for refurbishment and uprating.

Incidentally, the earlier CIG's weren't much younger than the CEP's and were still going strong into the noughties with only a light facelift. I would say that they were the better for it.

Additional modernisation plan money spent on 3rd rail electrification would have been money well spent and might even have left us with a better network than we have today

The 310s were also refurbished and cascaded onto the LTS along with a number of 312s and were only replaced around 2000 with the class 357s - so I'm not sure you can argue the CEPs / CIGs offered "better" value.

The issue for the 310s on the WCML by the mid 80s was their top speed of 75 mph - which would have caused pathing challenges. All subsequent EMUs on the WCML have been at least 90mph.

 

[yorksrob]

I stand to be corrected, however I believe that a number of CIG's and CEP's were uprated to 90mph.

However, given that we're arguing some fairly narrow differences between the two schemes, I take it that you agree that third rail electrification was an absolutely worthwhile and successful outcome of the modernisation plan.

 

[A0]

I stand to be corrected, however I believe that a number of CIG's and CEP's were uprated to 90mph.

However, given that we're arguing some fairly narrow differences between the two schemes, I take it that you agree that third rail electrification was an absolutely worthwhile and successful outcome of the modernisation plan.

No - because it saddled us with an unsafe system. If it had been done as 1,5kv DC OHL extensions switching to 3rd rail where that was already in place, it would have been better as it would have made conversion to 25kv AC much easier when the DC equipment was time expired.

 

[yorksrob]

No - because it saddled us with an unsafe system. If it had been done as 1,5kv DC OHL extensions switching to 3rd rail where that was already in place, it would have been better as it would have made conversion to 25kv AC much easier when the DC equipment was time expired.

"unsafe" ! Tish and pish.

Conductor rail lasts a very long time, which is one of the benefits of it. Also there's the cost of raising all of those bridges. You wouldn't have got nearly as much done.

 

[zwk500]

However, given that we're arguing some fairly narrow differences between the two schemes, I take it that you agree that third rail electrification was an absolutely worthwhile and successful outcome of the modernisation plan.

What a surprise that you've attempted to twist that argument in. I agree electrification is absolutely worthwhile, but that third rail is a historical accident that has cost us more than it should have in the long run.

"unsafe" ! Tish and pish.

It demonstrably is, in absolute terms. Hence why the DLR uses Bottom-Contact.

 

[yorksrob]

What a surprise that you've attempted to twist that argument in. I agree electrification is absolutely worthwhile, but that third rail is a historical accident that has cost us more than it should have in the long run.

It demonstrably is, in absolute terms. Hence why the DLR uses Bottom-Contact.

If you recall, I started this conversation by pointing out the obvious that extending the Southern DC would have been (even more of) a successful quick win, and a lot more useful than steam loco's, marshalling yards, too many different types of diesel loco etc.

 

[ac6000cw]

If you recall, I started this conversation by pointing out the obvious that extending the Southern DC would have been (even more of) a successful quick win, and a lot more useful than steam loco's, marshalling yards, too many different types of diesel loco etc.

The 'Southern' was already more modern than much of the BR system by the 1950s (by virtue of electrification, more extensive colour light signalling - and building the like of Spam Cans and Q1s to supplant/replace some of their older steam locos). Other than the pair of experimental Co-Co diesels, it basically only had cl. 33 diesels. It was the rest of the BR system that needed modernisation, not so much the 'Southern'. Unfortunately its slam-door EMU disease was allowed to infect far too many of the BR EMU designs used on routes with superior electrification systems...

 

[A0]

It demonstrably is, in absolute terms. Hence why the DLR uses Bottom-Contact.

I've asked @yorksrob to provide examples of where 3rd rail has been used extensively on mainline railways given he thinks its such a good system - unsurprisingly, he's not been able to.

 

[yorksrob]

The 'Southern' was already more modern than much of the BR system by the 1950s (by virtue of electrification, more extensive colour light signalling - and building the like of Spam Cans and Q1s to supplant/replace some of their older steam locos). Other than the pair of experimental Co-Co diesels, it basically only had cl. 33 diesels. It was the rest of the BR system that needed modernisation, not so much the 'Southern'. Unfortunately its slam-door EMU disease was allowed to infect far too many of the BR EMU designs used on routes with superior electrification systems...

That wasn't universal across the system by any means.

The Kent main lines were the preserve of mechanical signalling and fairly knackered, wooden bodied Maunsell stock. On the secondary routes, some of the push pull steam sets were Victorian. OS Bullied did bring a flash of modernity in some areas with the Spam Cans (also with his suburban stock and his longer distance carriages which were a forerunner of the Mk1), however the Modernisation that the Southern got in terms of electrification and diesel-electrification was sorely needed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2023 ==

I've asked @yorksrob to provide examples of where 3rd rail has been used extensively on mainline railways given he thinks its such a good system - unsurprisingly, he's not been able to.

And I've already said I don't see the need to answer an irrelevant question.

