OLE 25kv on WCML

[Merle Haggard]

Quite, though it's not all that long ago in relative terms that 390s were hauled by diesels to Holyhead, sort of continuing the old traditions

Indeed, I had forgotten that - also dragged Pendo diversions via the S&C. And I've just remembered that I caught a Sunday afternoon Birmingham - Euston train during the WCML work that was hauled by a 47 (or 57?) to Nuneaton and an electric loco forward.
So they did try, just let themselves down with 221s!

 

[hexagon789]

Indeed, I had forgotten that - also dragged Pendo diversions via the S&C. And I've just remembered that I caught a Sunday afternoon Birmingham - Euston train during the WCML work that was hauled by a 47 (or 57?) to Nuneaton and an electric loco forward.
So they did try, just let themselves down with 221s!

The fact that the ones designated for Euston-North Wales were only 4-car originally is the bit I find particularly difficult to reconcile. Fair enough if the frequency increased but I don't believe it did at first and certainly it wasn't a huge increase when it did happen.

At least a 9-car 390 has a reasonable level of capacity.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I know the Midland Pullman went that way of course and was supposed to be the fastest timing (not sure if that was ever or simply at that point in time), but weren't many services still running on the WCML during the electrification works simply they were slowed down by various p'way slacks and consequent extensions to journey time with recovery margins for engineering?

Manchester services went via the Midland (service doubled from 2-hourly to hourly).
Birmingham/Wolverhampton services went via High Wycombe (a similar doubling).
Other services (which included then-normal trains to places like Workington/Perth/Colne/Birkenhead) ran sort-of normally, but subject to diversions.
Stoke had one train a day (Euston-Stockport).
I suppose there might have been about 4tph long distance out of Euston on average, plus sleepers/postal/parcels at night.
Some trains ended up at St Pancras (via Nuneaton/Wigston), Marylebone (via Calvert) or even Kensington Olympia at times, particularly sleepers.

Unlike the more recent WCRM, there was no attempt to keep weekday trains to a normal or decent schedule.
You would randomly be sent via Northampton, Bescot, or slow line all the way, any day of the week.
I think the resignalling phase was worse than the wiring, with cycles of detonators/stop for pilot/crawl through the area with hand signalling/drop pilot/speed up again.
And all behind lumbering class 40s with 13+ on, rarely exceeding 75mph before the next bout of disruption.
Steam was still around too, you might get a Duchess on some services.
I think there were something like 45 minutes of recovery time in the schedules south of Crewe.
This was for the period 1961-66, with things speeding up a bit when the wires reached Nuneaton.
Places like Stoke and Coventry had almost a decade without decent services to/from London.

Once the electrification was complete, the hammers fell on the diversion routes which had done so much to keep services going.
It spelt the end for the GW through the West Midlands, the Midland via Matlock, and the whole of the GC route beyond Aylesbury.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The fact that the ones designated for Euston-North Wales were only 4-car originally is the bit I find particularly difficult to reconcile. Fair enough if the frequency increased but I don't believe it did at first and certainly it wasn't a huge increase when it did happen.
At least a 9-car 390 has a reasonable level of capacity.

I don't think the 4-car 221 Voyagers ever worked Euston-Holyhead, as by the time they arrived they were put on XC services (which included Birmingham-Manchester).
The service prior to 5-car 221s was 3tpd (HSTs, sometimes Mk3s with 47s from Crewe at weekends).
When the first 125mph timetable started with Voyagers (2004) they went to 5tpd, with one of them a 390/57 combo, later I think a second combo kicked in.
For VHF (2008) they went to the current 6tpd to Bangor/Holyhead with all-221s, and hourly south of Chester (with one Wrexham extension).
There has also always been a single 221 working Birmingham-Holyhead and return, which gets the stock to/from Central Rivers for maintenance.
I think it's 4tpd which end up at Euston as double sets, having joined up at Chester or Crewe en route.
Only one double set works to Holyhead, the 0910 from Euston and the 1358 back (in normal times).
It remains to be seen if the AT300s ordered by Avanti will improve services over the 221s - my guess is they will be slower on the WCML.

