Padiham Power Station C More Details

[Andy873]

I have some more details that some of you might find interesting about Padiham power station C which was proposed but never built, plus some questions of course.

To cover myself the following details come from file AN155/185 held by the National Archives, Kew and contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government License v3.0 If you are not familiar with it please have a read:

Open Government License v3.0

Proposed in December 1964, was a third power station around the Padiham area, with A and B already generating. This was to be a 2,000 megawatt station and the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) state that it would consume around 4 to 4.5 million tons of coal per annum. To put the size of this proposed station in perspective, I looked at power station B, this had two cooling towers and was a 240 megawatt station, so station C was going to be a monster of power station. Looking at other 2,000 megawatt stations that were built, most seem to have around eight cooling towers.

BR and the CEGB discuss the possibility of train loads of 2,000 tons per journey. To facilitate delivery, the CEGB say they favor a run round loop and deliveries of Yorkshire coal via the Copy Pit route to Padiham via Rose Grove, Burnley rather than Lancashire coal coming in from the west, Blackburn end which they say would be more difficult.

The above details come from a joint BR - CEGB management meeting held at Euston, March 1965. The power station was in the end never built at this location.

Questions please:

What do the CEGB mean when they are talking about supplying the power station using a run round loop? would this be their term for the Merry-Go-Round type of delivery?

2,000 tons per delivery - In another document BR state that the CEGB would require 26.5 ton coal wagons for supplying this power station, that's over 70 full wagons per delivery, is that possible?

Would you need a double header? - Going from Rose Grove to Padiham you have to go down the 1 in 40 bank (1.25 miles) bank, you would need some braking power of perhaps two engines? and then there's the empties to get back up that bank.

Can we learn anything from the 2,000 megawatt power stations that were actually built?

 

[47296lastduff]

Run round loop-loco detaches from train and runs forward to headshunt. Points are changed and loco runs past train on adjacent line. Points are changed again, loco reverses onto rear of train.

 

[stuving]

It sounds like Ratcliffe-on-Soar, which was about 2000 MW and built 1963-1968 (see Wikipedia). That had four 500 MW sets each of boiler, turbines, and alternator. I went to visit that the year after it opened! At that stage it was still all shiny (well, sort of) and new. And all the bits of it were impressively big!

I imagine the main constraint was really the cooling water supply from the Calder - was it enough? Ideally it should be reliable all year every year, and how many other power station and factories were dumping their heat into it and using its finite capacity to cool things.

 

[ac6000cw]

Questions please:

What do the CEGB mean when they are talking about supplying the power station using a run round loop? would this be their term for the Merry-Go-Round type of delivery?

2,000 tons per delivery - In another document BR state that the CEGB would require 26.5 ton coal wagons for supplying this power station, that's over 70 full wagons per delivery, is that possible?

Would you need a double header? - Going from Rose Grove to Padiham you have to go down the 1 in 40 bank (1.25 miles) bank, you would need some braking power of perhaps two engines? and then there's the empties to get back up that bank.

Can we learn anything from the 2,000 megawatt power stations that were actually built?

By the mid-60s, the air-braked HAA hopper wagons had been developed, so that's very likely what would have been used. They had a capacity of 33 tonnes (45t gross on two axles).

Wouldn't the stiff climb from Todmorden over the Copy Pit line have been the main issue with trains of that weight from the Yorkshire direction (probably needing a banking loco)?

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

The 26.5t wagons referred to are presumably the tippler type coded MSV under TOPS.
We can assume that the intention was to install a tippler to unload them, in which case run-round loop probably does have the traditional railway meaning described by @47296lastduff .
The train locomotive(s) would detach and run round whilst the wagons were moved through the tippler by either gravity, a cable or "mule" type device, or an industrial locomotive.

The trains would have to be double-headed. Assuming Brush type 4 (class 47) haulage as per other heavy coal trains originating in Yorkshire at the time, my AI overview (I know, I know) tells me each loco could haul just over 1000 tons "on the level or reasonable gradients".
They would need a banker to get up the gradient from Todmorden to Copy Pit, but at this period of time bankers were kept at Stansfield Hall (Todmorden) and were in constant use assisting freight trains up to Copy Pit.
Had the power station been built the banker would probably have been an English Electric type 3 (class 37) by the time it opened, as these locos began to replace the 8F's on these duties in the mid-60s, and it's unlikely that the power station would have been completed by the time of the 8F's withdrawal in 1968.

