Alternative Railway History - 1984/85 Miners' Strike

[Bevan Price]

The issue with the Woodhead electrification was that it was done for a passenger line, into Manchester Piccadilly, but mostly handled freight, which got no further than Guide Bridge or Mottram before having to change to diesel.

The bigger issue with Woodhead is that is was envisaged as a test-bed for main line electrification on LNER. If it had not been for WW2, Woodhead would have been electrified by about 1941/1942, and in the absence of severe snags, LNER could well have proceeded with electrification of ECML and other main lines. WW2 stopped progress, and with LNER becoming part of BR, all thoughts of an immediate extension of main line electrification were dropped.

 

[Bald Rick]

all thoughts of an immediate extension of main line electrification were dropped.

Apart from London - Shenfield of course.

 

[Irascible]

The bigger issue with Woodhead is that is was envisaged as a test-bed for main line electrification on LNER. If it had not been for WW2, Woodhead would have been electrified by about 1941/1942, and in the absence of severe snags, LNER could well have proceeded with electrification of ECML and other main lines. WW2 stopped progress, and with LNER becoming part of BR, all thoughts of an immediate extension of main line electrification were dropped.

I can just imagine the later howls if they'd actually electrified the whole GCR. If we're alt-historying like that you can also lessen the Great Depression, or at least the effects of it, and start the LNER's efforts off a bit earlier.

Would the miner's strike going the other way really have changed all that much? you could argue that with North Sea oil slightly less immediately attractive that we wouldn't have sold all the rights off in the late 80s & instead ended up with a Norway-esque oil fund, but that's ridiculously speculative even for here. Coal would still have been on it's way out anyway - there may have perhaps been a rather less abrupt transition though ( and a lot of northern areas would have had to find someone else to hate ... ).

 

[Bald Rick]

I feel I should know the answer to this, but when would the coal have run out at the then existing deep mines?

 

[Taunton]

Apart from London - Shenfield of course.

I think that was actually a London Transport initiative of the 1930s. Yes, the LNER did it, but it was associated with the extension eastwards of the Central Line, which like the Shenfield work was started prewar, put on ice, and finished afterwards. It got the Epping etc services out of Liverpool Street and dealt with what had been serious overcrowding of steam suburban services on the main line. The impoverished LNER didn't have the money for it but there was a government loan of some sort involved, which LT pushed through.

 

[Irascible]

I feel I should know the answer to this, but when would the coal have run out at the then existing deep mines?

With something as politicised as this issue, can we really trust anyone's figures? I'm pretty sure the end was in sight economically and physically, but I've no idea when the end would actually have arrived.

 

[Inversnecky]

The bigger issue with Woodhead is that is was envisaged as a test-bed for main line electrification on LNER. If it had not been for WW2, Woodhead would have been electrified by about 1941/1942, and in the absence of severe snags, LNER could well have proceeded with electrification of ECML and other main lines. WW2 stopped progress, and with LNER becoming part of BR, all thoughts of an immediate extension of main line electrification were dropped.

In a book I’m currently reading about the history of electric trains in Britain, there’s discussion of the cost of AC v DC provision: among other things, the greater diameter of contact wire for DC meant that it was at least 25% more expensive than AC, so there really was no future in it.

If Woodhead was not economical enough to keep open with the existing 76s, it wasn’t going to raise sufficient revenue for ‘AC-ification’.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think that was actually a London Transport initiative of the 1930s.

First time I’ve heard that - everything I’ve read says it was an LNER proposal. Agreed about the Govt loan though.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Woodhead was an early candidate for electrification because of the appalling working conditions for steam traction in the original tunnels, and the difficulty of working the steeply- graded freight only Worsborough Incline. It also helped that government grants and cheap loans were available for infrastructure projects to help relieve unemployment in the badly affected areas. The original LNER scheme included the Fallowfield Loop round to Manchester Central, with some of the intermediate stations having their canopies cut back in preparation prior to WW2. Phase 2 was to be the CLC to Liverpool Central in conjunction with the LMS, with whom the LNER had previously teamed up with for the highly successful MSJ & A scheme to Altrincham. BR had to reduce the scope of the scheme when it was revived after WW2 when it became apparent that a new WoodheadTunnel would be required - the old tunnels had badly deteriorated with the heavy war-time traffic. Eventual electrification from Sheffield to London would have been via Retford and the ECML - there were no plans to electrify the GC London Extension!

