Early Electrics (or ‘a non-standard, experimental or unique historic electrification questions thread’)

[generalnerd]

Hello, I am interested in the early years of British electrification. One question that I have been dying to ask is why was the bury line electrified with a strange side contact third rail, and why wasn’t standard third rail wasn’t chosen.

This thread could also be used to discuss other electrification like the woodhead line and the largely electric southern network, as they are very interesting.

 

[Sun Chariot]

The side-contact design was intended to avoid conductivity problems in icy conditions (ice typically forms on the top of conventional top-contact third rail) and reduce operational interference.

The 1200v DC - introduced by the Lancs and Yorks Railway circa 1916 - resulted in operational resilience but the higher (than Southern) voltage necessitated the third rail top to be protected from electrocution risk.

 

[generalnerd]

The side-contact electrical design was intended to avoid conductivt problems in icy conditions (ice forms on the tops of conventional top-contact third rail) and reduce interference.
The 1200v DC - introduced by the Lancs and Yorks Railway circa 1916 - resulted in operational resilience but the higher (than Southern) voltage necessitated the third rail top to be protected from electrocution risk.

Ah thank you.

Was the line (to those who use it in its final BR days) a frequent line or an hourly service. I’ve heard of it being compared aesthetically to the NYC subway but did it have a frequency vaguely like a subway?

 

[AM9]

Hello, I am interested in the early years of British electrification. One question that I have been dying to ask is why was the bury line electrified with a strange side contact third rail, and why wasn’t standard third rail wasn’t chosen.

This thread could also be used to discuss other electrification like the woodhead line and the largely electric southern network, as they are very interesting.

The Manchester to Sheffield electrification was not non-standard by any measure, - it was the national standard to use 1500VDC OLE from the start, as were the GE Liverpool St/Fenchurch St - Shenfield and the Manchester- Altrincham. The latter was completed in 1931, the former two interrupted by WW2 and completed in 1953 & 1949 respectively. 1500VDC was used somewhat earlier than that in both France and the Netherlands.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Ah thank you.

Was the line (to those who use it in its final BR days) a frequent line or an hourly service. I’ve heard of it being compared aesthetically to the NYC subway but did it have a frequency vaguely

I used the Manchester Bury line sporadically during 1989 and 1990. I can't find an online copy of the 1989 / 1990 timetable but, from my memory, I think it varied between 3 and 4 trains per hour on weekdays. I didn't use it Sundays.
I have a few photos of the 504s lined up in the snow at Bury shed, a couple of weeks after that route was converted over to trams.

Having used NYC subway between Manhattan Midtown and Jamaica Centre (past Queens), I think the Manchester Bury line and stock were far superior!

 

[hexagon789]

Was the line (to those who use it in its final BR days) a frequent line or an hourly service. I’ve heard of it being compared aesthetically to the NYC subway but did it have a frequency vaguely like a subway?

Originally yes, latterly no.

It was up to every 10 mins until the mid-60s, then reduced to every 15 peak/every 30 off-peak.

By the end the peak frequency had been reduced to every 20 and off-peak trains were usually just a single two-car unit.

 

[Taunton]

Previous thread on this question, and various suggested answers, here:

Manchester-Bury: Unique Electrification System

For the uninitiated, as Kent Walton was wont to say, this line had a unique (to BR) 1200 volt DC third rail system where the pickup shoes contacted the side of the rail. So, how did it end up with this “oddity”?

www.railforums.co.uk

One must bear in mind that just a few years previously the L&Y had done quite an extensive conventional third rail scheme from Liverpool to Southport and Ormskirk, and even found it convenient to interchange with another third rail system, the Liverpool Overhead, so going for a different system seems to show some dissatisfaction with that approach.

Whether a reduction in substations, reduction of current leakage (double the voltage = half the current), or some safety issue, I don't know. What I am aware of is the stated lack of icing on the side contact compared to top contact seems unlikely, given the daily early morning ice scraping, in the last week or so, of the vertical sides of the side windows of my car!

 

[Sun Chariot]

... the stated lack of icing on the side contact compared to top contact seems unlikely, given the daily early morning ice scraping, in the last week or so, of the vertical sides of the side windows of my car!

