Why didn't the 1967 Bournemouth electrification extend to Poole?

[30907]

The SR principle was always to go past the target town station; that took precedent; that the EMU sheds (e.g. Ore, West Worthing) are where they are is a function of the extension through the town, not the other way round no way did they go past Hastings or Worthing just to provide a car shed.

Unfortunately writers on this stuff do not do their research fully, wrote incorrectly or incompletely, then that false story becomes embedded as history as is gets repeated and repeated.

On the basis of published sources:

West Worthing was already used as a terminus by the LBSCR (1906/20 Bradshaws on www.timetableworld.com) and the 1912 map online (NLOS) shows that the LBSC had purchased a large amount of land for a goods yard and ?carriage sidings and provided a turntable. So this isn't a case of "the SR going past the target station," there was a good commercial case for going to West Worthing already, and there was land available (whereas at Central the rebuild with an up loop had swallowed much of the goods yard and the site was in a fully built up area by 1912.

Ore likewise had extensive railway land on which the car shed fitted neatly, whereas at Hastings the SR concentrated on improving passenger facilites - there may have been a commercial reason for electrification to Ore, but my impression (60s-70s) is that the station was always pretty quiet, so I doubt it.

You are undoubtedly correct about Alton vs Farnham, though I would reckon Farnham was already an important centre.

I would suggest the true SR principle was to take advantage of whatever land was already available - not that they were unique in this.

 

[D7666]

Cross country Poole terminators/starters go back a long way.

The summer Saturday train from/to Bradford via the Great Central was already going to/from Poole in the late 1950s.

The daily through train from/to Newcastle (summer)/York(winter) switched to Poole when Bournemouth West closed, this included its last year of operation via the Great Central.

If you go back 1960s and earlier there are many many locations that terminated one or a train train pair; one train once a day is not really an issue, it is a series of trains all day in and out that is the problem.

I can not comment on individual trains in the Poole / Bomo area - but around there was a good deal of through working in that trains that terminated / originated at a passenger station were worked ECS from / to somewhere further afield - if not Bomo West, then Pokesdown and Brockenhurst and Wareham were all so used, depending on the direction of the train into Bomo / Poole. There were also extensive carriage sidings at Weymouth that were used not necessarily for trains in service to/from Weymouth. (You need to check where the ECS for the cited trains was worked to and fro.; I can't comment I have no idea.)

One of the the Poole / Manchester late 1960s had a period of ECS reversal beyond Worgret Jnn the Swanage line; I can't remember if this was ECS before the northbound departure from Poole or after the ECS arrival on terminating at Poole.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2024 ==

On the basis of published sources:

West Worthing was already used as a terminus by the LBSCR (1906/20 Bradshaws on www.timetableworld.com) and the 1912 map online (NLOS) shows that the LBSC had purchased a large amount of land for a goods yard and ?carriage sidings and provided a turntable. So this isn't a case of "the SR going past the target station," there was a good commercial case for going to West Worthing already, and there was land available (whereas at Central the rebuild with an up loop had swallowed much of the goods yard and the site was in a fully built up area by 1912.

Ore likewise had extensive railway land on which the car shed fitted neatly, whereas at Hastings the SR concentrated on improving passenger facilites - there may have been a commercial reason for electrification to Ore, but my impression (60s-70s) is that the station was always pretty quiet, so I doubt it.

You are undoubtedly correct about Alton vs Farnham, though I would reckon Farnham was already an important centre.

I would suggest the true SR principle was to take advantage of whatever land was already available - not that they were unique i

Sorry I am going to argue this point.

On car sheds, cause and effect. The cause was extension, the effect was the car shed - not the cause was the car shed and the effect the extension.

 

[Taunton]

Different techniques apply to regeneration. Some switch it off in the train completely if voltage rises above a certain point and you are back to rheostatic, others always return the current and "burn it off" if necessary, switching in resistance banks outside the substation. I think Woodhead had this latter approach.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

There were also extensive carriage sidings at Weymouth that were used not necessarily for trains in service to/from Weymouth. (You need to check where the ECS for the cited trains was worked to and fro.; I can't comment I have no idea.)