 

[JohnElliott]

The 'Southern' was already more modern than much of the BR system by the 1950s (by virtue of electrification, more extensive colour light signalling - and building the like of Spam Cans and Q1s to supplant/replace some of their older steam locos). Other than the pair of experimental Co-Co diesels, it basically only had cl. 33 diesels. It was the rest of the BR system that needed modernisation, not so much the 'Southern'. Unfortunately its slam-door EMU disease was allowed to infect far too many of the BR EMU designs used on routes with superior electrification systems...

The report linked from #93 explains why the LSWR went for slam doors, and presumably why they stuck with them after that (p40):

With regard to the arrangement of seats, the fact should not be overlooked that the conditions obtaining on a suburban line are very different from those on a purely Metropolitan line.

From my own observations a train with side doors can be emptied or filled at a terminal station in one-third the time of a train with end doors.

Further disadvantages of the open coach are the increased dead weight per seat and increased wages due to the employment of gatemen.

Quite apart from the special advantage of being able to employ our steam block train coaches as trailers if the compartment system is adhered to, I have held the opinion for many years that this class of stock is the more suitable for suburban working.

Bulleid was obviously happy to build tube stock with powered doors for the Waterloo and City, and the EPB control system had spare wires for door controls right from the beginning (they were finally used for that purpose on the 442s), so 'EPBs with powered doors' is another interesting what-if.

 

[eldomtom2]

Of course that was comparing slam-doors to "gate stock" which only had doors at each end of the coach, not with powered doors.

 

[Grumpy]

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.

I didn't say no lines at all should ever be electrified, but that it rarely shows a good financial return, takes time and causes disruption.
In the context of the modernisation plan it was largely a waste of money. The business was statutorily required to break even financially. It needed projects that would give a quick and positive financial return.
Just compare the WCML and ECML-it took the best part of 10 years to electrify from London to Manchester with lots of disruption and a poor service for passengers. Meanwhile the ECML services were dieselised and accelerated in half the time at a fraction of the cost and with negligible passenger disruption.

There were certainly DMU's based on loco hauled carriages but I wouldn't describe them as "Express" as they only had a 70mph top speed. I don't think the respective withdrawal dates have much relevance to the type of DMU that should have been built. My recollection is that the Albion engines had been troublesome and after 25 years or so service were replaced by something better. The other DMU's were also clapped out and unappealing to passengers and should also have been withdrawn.

 

[yorksrob]

Just compare the WCML and ECML-it took the best part of 10 years to electrify from London to Manchester with lots of disruption and a poor service for passengers. Meanwhile the ECML services were dieselised and accelerated in half the time at a fraction of the cost and with negligible passenger disruption.

Worth pointing out that Kent was done in four years (actually more like two projects of two). Could have got a fair bit more done in the same time.

 

[A0]

I didn't say no lines at all should ever be electrified, but that it rarely shows a good financial return, takes time and causes disruption.
In the context of the modernisation plan it was largely a waste of money. The business was statutorily required to break even financially. It needed projects that would give a quick and positive financial return.
Just compare the WCML and ECML-it took the best part of 10 years to electrify from London to Manchester with lots of disruption and a poor service for passengers. Meanwhile the ECML services were dieselised and accelerated in half the time at a fraction of the cost and with negligible passenger disruption.

There were certainly DMU's based on loco hauled carriages but I wouldn't describe them as "Express" as they only had a 70mph top speed. I don't think the respective withdrawal dates have much relevance to the type of DMU that should have been built. My recollection is that the Albion engines had been troublesome and after 25 years or so service were replaced by something better. The other DMU's were also clapped out and unappealing to passengers and should also have been withdrawn.

Bit in bold - a slightly unfair comparision - the WCML is a far more complicated route - between London & Manchester you have the Northampton loop, the West Mids (via Birmingham and Wolverhampton) as well as Trent Valley, you then have the Potteries and East Cheshire line into Manchester as well as Stafford - Crewe - Styal.

Compare that to the ECML to Leeds where the route is pretty much a single line (not single track before anyone misreads it) with the exception of the Hertford Loop.

 

[Grumpy]

Bit in bold - a slightly unfair comparision - the WCML is a far more complicated route - between London & Manchester you have the Northampton loop, the West Mids (via Birmingham and Wolverhampton) as well as Trent Valley, you then have the Potteries and East Cheshire line into Manchester as well as Stafford - Crewe - Styal.

Compare that to the ECML to Leeds where the route is pretty much a single line (not single track before anyone misreads it) with the exception of the Hertford Loop.

Indeed. But the ECML doesn't just go to Leeds. The diesels went to Newcastle and Edinburgh.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Aug 2023 ==

Worth pointing out that Kent was done in four years (actually more like two projects of two). Could have got a fair bit more done in the same time.

Yes but it's a shame they didn't take a little longer and thought about it first. The CEP/BEP's were arguably the roughest riding EMU's. Didn't many of them have to be re-bogied?
When the Government started paying grants for unremunerative services after the 1968 Act, the amounts paid for each service were published. The Kent Coast services were amongst the biggest loss makers.