When I was using the line, in its final two years, the third rail had a wooden "plank" over the top of the rail. Aside from the safety benefits, it seemed to ward off tbe worst of the East Lancashire weather. I visited Bury shed - highly unofficially - in early 1991 and the snow & ice was noticeably absent ftom the third rails there

 

[generalnerd]

Originally yes, latterly no.

It was up to every 10 mins until the mid-60s, then reduced to every 15 peak/every 30 off-peak.

By the end the peak frequency had been reduced to every 20 and off-peak trains were usually just a single two-car unit.

Ah thank you. It seems like an interesting little line, and (like the woodhead line) seemed to get cut off or forgotten about because of its odd electrification (at least this one had a happy ending )

 

[mike57]

I am also interested in the history of electrification. Out of all the possible ways of delivering power for rail traction three main systems were in UK use and competing in the period from the 1890s up to grouping.

Third rail (and 4 rail), at voltages in the 600v DC range. Adopted by many early systems, including LSWR, Liverpool Overhead, Tyneside electric (NER), LNWR Watford DC lines, Metropolitan Railway, and the L&Y around Liverpool and all London deep level underground lines, as well as a few others.

~6kV AC 25Hz OHL, pioneered by the LBSCR in South London from 1909 and the Midland Railway with their Lancaster – Heysham project which went live in 1908. The low frequency came about because series wound motors will work on AC, but 50Hz is not viable for constructing motors in the 100's HP range. There is quite a bit of information on the LBSCR system available in the Electric Railway Journal in the 1909 -1911 period. The LBSCR saw this system as a precursor to main line electrification to Brighton and beyond, but WW1 intervened and then grouping meant that the LSWR third rail system became the SR standard. I am not sure what the Midland longer term plans were.

The one which people tend to forget is the Shildon – Newport electrification completed right at the start of WW1, using 1500v DC OHL. Vincent Raven and the NER saw this as the test bed for ECML electrification in the NER area, and even went as far as constructing an express locomotive, No 13, later numbered EE1, just after WW1 which never actually ran as intended as grouping and the post WW1 financial situation stopped the plans for further electrification in the former NER territory. The 1500v DC system later became the standard, prior to 25kV 50Hz being practical, but apart from Woodhead, Manchester-Altrincham and Liverpool St Shenfield never really became established

Then there are the outliers:

1200v DC Bury Manchester by the L&Y and a short lived 3.5kV DC OHL test system from Bury to Holcombe Brook. The 1200v DC side contact is interesting, obviously less susceptible to ice and snow, and the higher voltage equates to lower losses. All other things being equal (same conductor rails and cables) for a given supplied power losses at 1200v are roughly a third of those at 630-650v. Did the LY see it as a possible longer distance system, over the Pennines. I believe 1200v was the highest voltage the BoT of the day would allow at ground level. It also used well proven technology.

I think the 3.5kV DC test bed came about because Dick Kerr & Co. in Preston were developing this system for export. Were the L&Y also considering this system for further 'main line' electrification.

Another outlier is of course Volks Railway in Brighton, starting off at 50v DC at opening in 1883, and then increasing to 160v DC a couple of years later when rebuilt.

Third rail really was the main system in the period from WW1 to WW2, it was simple to install, the technology was well understood. 1500V DC never really got going, by the time main line electrification was funded 25kV 50Hz AC was feasible and the better solution.

Interestingly the one major rail company which never dabbled in electrification was the GWR, I know there were plans for 3kV DC OHL in the SW, but these never really got beyond plans.

I think the most interesting what if is Vincent Raven, had he become CME of the LNER I suspect the electrification of the ECML would have happened, and the history of that line would be very different.

There were other systems tried overseas, various 3 phase configurations, with two overhead conductors and using the running rail as the 3rd phase. Otherwise up to the developments in 25kV 50Hz technology just about everywhere used either 3rd rail DC, DC OHL in the 1kV to 3kV range or low frequency high voltage OHL. Each system has advantages and disadvantages, but it needs to be born in mind that before the advent of power electronics there were a lot more compromises to be made when selecting a system.