Jubilee sidings. By late 70's the vast majority of WTT inter-regional trains running to/from Weymouth, did so in passenger service. The one exception being the dated Thursdays Only 11.08 Bournemouth to Brum New Street, formed of 10 LM coaches (diagrammed 1BSK, 3SK, 1CK, 4SK, 1BSK) which came ECS (10+13) from Weymouth Jubilee sidings. The balancing move was the 13.45 (ThO) Brum New Street to Bournemouth, which after arrival at the latter worked ECS 17+32 to Weymouth Jubilee Sidings, and remained there for the following Thursdays Northbound run. I am sure this long layover of a 10 Set at Weymouth may have been taken advantage of on odd occasions, but I couldn't possibly comment further....

 

[30907]

One of the the Poole / Manchester late 1960s had a period of ECS reversal beyond Worgret Jnn the Swanage line; I can't remember if this was ECS before the northbound departure from Poole or after the ECS arrival on terminating at Poole.

Trains terminating at Poole pre-1965 generally worked ECS to/from Hamworthy Jn where stock was berthed. Worgret Jn is curious as there were no run-round facilities there.

On car sheds, cause and effect. The cause was extension, the effect was the car shed - not the cause was the car shed and the effect the extension.

Neither exactly: the cause was conveniently available land.
West Worthing was both a commercial passenger development (in 1889) and an expansion of operational facilities (1905 says W...pedia). It was a natural terminus for electrification as Goring and Durrington were not yet extensively developed and I suspect would have been chosen even without the car sheds.

Ore, interestingly, opened in 1888 as a (less successful?) commercial development - I remain unconvinced that this is evidence of a

D7666 said:
"SR principle was always to go past the target town station"

I doubt the SR saw great traffic potential there, and the explanation repeated over many decades remains more plausible.

 

[Elecman]

Different techniques apply to regeneration. Some switch it off in the train completely if voltage rises above a certain point and you are back to rheostatic, others always return the current and "burn it off" if necessary, switching in resistance banks outside the substation. I think Woodhead had this latter approach.

That is correct regarding the Woodhead electrification system

 

[Magdalia]

Trains terminating at Poole pre-1965 generally worked ECS to/from Hamworthy Jn

Thanks for this. I have the 1965 WTT and that's what happened. I didn't mention it previously as I didn't know that stock was berthed there.

 

[paul1609]

On the basis of published sources:

West Worthing was already used as a terminus by the LBSCR (1906/20 Bradshaws on www.timetableworld.com) and the 1912 map online (NLOS) shows that the LBSC had purchased a large amount of land for a goods yard and ?carriage sidings and provided a turntable. So this isn't a case of "the SR going past the target station," there was a good commercial case for going to West Worthing already, and there was land available (whereas at Central the rebuild with an up loop had swallowed much of the goods yard and the site was in a fully built up area by 1912.

Ore likewise had extensive railway land on which the car shed fitted neatly, whereas at Hastings the SR concentrated on improving passenger facilites - there may have been a commercial reason for electrification to Ore, but my impression (60s-70s) is that the station was always pretty quiet, so I doubt it.

You are undoubtedly correct about Alton vs Farnham, though I would reckon Farnham was already an important centre.

I would suggest the true SR principle was to take advantage of whatever land was already available - not that they were unique in this

Don't forget that the electrification to Ore arrived along the south coast and not from London. The intention was for the electrification to go all the way to Ashford but this was curtailed by World War 2. Ore is where Hastings Power station was (it had its own railway sidings for coal deliveries) and is still the main connection for the Hastings Conurbation to the grid. If you look on Google Maps you can see that the pylons end about 200 meters north of the station and there is a large switching and transformer station behind Ore college.

 

[contrex]

I believe I read somewhere that SUBs had to have the chains of heating elements, as well as of lightbulbs, isolated by a member of SR CM&EE staff prior to venturing on a 750v section (whether the 1967 Bournemouth or 1959-61 Kent Coast scheme). I think that all that was actually required was the removal of a couple of fuses.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2024 ==

Subs. Lights. It is true about the strings of light bulbs in series, this actually applied to all SR stock of that generation and earlier.