 

[Revaulx]

I know the Midland Pullman went that way of course and was supposed to be the fastest timing (not sure if that was ever or simply at that point in time), but weren't many services still running on the WCML during the electrification works simply they were slowed down by various p'way slacks and consequent extensions to journey time with recovery margins for engineering?

Yes I think they were. The St Pancras ones were generally faster and much less likely to encounter disruption though.

Also Euston was a building site. From what I can remember, the platforms were complete (and every bit as nasty as they are today) by the time the full electric service was running from Manchester. The concourse came a couple of years later; unlike today, it was actually nice when new.

EDIT: see @LNW-GW Joint's fabulously informative #31 above.

 

[hexagon789]

I don't think the 4-car 221 Voyagers ever worked Euston-Holyhead, as by the time they arrived they were put on XC services (which included Birmingham-Manchester).
The service prior to 5-car 221s was 3tpd (HSTs, sometimes Mk3s with 47s from Crewe at weekends).
When the first 125mph timetable started with Voyagers (2004) they went to 5tpd, with one of them a 390/57 combo, later I think a second combo kicked in.
For VHF (2008) they went to the current 6tpd to Bangor/Holyhead with all-221s, and hourly south of Chester (with one Wrexham extension).
There has also always been a single 221 working Birmingham-Holyhead and return, which gets the stock to/from Central Rivers for maintenance.
I think it's 4tpd which end up at Euston as double sets, having joined up at Chester or Crewe en route.
Only one double set works to Holyhead, the 0910 from Euston and the 1358 back (in normal times).
It remains to be seen if the AT300s ordered by Avanti will improve services over the 221s - my guess is they will be slower on the WCML.

Were the 4-car actually planned for the Holyheads then if they never operated them?

That's what I meant that the increase was only to 5tpd from 3

 

[hexagon789]

Yes I think they were. The St Pancras ones were generally faster and much less likely to encounter disruption though.

Faster than ever or simply faster than the WCML services?

I've no doubt of the latter for the reasons I mentioned myself above but I have come across more than one allusion to the Midland Pullman timing being the faster Manchester-London timing ever which I'm not sure of.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Were the 4-car actually planned for the Holyheads then if they never operated them?
That's what I meant that the increase was only to 5tpd from 3

When the Virgin order for Voyagers went in, the last 4x221 (tilting) units were intended to work Euston-Holyhead (announced by Chris Green at the time).
By the time they were delivered (I think they were the last of the build), Virgin had changed its mind and realised 4 sets wouldn't work for 5tpd.
So they swapped the 4-car for 5-car 221s, and decided to run a couple of 390s with loco haulage on key trains - an expensive business.
I think the key driver was peak capacity into Euston as well as number of units.
The 5-car capacity west of Chester is perfectly adequate for the demand, except for seasonal peaks.
The 10-car Holyhead working is a luxury really (and keeps a double unit going almost all day), and is essentially the last remnant of the Irish Mail service connecting with the ferries.

 

[Revaulx]

Faster than ever or simply faster than the WCML services?

I've no doubt of the latter for the reasons I mentioned myself above but I have come across more than one allusion to the Midland Pullman timing being the faster Manchester-London timing ever which I'm not sure of.

Before the electrification works the Euston route was definitely the quicker.

Timetable World has the LMR 1962-63 timetable, i.e. well into the electrification works. The Mancunian, the only remaining named train to Manchester out of Euston, left at 1805 and arrived at Piccadilly 2148: 3h 43m. The Midland Pullman left St Pancras at 1810 and arrived at Central 2120: 3hr 10m.

 

[Ianno87]

When the Virgin order for Voyagers went in, the last 4x221 (tilting) units were intended to work Euston-Holyhead (announced by Chris Green at the time).
By the time they were delivered (I think they were the last of the build), Virgin had changed its mind and realised 4 sets wouldn't work for 5tpd.
So they swapped the 4-car for 5-car 221s, and decided to run a couple of 390s with loco haulage on key trains - an expensive business.
I think the key driver was peak capacity into Euston as well as number of units.
The 5-car capacity west of Chester is perfectly adequate for the demand, except for seasonal peaks.
The 10-car Holyhead working is a luxury really (and keeps a double unit going almost all day), and is essentially the last remnant of the Irish Mail service connecting with the ferries.