Despite the proposal for MSV wagons as @ac6000cw says the HAA wagon was developed in the mid 60s (if memory serves the first was built in 1965), so had the power station opened it would almost certainly have been served by these wagons. At around 45t gross a 2000t train would have needed approximately 44 of these, still double-headed and with banker engine.
It's also likely that the plans would have been amended to include a merry-go-round style loop; if they could find room for a 2000 megawatt power station they would not have had much trouble threading such a loop around the site.
BUT I stress this is probably what would have happened, not what was originally proposed as described by the OP.

 

[Merle Haggard]

/snip

2,000 tons per delivery - In another document BR state that the CEGB would require 26.5 ton coal wagons for supplying this power station, that's over 70 full wagons per delivery, is that possible?

/snip

I can't think of any coal wagons with a capacity of 26.5 tons (or tonnes) - perhaps it's a typo for the largest ('conventional') flat- and hopper-bottoms, 24.5 ton. I can't remember the metric weight conversion for them but I don't think it would be as high as 26.5 tonnes (16t on mins became 16.5 tonnes, for example,).
I guess that a delivery of 2,000 tons in those wagons would be well over the line length limits regardless of load limitation/coupler strength.

 

[Gloster]

I have to say that the only wagons that I can think of with a 26.5 ton capacity were the MSV tipplers, but these were designed for iron ore and virtually (*) never used for coal traffic. Perhaps this was an attempt by BR to find a use for surplus iron ore wagons, or possibly it applied to other types that might be released by HAA-type ones.

The familiar coal hopper (HAA and variants) was under development at the time, even if the NCB was lukewarm about the idea. The first two wagons were ordered in January 1964, and delivered in April and December that year. The first large order (1,880 wagons) was ordered in August 1964, but reissued the following May. (Source: An Illustrated History of BR Hopper Wagons, Monk-Steel, HMRS, 2022.)

* - I say ‘virtually’ as they were occasionally used for slurry where their lack of doors was an advantage,

 

[Merle Haggard]

I have to say that the only wagons that I can think of with a 26.5 ton capacity were the MSV tipplers, but these were designed for iron ore and virtually (*) never used for coal traffic. Perhaps this was an attempt by BR to find a use for surplus iron ore wagons, or possibly it applied to other types that might be released by HAA-type ones.

The familiar coal hopper (HAA and variants) was under development at the time, even if the NCB was lukewarm about the idea. The first two wagons were ordered in January 1964, and delivered in April and December that year. The first large order (1,880 wagons) was ordered in August 1964, but reissued the following May. (Source: An Illustrated History of BR Hopper Wagons, Monk-Steel, HMRS, 2022.)

* - I say ‘virtually’ as they were occasionally used for slurry where their lack of doors was an advantage,

The BR Standard tipplers were intended for denser bulk - iron ore, chalk around here. The bodies were about the same volume as the 16 ton mineral but the differences were beefier frame, suspension and axle boxes (and no side or bottom doors). I don't think that they could load coal to much more than a 16t mineral's volume. And I thought that they were 27 ton.

I can also recollect some wagons created by rebodying tank wagon underframes with box bodies (??? MTV - T for tank rather than tippler) and which might possible have been 26 1/2 tons but I think that these were for Construction. They didn't have doors and were unloaded by road mounted grab.

 

[Gloster]

I can also recollect some wagons created by rebodying tank wagon underframes with box bodies (??? MTV - T for tank rather than tippler) and which might possible have been 26 1/2 tons but I think that these were for Construction. They didn't have doors and were unloaded by road mounted grab.

The MTV weren’t converted until 1975.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

The train length is not impossible; if BR were intending to use MSVs 70-75 of them would be equivalent (or slightly shorter) than 40ish HAAs.

There may have been some loops or possibly signal sections that would struggle to fit a train of that length, but nothing that couldn't be worked around with local special instructions regarding the working and/or signalling of the services involved.

