1955 WCML electrification: what got dropped?

[AM9]

What is 'Chenford'?

 

[Dr Hoo]

What is 'Chenford'?

Chingford, Enfield, Hertford and ‘Stortford

A common portmanteau word like Bakerloo. Sorry.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What is 'Chenford'?

Shorthand for Chingford, Enfield and Bishops Stortford?
Lea Valley in old money.

 

[Magdalia]

Shorthand for Chingford, Enfield and Bishops Stortford?
Lea Valley in old money.

The reason for using Chenford and not using Lea Valley is that the Lea Valley wasn't electrified until 1969.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Aug 2024 ==

Shorthand for Chingford, Enfield and Bishops Stortford?

Yes, though you missed out Hertford.

 

[AM9]

The reason for using Chenford and not using Lea Valley is that the Lea Valley wasn't electrified until 1969.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Aug 2024 ==


Yes, though you missed out Hertford.

OK thanks folks. I thought that it might have been some contraction of Shenfield and Chelmsford which around then was converted from 1500VDC to 25kVac as opposed top 6.25kV like the rest of the original DC lines

 

[Falcon1200]

Might be worth mentioning that work started on Northampton - Blisworth electrification..

One has to wonder what on earth the justification for that work was, given that the two routes between Roade and Rugby already provided operational resilience?! Thankfully sense appears to have been seen at an early stage.

 

[Merle Haggard]

One has to wonder what on earth the justification for that work was, given that the two routes between Roade and Rugby already provided operational resilience?! Thankfully sense appears to have been seen at an early stage.

Although there are indeed two routes between Roade and Rugby considerable coal (and other freight) traffic then came onto the West Coast network at Northampton from the Notts and Derbys coalfield via both the ex M.R. and Joint Line routes. Both routes south from Northampton involve a steep climb to reach the main line, and before electrification the advantage of two routes was to avoid passenger trains being stuck behind struggling mineral ones. I suggest that this was the reason, although the change in situation (apart from the budget) was the decline in coal traffic as a result of smokeless zones in London.
Some resilience at present might be welcome to avoid the very frequent occasions on Sundays when the Northampton's service is by R.R.B..

 

[Beebman]

Might be worth mentioning that work started on Northampton - Blisworth electrification..
I recollect, but not certain, that a bridge was raised (under the Gayton - Milton road).
Definitely the uprights for O.L.E. and also colour light signals showing an aspect..

The Northampton Transport Heritage Facebook Group has a photo looking towards the bridge under the M1 with a couple of masts in place:

 

[Falcon1200]

I suggest that this was the reason, although the change in situation (apart from the budget) was the decline in coal traffic as a result of smokeless zones in London.

That makes sense, thanks. At least they didn't start wiring the other branch from Blisworth!

 

[Transilien]

Was there much dropped in Glasgow? I saw that in one of the electrification reports it has more route miles planned in 1957 then were actually built. Does anyone have any idea on what was dropped there?

 

[The exile]

Depending on whether “carried out” means “up to and including the 1974 scheme” or “ever”, Carstairs to Edinburgh would account for a hefty chunk of those miles.

Was there much dropped in Glasgow? I saw that in one of the electrification reports it has more route miles planned in 1957 then were actually built. Does anyone have any idea on what was dropped ther

 

[D6130]

Was there much dropped in Glasgow? I saw that in one of the electrification reports it has more route miles planned in 1957 then were actually built. Does anyone have any idea on what was dropped there?

ISTR from my teenage years that the first few hundred yards of the Shettleston to Bothwell (and formerly Hamilton Terminus) branch was electrified....although that may have been purely for shunting and/or stabling purposes. Perhaps @Carntyne or @Cheshire Scot may be able to throw some light on that?

 

[Beebman]

ISTR from my teenage years that the first few hundred yards of the Shettleston to Bothwell (and formerly Hamilton Terminus) branch was electrified....although that may have been purely for shunting and/or stabling purposes. Perhaps @Carntyne or @Cheshire Scot may be able to throw some light on that?

In July 1987 I spent 2 days track-bashing the Clydeside electrified network and one of the things I was looking out for was any electrified spurs I wasn't aware of. I can remember a fairly lengthy pair of electrified tracks branching off just east of Shettleston but to my eyes they just looked like stabling sidings in a state of some disuse. I didn't know at the time that they had been part of a branch line.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Was there much dropped in Glasgow? I saw that in one of the electrification reports it has more route miles planned in 1957 then were actually built. Does anyone have any idea on what was dropped there?