 

[Taunton]

First time I’ve heard that - everything I’ve read says it was an LNER proposal. Agreed about the Govt loan though.

Leslie Hoare-Belisha, mid-1930s Minister of Transport (and who the Belisha beacons at road pedestrian crossings are named after) was good mates with Frank Pick, head of London Transport. Both were seen as somewhat mavericks by the establishment, but got things done. The 1920s-30s housebuilding in East London had completely overwhelmed the LNER suburban services from Liverpool Street to Shenfield, Epping/Ongar (branching off at Stratford) and Hainault (branching off at Ilford). They got the LNER interested in hiving off the two branches to the Underground and electrifying the main line - as long as the government paid. There was quite some concern in the government at this time about the overall financial position of the LNER, with the other big four companies one of the largest commercial businesses in the country.

 

[furnessvale]

I feel I should know the answer to this, but when would the coal have run out at the then existing deep mines?

I have heard a figure of 300 years worth quoted. Of course, that depends on the rate of burn.

At present, it is best left in the ground until a safe, from the surface, extraction method, together with carbon capture is developed.

 

[Irascible]

I have heard a figure of 300 years worth quoted. Of course, that depends on the rate of burn.

At present, it is best left in the ground until a safe, from the surface, extraction method, together with carbon capture is developed.

Whether it's economically worth extracting is another question. I do seem to remember a lot of pits were nearly worked out - there's obviously coal down thete that's not near a pit ( or what was a pit ). That 300 years begs the question of why British Coal plc never dug it up...

 

[bramling]

Thatcher would have gone sooner and we would have even less railway electrification than now and possibly even no Channel Tunnel thus no HS1 and no future high speed rail at all apart from the Selby diversion.

It’s always interesting to reflect on the fact that quite a few electrification schemes progressed under Thatcher, even if they were a bit pared down to the bone.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think that was actually a London Transport initiative of the 1930s. Yes, the LNER did it, but it was associated with the extension eastwards of the Central Line, which like the Shenfield work was started prewar, put on ice, and finished afterwards. It got the Epping etc services out of Liverpool Street and dealt with what had been serious overcrowding of steam suburban services on the main line. The impoverished LNER didn't have the money for it but there was a government loan of some sort involved, which LT pushed through.

Not quite - the GER planned or considered electrification post WW1 , but did not want to spend the money (they were not exactly well off) , but came up with the most intensive steam service in the world (the Jazz service) - 24 tph with manual signalling - which held the line until further extensive suburban development outwith the Victorian suburbs. Immense pressure.

There were financial loan schemes available - reduction of passenger duty to zero , provided the money was spent on infrastructure / stations etc , - partly to alleviate unemployment. (very Keynsian) - so this patch the LNER pushed for 4 tracking Brentwood to Shenfield , the Ilford flyover and depot and of course electrification. WW2 stopped the lot in the tracks.

The LPTB had different policies and funding streams. Think about it - the Central line extensions , east and west were the Crossrail of the day.

 

[Taunton]

The Jazz, however, was on the other half of Liverpool Street services, the ones from the West Side through Hackney Downs to Enfield and Chingford. The housing development there is older, a lot just pre-WW1.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The Jazz, however, was on the other half of Liverpool Street services, the ones from the West Side through Hackney Downs to Enfield and Chingford. The housing development there is older, a lot just pre-WW1.

Yes - but the Shenfield line was compromised by the massive development of Becontree - which squeezed the LT&S / District line - and by bus feeder traffic towards Goodmayes and Chadwell Heath , also by new development out towards Romford and beyond. Without looking things up - the Shenfield line would have had a timetable revamp at the same time as the NE Jazz.

The point made is that the rigours of Austerity Britain and the dire pressure on resources ended up with Woodhead and the Shenfield (Central Line extension line schemes ) being given top priority at the time to the detriment perhaps of the Northern line plans (also binned in the early days of WW2) - slightly off-topic I know.