We can speculate that the main 2000t train would be assembled in Healey Mills yard from shorter feeder services and worked through Mirfield and the Calder Valley to Hall Royd Junction, up over Copy Pit to Rose Grove and voila!
Maybe a couple of sidings of appropriate length would have been provided at Rose Grove to stable the wagons if required, if such didn't exist in the yard there already?

 

[Merle Haggard]

Looking through the diagrams the unfitted tipplers (described as 'Iron Ore Tipplers') were 27 ton, the last diagram (183) was fitted and had a capacity of 26 tons, presumably because of the extra weight of the brake gear and roller bearing axle boxes.
Perhaps the reference to 26 1/2 is an average with a fitted head.

As an aside, if fitted wagons were to be used it might have been a challenge to get NCB shunters (and probably CEGB ones, too) to couple and uncouple the brake hoses. This would have been necessary if they were unloaded in a tippler. It was my understanding that it was a perennial problem at collieries.

 

[6Gman]

I think this may have been an early scoping exercise and working in broad terms - 4m tons per annum, across - say - 312 days (ie. 52x6), gives around 12,000 tons daily using six trains each way.

Had the project continued there would, no doubt, have ben further meetings and further refinement. And perhaps a realisation that the original plan wouldn't work. [Remembering the old military saying - "no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy"!]

It's all a bit before my time but I was in freight planning in the late 1970s and the TriPartite (BR - CEGB - NCB) arrangements took up much of the time of one of our management staff. And while there was a base plan (for Didcot Power Station for example) it was tweaked extensively each week. Not least because of a need to balance supplies from different collieries which produced subtly different coal and in varying quantities.

So, while six (or perhaps eight) daily paths would have been written into the timetable from (perhaps) Healey Mills there would have been daily variations in which trains ran and from where the coal originated.

It was a fascinating area of operating.

 

[pharrc20]

Interesting, I've often wondered why the C.E.G.B. used the larger Supergrid type of transmission towers known as L6 on the line that feeds into the substation at Padiham especially given that the A station closed in 1969 and was only a maximum of just over 31MW output, the B station built in 1957 was only 240MW. The use of the L6 tower design on the trans-pennine 4ZP line by the C.E.G.B. would to me suggest some forward planning by erecting a higher capacity 400kV L6 line to feed into the proposed C station as opposed to a lower 275kV line using the smaller L2 design of towers, that with some mods could be uprated to operate at 400kV too.

In the event as far as I have been able to determine the 4ZP line initially bypassed Padiham A & B and only later when a new substation was built further east on the present site was the line diverted in to act as a local bulk supply point.

Cheers Paul

 

[Andy873]

Run round loop-loco detaches from train and runs forward to headshunt. Points are changed and loco runs past train on adjacent line. Points are changed again, loco reverses onto rear of train.

A headshunt then not a merry-go-round system of delivery.

It sounds like Ratcliffe-on-Soar, which was about 2000 MW and built 1963-1968

Yes it does indeed, when you look at Ratcliffe-on-Soar you see just how big Padiham C was going to be.

I can't think of any coal wagons with a capacity of 26.5 tons (or tonnes) - perhaps it's a typo

Apart from what others have said here about wagon capacity, I can only say it doesn't look like a typo, any that are in these documents (which are few and far between) have been corrected by hand with a pen. When it comes to wagon capacity I'm completely out of my depth.

We can speculate that the main 2000t train would be assembled in Healey Mills yard from shorter feeder services and worked through Mirfield and the Calder Valley to Hall Royd Junction, up over Copy Pit to Rose Grove and voila!
Maybe a couple of sidings of appropriate length would have been provided at Rose Grove to stable the wagons if required, if such didn't exist in the yard there already?

And the interesting thing is 4 million tons of coal divided into 2,000 tons per delivery is 2,000 deliveries per annum. Perhaps the CEGB were using figures like this for ease of calculation?

I think this may have been an early scoping exercise and working in broad terms - 4m tons per annum, across - say - 312 days (ie. 52x6), gives around 12,000 tons daily using six trains each way.

Had the project continued there would, no doubt, have ben further meetings and further refinement. And perhaps a realisation that the original plan wouldn't work. [Remembering the old military saying - "no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy"!]

@6Gman, your calculation seems more plausible. If there were to be 6 deliveries per day, and 6 for empties, that's 12 movements per day, add in the extra 5 for Padiham B it makes 17 train movements. This tells me that if this station had been built, I can't see BR would have ever singled the line from Rose Grove to Padiham?