That seems to be a shot from an ‘alternative history’. Does it have any genuine historical merit?

 

[eldomtom2]

That seems to be a shot from an ‘alternative history’. Does it have any genuine historical merit?

It is a screenshot from a thread on an alternate history forum, but the post is discussing what happened in the real world:

East Coast Electrics-An Alternative British Railway

Jumping forward several sections...

www.alternatehistory.com

It cites the 33-Year Plan of 1957 and British Railways Engineering 1948-80 by John Johnson as its sources.

 

[Merle Haggard]

One aspect that seemed to get reduced as the original Euston - B'gham - M/cr - L/pool electrification worked South was the electrification of loops and sidings. For instance, on the Down side at Stockport every siding was wired to the buffer stops but by the time Northampton was reached some of the loops were not wired - and one of these (on the Up side) is still down (if not in use). Quite apart from the retention of manual signal boxes and the parsimonious station facilities.

 

[The exile]

One aspect that seemed to get reduced as the original Euston - B'gham - M/cr - L/pool electrification worked South was the electrification of loops and sidings. For instance, on the Down side at Stockport every siding was wired to the buffer stops but by the time Northampton was reached some of the loops were not wired - and one of these (on the Up side) is still down (if not in use). Quite apart from the retention of manual signal boxes and the parsimonious station facilities.

That in itself wouldn’t affect route mileage, though.

 

[d9009alycidon]

ISTR from my teenage years that the first few hundred yards of the Shettleston to Bothwell (and formerly Hamilton Terminus) branch was electrified....although that may have been purely for shunting and/or stabling purposes. Perhaps @Carntyne or @Cheshire Scot may be able to throw some light on that?

Wired purely for stabling stock, in the old timetable there was one train a day that ran ECS to Bothwell Branch Sidings then formed a morning westbound peak service from Shettleston. The branch was one of many locations used to store the EMUs during their period of withdrawal in 1961.

 

[Merle Haggard]

That in itself wouldn’t affect route mileage, though.

Indeed, but I thought that track-miles were being reduced as a sacrifice to preserve route miles.

Above is from the most interesting 304s/310s thread.

What else got dropped?

The above was a reply to a post that included, amongst others, the subject of a proposed Walsall e.m.u. depot. Might be worth pointing out that there was a d.m.u. depot at Walsall (I think, the steam shed rebuilt) and the power cars allocated there carried appropriate shed plates (21E???) on the solebars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2024 ==

The AM10s had a mixture of seating bays with external doors and ones with single windows. I can recollect at the time of their introduction that this was 'because of their dual role as both commuter stock and longer distance'. It was never explained how, for instance, commuting Hemel Hempstead passengers would be forced to only sit in the bays with external doors so that the window bays could be left for Northampton passengers, though...

But this does suggest that specific longer distance e.m.u. stock was never considered - after all, passengers travelling on the AM10s working Euston - Birmingham could well be travelling a longer distance than the end to end distance (to Clacton) on an AM9 and this was considered acceptable.

 

[Transilien]

That seems to be a shot from an ‘alternative history’. Does it have any genuine historical merit?

It seems to be from a 1957 report on electrification and the routes all the routes shown with all the routes shown actually being considered for electrification in real life so I don't think its alternate history. Maybe the 60 miles left out was the Inverclyde Line which wasn't electrified until 1967?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2024 ==

But this does suggest that specific longer distance e.m.u. stock was never considered - after all, passengers travelling on the AM10s working Euston - Birmingham could well be travelling a longer distance than the end to end distance (to Clacton) on an AM9 and this was considered acceptable.

It clearly didn't matter when the 321 was being designed as that unit is really just a short distance suburban train.

 

[Merle Haggard]

/snip

It clearly didn't matter when the 321 was being designed as that unit is really just a short distance suburban train.

Perhaps I haven't been clear - the AM10s were later 310s, designed solely for the opening of electric services from Euston on 'Britain's New Railway'.

There were already a considerable number of 321s in service before any were allocated to Euston services. As you say, just not designed or suitable for the lengthy West Coast journeys they were used on.

 

[Transilien]

As you say, just not designed or suitable for the lengthy West Coast journeys they were used on.

I was meaning that the 321s were both not really suitable for Clacton and West Coast routes and the 309's never had a proper spiritual successor; perhaps an AC 442 would have been more suitable than a 321 for replacements to the 310s and 309s on these routes.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I was meaning that the 321s were both not really suitable for Clacton and West Coast routes and the 309's never had a proper spiritual successor; perhaps an AC 442 would have been more suitable than a 321 for replacements to the 310s and 309s on these routes.