 

[Harpo]

There are some interesting outliers on tram systems too such as London’s conduit or various uses of the dangerous stud contact system (the live studs didn’t always drop back reliably.)

 

[contrex]

Dick Kerr & Co. in Preston

I am likewise an electric traction enthusiast. It was years before I gathered that there wasn't anyone called 'Dick Kerr', and that the company name was officially, in writing, 'Dick, Kerr & Co' (i.e. with a comma after 'Dick', WB Dick's surname; John Kerr came later).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2025 ==

There are some interesting outliers on tram systems too such as London’s conduit or various uses of the dangerous stud contact system (the live studs didn’t always drop back reliably.)

There is the old story, which may not be true (!) of the old lady who collared a London tram inspector at the start of electric running, and pointed to the rail visible in the conduit at her feet. 'Will I get electrified if I slip and my foot goes on that?'. He replied 'No, madam, not unless your other foot is touching that wire up there'.

 

[Harpo]

There is the old story, which may not be true (!) of the old lady who collared a London tram inspector at the start of electric running, and pointed to the rail visible in the conduit at her feet. 'Will I get electrified if I slip and my foot goes on that?'. He replied 'No, madam, not unless your other foot is touching that wire up there'.

Certain NE London MOMs liked to reply to the BTP asking if the power (OHLE) was off with, ‘No but unless any of you are 13 feet tall including your helmet, you’ll be fine.’

 

[generalnerd]

What is the stud system? I’ve never heard of it

 

[Taunton]

~6kV AC 25Hz OHL, pioneered by the LBSCR in South London from 1909 and the Midland Railway with their Lancaster – Heysham project which went live in 1908. The low frequency came about because series wound motors will work on AC, but 50Hz is not viable for constructing motors in the 100's HP range.

This became an outlier, with a frequency different to the public supply standard of 50Hz (60Hz in USA etc) because it required the railway to have its own power generators and distribution system, as indeed was the case in Germany, Switzerland, etc, with their 16.6Hz systems. Only in recent times have power electronics reached the state where they can convert frequencies straightforwardly, and by this time locomotive motors had moved on as well.

 

[mike57]

This became an outlier, with a frequency different to the public supply standard of 50Hz (60Hz in USA etc) because it required the railway to have its own power generators and distribution system

The other issue is transformer weights, and as required powers increase this becomes more of an issue. Had things been different would the LBSCR have persisted with 6kV 25Hz OHL? we will never know but I suspect in a different universe the system could have been converted to 1500v DC at some point in the future. I dont think it would have lasted until 50Hz OHL became feasible.

 

[AM9]

This became an outlier, with a frequency different to the public supply standard of 50Hz (60Hz in USA etc) because it required the railway to have its own power generators and distribution system, as indeed was the case in Germany, Switzerland, etc, with their 16.6Hz systems. Only in recent times have power electronics reached the state where they can convert frequencies straightforwardly, and by this time locomotive motors had moved on as well.

The system when introduced was actually at a (nominal) frequency of 16 2/3 Hz which was exactly 1/3 of the national ac power frequenc, ostensibly simplifying the use of rotary converters driven by 50Hz motors. It was however creating issues of overheating (and probably ovality in some of the moving components as the maximum currents were always at the same angular points in each cycle). So in 1995, with the flexibility of power electronics, the frequency was moved to 16.7Hz in Swizerland, Austria and much of Gernamy, breaking sychrony with the national grids of those countries. The other areas of synchronous 16 2/3 hz ((rest of Germany, Norway and Sweden) are presumably replacing any troublesome converters with electronic sets which are agnostic as to the frequency as long as it is within their designed band.

 

[Taunton]

What is the stud system? I’ve never heard of it

The power supply cable was under the track with a series of "studs" a few feet apart, up to the road surface, with a strong North magnet in them. A South magnet under the tramcar front pulled the stud up a few inches and it then contacted the supply cable, becoming live. Skates under the centre of the car contacted this and drew power. A North magnet at the rear of the car repelled the stud back down again and it was no longer live, and flush with the road surface again. The skates typically contacted two studs at a time.