 

[A0]

Indeed. But the ECML doesn't just go to Leeds. The diesels went to Newcastle and Edinburgh.

In the same way the WCML doesn't just go to Manchester.

The reason I cited Leeds is it's a similar distance from London to Manchester - and it was the length of time to electrify to Manchester you cited. The fact remains when you put the ECML and WCML side by side the ECML is a much more straightforward route - though it serves fewer signfiicant places. Between London and York it serves only 1 other city directly - Peterborough. Compare that to the WCML which directly serves Coventry, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Stoke on Trent, Manchester and Liverpool directly over the same distance (and that's just the cities, it doesn't include significant towns like Milton Keynes).

 

[zwk500]

(and that's just the cities, it doesn't include significant towns like Milton Keynes).

On a point to extreme pedantry, hasn't MK been granted City status?

 

[A0]

On a point to extreme pedantry, hasn't MK been granted City status?

Probably - but it doesn't have a cathedral - so it doesn't count

 

[yorksrob]

Yes but it's a shame they didn't take a little longer and thought about it first. The CEP/BEP's were arguably the roughest riding EMU's. Didn't many of them have to be re-bogied?
When the Government started paying grants for unremunerative services after the 1968 Act, the amounts paid for each service were published. The Kent Coast services were amongst the biggest loss makers.

The CEP's and BEP's were the first new express units on the Southern since the pre-war COR stock, so it's not surprising some design elements didn't work out (like hosts of designs before or since). Doubtless BR ironed out those issues in time for the CIG's.

Interesting that the Kent Coast services were amongst the biggest loss makers (would have to see the details). The sector had its peculiarities, including two of everything infrastructure, peaky commuter operations and lots of units having to be available for boat trains etc. Imagine how much more loss making it would have been had it retained steam traction and all of its intermediate signal boxes ! Anyhow, it's worth noting that it's network remained largely intact, which is more than can be said of Sussex where the network was progressively destroyed.

 

[Senex]

Bit in bold - a slightly unfair comparision - the WCML is a far more complicated route - between London & Manchester you have the Northampton loop, the West Mids (via Birmingham and Wolverhampton) as well as Trent Valley, you then have the Potteries and East Cheshire line into Manchester as well as Stafford - Crewe - Styal.

Compare that to the ECML to Leeds where the route is pretty much a single line (not single track before anyone misreads it) with the exception of the Hertford Loop.

And there were government's pauses with the WCML project and revisions to the scope of the project and the signalling plans to cut money. At one stage there was a serious prospect that it might have been an electric railway only from Manchester and Liverpool to Crewe (or was it Stafford?). At least on the ECML Don Heath and his colleagues were pretty well able to get on with the job once the decision to do it had been taken.

 

[zwk500]

Probably - but it doesn't have a cathedral - so it doesn't count

How did Stoke get a Cathedral!?

 

[A0]

How did Stoke get a Cathedral!?

It doesn't - but it does have a Minster (as does York for example).

Churches, Minsters and Cathedrals | Law & Religion UK

lawandreligionuk.com

MK doesn't even have that.

 

[zwk500]

It doesn't - but it does have a Minster (as does York for example).

York Minster is also a Cathedral Church as it's the seat of a Bishop (an archbish in this case)

MK doesn't even have that.

Indeed, but city status has long been divorced from having a cathedral.

 

[eldomtom2]

Just compare the WCML and ECML-it took the best part of 10 years to electrify from London to Manchester with lots of disruption and a poor service for passengers. Meanwhile the ECML services were dieselised and accelerated in half the time at a fraction of the cost and with negligible passenger disruption.

Comparing the timetables for the north section of the WCML pre- and post-electrification would provide a useful comparison of contemporary electrics v. contemporary diesels, if anyone has the relevant timetables.

 

[Peterthegreat]

In the same way the WCML doesn't just go to Manchester.

The reason I cited Leeds is it's a similar distance from London to Manchester - and it was the length of time to electrify to Manchester you cited. The fact remains when you put the ECML and WCML side by side the ECML is a much more straightforward route - though it serves fewer signfiicant places. Between London and York it serves only 1 other city directly - Peterborough. Compare that to the WCML which directly serves Coventry, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Stoke on Trent, Manchester and Liverpool directly over the same distance (and that's just the cities, it doesn't include significant towns like Milton Keynes).

Doncaster is between London and York and is also a city!

 

[AHBD]

They could have gone (gradually) straight from steam to 3kv DC overhead (rather than 1.5kv), with diesel or other only for lightly used lines? Almost universal electrification (thus using local coal rather than non-local diesel) but no 'need' 25kv ac until hs1...? Or use higher dc in modern day as required with multi voltage emus/locomotives?

3kv dc could have coexisted with third rail thus allowing gradual replacement of it.

In modern times BR could then claim to have magically forseen that modern Dc overhead would miss out a conversion stage cd 25kv ac due to modern 3 phase to 25kv ac solid state converters...