Thanks, I understand now.

 

[AM9]

Perhaps I haven't been clear - the AM10s were later 310s, designed solely for the opening of electric services from Euston on 'Britain's New Railway'.

There were already a considerable number of 321s in service before any were allocated to Euston services. As you say, just not designed or suitable for the lengthy West Coast journeys they were used on.

The 321's were just one of the Mk3 EMUs produced for general outer suburban services on BR. For passengers, functionally similar to the earlier class 317s and the 321's contemporaries the 319s. The choice of internal layout was, (and still is) based on average passenger journey times vs capacity requirements. When the 309's became surplus to requirements there weren't any routes with expected post 'sparks effect' growth, however the London to Chelmsford, Colchester and Clacton route was a good fit given the extensive commuter land development planned and the need to interleave that traffic with the GEML inter-city paths on a two track railway.

 

[Magdalia]

But this does suggest that specific longer distance e.m.u. stock was never considered - after all, passengers travelling on the AM10s working Euston - Birmingham could well be travelling a longer distance than the end to end distance (to Clacton) on an AM9 and this was considered acceptable.

The steam era Euston-Northampton and Liverpool Street-Clacton services were as different as chalk and cheese, and that's why the train provision on electrification was different.

The "Clacton Interval Service", in steam days, was hourly in summer but with a few gaps in winter. Most of the trains conveyed buffet cars and Walton portions. The AM9s replicated what was already being provided with steam and then diesel traction, but with faster journeys and an hourly timetable all through the year.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Was there much dropped in Glasgow? I saw that in one of the electrification reports it has more route miles planned in 1957 then were actually built. Does anyone have any idea on what was dropped there?

Having had the chance to look at this in a bit more detail, I think that there was a lot of fudging and hedging of bets when it came to suburban electrification in Glasgow as mentioned in the 1955 Modernisation Plan. Although the Plan did mention an approximate route mileage of 190 this came with an important footnote:
"The figures quoted for the Glasgow suburban lines are based on the Inglis Report of 1951 on Passenger Transport in Glasgow & District. The adoption, scope and staging of the scheme are dependent upon further study and discussion with the Glasgow Corporation regarding future co-ordiation of road and rail services in the area." I read that as "It's anybody's guess."
Sir Robert Inglis was an ex-railwayman (L&NER) and had chaired BTC's Glasgow & District Transport Committee, established in 1949. This had four other ex-railwaymen on it, one an electrical engineer, and just one 'bus man', from Scottish Omnibuses (also a former railwayman). The BTC had, of course taken over the SMT bus operations in 1949. Glasgow Corporation, which ran buses, trams, the Glasgow Subway and an emerging network of trolleybuses (the electric modes all powered from the Corporations own power station, which had escaped nationalisation) had virtually no involvement.
Surprise, surprise, the Inglis Report was all about railways and in particular electrification. This would extend over a massive 309 miles, extending as far as Ayr and Lennoxtown via Kirkintilloch. Closer to Glasgow it would even include the likes of Renrew Wharf, the Govan Branch, Princes Pier via Kilmacolm, Bothwell and Beith via Lugton! Bizarrely, one of the few routes that wasn't included was the WCML. Motherwell was variously reached via Kirkhill and the Hamilton Circle or what we think of the as the Argyle Line and Bellshill. Amazingly this was estimated at only £13.5 million for the physical work!
The plan was seen to be deliverable in three phases. The first of these was for what we think of as the North Electrics, Cathcart and South Side lines, the Gourock/Wemyss Bay line but a few bells and whistles like the Northern Circle via Maryhill, Govan, Renfrew, East Kilbride, Paisley West and Bothwell.
After publication of the Modernisation Plan the first sections, just part of Inglis' proposals, saw work start in 1957 - basically the North Electrics (Helensburgh/Balloch/Milngavie-Springburn/Airdrie/Bridgton) and South Electrics (Cathcart/Neilston/Kirkhill). Ironically the South Electrics had to extend beyond Kirkhill to Newton and then Motherwell via the WCML through Douglas Park in order to tie in with a second grid feeder station. These bits alone consumed around £13.5 million of the total Modernisation Plan 'Glasgow' budget of only £18 million.
Not for the first time did electrification turn out to be a total financial disaster in terms of running out of money with only a small proportion of initial expectations met. Much more might be said but not really about the WCML. Perhaps a thread of its own one day?

