Electrification if the Railways never got privatised

[YourMum666]

Which routes would have been done by BR if they never got privatised in the mid 90s?

 

[A0wen]

Which routes would have been done by BR if they never got privatised in the mid 90s?

Not much I suspect.

By the time of privatisation the HSTs were mid life, which rules out the Midland Mainline or GW Mainline. Chiltern had new DMUs so not that. The West of England mainline had got new Class 159s so not that.

Maybe Uckfield to replace the DEMUs. Possibly Reading / Oxford as a follow on to Heathrow but only for suburban services, in the same way the GN and Midland mainlines had only been for suburban originally.

 

[Brubulus]

Which routes would have been done by BR if they never got privatised in the mid 90s?

NSE would have done Uckfield and North Downs. GW would have been done as far as Reading or Oxford/Newbury/Bedwyn (budget dependent), but the branches would have been most likely done in addition.
Some of the short Anglia branches would probably have got done (Sudbury/Felixstowe). However this is all funding dependent.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

NSE would have done Uckfield and North Downs. GW would have been done as far as Reading or Oxford/Newbury/Bedwyn (budget dependent), but the branches would have been most likely done in addition.
Some of the short Anglia branches would probably have got done (Sudbury/Felixstowe). However this is all funding dependent.

North Downs was deffo in progress. I remember a former NSE manager that was always on the comment section of London Reconections articles said that NSE got as far as identifying sites for substations. Think it was meant to have been completed by 1995. Great poster - shame he dropped off the site.

To answer the OP's question, I saw a document once which suggested either the Midland or GW would have been done. Midland would have made sense as that would have allowed discarded WCML stock to be used. Assuming of course Intercity 250 happened in this universe.

 

[RailWonderer]

Electrification was halted in the early 1990s recession. This forum tends to buy into this myth that BR would’ve improved everything had privatisation never happened. It was always dependant on the DfT and the treasury approving funding.

However I will admit BR and it’s sector heads may have been better at lobbying govt for electrification than private TOCs separately who were not there to do that (and Network Rail as a separate body) so it is possible we may have seen some more electrification.

I think this will be one of the benefits of GBR.

 

[A0wen]

Lots of speculation on here - it would be interesting to hear what @Bald Rick and @ChiefPlanner think might have happened with their knowledge.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I was with ScotRail in the early 1990s. We tried very hard to find a way of wiring Edinburgh to Glasgow as a follow on from the ECML scheme in 1991 but with the recession, prospects were just dire.

 

[YourMum666]

I was with ScotRail in the early 1990s. We tried very hard to find a way of wiring Edinburgh to Glasgow as a follow on from the ECML scheme in 1991 but with the recession, prospects were just dire.

Wasn’t Edinburgh-Glasgow already done with the original ECML?

 

[Kingston Dan]

Wasn’t Edinburgh-Glasgow already done with the original ECML?

Only via Carstairs.

 

[JonathanH]

North Downs was deffo in progress. I remember a former NSE manager that was always on the comment section of London Reconections articles said that NSE got as far as identifying sites for substations. Think it was meant to have been completed by 1995. Great poster - shame he dropped off the site.

North Downs electricification may have been in development but as a subsequent poster has identified, the recession may well have put pay to it, not privatisation.

NSE found the seven turbos needed for the North Downs Line by moving them from the Chiltern line growth build. That was an easy way out of paying for electrification.

The Turbos for Thames and Chiltern were reported to have been designed in part to be rebuilt for electrification later in their lives, although did not have a pantograph well. Once committed to, it isn't clear that electrification of either route was imminent.

 

[Mikey C]

The Turbos for Thames and Chiltern were reported to have been designed in part to be rebuilt for electrification later in their lives, although did not have a pantograph well. Once committed to, it isn't clear that electrification of either route was imminent.

I remember that. Both routes were at the time planned to be part electrified for Crossrail too.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Chris Green in his book 'The NSE Story' (2014) gives the dates for planned electrification:-

1994 -3rd Rail: Ashford / Ore, North Downs (Gaps), Hurst Green / Uckfield. 25kV AC: Gospel Oak / Barking, Bedford / Bletchley, Marks Tey / Sudbury.
1995 -3rd Rail: Reading-Basingstoke-Salisbury.