 

[xotGD]

I have heard a figure of 300 years worth quoted. Of course, that depends on the rate of burn.

At present, it is best left in the ground until a safe, from the surface, extraction method, together with carbon capture is developed.

Underground coal gasification, sour water-gas-shift, Rectisol or Selexol for acid gas removal (routed to a Claus plant for sulphur production) and CO2 capture. That leaves you with a low carbon, hydrogen-rich fuel gas that can be used for power generation or further purified for other hydrogen uses.

All that coal under the North Sea off the Durham coast could be 'mined' using UCG.

 

[Irascible]

Underground coal gasification, sour water-gas-shift, Rectisol or Selexol for acid gas removal (routed to a Claus plant for sulphur production) and CO2 capture. That leaves you with a low carbon, hydrogen-rich fuel gas that can be used for power generation or further purified for other hydrogen uses.

All that coal under the North Sea off the Durham coast could be 'mined' using UCG.

Was any of that tech viable ( or even thought of ) in the early 80s?

 

[xotGD]

Was any of that tech viable ( or even thought of ) in the early 80s?

UCG wasn't developed then, and nobody cared about applying CCS to anything.

However, as a technology that could be applied today, we could be producing decarbonised energy from indigenous coal rather than from imported natural gas.

 

[MP33]

I am sure that I read that a number of deep coal mines although all trace on the surface has now gone. The workings were mothballed to be brought back into production when required. In 25 years that there has never been a requirement and may never be one in the future.

 

[Taunton]

Deep mining has pretty much gone in the developed world, with a demand reduction and the amount of cheaper opencast on the market from USA, Australia, etc. The UK doesn't have the undeveloped land for opencast, so it was inevitable it would disappear. Deep mining is also much more a "chance" success than opencast; the much vaunted biggest and most modern mine in the UK, Selby, was plagued with operating issues and closed much earlier than anticipated. It lasted less than 20 years.

 

[Bald Rick]

Deep mining has pretty much gone in the developed world, with a demand reduction and the amount of cheaper opencast on the market from USA, Australia, etc. The UK doesn't have the undeveloped land for opencast, so it was inevitable it would disappear. Deep mining is also much more a "chance" success than opencast; the much vaunted biggest and most modern mine in the UK, Selby, was plagued with operating issues and closed much earlier than anticipated. It lasted less than 20 years.

Arguably the best thing to come out of it was 14 miles of new 125mph railway.

 

[MP33]

When the Selby coalfield was being planned I saw a documentary about it. There was film of a train at a level crossing and one of the concerns from local residents was the increased freight keeping level crossings of which there were a fair few closed longer.

There was also film of a public meeting for Coal Miners and the NCB were selling a move to Selby with very generous relocation expenses.

 

[A0wen]

The 82s, 83s and 84s were all becoming (or had become) surplus at that point.

Because they were non standard and not particularly reliable.

Replacing a bunch of life expired non standard locos with a bunch of unreliable, only slightly younger non standard locos wouldn't have made much sense.

 

[Journeyman]

Because they were non standard and not particularly reliable.

Replacing a bunch of life expired non standard locos with a bunch of unreliable, only slightly younger non standard locos wouldn't have made much sense.

Exactly. BR only used them because they had to - prior to the Glasgow electrification, they'd all spent considerable time in store due to significant reliability issues. It should be remembered that all of classes 81 to 85 were essentially prototypes, with the class 86 being the production build.

 

[43096]

Exactly. BR only used them because they had to - prior to the Glasgow electrification, they'd all spent considerable time in store due to significant reliability issues. It should be remembered that all of classes 81 to 85 were essentially prototypes, with the class 86 being the production build.

BR only used them post wiring north of Weaver Junction because they couldn't afford more new 87s (which is what they would have really liked).

 

[Journeyman]

BR only used them post wiring north of Weaver Junction because they couldn't afford more new 87s (which is what they would have really liked).

Yes. They were disposed of, or relegated to Euston ECS duties, as soon as possible. I doubt the operating staff on Woodhead would have appreciated three rather different classes of loco with extremely variable performance.