I think that the 1935 PUL/PAN/BEL express units had motor-generator sets, and this is why some reformed PUL/PAN type units were able to help out on the Kent Coast services in summer 1967 just prior to withdrawal. I also think they were not much liked, and a bit unreliable (not surprising given their imminent scrapping).

 

[edwin_m]

Bournemouth has, and I assume has had since 1968, two reversing sidings and a bay, all of which which would have been fairly intensively used in turning back London terminators and splitting, turning and joining the Weymouth push-pulls. Poole had no such facilities, although I guess they could have been created further west - at some cost.

The layout at Bournemouth probably didn't have capacity to turn back the Cross Country trains too, and to do so would have needed a turnover locomotive or a shunt by a station pilot. Running them empty to Bournemouth depot would have needed an extra locomotive or propelling moves for the reversal at Branksome. So it was sensible to terminate them at Poole where sidings were available and presumably included a run-round at the time.

 

[Undaunted]

Money would have been one thing, but from a railway operating perspective, it would have been a no brainer. Post steam days, Bournemouth (Central) was where the crew depot was/is located, and so any activity which required additional crew activity, performing splitting/joining activities etc, is always best placed most convenient to where there are resources (crew) to deal with same. Simples!

Sorry, I've come to this thread slightly late.

Following the Bournemouth electrification, it is true that there was one depot at Bournemouth. However, drivers and guards could sign on at either Bournemouth Carriage Sidings (the Depot) or Bournemouth station. The only restriction, for obvious reasons, was that they should sign off where they signed on. Looking at a set of diagrams for 1972, there were 21 diagrams for Bournemouth drivers, of which 12 signed on/off at the 'carriage sidings' and 9 on/off at the station.

For diagramming purposes, it was very useful to be able to have crew start their work at the depot in the morning for start of service, and finish their work in the depot in the evening at close of service. The only nuisance was when they needed to travel passenger from Bournemouth station to the carriage sidings or vice versa at the start or end of their shift, as the service between Bournemouth and Branksome was a bit sparse and there was 20 minutes walking time allowed between Branksome and the depot.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

However, drivers and guards could sign on at either Bournemouth Carriage Sidings (the Depot) or Bournemouth station.

The only nuisance was when they needed to travel passenger from Bournemouth station to the carriage sidings or vice versa at the start or end of their shift, as the service between Bournemouth and Branksome was a bit sparse and there was 20 minutes walking time allowed between Branksome and the depot.

You are absolutely correct. How 'one' (me!) can forget things over time. Did that walk myself many times, on company business.

 

[Falcon1200]

A related question; Why was the direct curve from Bournemouth towards the Depot not retained, to avoid every train having to reverse at Branksome? Was it because of the condition of the viaduct which, in keeping with the whole project, BR could not afford to repair?!! Over the years however that cost would surely have been outweighed by the time lost in every ECS move to and from the Depot.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Was it because of the condition of the viaduct

That is what I always understood, although if that curve was still in situ, the capacity/operational flexibility of the depot in the stabling roads (11-17) would be quite a bit less than they actually are, as the country (exit) end of those roads now cross the path of that end (Bournemouth West Jn) of the curve site.

 

[Falcon1200]

That is what I always understood, although if that curve was still in situ, the capacity/operational flexibility of the depot in the stabling roads (11-17) would be quite a bit less than they actually are, as the country (exit) end of those roads now cross the path of that end (Bournemouth West Jn) of the curve site.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It seems the answer is still up in the air, although it does remind me of the original LBSCR electrification scheme which ended at Crystal Palace which, seems reasonable given the traffic demand to the palace itself, but I always thought it curious they didn't extend just a bit further to Croydon where there's already a terminating bay at West Croydon, and would soak up local traffic between Croydon and South London.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

It seems the answer is still up in the air,

Just had a brief scan of G.T.Moody's book, 'Southern Electric 1909-1979', and although he goes in to some detail about the newly electrified route, it is more a description of what was actually done, which is exactly how I first encountered the set up in my early days on the job (Crompton's/TC's West of Bournemouth etc), no mention as far as I can see about any prior discussions about how far the juice should be laid. I suspect the truth of it may be that there just wasn't the demand back in those days to go West of Branksome, the hourly Weymouth-Waterloo service being deemed sufficient, bolstered by the small number of Weymouth to other regions trains.