All glorious 1900 technology, with a range of ways to go wrong. Some people, and horses, were shocked/electrocuted, and it was rapidly given up. London tried a length along Mile End Road, which would have otherwise been conduit but the District Line tunnel was immediately beneath the road and there wasn't enough room.

A modern reincarnation called APS has now arrived with power supply plates between the rails, and electronic switching on/off of the current to them as the tram passes over, installed in Bordeaux. Only in France ...

One of the issues with all these under-road systems is considerable cost and disruption when any maintenance, or fault fixing, is required. With overhead tram wire a tower wagon, a crew who know what they are doing, half an hour and you're good to go.

 

[AM9]

The other issue is transformer weights, and as required powers increase this becomes more of an issue. Had things been different would the LBSCR have persisted with 6kV 25Hz OHL? we will never know but I suspect in a different universe the system could have been converted to 1500v DC at some point in the future. I dont think it would have lasted until 50Hz OHL became feasible.

The transformer weight issue would have been less than those in use on 16 2/3 Hz system's, so had the LSBC and the SE&CR joined forces and agreed on a common voltage at 25Hz, the history of SR electrification might have progressed along a totally different path, particularly when electric services were commissioned along the main lines, outside the London metropolitan area. In that scenario, we could now be travelling on far more capable mainline services to the coast under OLE!

 

[Helvellyn]

I find it interesting that BR didn't replace the 1200V system in the late 1950s/early 1960s and instead bought dedicated 504 units (basically dc Class 304s, albeit two car, built at Wolverton). Would it have been easy to convert to 750V top contact third rail?

 

[edwin_m]

There is the old story, which may not be true (!) of the old lady who collared a London tram inspector at the start of electric running, and pointed to the rail visible in the conduit at her feet. 'Will I get electrified if I slip and my foot goes on that?'. He replied 'No, madam, not unless your other foot is touching that wire up there'.

I believe that quote actually referred to the "conventional" wire system with no conduit, and the question was about touching the running rail. On the conduit system there is no wire (except at changeover points) and the conduit contains both positive and negative rails.

 

[Taunton]

On the conduit system there is no wire (except at changeover points) and the conduit contains both positive and negative rails.

Surely, like the normal overhead wire approach, the return current from the conduit is through the rails, so only a positive is needed.

Except, in London, at a point which I can see looking out of the window here, where inner London had conduit and outer London had conventional overhead wire. Where the routes were withing a couple of miles of the Greenwich Observatory, a wired section, the scientists there insisted on an insulated return, not through the ground, to avoid upsetting their instruments. So sections of double wire were installed, like a trolleybus, and the cars, which had to be dedicated to these sections, were fitted with two trolley poles and a changeover switch for which way the return current was to go.

This was all a considerable nuisance of course at the start and end of each such section, and fortunately (unknown to the observatory staff) the tracks were laid in the same way as others. Some staff managed to "forget" to make the changeover, while the more mischievous put the second pole up but didn't throw the switch. Eventually the observatory found it didn't matter after all, and the second wire was given up.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

When I was using the line, in its final two years, the third rail had a wooden "plank" over the top of the rail. Aside from the safety benefits, it seemed to ward off tbe worst of the East Lancashire weather. I visited Bury shed - highly unofficially - in early 1991 and the snow & ice was noticeably absent ftom the third rails there

I visited it in 1972ish? and they stored quite a few of the early electrics there. Latterly class 81-85

 

[Taunton]

I visited it in 1972ish? and they stored quite a few of the early electrics there. Latterly lass 81-85

The troublesome ones, Class 82 and 84, were surplus and stored there. When the electrification was extended to Glasgow, opened 1974, these locos were taken out of Bury shed and overhauled, instead of building more new ones.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The troublesome ones, Class 82 and 84, were surplus and stored there. When the electrification was extended to Glasgow, opened 1974, these locos were taken out of Bury shed and overhauled, instead of building more new ones.

I remember it well. I lived in my parents' house 3.9 miles north of Preston on the WCML. Saw the end of steam, diesel introduction , double-header 400ers as we called them or class 50s later. Then witnessed the line being electrified, introduction of class 87s etc. But the good bit is, I did get to see and clear all my class 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85s.

