Class 309: East Coast v West Coast

[Revaulx]

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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]

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]

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]

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: Yesterday at 12:55 ==

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]

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]

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]

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]

And introduced a fleet of, er, EMUs?

140 125mph capable emus though

 

[norbitonflyer]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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.