The 10 car Holyhead working is almost certainly a case of not having any other particurly productive activity that the unit could be used for, so it may as well jaunt to Holyhead and back (neatly filling the interpeak period). On certain days the extra capacity does make the 'Irish Mail' a bit of a pleasantly loaded train (and saves the faff of people joining the wrong portion at Euston as used to be the case when it split at Chester)

 

[hexagon789]

Before the electrification works the Euston route was definitely the quicker.

Timetable World has the LMR 1962-63 timetable, i.e. well into the electrification works. The Mancunian, the only remaining named train to Manchester out of Euston, left at 1805 and arrived at Piccadilly 2148: 3h 43m. The Midland Pullman left St Pancras at 1810 and arrived at Central 2120: 3hr 10m.

And I think it became slightly faster than that the Midland Pullman but it still doesn't answer whether there was anything faster before, but I appreciate your looking up some timings anyway thanks

 

[QueensCurve]

I'm not too well-versed on OLE, but wonder why it seemed to differ across the WCML . Is it mark 1 south of Crewe/Manchester and Birmingham loop/Grand Junction? Mark 3 Preston-Glasgow? Was this price or what was being manufactured at a certain time?

South of Liverpool and Manchester it was wired between 1959 and 1966 taking in the mainline from Euston to Weaver Junction. This British Rail publication covered it in 1966.

BR had intended to keep the teams working by continuing to Glasgow immediately following this. The Government of the day didn't authorise it and it didn't proceed until 1970. During this time, if I understand correctly, the resignalling of Preston and Carlisle went ahead and so the costs of those schemes dropped out of the route modernisation. Meanwhile BR redesigned the OHLE with a view to reducing costs and making the wiring faster.
Some people say the Mk3 wires were "cheap and nasty". They were cheap and cheerful. Mk2 was the system used for the Glasgow to GourockWemyss Bay scheme from the late 1960s.

Preston was reached by electric trains from October 1973 and Electric all the Way by May 1974. It had been BR's intention to keep the teams working again on Manchester to Blackpool but, as we know, that took another 35y to be authorised.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Once the electrification was complete, the hammers fell on the diversion routes which had done so much to keep services going.
It spelt the end for the GW through the West Midlands, the Midland via Matlock, and the whole of the GC route beyond Aylesbury.

As I understand it the routes were kept open that long specifically to provide cover during the electrification. Once done, the intention was to concentrate all services on the newly-modernised route. The diesel Pullman services were provided, also, to maintain business users for the duration. I travelled over the Peak District route in its last year when I went on holiday at age 7 to Millers Dale Youth Hostel with my Dad. The following year, making the same journey, we had to travel to Buxton (via Manchester, over the Woodhead route) and cycle to Millers Dale - the station had closed earlier that month.

The use of Loco+390 on the Holyhead route was apparently plagued by problems in coupling at Crewe. This not only led to Voyagers being used instead, but on one occasion the delay raised the ire of a Government minister on board who decided traction changes were unacceptable, directly leading to the current fashion for bi-modes (i.e carrying both traction units around with you all the time, with all the maintenance and dead weight that involves). A shame, when even without autocouplers the 33/TC/REP switchovers at Bournemouth had operated so smoothly for twenty years.

 

[McRhu]

MK2 OLE seems to have been concurrent with the original incarnation of MK3, but much less successful. It wasn't well thought of at Shields Depot. Funnily enough, to my eye at least, it has some similarity to the SM1 equipment that replaced it on much of the route. Mk3a/b is very elegant. Undoubtedly it has its faults and some of its novelties didn't fare too well. The hydraulic tensioners seemed to disappear fairly rapidly and the sintered bearings in the tensioning pulley wheels suffered from 'stiction'. Having said that MK3 had a long innings and it remains to be seen whether the high initial cost of Series 1 and 2 will indeed pay for itself in terms of lower lifetime maintenance. Maybe SiCat will be the new Series 3?

