• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

1980s fleet plans for Waterloo to Exeter

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
Taken from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...3rd-rail-electrification.205175/#post-4664361

It's a shame that the mid-1980s Network South East original plan to extend 3rd rail to Weymouth, substituting 4-CIG stock, and transferring the REP+TC arrangement to an electrified service through to Salisbury (or 4-CIG for what terminated there), with the 33s taking one set on to Exeter, was never seen through. Apparently it was a quite close decision.

I've never heard of that one but it sounds intriguing and perhaps similar to the concept of taking 444s off the Portsmouth line and running them to Weymouth with a backfill of 450s.

You suggest that CIGs would have gone on an electrified route to Weymouth and the REPs would have run to Salisbury propelling TC stock. At what point was this? (As an aside, did CIGs (rather than VEPs) work to Bournemouth in the REP+TC era?)

Would there have been enough CIGs for this? What would have backfilled them and where from? Wouldn't REP+TC stock have been a downgrade from the Mark 2A/2B stock on the Exeter line? I thought that one of the things which saw off the REPs was asbestos insulation. Wouldn't CIGs to Weymouth have been a (slight) downgrade on the REP+TC formations?

I remember reading a Modern Railways article about options for the line when the 50+Mk2 stock started to become a real problem but that must have been later - eg half HSTs, 159s, Networker derived units but that must have been after Solent Link and Wessex Electrics were already approved.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
I recall that the half HST sets were discounted pretty early on. They would cause major problems if one failed on the long single track sections. I have never seen a serious proposal for electrics to Salisbury. It's always been a diesel replacement.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
(As an aside, did CIGs (rather than VEPs) work to Bournemouth in the REP+TC era?)
They did at the start of electrification, especially when there were still summer Saturday extras on the route, but didn't seem to later on, when if an REP was not available a VEP would substitute (and keep time - there's a past note from me somewhere here of one doing so).
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
I recall that the half HST sets were discounted pretty early on. They would cause major problems if one failed on the long single track sections. I have never seen a serious proposal for electrics to Salisbury. It's always been a diesel replacement.
There was never any realistic prospect of HSTs being made available for Waterloo-Exeter back then. NSE may have dreamt about it, but there wasn't a cat in hell's chance of InterCity letting go of any of its premier fleet.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
There was never any realistic prospect of HSTs being made available for Waterloo-Exeter back then. NSE may have dreamt about it, but there wasn't a cat in hell's chance of InterCity letting go of any of its premier fleet.
I agree. I came across an old Modern Railways from 1987/88 and it was the intention to build a Networker DMU with beefed up engines. Recession came along and it never happened of course.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
I agree. I came across an old Modern Railways from 1987/88 and it was the intention to build a Networker DMU with beefed up engines. Recession came along and it never happened of course.
Something in my memory says Class 171?

It was that recession that saw Chris Green come up with the cunning wheeze of nicking the last batch of Regional Railways 158s, which had the side effect of leaving RR with loco haulage in places.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
I had the article in my hand a few weeks ago but class 171 sounds right. I think they may have been 4 or 5 car units also.

If I remember, the 159 deal was that NSE would extend its Thames & Chiltern services further out to cover RR services and in exchange RR would give NSE the last 22 3-car 158 sets. I think RR also paid for 2 x 166 also.
 

Romsey

Member
Joined
30 Nov 2019
Messages
334
Location
Near bridge 200
Something in my memory says Class 171?

It was that recession that saw Chris Green come up with the cunning wheeze of nicking the last batch of Regional Railways 158s, which had the side effect of leaving RR with loco haulage in places.

Having worked in South Western Special traffic from 1987 these are the exact ideas which were investigated and then followed.
The background aims were to remove loco workings from Waterloo to ease platform workings, accelerate the service and to replace the mark 2 stock which was falling apart. ( At the end they were held together by the NSE vinyls and habit.) It also removed NSE rolling stock servicing from Eastleigh Depot would save ecs mileage.
Once the idea of diesel multiple units was agreed, further economies were identified like shortening formations west of Salisbury and writing the stock workings to make maximum use of the new depot at Salisbury with minimum outstabling overnight.
The West of England line has blossomed since 1993 and with the increased allocation, Salisbury based 158 and 159 units cover a much wider range of routes.

As severe thread drift, one of the ideas on privatisation was a Wessex DMU franchise based on Salisbury based on the WOE and taking over Bristol - Portsmouth and Swindon - Westbury - Weymouth.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
They did at the start of electrification, especially when there were still summer Saturday extras on the route, but didn't seem to later on, when if an REP was not available a VEP would substitute (and keep time - there's a past note from me somewhere here of one doing so).