I am still a total fan of electrification to this day.

 

[Revaulx]

I am also interested in the history of electrification. Out of all the possible ways of delivering power for rail traction three main systems were in UK use and competing in the period from the 1890s up to grouping.

Third rail (and 4 rail), at voltages in the 600v DC range. Adopted by many early systems, including LSWR, Liverpool Overhead, Tyneside electric (NER), LNWR Watford DC lines, Metropolitan Railway, and the L&Y around Liverpool and all London deep level underground lines, as well as a few others.

~6kV AC 25Hz OHL, pioneered by the LBSCR in South London from 1909 and the Midland Railway with their Lancaster – Heysham project which went live in 1908. The low frequency came about because series wound motors will work on AC, but 50Hz is not viable for constructing motors in the 100's HP range. There is quite a bit of information on the LBSCR system available in the Electric Railway Journal in the 1909 -1911 period. The LBSCR saw this system as a precursor to main line electrification to Brighton and beyond, but WW1 intervened and then grouping meant that the LSWR third rail system became the SR standard. I am not sure what the Midland longer term plans were.

The one which people tend to forget is the Shildon – Newport electrification completed right at the start of WW1, using 1500v DC OHL. Vincent Raven and the NER saw this as the test bed for ECML electrification in the NER area, and even went as far as constructing an express locomotive, No 13, later numbered EE1, just after WW1 which never actually ran as intended as grouping and the post WW1 financial situation stopped the plans for further electrification in the former NER territory. The 1500v DC system later became the standard, prior to 25kV 50Hz being practical, but apart from Woodhead, Manchester-Altrincham and Liverpool St Shenfield never really became established

Then there are the outliers:

1200v DC Bury Manchester by the L&Y and a short lived 3.5kV DC OHL test system from Bury to Holcombe Brook. The 1200v DC side contact is interesting, obviously less susceptible to ice and snow, and the higher voltage equates to lower losses. All other things being equal (same conductor rails and cables) for a given supplied power losses at 1200v are roughly a third of those at 630-650v. Did the LY see it as a possible longer distance system, over the Pennines. I believe 1200v was the highest voltage the BoT of the day would allow at ground level. It also used well proven technology.

I think the 3.5kV DC test bed came about because Dick Kerr & Co. in Preston were developing this system for export. Were the L&Y also considering this system for further 'main line’ electrification?

North of Liverpool is flat and has a mild coastal climate.

North of Manchester is hilly and has (had) a harsh Pennine climate.

Might the Bury system have been chosen on account of its greater oomph, as well as its ice-resistance?

I don’t think the L&Y were at any time considering main line electrification, but there were definitely plans to extend the 1200v Bury system onto the Oldham loop and possibly further.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I remember it well. I lived in my parents' house 3.9 miles north of Preston on the WCML. Saw the end of steam, diesel introduction , double-header 400ers or class 50s later. Then witnessed the line being electrified, introduction of class 872 etc. But the good bit is, I did get to see and clear all my class 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85s.

I am still a total fan of electrification to this day.

I was a few years later. The southern WCML was electrified when AC electrics, APT and pairs of 25s passed my school windows.
The ECML was still devoid of OHLE when I started my Rail Rovers; my Newcastle photos, regrettably, I took only from platform ends - not from the vantage point atop the keep.

 

[ThirteenArches]

1200dc was possibly chosen for Manchester=- Bury because it allowed a single feeder to be used, from the dedicated power station at Clifton Junction. Twice the voltage, half the current, half the resistive losses for the same cross- section. The wires went over the Clifton viaduct (MY Thirteen Arches) on gantries, which made me do a double- take when I saw the Aerofilms aerial photos of the area. I ran to the history books to find out when the Clifton to Radcliffe line was overhead electric - it never was.

 

[AM9]

Twice the voltage, half the current, half the resistive losses for the same cross- section

Surely a quarter of the losses for the same conductor rail, (I^2xR).

 

[generalnerd]

I visited it in 1972ish? and they stored quite a few of the early electrics there. Latterly class 81-85

Id assume that’s because they might have had spare room, as I don’t believe those early electrics were third rail side contact