 

[59CosG95]

MK2 OLE seems to have been concurrent with the original incarnation of MK3, but much less successful. It wasn't well thought of at Shields Depot. Funnily enough, to my eye at least, it has some similarity to the SM1 equipment that replaced it on much of the route. Mk3a/b is very elegant. Undoubtedly it has its faults and some of its novelties didn't fare too well. The hydraulic tensioners seemed to disappear fairly rapidly and the sintered bearings in the tensioning pulley wheels suffered from 'stiction'. Having said that MK3 had a long innings and it remains to be seen whether the high initial cost of Series 1 and 2 will indeed pay for itself in terms of lower lifetime maintenance. Maybe SiCat will be the new Series 3?

Most of Series 1 and 2, plus various parts of Mark 3, UK1 and the WC Auto-Transformer range, have been joined by SICAT in the UK Master Series Range - the new standard going forward.

 

[McRhu]

It seems (to me anyway) that the Master Series is simply a conglomeration of existing designs. Is there a new de facto design on the horizon that does away with all the worst of previous systems, incorporates the best, and is unique in itself?

 

[Bedpan]

The StP - Manchester services were to an extent to relieve the WCML (there were also services from Paddington, for Birmingham and Liverpool) but there was also an element of replacing the GC line ones. It's hard to imagine now, leaving Piccadily (London Rd then!) for London calling at ... Sheffield.

I didn't know they also ran some services from Piccadilly via Sheffield back then. I had assumed that they all via Matlock and Bakewell. St Pancras was of course revived as a destination for Manchester in more recent years (2003 - 2004) as Project Rio during the WCML upgrade.

 

[edwin_m]

It seems (to me anyway) that the Master Series is simply a conglomeration of existing designs. Is there a new de facto design on the horizon that does away with all the worst of previous systems, incorporates the best, and is unique in itself?

It does seem rather odd. Series 1 and 2 were developed by F&F especially for NR and were claimed at the time to be the answer for everywhere. IPR of BR designs is a complex area but generally the descendants of the relevant design offices can use them without paying royalties, and it's possible NR allows others to do so licence-free. But SICAT is a Siemens product and the Master Series is more a database of available and NR-approved components rather than a single set of compatible equipment. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, as it allowed Siemens to deploy their existing range which their people were familiar with and which may have some advantages over the NR/F&F designs. It might also allow other suppliers to add their equipment to the Master Series in future, so there is more scope for innovation in choice of components. One thing they do seem fairly strict on is limiting the diversity of OLE types in a particular area, which makes sense in terms of staff training and spares holdings.

 

[hwl]

It does seem rather odd. Series 1 and 2 were developed by F&F especially for NR and were claimed at the time to be the answer for everywhere. IPR of BR designs is a complex area but generally the descendants of the relevant design offices can use them without paying royalties, and it's possible NR allows others to do so licence-free. But SICAT is a Siemens product and the Master Series is more a database of available and NR-approved components rather than a single set of compatible equipment. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, as it allowed Siemens to deploy their existing range which their people were familiar with and which may have some advantages over the NR/F&F designs. It might also allow other suppliers to add their equipment to the Master Series in future, so there is more scope for innovation in choice of components. One thing they do seem fairly strict on is limiting the diversity of OLE types in a particular area, which makes sense in terms of staff training and spares holdings.

Some Bonomi equipment in Series 2 (cheaper than F+F especially for lower speeds). F+F also never developed a full set of components for all circumstances.

 

[Domh245]

F&F only developed Series 1. Series 2 is primarily Bonomi but uses some F&F components.

I think it's safe to say that what we've seen on MML and Bromsgrove is what we'd likely see on other electrification schemes, UKMS primarily using series 2 (Bonomi) components with other bits used as necessary where the Bonomi components can't be made to work

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

HS2 will probably be using something different again, for its high speed requirement.
In Spain I was surprised to see OHLE on brand new 320km/h LAV lines equipped with pulleys and weights.
With green metalwork...

