Most effort/work spent on a railway project that ultimately never happened?

[w1bbl3]

So 140mph spec on IEP was pointless.

Very roughly the IEP ITT of nearly a decade ago identified that 50% (130miles) of the ECML route kings cross to newcastle (270miles) is potentially suitable for line speed running in-excess of 125mph subject to upgrades, of that the Selby diversion (22miles) and Skelton Jn to near Croft Jn (38miles) are potentially suitable for 155mph running. IIRC only around 40 miles of the route to newcastle is cleared for 125mph that couldn't theoretically be cleared for 140mph running once the other upgrades are made.

Adding 140mph capability to IEP requirement is/was both a low cost benefit and provided future proofing against a requirement then estimated to have a 50% likelihood. Hardly fitting for this thread.

Back to the topic of the thread something like Nightstar and Regional Eurostar that never turned a wheel in passenger service has to be one of the expensive projects that never happened?

 

[najaB]

Very roughly the IEP ITT of nearly a decade ago identified that 50% (130miles) of the ECML route kings cross to newcastle (270miles) is potentially suitable for line speed running in-excess of 125mph subject to upgrades, of that the Selby diversion (22miles) and Skelton Jn to near Croft Jn (38miles) are potentially suitable for 155mph running. IIRC only around 40 miles of the route to newcastle is cleared for 125mph that couldn't theoretically be cleared for 140mph running once the other upgrades are made.

Thanks. That accords what I remember being posted previously.

 

[swt_passenger]

Back to the topic of the thread something like Nightstar and Regional Eurostar that never turned a wheel in passenger service has to be one of the expensive projects that never happened?

It was one of the examples used by the OP, and in a few early replies.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Not something that never happened, but...

I commuted with someone from the LMR CCE involved with the extension from Dock Junction to Faringdon. This was 25kv, for what seemed like sound reasons at the time, but he explained that it involved a great deal of complexity. To achieve electrical clearance through the tunnels the tolerances were very strict and to achieve these it was necessary, for instance, to use slab track (to remove vertical alignment variation) and other expensive solutions.

And then, when the line was extended through Snow Hill, third rail was used. Third rail from Kentish Town would have saved a lot of money - but that's hindsight, I know.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not something that never happened, but...

I commuted with someone from the LMR CCE involved with the extension from Dock Junction to Faringdon. This was 25kv, for what seemed like sound reasons at the time, but he explained that it involved a great deal of complexity. To achieve electrical clearance through the tunnels the tolerances were very strict and to achieve these it was necessary, for instance, to use slab track (to remove vertical alignment variation) and other expensive solutions.

And then, when the line was extended through Snow Hill, third rail was used. Third rail from Kentish Town would have saved a lot of money - but that's hindsight, I know.

We’ve done this before.

There is some slab, but at the time it was electrified there wasn’t that much. A lot has been out in since (during the St Pancras rebuild).

Third rail to Kentish Town would have needed an awful lot of bonding and signalling works at the north end, which would also have been very expensive. The Clerkenwells are wet tunnels, not ideal con rail territory.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Looks like Google maps doesn't have sufficient resolution there to see much, beyond a brightly line alongside the railway which could almost be anything. I'm curious now - will have to see if there's anything visible from Crockenhill Lane next time I'm cycling around there. (I don't have any need to go by train anywhere on that line at the moment - and I'm curious, but not curious enough to make an unnecessary train journey for nothing else )

I believe it is visible! I cycled up Crockenhill Lane today, and took this en route. Not brilliant resolution because my phone doesn't have an optical zoom, but you can definitely see what look like the ends of platforms. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can confirm if this indeed the site of the proposed station?

 

[43096]

We’ve done this before.

There is some slab, but at the time it was electrified there wasn’t that much. A lot has been out in since (during the St Pancras rebuild).

Third rail to Kentish Town would have needed an awful lot of bonding and signalling works at the north end, which would also have been very expensive. The Clerkenwells are wet tunnels, not ideal con rail territory.

