Class 309: East Coast v West Coast

Revaulx · Friday at 10:21

AM9 said:
The 309s were originally intended for the ECML on services London to York. The electrification never happened though, (in the '60s, - it eventually did in the '80s), by which tome other (faster) electric options were available. A 309 set was also used for testing high speed running on the WCML but it only reached just over 100mph. I would suggest that the DC traction setup was tuned to the GEML route infrastructure.

Taken from another (really interesting) thread.

So what would have happened north of York? Was the electrification to have stopped there and a Weymouth-style arrangement handled trains to Newcastle and Edinburgh (assuming the route between them stayed open)?

Or was electrification to proceed beyond York and a mix of 309s and 81-85-type locos to be used? Presumably in those enlightened times the intention was always to have electric freight.

That’s all interesting in itself, but what most intrigues is why the ER opted for long distance EMUs and the LMR didn’t. Was it because the ECML lends itself to semi-fast services more than the West Coast? Or were there different mindsets in the regional HQs? The LNER and its constituents had been dreaming of main line electrification for decades after all; I don’t think the LMS had been.

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · Friday at 11:00

If we fast forward to the modern day for a bit, the York semifast (as was) is very similar in concept to the WMT Trent Valley service, aside from York itself being more of a destination than Crewe. That EMUs were being considered for it (350s are probably just a modern day version of the 309?) doesn't seem that outlandish.

Back then though I don't think that semifast service existed on the WCML quite the same way, it was more like random stops at Trent stations plus a Stafford-Crewe (or Stoke?) local, wasn't it? I think the latter did get 309s, though in its latter days it was a single 153?

45Fox · Friday at 11:22

The LMR did run some fairly long distance EMU services.
Euston - Birmingham (via Northampton) semi-fasts were worked by 310s (later 317s and 321s).
The 304 involved in the crash at Stechford in 1967 was working a Manchester Piccadilly to Coventry service.

Not comparable, distance-wise, to London - York, admittedly.

43096 · Friday at 11:23

Bletchleyite said:
If we fast forward to the modern day for a bit, the York semifast (as was) is very similar in concept to the WMT Trent Valley service, aside from York itself being more of a destination than Crewe. That EMUs were being considered for it (350s are probably just a modern day version of the 309?) doesn't seem that outlandish.

Back then though I don't think that semifast service existed on the WCML quite the same way, it was more like random stops at Trent stations plus a Stafford-Crewe (or Stoke?) local, wasn't it? I think the latter did get 309s, though in its latter days it was a single 153?

The 309s with North Western were primarily for peak Manchester-Crewe/Stoke-(Birmingham) diagrams. They did escape occasionally though.

Revaulx · Friday at 12:35

45Fox said:
The LMR did run some fairly long distance EMU services.
Euston - Birmingham (via Northampton) semi-fasts were worked by 310s (later 317s and 321s).
The 304 involved in the crash at Stechford in 1967 was working a Manchester Piccadilly to Coventry service.

Not comparable, distance-wise, to London - York, admittedly.

I loved the 310s. It was a treat when they occasionally showed up on the Altrincham line; our usual 304s, particularly the first batch, felt ancient in comparison!

They were clearly designed for “outer suburban” operation though. The 309s felt like proper express trains in the same way as the CEPs and CIGs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 12:55 ==

Bletchleyite said:
If we fast forward to the modern day for a bit, the York semifast (as was) is very similar in concept to the WMT Trent Valley service, aside from York itself being more of a destination than Crewe. That EMUs were being considered for it (350s are probably just a modern day version of the 309?) doesn't seem that outlandish.

Back then though I don't think that semifast service existed on the WCML quite the same way, it was more like random stops at Trent stations plus a Stafford-Crewe (or Stoke?) local, wasn't it? I think the latter did get 309s, though in its latter days it was a single 153?

That makes sense. I did wonder if there were valid operational reasons.

I've just been looking at the timetable for Leeds-KX in 1965, i.e. the established Deltic era but still Leeds Central. The first thing that’s striking is how infrequent the service is, notwithstanding there still being a proper service to St Pancras. However, the KX service alternates fasts, quite a few of which start at Harrogate, and semi-fasts. So presumably, if electrification had gone ahead, the former would have been loco-hauled and the latter 309s.

For Harrogate a reversal is necessary so presumably a diesel would have obviated the need to electrify to there.

172007 · Friday at 13:06

Never thought about it but did anyone ever consider using multiple units for the intercity services on the WCML such as clasd 309's. Surely a version would have been susitable for London to Glasgow etc. Or were the decision makers just wed to locomotives and did not think out of the box.

Bald Rick · Friday at 16:59

172007 said:
Never thought about it but did anyone ever consider using multiple units for the intercity services on the WCML such as clasd 309's. Surely a version would have been susitable for London to Glasgow etc. Or were the decision makers just wed to locomotives and did not think out of the box.

