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

[Magdalia]

North sea gas wasn't discovered until 1965 and it wasn't until after the end of steam that production from the North sea exceeded 'town gas'.

You're right, but a degree of switching from coal gas to natural gas was already happening with the import of LNG at Canvey Island. BR would have been able to foresee what was going to happen once gas was discovered on the North Sea.

 

[AHBD]

....

Two class 20s were definitely more money than 1 class 40, but I can't find a class 20 unit price to work out how much. A class 40 was about £100k....

Which leaves my 2nd idea

"2 Would a Bo′Bo′Bo′ arrangement ( like Eurotunnel Class 9 or Class 9000) work to give acceptable axle load, affordably and practically for an early type 5 locomotive (is there a reason they don't seem very common?)" ?

 

[ac6000cw]

Which leaves my 2nd idea

"2 Would a Bo′Bo′Bo′ arrangement ( like Eurotunnel Class 9 or Class 9000) work to give acceptable axle load, affordably and practically for an early type 5 locomotive (is there a reason they don't seem very common?)" ?

Problem with Bo'Bo'Bo is that you lose the space between the two bogies on a Co-Co where the fuel tank (and water tank in the 1950s) normally go. Powerful diesel locos are generally very weight and space constrained - the space above the frames is normally pretty much filled with diesel engine, generator/alternator, cooling system, motor blowers, compressor, other electrical equipment etc.

It isn't so much of a problem with an electric loco, hence there are some Bo'Bo'Bo designs around (although not many compared to twin bogie designs), mostly used where negotiating lots of tight curves is an issue - the Swiss Re620 is a good example of that, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBB-CFF-FFS_Re_620

Also 3 x two-axle bogies is almost certainly more expensive and probably heavier than 2 x three-axle bogies, per loco.

 

[AHBD]

Oh well. Thanks for the answer.

 

[devon_belle]

I would have focused on electrification from 1955 as quickly as possible, providing 3rd rail for most of the Southern Region and OHLE on main lines on other regions. Where technology wasn't ready/suitable, diesels ordered but the rush wouldn't be to abolish steam prematurely. However, operating costs would have to be reduced where possible while steam was being eradicated.

Additionally, I would abolish the common carrier policy and probably invest in road transport (at least then road traffic profits would go to BR and therefore could support the railway). Close most goods facilities at stations and rely on road-distribution from rail hubs. This would allow rationalisation of trackwork and signalling, although refuge sidings and loops at stations would be priorities for operational flexibility.

I would have started the closure of unprofitable lines, either saving the land or converting to busways. I'd employ some better (read: less biased) metrics for evaluating performance of railway lines. Re-evaluate timetables on basket cases to take advantage of seasonal traffic and commuting/school flows. Where there were lesser-used stations on main lines, I would aim to provide railbus services and provide infrastructure to run these and reduce the number of long(er) distance stopping services. If the station was totally pointless, i.e. miles away from it's town, I would permit closure.

Just spitballing some ideas, go easy on me

 

[Clarence Yard]

You are not far off what they actually were saying in the modernisation report - you have it almost spot on in fact.

The freight side was the weakest part of the report - moving to hubs was mooted but they took an age to do it and seemed fixated on trying to do what they had always done, just a bit more efficiently. Freight was a big money earner for rail so when it went into steep decline, the economics of rail went rapidly south from an already poor position and the BTC (and Government) panicked.

If they had kept to the electrification plan in the modernisation report and slow played the huge capital expenditure on diesels (including shunters) to the gradual introduction as first envisaged, they might have been in a better situation but too much management time was spent on the woes of the passenger business and the future of individual lines compared to the real elephant in the room, the decline of the freight business.

 

[devon_belle]

You are not far off what they actually were saying in the modernisation report - you have it almost spot on in fact.

I'm embarrassed as a steam enthusiast to say that I've not read the report - so good to hear I'm thinking the same way as them (or bad? Depends if you blame the report for its own failure or simply its execution...)!

but too much management time was spent on the woes of the passenger business and the future of individual lines compared to the real elephant in the room, the decline of the freight business.

That seems to be the crux of it from my view. They simply did not handle the changing role of the railway sensibly.