And presumably would have needed the 317s to be dual voltage, before Thameslink was thought of?

 

[Steve Harris]

Back to the topic of the thread something like Nightstar and Regional Eurostar that never turned a wheel in passenger service has to be one of the expensive projects that never happened?

Apart from Regional Eurostar's did turn a wheel in passenger service all be it not for the service they were actually built for !

(Used in the UK on London Kings Cross - York and Kings Cross - Leeds services and of course services elsewhere in Europe).

 

[Rail Blues]

New seats, reservation displays and advertising screens (although at least some trains are getting the advertising screens with the digital train mods).

New seats on thirty year old stock that is expected to have the longest life expectancy of the sprinter fleet isn't a waste and seat reservations are probably a handy piece of future proofing. That is probably close to what arriva should have delivered across the rest of the fleet to match their promises to refurbish their existing fleet to 'as new' conditions.

 

[Ianno87]

Apart from Regional Eurostar's did turn a wheel in passenger service all be it not for the service they were actually built for !

(Used in the UK on London Kings Cross - York and Kings Cross - Leeds services and of course services elsewhere in Europe).

Yes, they saw use for a period on some French domestic LGV Nord services.

It was also a North of London set that set the UK Rail speed record on HS1 in 2003.

 

[Bald Rick]

And presumably would have needed the 317s to be dual voltage, before Thameslink was thought of?

Yep

 

[Merle Haggard]

We’ve done this before.

There is some slab, but at the time it was electrified there wasn’t that much. A lot has been out in since (during the St Pancras rebuild).

Third rail to Kentish Town would have needed an awful lot of bonding and signalling works at the north end, which would also have been very expensive. The Clerkenwells are wet tunnels, not ideal con rail territory.

Sorry, didn't realise it was old bones.

My commuting companion certainly sold it as a masterpiece of civil engineering excellence, relying on novel slab track (Mandy Rice-Davies applies...)

 

[swt_passenger]

I believe it is visible! I cycled up Crockenhill Lane today, and took this en route. Not brilliant resolution because my phone doesn't have an optical zoom, but you can definitely see what look like the ends of platforms. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can confirm if this indeed the site of the proposed station?

View attachment 95351

I’d say that’s definitely it based on a comparison of the satellite view, the old maps, the field/hedge pattern and the buildings in the far left background. I think this NLS MAPS side by side comparison probably shows the ramp positions at either end of the unused platforms: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sid....37530&lon=0.19826&layers=170&right=ESRIWorld

 

[Merle Haggard]

Sorry, didn't realise it was old bones.

My commuting companion certainly sold it as a masterpiece of civil engineering excellence, relying on novel slab track (Mandy Rice-Davies applies...)

The above is my response to Bald Rick, which I've over-edited.

And presumably would have needed the 317s to be dual voltage, before Thameslink was thought of?

I thought the electrification to Farringdon was seen as the first stage with the intention to continue through Snow Hill in subsequent stages, rather than an end in itself. Getting investment past Government piecemeal seen as best chance.

 

[43096]

I thought the electrification to Farringdon was seen as the first stage with the intention to continue through Snow Hill in subsequent stages, rather than an end in itself. Getting investment past Government piecemeal seen as best chance.

No, the electrification through Farringdon was to Moorgate as part of the “BedPan” scheme.

 

[Merle Haggard]

No, the electrification through Farringdon was to Moorgate as part of the “BedPan” scheme.

Thank you, sorry. Relying only on memory which sometimes compresses the sequence of events - with aging, when looking back I can remember particular events over many years, clearly, but not so good on the time relationship between them.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought the electrification to Farringdon was seen as the first stage with the intention to continue through Snow Hill in subsequent stages, rather than an end in itself. Getting investment past Government piecemeal seen as best chance.

No, the electrification through Farringdon was to Moorgate as part of the “BedPan” scheme.

As has been said, electrification to Moorgate was part of the Midland Suburban electrification scheme, which itself was the first phase of the London Midland’s Midland Main Line electrification. Obviously it didn’t get further than Bedford until now!