 

[AndrewP]

Another question - what was the reason Mk 1 carriages were built / repurposed for the trains rather than Mk 2s as this would have given a more modern train probably for minimal cost difference

 

[JonathanH]

Another question - what was the reason Mk 1 carriages were built / repurposed for the trains rather than Mk 2s as this would have given a more modern train probably for minimal cost difference

The first substantial batch of Mark 2s weren't built until 1966, so they weren't available for conversion. Using them for the Bournemouth line would have essentially meant new build. The coaches used for the TC / REP fleet dated from the mid 1950s.

 

[The exile]

Another question - what was the reason Mk 1 carriages were built / repurposed for the trains rather than Mk 2s as this would have given a more modern train probably for minimal cost difference

The southern really had very little to do with MkIIs at all (or at least not until they were being cascaded in the 1980s). Just the odd Ocean Liner set - but other than that, they were still effectively building MkIs (albeit in emu format) until 1974.

 

[Grecian 1998]

It does seem from the replies as though money / cost -benefit ratio was the primary factor, with operational convenience also being a consideration. Presumably it was a case of Bournemouth or nothing. Given that the Crewe - Glasgow section of the WCML wasn't completed until 1975, and the ECML wasn't electrified until 1989-91, money doesn't seem to have been in abundance at the time.

The Southern Region had a long-standing policy of recycling usable components, as happened with the 4REPs and 4TCs. The 4REPs in turn had their traction motors and control gears reused by the class 442s.

The 1980s extension to Weymouth was similarly done on a budget. My understanding is that Dorchester - Moreton was singled in 1985 largely because there wasn't enough money to pay for the whole track to be electrified, so that section was singled to help keep it in budget.

 

[The exile]

It does seem from the replies as though money / cost -benefit ratio was the primary factor, with operational convenience also being a consideration. Presumably it was a case of Bournemouth or nothing. Given that the Crewe - Glasgow section of the WCML wasn't completed until 1975, and the ECML wasn't electrified until 1989-91, money doesn't seem to have been in abundance at the time.

The Southern Region had a long-standing policy of recycling usable components, as happened with the 4REPs and 4TCs. The 4REPs in turn had their traction motors and control gears reused by the class 442s.

The 1980s extension to Weymouth was similarly done on a budget. My understanding is that Dorchester - Moreton was singled in 1985 largely because there wasn't enough money to pay for the whole track to be electrified, so that section was singled to help keep it in budget.

Looking at the 1974 timetable for the Bournemouth terminators (where it looks as if the down fast Bournemouth returned as the up slow - and vice versa), any extension of those trains to Poole would have required extra stock (presumably two trains) and therefore permanently higher operating costs.

 

[Helvellyn]

The first substantial batch of Mark 2s weren't built until 1966, so they weren't available for conversion. Using them for the Bournemouth line would have essentially meant new build. The coaches used for the TC / REP fleet dated from the mid 1950s.

The fifty Class 310s (or AM10s) were ordered on 9 August 1963; the first bulk Mark 2 order was in 1964; the original 11 4-REPs (Class 430), 32 TCs (28 4-TC/4 3-TC) and 20 4-VEPs (Class 423) were all ordered on 30 April 1965.

Given the Mark 1s were less than 10 years old rebuilding the loco-hauled stock as EMU trailers was probably sold as cost effective. I also wonder if Litchurch Lane would have had capacity to build more Mark 2 derivative EMUs (although the original 20 4-VEP MBSOs were built there - the REP DMSOs were built at York, as were the VEP trailers and all the REP/TC trailer conversions).