Scuppered by 1990 recession, then privatisation.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

North Downs electricification may have been in development but as a subsequent poster has identified, the recession may well have put pay to it, not privatisation.

NSE found the seven turbos needed for the North Downs Line by moving them from the Chiltern line growth build. That was an easy way out of paying for electrification.

The Turbos for Thames and Chiltern were reported to have been designed in part to be rebuilt for electrification later in their lives, although did not have a pantograph well. Once committed to, it isn't clear that electrification of either route was imminent.

You'd have to go to the National Archives to find the real deal. I know there are some useful documents there relating to unfinished BR/NSE plans. Was going to make a visit for my "what if" story I was writing at the time on BR not being privatised, but never made it due to the pandemic, and stopped writing. I think ultimately we can blame these things on privatisation. NSE did not expect the recession to last forever and the dissolution of NSE prevented them from restarting these projects when the economy improved in the late 90s.

 

[zwk500]

You'd have to go to the National Archives to find the real deal. I know there are some useful documents there relating to unfinished BR/NSE plans. Was going to make a visit for my "what if" story I was writing at the time on BR not being privatised, but never made it due to the pandemic, and stopped writing. I think ultimately we can blame these things on privatisation. NSE did not expect the recession to last forever and the dissolution of NSE prevented them from restarting these projects when the economy improved in the late 90s.

I think it's not privatisation per se that caused the cancellation, but the way privatisation was carried out, particularly the setup of Railtrack. Had a Network Rail-type organisation been set up from the start then some of those projects may well have survived.
However we should not forget or underestimate just how badly strapped for cash the industry was in the wake of the late 80s/early 90s recession, and the critical role private capital played in sustaining the upturn in the industry that sectorisation had started to see.

 

[JonathanH]

You'd have to go to the National Archives to find the real deal. I know there are some useful documents there relating to unfinished BR/NSE plans.

Yes, and presumably some of those decisions are starting to become visible under the 30 year rule.

The plan for the North Downs, as I understand it, was to use displaced CEP units from the South Eastern division. It would be interesting to know where they would have been maintained, and crewed from, and how start of service at the Reading end would have been resourced. I can't remember when the electrified sidings at Reading became disused.

Was going to make a visit for my "what if" story I was writing at the time on BR not being privatised, but never made it due to the pandemic, and stopped writing.

Yes, there are a lot of 'what if' questions from that time, including the 471 build, which would have taken out CEPs, CIGs and VEPs through the second half of the 1990s.

NSE did not expect the recession to last forever and the dissolution of NSE prevented them from restarting these projects when the economy improved in the late 90s.

Is that strictly true? The franchises for the Southern Region operators simply weren't specified on the basis of this type of growth. The 'innovations' that SWT made, for instance, running from Reading to Brighton via Fareham were relatively low scale. Could another operator have come in with more vision?

James Sherwood, of Sea Containers, questioned the continued operation of the North Downs Line and the Coastway routes in television documentaries at that time, so their operation was at best marginal. Electrification of the North Downs would have had to be at the lowest possible cost to get it past the Treasury even if NSE had developed the plans and privatisation not happened.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes, and presumably some of those decisions are starting to become visible under the 30 year rule.

I had forgotten about that. Will be interesting reads for sure.

 

[yorksrob]

Although there was a recession in the early 90's, I think on balance it's very likely that NSE would have got the third rail infills done (before the anti-third rail mob took over the upper echelons).

CEP's feel like a good match for the North downs line, given it gets a lot of longish distance travellers to Gatwick.

 

[JonathanH]

CEP's feel like a good match for the North downs line, given it gets a lot of longish distance travellers to Gatwick.

I doubt that was a consideration, just what was available. Arguably, using Turbos, with their wide doors, probably made for a better travelling experience.

 

[yorksrob]

I doubt that was a consideration, just what was available. Arguably, using Turbos, with their wide doors, probably made for a better travelling experience.

I'm not saying it wouldn't.

However given they were fitted out for top link boat train services with lots of luggage space, they would have been a good option.