Thameslink was a GLC sponsored proposal, which had been around for a while but only really gained traction a couple of years after the MSE project had completed.

 

[Wapps]

Very roughly the IEP ITT of nearly a decade ago identified that 50% (130miles) of the ECML route kings cross to newcastle (270miles) is potentially suitable for line speed running in-excess of 125mph subject to upgrades, of that the Selby diversion (22miles) and Skelton Jn to near Croft Jn (38miles) are potentially suitable for 155mph running. IIRC only around 40 miles of the route to newcastle is cleared for 125mph that couldn't theoretically be cleared for 140mph running once the other upgrades are made.

Adding 140mph capability to IEP requirement is/was both a low cost benefit and provided future proofing against a requirement then estimated to have a 50% likelihood. Hardly fitting for this thread.

Back to the topic of the thread something like Nightstar and Regional Eurostar that never turned a wheel in passenger service has to be one of the expensive projects that never happened?

Why was 140mph running estimated at 50% probability a decade ago, given that no money was budgeted for all of the upgrades and there was no policy in place that money would be so allocated? Just seems like wishful thinking that doesn’t accord with NR’s/the gov’s priorities - then or now.

 

[w1bbl3]

Why was 140mph running estimated at 50% probability a decade ago, given that no money was budgeted for all of the upgrades and there was no policy in place that money would be so allocated? Just seems like wishful thinking that doesn’t accord with NR’s/the gov’s priorities - then or now.

The aspirations the DfT had at the commencement of the IEP programme in 2008 and the retender/review of 2012 where significantly more broad than the reality today. ETCS was planned back then to have been deployed on parts of the ECML by now. At the point Virgin bid on the East Coast franchise it was the intent that ETCS L2 would reach Doncaster by 2019. Indeed as recently as 2016 the then delayed plan was ETCS L2 without line side signals KGX to Peterborough by August 2022 then Retford by 2024 and continuing on from there.

The 140mph capability was government priority at the time, if it hadn't been the specification issued by the DfT wouldn't have included such a requirement as something that the tenders where to be evaluated on. You have to remember that slightly later on NR had series 1 electrification designed to support 140mph line speed operation where possible, at great cost.

In terms of ETCS the DfT plan as of 2007 was GWML and ECML to be majority fitted with ETCS L2 by 2025. Obviously this hasn't since happened, copy of the then plan. It's possible that someone in DfT towers may have considered a more comprehensive resolution of the ECML value optimised OLE forming part of either resignalling or IEP enabling works. How this was to be funded or delivered is a whole other matter.

Apart from Regional Eurostar's did turn a wheel in passenger service all be it not for the service they were actually built for !

(Used in the UK on London Kings Cross - York and Kings Cross - Leeds services and of course services elsewhere in Europe).

True, I'd assumed possibly incorrectly that when BR transferred the NoL sets to Eurostar / LCR this was done at nil cost effectively writing off the £180m BR had spent buying them in the first place? By the time the transfer happened regional Eurostar had died as a viable concept. I recall that at least one half set IIRC 3308 never saw any use and 3307 was possibly not used by SNCF apart from as a source of parts?

Yes, they saw use for a period on some French domestic LGV Nord services.

It was also a North of London set that set the UK Rail speed record on HS1 in 2003.

Speaking of which did 3313/3314 ever see passenger use? I recall it spent good part of its life on CTRL test duties, followed by the odd private VIP charter. But not sure what its fate was after 2004? SNCF?

 

[Scotrail314209]

Just to the left of the escalators to the low level platforms - there is now a gateline there (it was removed when the gates went back up at Central). There were similar plans drawn up for Edinburgh Waverley but it was never constructed!

I believe for a while it also seen use as a Virgin Trains lounge. I remember the signs and branding on the building.