 

[Transilien]

Having had the chance to look at this in a bit more detail, I think that there was a lot of fudging and hedging of bets when it came to suburban electrification in Glasgow as mentioned in the 1955 Modernisation Plan. Although the Plan did mention an approximate route mileage of 190 this came with an important footnote:
"The figures quoted for the Glasgow suburban lines are based on the Inglis Report of 1951 on Passenger Transport in Glasgow & District. The adoption, scope and staging of the scheme are dependent upon further study and discussion with the Glasgow Corporation regarding future co-ordiation of road and rail services in the area." I read that as "It's anybody's guess."
Sir Robert Inglis was an ex-railwayman (L&NER) and had chaired BTC's Glasgow & District Transport Committee, established in 1949. This had four other ex-railwaymen on it, one an electrical engineer, and just one 'bus man', from Scottish Omnibuses (also a former railwayman). The BTC had, of course taken over the SMT bus operations in 1949. Glasgow Corporation, which ran buses, trams, the Glasgow Subway and an emerging network of trolleybuses (the electric modes all powered from the Corporations own power station, which had escaped nationalisation) had virtually no involvement.
Surprise, surprise, the Inglis Report was all about railways and in particular electrification. This would extend over a massive 309 miles, extending as far as Ayr and Lennoxtown via Kirkintilloch. Closer to Glasgow it would even include the likes of Renrew Wharf, the Govan Branch, Princes Pier via Kilmacolm, Bothwell and Beith via Lugton! Bizarrely, one of the few routes that wasn't included was the WCML. Motherwell was variously reached via Kirkhill and the Hamilton Circle or what we think of the as the Argyle Line and Bellshill. Amazingly this was estimated at only £13.5 million for the physical work!
The plan was seen to be deliverable in three phases. The first of these was for what we think of as the North Electrics, Cathcart and South Side lines, the Gourock/Wemyss Bay line but a few bells and whistles like the Northern Circle via Maryhill, Govan, Renfrew, East Kilbride, Paisley West and Bothwell.
After publication of the Modernisation Plan the first sections, just part of Inglis' proposals, saw work start in 1957 - basically the North Electrics (Helensburgh/Balloch/Milngavie-Springburn/Airdrie/Bridgton) and South Electrics (Cathcart/Neilston/Kirkhill). Ironically the South Electrics had to extend beyond Kirkhill to Newton and then Motherwell via the WCML through Douglas Park in order to tie in with a second grid feeder station. These bits alone consumed around £13.5 million of the total Modernisation Plan 'Glasgow' budget of only £18 million.
Not for the first time did electrification turn out to be a total financial disaster in terms of running out of money with only a small proportion of initial expectations met. Much more might be said but not really about the WCML. Perhaps a thread of its own one day?

Wow really interesting! I never knew about the massive electrification scheme proposed in the early ‘50s. A thread on that subject would be really interesting too.

 

[Falcon1200]

Ironically the South Electrics had to extend beyond Kirkhill to Newton and then Motherwell via the WCML through Douglas Park in order to tie in with a second grid feeder station.

That's interesting, thanks. I have always wondered why the only electrified route to Motherwell was the main line - Perhaps the service pattern dictated that as well as the complications of wiring? Of course, the Hamilton Circle and the Bellshill route did later get overheads as part of the WCML north project.

 

[Transilien]

That's interesting, thanks. I have always wondered why the only electrified route to Motherwell was the main line - Perhaps the service pattern dictated that as well as the complications of wiring? Of course, the Hamilton Circle and the Bellshill route did later get overheads as part of the WCML north project.

There used to be a half hourly extension to the Kirkhill branch to Motherwell before electrification in 1974 of the Hamilton Circle. Sometimes during engineering works on the Argyle line they still use that route as a diversionary for Larkhall and Hamilton services.

 

[Taunton]

ISTR from my teenage years that the first few hundred yards of the Shettleston to Bothwell (and formerly Hamilton Terminus) branch was electrified....although that may have been purely for shunting and/or stabling purposes. Perhaps @Carntyne or @Cheshire Scot may be able to throw some light on that?

The original WCML electrification, certainly from Crewe to Liverpool, likewise had these masts and wires for a short distance down various side branches, which I seem to recall was policy of the era for handling possible overruns by electric locos inadvertently signalled down non-electrified turnouts. Third rail systems used to do the same.