I'm sure I read somewhere that VEPs were fractionally more powerful than CIGs, so the acceleration may have been better.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
The issue with the WofE line was it was always Salisbury and east (especially Basingstoke) that gave much of the passenger load and governed the size of the trains, while the severe gradients that taxed them were on the western end of the route. The use of diesel locos into Waterloo was an operating inconvenience, and wasteful. The REP approach from Salisbury was felt to address all this. Since the 1980s the usage west of Salisbury has notably picked up, but it was quite thin at that time.

I believe the plan was thwarted once the state of the Bournemouth stock was realised, ostensibly built 1967 but a lot had been conversions of 1950s hauled stock that was end of life, as were the 33/1 locos.
 

delt1c

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2008
Messages
2,125
Something in my memory says Class 171?

It was that recession that saw Chris Green come up with the cunning wheeze of nicking the last batch of Regional Railways 158s, which had the side effect of leaving RR with loco haulage in places.
Sorry but NSE didn’t nick the last 158’s. RR decided late on during construction that they had over ordered 158’s. NSE stepped in and took them for the Exeter service.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,995
Was there ever any consideration of the REP+TC solution being used for the West of England Line in the 1960s or 1970s? It would have been interesting if the route had been electrified to Salisbury as an extension of the Bournemouth Line scheme in the mid-1960s because you could have had VEPs operating stopping services to Salisbury and REP+TC on the through workings (with the REP replaced by a 33/1 at Salisbury). Portsmouth-Bristol services might have gone over to 33/1+TC operation a lot sooner.

Something in my memory says Class 171?

It was that recession that saw Chris Green come up with the cunning wheeze of nicking the last batch of Regional Railways 158s, which had the side effect of leaving RR with loco haulage in places.
I had the article in my hand a few weeks ago but class 171 sounds right. I think they may have been 4 or 5 car units also.

If I remember, the 159 deal was that NSE would extend its Thames & Chiltern services further out to cover RR services and in exchange RR would give NSE the last 22 3-car 158 sets. I think RR also paid for 2 x 166 also.
The 158s were not nicked as such. The early 1990s recession saw Regional Railways believing it had too many 158s on order, so with a rejigging of allocations it was figured out that 66 vehicles could be declared 'surplus', which NSE snapped up to use on the WoE route. As mentioned, NSE agreed to order an additional two Class 166 units to take over Cotswold Line services from RR.

If I recall, I think the 400hp Class 158s were intended to be based at Canton with the higher powered engines being for use on the Marches Line. Only ten (158863-158872) were delivered, with the majority of Canton's 158s being Perkins engined examples. I further believe these would have all gone to Crown Point, with the 1587xx Cummins powered units that ended up at Crown Point having been in turn intended for TransPennine/North Wales services
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
Was there ever any consideration of the REP+TC solution being used for the West of England Line in the 1960s or 1970s? It would have been interesting if the route had been electrified to Salisbury as an extension of the Bournemouth Line scheme in the mid-1960s because you could have had VEPs operating stopping services to Salisbury and REP+TC on the through workings (with the REP replaced by a 33/1 at Salisbury). Portsmouth-Bristol services might have gone over to 33/1+TC operation a lot sooner.



The 158s were not nicked as such. The early 1990s recession saw Regional Railways believing it had too many 158s on order, so with a rejigging of allocations it was figured out that 66 vehicles could be declared 'surplus', which NSE snapped up to use on the WoE route. As mentioned, NSE agreed to order an additional two Class 166 units to take over Cotswold Line services from RR.

If I recall, I think the 400hp Class 158s were intended to be based at Canton with the higher powered engines being for use on the Marches Line. Only ten (158863-158872) were delivered, with the majority of Canton's 158s being Perkins engined examples. I further believe these would have all gone to Crown Point, with the 1587xx Cummins powered units that ended up at Crown Point having been in turn intended for TransPennine/North Wales services

Looking over the fence (from Freight at the time) , it was noticeable that NSE were forced into doing something re the West of England - as apart from challenging performance / traction lssues (at a time of hard won revenue increases) , - the costs of the varied 33 / 47 / 50 fleets was well on the increase. A 50 was twice as expensive as an "average" 47. (about £150k per annum compared to £75k - and that for maintenance only !) - 50's though had the edge on speed. Well covered by John Heaton's enjoyable memoirs as to his time as Area Manager , Exeter.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
Have a recollection of some idea to convert some 50s to push-pull operation for this route, obviously came to nothing.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
There was never any realistic prospect of HSTs being made available for Waterloo-Exeter back then. NSE may have dreamt about it, but there wasn't a cat in hell's chance of InterCity letting go of any of its premier fleet.
From what I've heard in the past, this embryonic proposal was for new build sets, not nicking existing ones from IC. The main difference being that the two middle trailers would be something akin to the 442 driving trailers, coupled nose-to-nose to allow splitting.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,079
According to "Modern Railways" article back in the late 1970s / early 1980s there was a quite complex long-term cascade plan for the HST fleet, part of which was 4+1 half sets for Waterloo-Exeter (joining / splitting at Salisbury). The plan was for electrification of ECML/MML/GW/NE-SW in order to gradually release these from IC for other use. Two things stopped this - sectorisation, and the banning of cross-subsidy preventing economies from electrification of one line paying for work on the next. The planned electrification never happened, so the cascade never happened.
 