 

[Dr Hoo]

As has been said, electrification to Moorgate was part of the Midland Suburban electrification scheme, which itself was the first phase of the London Midland’s Midland Main Line electrification. Obviously it didn’t get further than Bedford until now!

Thameslink was a GLC sponsored proposal, which had been around for a while but only really gained traction a couple of years after the MSE project had completed.

And, as possibly a final word on the Bed-Pan scheme (which did go ahead and is off-thread), as a humble clerk on the scheme around 1977 I can confirm that the slab track was needed for alignment reasons as well as OHLE clearances. Curved sections of the tunnels were extremely tight for the 'Mark III'-profile Class 317s and the track had to be absolutely fixed.

 

[Wapps]

The aspirations the DfT had at the commencement of the IEP programme in 2008 and the retender/review of 2012 where significantly more broad than the reality today. ETCS was planned back then to have been deployed on parts of the ECML by now. At the point Virgin bid on the East Coast franchise it was the intent that ETCS L2 would reach Doncaster by 2019. Indeed as recently as 2016 the then delayed plan was ETCS L2 without line side signals KGX to Peterborough by August 2022 then Retford by 2024 and continuing on from there.

The 140mph capability was government priority at the time, if it hadn't been the specification issued by the DfT wouldn't have included such a requirement as something that the tenders where to be evaluated on. You have to remember that slightly later on NR had series 1 electrification designed to support 140mph line speed operation where possible, at great cost.

In terms of ETCS the DfT plan as of 2007 was GWML and ECML to be majority fitted with ETCS L2 by 2025. Obviously this hasn't since happened, copy of the then plan. It's possible that someone in DfT towers may have considered a more comprehensive resolution of the ECML value optimised OLE forming part of either resignalling or IEP enabling works. How this was to be funded or delivered is a whole other matter.



True, I'd assumed possibly incorrectly that when BR transferred the NoL sets to Eurostar / LCR this was done at nil cost effectively writing off the £180m BR had spent buying them in the first place? By the time the transfer happened regional Eurostar had died as a viable concept. I recall that at least one half set IIRC 3308 never saw any use and 3307 was possibly not used by SNCF apart from as a source of parts?


Speaking of which did 3313/3314 ever see passenger use? I recall it spent good part of its life on CTRL test duties, followed by the odd private VIP charter. But not sure what its fate was after 2004? SNCF?

Thank you. Re 140mph: what went wrong? How could Virgin have made such an assumption (which gov presumably accepted by giving them the franchise) and why was that assumption proven wrong? Do you know if there is a policy paper by government (circa 2008) stating their intention to fund all the necessary upgrades to make
140mph a reality? I can’t find anything. Seems bizarre that money was spent on series 1 OLE and 140mph capable trains and then, now, it’s all too difficult and won’t happen. I would like to understand how this situation came about.

 

[muddythefish]

The SVR south from Bridgnorth is built for double track (including the short tunnel) for what I understand was intended to be a branch to Wolverhampton. I'm not sure how much of the work was done on the earthworks beyond there, or where the line would have diverged from the SVR line (possibly near Eardington?), or when it was abandoned. Several attempts were made to build it however, the last as late as 1905 by the GWR

 

[JKF]

On the preservation side of things, how much money was spent assembling that collection of various Mk2 coaches in a field near the A1 in North Yorks where they sat for about a decade before being scrapped? Just the road transport costs alone must have been a lot of money.

 

[JamesT]

Thank you. Re 140mph: what went wrong? How could Virgin have made such an assumption (which gov presumably accepted by giving them the franchise) and why was that assumption proven wrong? Do you know if there is a policy paper by government (circa 2008) stating their intention to fund all the necessary upgrades to make
140mph a reality? I can’t find anything. Seems bizarre that money was spent on series 1 OLE and 140mph capable trains and then, now, it’s all too difficult and won’t happen. I would like to understand how this situation came about.

I don’t think there was anything in the Virgin franchise bid relying on 140mph running. The rolling stock was procured as part of IEP, which was a DfT specification, whoever won the franchise would have had to introduce them.

