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

[ac6000cw]

I also recall reading about the experimental use of aluminium - instead of steel -conductor rail in order to save both costs and weight....although I have a feeling that that may have been part of the Portsmouth-Eastleigh/St Denys electrification scheme a few years later.

rom the minutes of a meeting held in late '89, for the South Hants scheme, the said rail is referred to as 'Composite Conductor Rail', and there is brief mention of further staff consultation being needed in relation to the maintenance of same, so obviously not bog standard conductor rail at the time?

AFAIK, the main reason for using composite aluminium and steel conductor rail is because aluminium is about 6x better (lower resistance) conductor of electricity than steel. This means you can potentially extend the distance between feeder stations, thus needing fewer of them which lowers the overall cost of the electrification scheme.

(Basically the aluminium is the main conductor, with steel for the contact surface - it's much harder wearing and can withstand the arcs that can occur between pickup shoes and conductor rail - aluminium melts at quite low temperatures compared to steel).

 

[Bikeman78]

No, that is entirely logical.

Those units had their saloon lighting fed, Christmas tree style, in series across the traction voltage, so the higher voltage would not have been good for them!

If one lamp in a carriage failed, they all did, however as there were two separate strings for each side of the carriage, complete darkness was unusual - half light was not at all unusual though!

That must have been a right pain in the neck, having to replace the bulbs one by one until the dud was found.

 

[The exile]

That must have been a right pain in the neck, having to replace the bulbs one by one until the dud was found.

If the bulbs were opaque, at that size the black mark from the blown filament would probably normally have been visible.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

This means you can potentially extend the distance between feeder stations, thus needing fewer of them which lowers the overall cost of the electrification scheme.

Ironically the overall scheme required additional EMU stabling, 4 x 12 car roads within Eastleigh depot (former steam shed roads 2, 3, 5 & 6 were the preferred sidings according to the aforementioned meeting minutes) and also provision of one (4 car) juice siding adjacent to the Botley road just off the end of Eastleigh station - Eastleigh DCS (Down Carr' siding) as known when I used it in my diagramming days. The consequence of these additions is noted in the minutes as requiring an additional sub station at a projected cost of about £160k give or take 10%, above and beyond the planned for new sub stations (ie; Hedge End). The entire scheme was projected north of £16m, but a whole load of station renovation work was also included within the immediate area concerned amongst other costs.

 

[Trainman40083]

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.

The first time I remember going on holiday from Derby to Bournemouth, we must have gone via the Somerset and Dorset and we ended up in Bournemouth West station, where the EMU depot is.

 

[30907]

The Bournemouth scheme did opposite, it reduced capacity. The 4 platforms at Micheldever were reduced to 2, the pre war rebuild of Pokesdown with fast tracks survived a few years, think it was rationalised around 1971 when Christchurch - Pokesdown section was resignalled (the pared down electrification had deferred some resignalling).

Micheldever loops ceased to be important for train regulation when Weston to Wallers Ash, a couple of miles south, was opened, and only a couple of Up trains were booked to be looped at Pokesdown in (BR) steam days.

 

[Gloster]

Micheldever loops ceased to be important for train regulation when Weston to Wallers Ash, a couple of miles south, was opened, and only a couple of Up trains were booked to be looped at Pokesdown in (BR) steam days.

Looking at Volume 17 of Pryer’s Signal Box Diagrams, it seems that the ‘loops’ between Weston and Wallers Ash were brought into use in June 1902, but the four track layout at Micheldever only dated from March 1905. Not that the loops at Micheldever were very long, although you could shunt into the dead ends at each end.

 

[30907]

Looking at Volume 17 of Pryer’s Signal Box Diagrams, it seems that the ‘loops’ between Weston and Wallers Ash were brought into use in June 1902, but the four track layout at Micheldever only dated from March 1905.

Sorry, you are of course right.