Interesting, I've often wondered why the C.E.G.B. used the larger Supergrid type of transmission towers known as L6 on the line that feeds into the substation at Padiham especially given that the A station closed in 1969 and was only a maximum of just over 31MW output, the B station built in 1957 was only 240MW. The use of the L6 tower design on the trans-pennine 4ZP line by the C.E.G.B. would to me suggest some forward planning by erecting a higher capacity 400kV L6 line to feed into the proposed C station as opposed to a lower 275kV line using the smaller L2 design of towers, that with some mods could be uprated to operate at 400kV too.

In the event as far as I have been able to determine the 4ZP line initially bypassed Padiham A & B and only later when a new substation was built further east on the present site was the line diverted in to act as a local bulk supply point.

Agreed, it is an interesting subject!

What I should correct is my description (name of) this station, neither BR or the CEGB actually call it Padiham C, they call it Simonstone, which is west of Padiham.

There were four other sites being considered for the station - Leyland, Westwood B, Much Hoole and Longton. For each of these sites the pros and cons are described in the minutes, although Simonstone seemingly has the most going for it.

I can't find any mention of new sidings except to say BR were prepared to move the trackbed further north if that would help the CEGB with their plans for this station at Simonstone.

I imagine the main constraint was really the cooling water supply from the Calder - was it enough?

A very good question, and one I can't answer. What I can say is the river Calder is prone to flooding around the Simonstone area, one reason why the L&Y who built the line had this section on a low embankment.

So where in the Simonstone area would the CEGB have built the power station? - Well I've looked at the OS maps from around the 1950s and '60s, there was plenty of open land but it would have had to be placed to the west of Simonstone station,going towards the village of Read. From the railway station going east you have Mullards TV tube factory, then Padiham B power station, followed by A station and then Padiham itself. BR probably would have kept an extra 0.75 miles of the route west of Simonstone station, any further and you run into the small problem of Martholme viaduct!

With regards to supplying the new station - The CEGB state they favor one eastern turnout rather the two (east and west) as they prefer Yorkshire deliveries of coal.

None of these sites were ever chosen for a power station, in fact, written in red pen on a BR letter about the power station (Jan 1966) someone writes the CEGB are not going to go ahead with the Simonstone site, and we will be told in about two or three months.

 

[Gloster]

A headshunt then not a merry-go-round system of delivery.

No. A headshunt is a specific piece of track, rather than an action/movement. It is a section into which a loco, possibly with vehicles, moves so that it clears points that can now be moved. The loco, etc., can now move back down an adjoining road to the one it started in. At one end of the scale a headshunt can be anything from a short section of track just long enough to hold the loco of a train that has arrived at a terminus before it runs past the coaches and then moves back to be coupled to the other end of the rake. At the others of the scale it can be a lengthy line in a marshalling yard used by the shunter as it moves back and forth distributing wagons around the various sidings.

 

[Andy873]

No. A headshunt is a specific piece of track

Yes, of course it is, my mistake!

 

[stuving]

I find it odd that BR/CEGB discussions in 1965 would not be for merry-go-round trains. By January 1964 the preferred rail delivery system for other 2000 MW stations was MGR, and all those that could be were being changed over, even while being built. Four of the earliest (at least to start building) instead used a different system of fixed formation trains initially (Thorpe Marsh, Drakelow, Ironbridge, and Aberthaw).

The same article (in the Liverpool Daily Post 8/1/1964) also says that the adoption of MGR increased the distance for a cost-effective supply route from about 27 miles to 150, which brought Didcot within this radius from coal sources. Obviously that would increase the size of the pool of the competitor sites to be chosen from, allowing more to be rejected.

In June 1963 Jerry Fiennes told a symposium audience about the plan for merry-go-round trains to cut the cost of moving coal. Primarily for power stations. he also talked about being able to replace coasters in the sup0ply of the West Country. Some (if not all) of the series of very big power stations then being built, including Drakelow which was due for commissioning in 1964. He promised a BR announcement soon.

In October 1963 Dr Beeching also spoke about plans for merry-go-round trains, though whether this was the promised official announcement I'm not sure. He did not mention power stations, just consumers, but then he has speaking to the first annual conference of the Traders' Road Transport Association.