Note that the existing rolling stock on the ECML was specified for 140mph in the BR days, which it has only ever done on special speed runs.

Given the seeming unreliability of the existing ECML wiring, is it a bad thing that it gets replaced by something more robust? As well as being suitable for 140mph, Series 1 is also better at handling multiple pantographs in quick succession such as you’d get with units running in multiple.

 

[najaB]

Seems bizarre that money was spent on series 1 OLE and 140mph capable trains and then, now, it’s all too difficult and won’t happen.

As always, it comes down to money. >125mph running on the ECML definitely could happen but it needs the purse strings to be untied.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Are we limited to the UK?

If not, I came across this one today in Kenya.

In November 1940, it was decided that the projected offensive “against Italian Somaliland required the building of a railway from Thika, on the Nairobi-Nanyuki line to Garba Tulla, a point in the Frontier Provence roughly halfway between the northern bend of the Tana River and the Uaso Nyiro which flows into the great Lorian Swamp. … The railway was called upon to build the new line, nearly 250 mile’s long, through grim country, as quickly as possible. … By the end of March 1941, when work was stopped due to the unexpected speed of … [the[ offensive, 217 miles of the line had been surveyed, and 117 miles staked out; 81 miles of earthworks had been completed, 7 major bridges were nearly finished, and 12 miles of track had been laid.”

 

[Phil R]

True, I'd assumed possibly incorrectly that when BR transferred the NoL sets to Eurostar / LCR this was done at nil cost effectively writing off the £180m BR had spent buying them in the first place? By the time the transfer happened regional Eurostar had died as a viable concept. I recall that at least one half set IIRC 3308 never saw any use and 3307 was possibly not used by SNCF apart from as a source of parts?

Speaking of which did 3313/3314 ever see passenger use? I recall it spent good part of its life on CTRL test duties, followed by the odd private VIP charter. But not sure what its fate was after 2004? SNCF?

Yes, 3308 only ever did testing / commissioning running before it was stopped for spares.. so arguably as a train-shaped storeroom it wasn't a total waste....
Its partner 3307 fared a little better, being rebuilt and went to SNCF as a spare half set with the other 6 full sets. I believe it did actually run over there for a period when another halfset was oos, or at least its power car did.
3313/14 was the next basket case after 3307/8 for some time but was fully rebuilt as the CTRL/HS1 test set. It was the last ditch spare for the GNER contract... at the end 3301-6 were blue vinyled first choices, 3309-12 were the debranded maintenance spares whilst 3313/14 remained in full Eurostar livery, but had had the domestic mods to enable it to go north if needed. I believe it did go to Leeds, but only once or twice.
One interesting point is that 3311/12 did actually make it into commercial international service on a few occasions in early 1997 when the Three Capitals fleet was suffering winter reliability woes. Inter alia that required bookings to be reshuffled so wasn't ideal, but was a bit of a giveaway when I turned up for a train out of Brussels one Sunday and was given a new reso as my booking was in a coach that didn't exist in a NoL set.

 

[john prytherch]

One other line that was built, and inspected, but never opened for a regular service - Drybrook to Mitcheldean Road.

I have always thought that one of the biggest failed projects was that for conversion to oil firing of many steam locomotives. I think there were actually two projects, the first, of abut 1920-1921, proposing about 120 conversions, but I think only a very few happened; I am not sure why. The later project, in 1945-1949, was much bigger and initially proposed converting 1179 engines of the Big Four. I think at least a few depots were provided with the oil storage and fuelling apparatus. I am sure a photograph exists of one of the big yards near Swindon works completely full of new tender tanks for the conversion programme. But only 94 conversions actually happened. (In addition, two W class engines in Northern Ireland were converted.)
The project was cancelled when it was realised that in the post war austerity, we would not have the money to pay for the oil.

 

[najaB]

I have always thought that one of the biggest failed projects was that for conversion to oil firing of many steam locomotives. I

Believe that was mentioned up-thread. Perhaps a couple of times.