I think this would also describe the situation at Shettleston, which was the location quoted, which when I used it in the 1970s looked like the overhead had never been touched since 1960 installation (and 1950s design), and the track layout was as it had been from long before then.
At lease a couple of those still survive today such as Hartford LNW Jct towards the CLC one and at Sandbach towards Northwich (the long-closed Lawton Branch was also electrified for a distance from Sandbach). I doubt that they've ever seen an electric train. The Shrewsbury line from Crewe was (and still is) electrified for its first 1.5 miles which I think was to allow electric trains access to Gresty Lane yard but goodness knows if it was ever used.
Didn’t a load of them end up at Ardmore?
They did indeed during the 1960-61 exploding transformer hiatus.
The 'Type B' versions of the AC electrics geared for 80mph were intended to meet a specification for ECML freight work.
The better posters on that site have excruciatingly detailed historical references that would put many railway enthusiasts to shame. NOMISSYRUC is one of them, and is normally very good at clearly identifying what's fact and what's fiction.
There was early consideration of what became the Transpennine units working Liverpool & Manchester to Birmingham. This was abandoned as electric units were planned for the route.
The Glasgow Corporation had some very ambitious plans around this time to electrify basically the entire suburban railway network, including construction of new stations to serve new housing developments and the construction of a new Glasgow North station on the Buchanan Street, with diversion of the E&G main line before Cowlairs Tunnel. Queen Street station would have become a bus station, alongside the Anderston bus station.
The Trans Pennine DMUs (class 124) were the nearest things to the AM9s at the time, (indeed one of the class 124 buffet cars ended up in a 309/2 formation). Performance wise though the 100mph performance of the AM9s was never going to be used on TP routes even if it was electrified. It was originallly designed for ECML services from Kings Cross to York where 100 mph was actually essential on a 100mph 2-track railway - like the GEML..
I'd argue that the Inter-Citys (Class 123) were a little closer, but of course they're all iterations on the same basic theme.
Maybe, - I've never travelled on the 123s or 124s, but I do know that they were hopelessly underpowered, struggling to get to their maximum speed of 75mph on any track steeper than level. The AM9s with up to 3.3MW per 12-car consist did at least meet 100mph IC needs.
The maximum speed of the 123s and 124s was actually 70 mph....so even worse! They were however very comfortable....especially the 123s, which had B4 bogies. I wouldn't exactly call them underpowered, with four power cars - two of them non-driving - in a six car unit.
As is usual, - and particularly in the early days of DMUs, the power stated peak power was the peak power hard limit meaning that there was no accommodation for long periods of maximum speed unlike EMYs that have healthy 1hr ratings above the stated continuous rating. Also, topping out at 70mph meant that their acceleration beyond say, 50mph would be 'sluggish'.
IIRC, it was for changing locos on Morecambe-bound excursions from the South - which were still quite common in the early 'seventies. The waiting diesel loco would stable in one of the bay platforms until the train arrived in platform 3; then the electric loco would hook-off and shunt to the other bay, followed by the diesel - usually a 40 or 47 - shunting out and coupling onto the train. In the reverse direction, the electric loco would wait in platform 5 (or possibly 6....can't remember whether that was wired at 25 Kv after the dismantling of the 6.6 Kv equipment) then, when the train arrived from Morecambe, a similar loco-swapping manoeuvre would occur. That was the theory....but in practice, I believe that the loco swaps were usually done at Preston, where there was a lot more room track and platform-wise.
Can you advise what these 'Type B' versions were? Not a term I've seen before in this context. How did the ECML freight specification differ materially from the WCML, especially in terms of King's Cross Leeds/York? The core WCML spec for freight was a notional 950-ton freight between Willesden and Longsight at a maximum of 55mph or a lighter, fully-fitted, freight at a maximum of 60mph. Obviously this pre-dated modern heavy axleloads, 75mph container trains and so on.
which is why two AL1s and three AL3s ended up, after conversion to standard, numbered out of sequence as E3096 to E3100
Essentially, they had a different gear ratio to the normal 'Type A' versions, with a lower maximum speed
A fair point - but what (then and now) is put in the public arena is often the overall summary - which will basically be 'of the aspiration/vision nature', while the details aren't really revealed.
The Type A was to be capable of handling the 950 ton mineral train you mention, or a 475 ton passenger train at 90 mph. The Type B was to be geared down to 80 mph and capable of hauling a 1,250 ton mineral train at 55 mph.
1250mph, wow that's some sparks effect!
Imagine the crater left when the coal falls out of a 12-ton wagon at that speed!1250mph, wow that's some sparks effect!
Thanks for this link, but it seems to go to the 25-page 1956 'System of electrification' report (of which I have an original copy). Is there another document, with at least 70 pages, that you were trying to reference?
I think it's the 1960 electrification conference report (far more than 70pp) - link from the same page (along with other electrification reports)
Does anyone know why the South Electrics scheme was ever mooted as going as far as Uplawmoor? It was (and still is) a modest village. It had two stations on competing lines - the financial bane of various axes from Glasgow in the nationalised era.