When franchising first happened, one of the unsuccessful bidders proposed a regular EMU fleet for the WCML.
Thankfully Virgin won!

Bletchleyite · Friday at 17:02

Bald Rick said:
When franchising first happened, one of the unsuccessful bidders proposed a regular EMU fleet for the WCML.
Thankfully Virgin won!

And introduced a fleet of, er, EMUs?

Bald Rick · Friday at 17:03

Bletchleyite said:
And introduced a fleet of, er, EMUs?

~~140~~ 125mph capable emus though

norbitonflyer · Friday at 17:19

Revaulx said:
So what would have happened north of York? Was the electrification to have stopped there and a Weymouth-style arrangement handled trains to Newcastle and Edinburgh (assuming the route between them stayed open)?

Or was electrification to proceed beyond York and a mix of 309s and 81-85-type locos to be used? Presumably in those enlightened times the intention was always to have electric freight.

The latter, I understand. EMUs for the stoppers, loco haulage for the longer distance services, with a traction change at York

Somewhere I saw an artists impression of Grantham post electrification, when thatw as on the cards for the late 1960s. The traisn looked like an 86 and a 309 (although if the project had gone ahead doubtless the trains for it would have had their own class numbers, just as the class 304/305/308 lookalikes did.

Dr Hoo · Friday at 17:41

I’m not sure that the ECML electrification project was anywhere near as advanced as some people assume; at least beyond the London commuting area.

I have never seen that Class 309s were a pathfinder for a run-on build for the ECML. I always saw them as a slightly more modern equivalent of the 4-CEPs and 4-BEPs for the Kent lines - medium distance, gangwayed, refreshment facilities. (Yes, I know that the Southern designs were more 1950s than 1960s.)

The arrival of the Wilson government was the final sad development; a rolling programme of electrification clearly having no place in the “white heat of the technological revolution”.

Magdalia · Friday at 20:39

Dr Hoo said:
I’m not sure that the ECML electrification project was anywhere near as advanced as some people assume; at least beyond the London commuting area.

The Modernisation and Re-equipment of British Railways included electrification of "Kings Cross to Doncaster, Leeds and (possibly) York" (para 43).

The System of Electrification for British Railways was first published in 1956 with a revised second impression in September 1960. This also included electrification of "Kings Cross to Doncaster, Leeds and (possibly) York" (para 111).

Revaulx said:
So what would have happened north of York? Was the electrification to have stopped there and a Weymouth-style arrangement handled trains to Newcastle and Edinburgh (assuming the route between them stayed open)?

Or was electrification to proceed beyond York and a mix of 309s and 81-85-type locos to be used?

What became the Clacton EMUs were ordered in autumn 1960 and reported in Trains Illustrated December 1960, which said:

The Clacton multiple-units CONTRACTS have been placed for a series of new 25 kV a.c. electric multiple-units which may be prototypes of the kind of 75 m.p.h. average, 100 m.p.h. maximum trains we were promised in the 1955 Modernisation Plan. They are 15 four-coach and eight two-coach units, including refreshment facilities, for the Liverpool Street-Clacton and Walton service, the two-coach sets to permit ten-coach formations in the peak periods, and they are due to begin operation in 1962. The units are deliberately provided with more power than is strictly necessary for the Clacton service so that they can be assessed with an eye to even faster multiple-units for long-distance work in the future.

Gerry Fiennes had given a presentation to the Railway Students Association "The future of railway passenger traffic" which was reported in Trains Illustrated February 1960. At the time Fiennes was Traffic Manager Great Northern. The presentation gave a hint of what an electrified ECML passenger service might look like viewed looking forward from 1960.

As to frequency of passenger trains, Mr. Fiennes held that on the principal routes, except at night, nothing less will suffice than a half-hourly service up to 70 miles and an hourly one between 70 and 300 miles. Since the pattern must give services not only between London and each principal town on the line of route but between those towns themselves, either the main line expresses must make fairly frequent intermediate calls or there must be a closely linked system of feeders; or, more probably, a combination of both. Thus the Great Northern plans an hourly group of three expresses respectively to Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield/Hull, linked with feeders at Peterborough and Doncaster or York.

A plausible interpretation of all of this is loco hauled hourly fast trains with "feeders" formed by something like the Clacton EMU.

Dr Hoo · Friday at 22:00

Thanks for that summary @Magdalia . I’ve got the same publications as you quoted but my take is that concept talk from 1960 is all very interesting. But the Modernisation Plan cash (actually largely borrowing consents) was committed on schemes already in hand; notably completing the West Coast. Besides that, once the Deltics had proved themselves the 70mph average vision could be delivered with diesel. An interesting prequel to the HSTs some years later.

Helvellyn · Saturday at 13:30

It's an interesting what-if because the 309s were (for the time) an InterCity style EMU with six first class compartments in each four-car, plus Griddle car facilities in some units.