If they had been built as Mark 2 EMUs, all new built, I wonder if all the VEPs and the Phase 2 CIGs would have been built the same way. That would have made the Phase 1 CIGs the last Mark 1 style EMUs on the Southern Region.

 

[edwin_m]

Given the Mark 1s were less than 10 years old rebuilding the loco-hauled stock as EMU trailers was probably sold as cost effective. I also wonder if Litchurch Lane would have had capacity to build more Mark 2 derivative EMUs (although the original 20 4-VEP MBSOs were built there - the REP DMSOs were built at York, as were the VEP trailers and all the REP/TC trailer conversions).

The Mk1s would have been surplus to requirements at the time, and being non-integral construction would have been relatively easy to modify. But its an interesting question why new Mk1 bodyshells were being built for EMUs nearly a decade after a Mk2 design existed in the form of the 310, which could quite easily have been adapted to a third rail version with various door and seating configurations.

 

[yorksrob]

Could you have built a mk2 with a door to every seating bay though.

 

[JonathanH]

Could you have built a mk2 with a door to every seating bay though.

A class 310 had plenty of doors, admittedly not at every bay, but plenty more than a CIG had. A VEP on the design of a 310 would have worked.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

It does seem from the replies as though money / cost -benefit ratio was the primary factor, with operational convenience also being a consideration

Yes, almost certainly. Referring back to the first part of my post #7 above, everything required for, (yes, operational convenience perhaps, but ultimately with that comes a better chance of a more robust/reliable train service as a result), was in close proximity at Bournemouth Central, given that the Weymouth-Waterloo service would still have needed to split and join, even if the line was juiced to Poole. In addition, the line curvature at Poole station would very likely have caused coupling problems(%) for through services, and would have meant excessive 'passing' for crews to get back to or come from a recognised PN point, and thus likely a greater number of crews on the establishment to operate the same service.
(% - this sort of scenario did - probably still does? - apply with 444 stock at Portsmouth Harbour platform 5, where such attachments are barred due the risk of coupler mis alignment on the curve).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

A VEP on the design of a 310 would have worked.

Appreciate this is an aside, but I concur with your comparison. Have just checked a few facts on that: a 310 had 38 more seats than a VEP overall and weighed about 10T more. I can't remember if they ever ran in 12 car format on the southern WCML - can't remember seeing any such formations, but may be wrong?

 

[Snow1964]

Regarding timelines : The Modernization plan of mid 1950s envisaged 25Kv from Waterloo to Salisbury and Weymouth, including via Richmond and Feltham, this plan was scaled back over time.

The push-pull concept was tested in September 1960 using 2MLVs a couple of HAPs with motors cut out, and a modified CEP

The cut price scheme was eventually authorised in September 1964 and was just 90 miles. But did include bit of colour light signalling, removal of number of freight yards, and the 123 refurbished and converted mk1s, and one new station at Southampton Airport.

The conductor rails on scheme were 106 lb/yard, but 150lb/yard on Lymington branch (which was converted to long siding) for improved conductivity as a substation was only at Lymington Junction, not further along

 

[Tester]

Have just checked a few facts on that: a 310 had 38 more seats than a VEP overall and weighed about 10T more. I can't remember if they ever ran in 12 car format on the southern WCML - can't remember seeing any such formations, but may be wrong?

Not in normal service, but I can recall 12 cars on strike days in the early 80s, which was quite remarkable.

 

[eldomtom2]

Regarding timelines : The Modernization plan of mid 1950s envisaged 25Kv from Waterloo to Salisbury and Weymouth, including via Richmond and Feltham, this plan was scaled back over time.

Did it? I can only find a single paragraph on SR electrification in it:

In addition, it has always been the intention that, as soon as circumstances permit, all the main routes of the Southern Region east of a line drawn from Reading to Portsmouth should be electrified. This will extend to the coast the electrified zone which now terminates at Gillingham, Maidstone and Sevenoaks, and carry the electric train services to Ramsgate, Dover, Folkestone and (via Ashford) to Hastings. In conjunction with the diesel services to be introduced (referred to later), this will effect the elimination of steam traction from all the lines of the Southern Region in the area mentioned.