 

[Domh245]

ISTR it'll use the SNCF LGV system, as already used on HS1 and the french LGVs

 

[nlogax]

ISTR it'll use the SNCF LGV system, as already used on HS1 and the french LGVs

Yep, confirmed back in autumn of 2017.

Back to UK OLE, does Master Series includes references for 'what works with what'? I get Bonomi is cheaper / better for lower speeds and there's mention above of F&F components working with Bonomi cantilevers in recent projects but where does Sicat fit in? Are there additional (line speed, physical, geometrical, technical) use cases for where one variation would work better over another or is it related to cost of a given 'flavour' of component set at procurement time?

 

[McRhu]

I find this very interesting and it's wonderful to talk with people whose finger is on the pulse: thank you. As an outsider I have this completely unreasonable vision of a grand unification theory of everything OLE, and this marvellously elegant yet invincible design that copes with anything and everything. Instead the whole OLE thing seems to be getting more fragmented and complex. It's almost enough to make me yearn for the days of MK1.

 

[nlogax]

I find this very interesting and it's wonderful to talk with people whose finger is on the pulse: thank you. As an outsider I have this completely unreasonable vision of a grand unification theory of everything OLE, and this marvellously elegant yet invincible design that copes with anything and everything. Instead the whole OLE thing seems to be getting more fragmented and complex. It's almost enough to make me yearn for the days of MK1.

Exactly how I feel. Tbh the boxes on steel wheels that use OLE infrastructure don't fascinate me anywhere near as much as the OLE itself!

 

[Ianno87]

I've always thought that the subtle Mk3 OLE masts strung across the Cumbrian Fells have such a strange, elegant beauty in that setting.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've always thought that the subtle Mk3 OLE masts strung across the Cumbrian Fells have such a strange, elegant beauty in that setting.

For me it’s the symmetry and order of Mk3 headspans on straight 4 track sections of the MML / ECML as they march off into the distance.

 

[McRhu]

Engineers, manufacturers and OLE designers take note of the above 3 posts. We are a force to be reckoned with! OLE can be beautiful and I agree with the MK3 sentiments. My 'thing' was the way the register arm supporting cantilever sloped to accommodate push on/ pull off (something lost in MK 3b). Daft as it may seem I can vividly remember the first time I saw MK3 (at the junction of the G&SW with the WCML in 1973) and it was a vision of true beauty and symmetry; all silver steelwork, gleaming brown insulators and copper wire: an endless procession of graceful sculpture almost designed to be beautiful. Magical!

 

[59CosG95]

Engineers, manufacturers and OLE designers take note of the above 3 posts. We are a force to be reckoned with! OLE can be beautiful and I agree with the MK3 sentiments. My 'thing' was the way the register arm supporting cantilever sloped to accommodate push on/ pull off (something lost in MK 3b). Daft as it may seem I can vividly remember the first time I saw MK3 (at the junction of the G&SW with the WCML in 1973) and it was a vision of true beauty and symmetry; all silver steelwork, gleaming brown insulators and copper wire: an endless procession of graceful sculpture almost designed to be beautiful. Magical!

Similar to this, perhaps?
The arrangement on this push-off cantilever was upgraded to have the two extra struts (pointing toward the train) as part of UK1, along with the addition of polymeric (silicone) insulators. This eliminated the use of nose droppers; a 'clamping' arrangement for the pull-offs was also used to eliminate windstay droppers as part of UK1.

(The new insulators were introduced as they were lighter, and also didn't have the same shatter risk when dropped; an operative lost an eye after one shattered during maintenance a number of years back.)

 

[McRhu]

Thanks very much for that 59cosG95. I appreciate your reply. What I was thinking of was the way the horizontal cantilever on MK3a assemblies wasn't actually horizontal. For pull offs it sloped upwards as it left the down cantilever and for push offs it sloped downwards. It just looked so dynamic. Mk3b reverted to truly horizontal cantilevers. The UK1 upgrade you show is very similar to the Mk3 ECML design where the deep register arms were slung from the horizontal cantilever. On those they used something like a strap, from the apex of the register arm to the cantilever, to damp the sway. I haven't seen this on UK1. Is this the clamping arrangement you're referring to?