The 4-CEPs/4-BEPs were equivalent (albeit older) for Kent, and the BEPs had better catering with small kitchens.

Bournemouth Line electrification saw the REPs with converted Restaurant Buffets giving a decent catering facility as well. Along with the TCs interiors were refurbished to the late Mk 1 style, albeit retaining tungsten lighting. The fact they got new seats/panelling but not fluorescent lighting and early Mk 2 seating given they were concurrently being built just seemed odd.

Also concurrent with the REPs/TCs/VEPs for the Bournemouth line were the Class 310s for Southern WCML services. This is where, for me, we could have had a fascinating what if - a REP/309 version of a 310 for medium distance InterCity services, that is Euston-Birmingham-Wolverhampton.

TonyW590 · Saturday at 14:20

Revaulx said:
I loved the 310s. It was a treat when they occasionally showed up on the Altrincham line;

Down South we had the exact opposite. It was VERY rare to see a 304 south of Rugby. In all the hours and years I spent spotting and then photographing on the south end of the WCML i saw just one.

Transilien · Saturday at 19:04

Bletchleyite said:
350s are probably just a modern day version of the 309?) doesn't seem that outlandish.

They aren’t, a modern day 309 would probably be an electric 158 or a 444. The 350s are just outer suburban trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Saturday at 19:10 ==

Perhaps the 309s wouldn’t have been used as far as Grantham and instead just worked the almost 100 miles to Peterborough and maybe to Cambridge if that was involved in the plan.

Magdalia · Saturday at 19:28

Transilien said:
Perhaps the 309s wouldn’t have been used as far as Grantham and instead just worked the almost 100 miles to Peterborough and maybe to Cambridge if that was involved in the plan.

Peterborough is 76 miles from Kings Cross, Grantham is 105 miles.

In 1960 Grantham was a more important ECML calling point than Peterborough.

One thing that hasn't changed is the challenge of serving Newark and Retford. That would have been one of the uses of Clacton type EMUs.

Cambridge was not involved in the plan, the GN suburban electrification would have ended at Letchworth.

Revaulx · Saturday at 20:30

Thanks for all the replies. Most enlightening 8-)

The GN electrification saga is a fascinating one, with so many false dawns.

Bletchleyite · 2026-10-18T16:02:37+0100

Transilien said:
They aren’t, a modern day 309 would probably be an electric 158 or a 444. The 350s are just outer suburban trains.

Do I detect a whiff of door position prejudice there? The 350 and 444 interiors are basically the same.

Bevan Price · 2026-10-18T21:56:22+0100

In the 1950s/1960s on the WCML, the concept of all trains having identical fixed formations did not seem to exist. Some of the busier trains could be as much as 14, 15 or 16 coaches, and less busy trains would be shorter. Also, there was a lot of relatively "young" hauled coaching stock - BR Mark 1, and even some LMSR designs were little more than 10 years old. Moreover, at that time, it was not planned to electrify north of Weaver Junction, so emus would not be ideal for many services...

AM9 · 2026-10-18T22:04:11+0100

TonyW590 said:
Down South we had the exact opposite. It was VERY rare to see a 304 south of Rugby. In all the hours and years I spent spotting and then photographing on the south end of the WCML i saw just one.

When the 312s were introduced there was an article in one of the mags asking why the new trains were geared for 90mph when the 309s were already running at 100mph. The article explained that their acceleration of 1.1mph/s^2 sat well between the MK1 outer suburban stock's 1.4 mph/s^2 and the 309s 0.8mph/s^2 making them ideal for intermediate services. Having read this thread about the 309's performance limitations when stopping too often, the 312's gearing now makes sense.
Please not, the actual acceleration figures given are what I can remember from the article so there may be inaccuracies, but I'm sure that the reasoning it gave was as I've stated.

boiledbeans2 · 2026-10-19T03:14:47+0100

Helvellyn said:
It's an interesting what-if because the 309s were (for the time) an InterCity style EMU with six first class compartments in each four-car, plus Griddle car facilities in some units.

The 4-CEPs/4-BEPs were equivalent (albeit older) for Kent, and the BEPs had better catering with small kitchens.

Bournemouth Line electrification saw the REPs with converted Restaurant Buffets giving a decent catering facility as well. Along with the TCs interiors were refurbished to the late Mk 1 style, albeit retaining tungsten lighting. The fact they got new seats/panelling but not fluorescent lighting and early Mk 2 seating given they were concurrently being built just seemed odd.

Also concurrent with the REPs/TCs/VEPs for the Bournemouth line were the Class 310s for Southern WCML services. This is where, for me, we could have had a fascinating what if - a REP/309 version of a 310 for medium distance InterCity services, that is Euston-Birmingham-Wolverhampton.

No mention of the plastic pigs? :'(

The Class 442s were essentially an EMU version of the Mk3 coaches.

Class 309: East Coast v West Coast

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member