The local Liverpool interest in that story in January 1964 was the approval of Fiddler's Ferry power station and the signing of the MGR supply contract. So it is surprising that a 2000 MW power stations was being discussed in 1965 other than using merry-go-round delivery.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

And the interesting thing is 4 million tons of coal divided into 2,000 tons per delivery is 2,000 deliveries per annum. Perhaps the CEGB were using figures like this for ease of calculation?

It's worth mentioning that 2000 tons would be the weight of the train (i.e including wagon weight), not the weight of the coal on board.

A very good question, and one I can't answer. What I can say is the river Calder is prone to flooding around the Simonstone area, one reason why the L&Y who built the line had this section on a low embankment

I suppose it must have been considered able to cope for the proposal to have been made.
As far as I can ascertain the other local power stations at Huncoat and Whitebirk both took water from the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, so if that was coping with two- admittedly relatively small - power stations there's a decent chance of the river coping with a larger one.

As an aside Whitebirk would probably have closed when Padiham C/Simonstone opened, instead of its actual closure date of 1976.

 

[Merle Haggard]

It's worth mentioning that 2000 tons would be the weight of the train (i.e including wagon weight), not the weight of the coal on board.


/snip/

I did wonder about that, what you write would be logical and also within the normal boundaries of train weight.. The original statements do seem to me to be opaque though. Why would the CEGB be interested in the total weight of the train? Would they not be only interested in the payload? But perhaps 2000 tons trailing was a BR targe or to impress the CEGB.

//

Triggered by Gloster's mention of their use for slurry above, perhaps the choice of tipplers (which are leak-proof, by accident more than design) might be because the fuel proposed was wet slack. The habit of mines grossly overloading 16 t mins with wet slack is well remembered but would be within the limits of capacity of a 26/27 ton tippler.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Triggered by Gloster's mention of their use for slurry above, perhaps the choice of tipplers (which are leak-proof, by accident more than design) might be because the fuel proposed was wet slack. The habit of mines grossly overloading 16 t mins with wet slack is well remembered but would be within the limits of capacity of a 26/27 ton tippler.

With apologies for thread drift I can assure readers that the NCB were mere amateurs at overloading 16t Mineral wagons.
Sheerness Steel would ‘borrow’ such wagons to catch what I can only describe as ‘steel dust’ from the electric arc furnace. Noting one that, ahem, seemed a bit low on its springs we had it moved onto the weighbridge and discovered that it was carrying no less than 50 tonnes!

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I did wonder about that, what you write would be logical and also within the normal boundaries of train weight.. The original statements do seem to me to be opaque though. Why would the CEGB be interested in the total weight of the train? Would they not be only interested in the payload? But perhaps 2000 tons trailing was a BR targe or to impress the CEGB.

I think that's it in a nutshell; it just sounds more impressive. The trend for hyperbole in describing things isn't as modern as many people think, it's just that in the past it was a little more subtle

 

[Andy873]

It's worth mentioning that 2000 tons would be the weight of the train (i.e including wagon weight), not the weight of the coal on board.

That's a very good point and one I hadn't realised.

I find it odd that BR/CEGB discussions in 1965 would not be for merry-go-round trains. By January 1964 the preferred rail delivery system for other 2000 MW stations was MGR, and all those that could be were being changed over, even while being built. Four of the earliest (at least to start building) instead used a different system of fixed formation trains initially (Thorpe Marsh, Drakelow, Ironbridge, and Aberthaw).

Me too, and that's why I mentioned it in my opening post. The CEGB don't mention MGR which given the size of this new power station I find strange.

I suppose it must have been considered able to cope for the proposal to have been made.
As far as I can ascertain the other local power stations at Huncoat and Whitebirk both took water from the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, so if that was coping with two- admittedly relatively small - power stations there's a decent chance of the river coping with a larger one.

That does sound right to me, all power stations need some sort of a good reliable water source so the river Calder must have been up to it in the CEGB's eyes.

 

[47296lastduff]

Looking at the area on a 1960s OS map, the site looks somewhat hemmed in, and there may simply have not been enough space to create an MGR loop. These need a very large chunk of land to fit in.