Last edited:

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,461
The 158s were not nicked as such. The early 1990s recession saw Regional Railways believing it had too many 158s on order, so with a rejigging of allocations it was figured out that 66 vehicles could be declared 'surplus', which NSE snapped up to use on the WoE route. As mentioned, NSE agreed to order an additional two Class 166 units to take over Cotswold Line services from RR.

Correct. The BR Railplan (the 5 year plan that BR did every year) cutbacks from the 1990 iterations onwards not only saw the end of the 171, but also cutting back of the proposed 165/1 and 166 fleet. The RR wheeze on 166220/1 saved the 166 order being pegged at 57 vehicles (19 units) - it was going to be 72 up to a relatively late stage. Incidentally, the 171 units were intended to be maintained at OO, as part of a swap round of IC/NSE work between OO (the HST shed) and LA.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,995
Correct. The BR Railplan (the 5 year plan that BR did every year) cutbacks from the 1990 iterations onwards not only saw the end of the 171, but also cutting back of the proposed 165/1 and 166 fleet. The RR wheeze on 166220/1 saved the 166 order being pegged at 57 vehicles (19 units) - it was going to be 72 up to a relatively late stage. Incidentally, the 171 units were intended to be maintained at OO, as part of a swap round of IC/NSE work between OO (the HST shed) and LA.
Don't suppose you know if those plans are online anywhere? Be interesting to see how they developed.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
The RR wheeze on 166220/1 saved the 166 order being pegged at 57 vehicles (19 units) - it was going to be 72 up to a relatively late stage.
What would 24 166s have enabled in terms of Thames line service provision? Half hourly Oxford semi-fasts or just longer trains in the peak? If the delivered order was 19 plus 2 for Cotswold (and Thames managed to divert 3 166s to the North Downs), 24 166s instead of 16 166s would presumably have meant different services. I appreciate that North Downs only happened with the release of 165001-165007 from Chiltern - presumably that simply resulted in some 2-car vice 3-car operation and a few 3-car 165s operating where 166s had been planned.

Maintaining the WoE DMU fleet at Old Oak Common doesn't seem obvious given the way that the SWR operation almost all runs from Salisbury with a few units outstabled at each end and how the 165/166s were based at Reading.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,995
Maintaining the WoE DMU fleet at Old Oak Common doesn't seem obvious given the way that the SWR operation almost all runs from Salisbury with a few units outstabled at each end and how the 165/166s were based at Reading.
As Clarence Yard said though the original plan seems to have revolved around InterCity and NSE swapping maintenance facilities in effect - Laira was home to the WoE Class 50s and Mark 2 fleet, so there was a lot of ECS working between Exeter and Plymouth. If it was done at OO (With InterCity presumably giving up the HST depot buildings) then the ECS workings between Waterloo and Old Oak would have been via the Latchmere Curve to get onto the West London Line, just as the EuroStar sets did to get to North Pole. Much less mileage and I am guessing that units would have moved to/from OO between the peaks. It would probably also have seen some staff working for InterCity at Old Oak move to NSE, with a reverse move down at Plymouth.

Building the new DMU depot and fuelling facilities at Salisbury only came about once the 158 cascade was proposed. I'm not sure what the impact was on staffing levels at Laira once the locos and carriages went, i.e. whether there had to be redundancies? The new depot at Salisbury was similar to the way the Chiltern Turbo fleet got a new depot at Aylesbury, with Marylebone Depot (ME) that had been home to the Class 115s closing.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
I'm not sure what the impact was on staffing levels at Laira once the locos and carriages went, i.e. whether there had to be redundancies?
I may be wrong but wasn't Laira just for the class 50 era with the maintenance switching to Old Oak Common (47s) and Eastleigh (coaching stock) before the locomotive hauled operation ended?
 

Romsey

Member
Joined
30 Nov 2019
Messages
334
Location
Near bridge 200
Overnight fuelling and FTR daily checks were done at Eastleigh for locos on the WoE back to the 1970's. This was in connection with working 2 ECS from Salisbury to Eastleigh and return for cleaning and minor repairs.
Stock which started and finished at Waterloo were cleaned and tanked at Clapham Yard. Locos were known to creep down to Stewarts Lane if low on fuel.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,079
Overnight fuelling and FTR daily checks were done at Eastleigh for locos on the WoE back to the 1970's. This was in connection with working 2 ECS from Salisbury to Eastleigh and return for cleaning and minor repairs.
Stock which started and finished at Waterloo were cleaned and tanked at Clapham Yard. Locos were known to creep down to Stewarts Lane if low on fuel.

The Warships used a refueling point on the north side of the Waterloo approach throat, when did that get taken out?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top