Previous Big Electrification Schemes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Masboroughlad

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2011
Messages
1,474
Location
Midlands
When other electrification schemes were first planned, was the rolling stock part of the same plan, or were the wires planned and the stock decided after? Suppose it was all 'under' one company BR then.

For example - were 91s and MK4 part of the ECML electrification plan?
I'd they know that 86s and MK2/3s would be on the Anglian mainline.

Just that with this latest tranche of electrification plans, what stock will be allocated seems to be a lot of educated guess work at the moment.

Just wondered......
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,428
When other electrification schemes were first planned, was the rolling stock part of the same plan, or were the wires planned and the stock decided after? Suppose it was all 'under' one company BR then.

For example - were 91s and MK4 part of the ECML electrification plan?

Definitely were - the decision to wire include the requirement for X amount of new stock, both locos and coaches. Design activity went on in parallel from what I remember.

The GN area had already been done for suburban services of course.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
Well sort of, the ECML was planned for 89s and MK3s, so yes to new stock. The 91s and Mk4s were announced quickly afterwards but don't know why the 89s were dropped. It was 89s on the realeased. More 317s were ordered.

So apart from Yorkshire it was new stock planned just the exact type that changed.

The irony of it all was the 91s probably came along for line speed improvements as the 89s could only do 125mph!
 

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,535
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
Leeds - North West around 1993-4.
Stock added later but initially was Second / Third hand stock from elsewhere. 308s I think.

Wiring from Leeds to Ilkley, Bradford Forster Square and Skipton with resignalling extending to Hellifield.
This also included adding in the missing link from Leeds station to Neville Hill that had previously been deemed as not required.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
25,308
Location
Yorks
It was a mixed picture on the Southern.

The suburban electrification schemes (including the LB&SCR overhead) used a lot of converted steam stock for electrification.

Alternatively, the main lines to Brighton and Portsmouth gained new PAN/PUL and COR stock when electrified as well as BIL's etc for stoppers.

Similarly, under BR CEP's and HAP's were built new for the Kent electrification scheme in the late 1950's/early 60's, whereas for the Bournemouth line electrification scheme, VEP's were built new for slows but for the expresses, only the REP motor coaches (2 out of a twelve carriage train) were built new, the rest being converted MK 1's.

The many infill electrification schemes of the 80's such as Tonbridge - Hastings, East Grinstead and the Hampshire Coastal lines tended to use cascaded slammers.
 

Manchester77

Established Member
Joined
4 Jun 2012
Messages
2,628
Location
Manchester
AFAIK, the class 87s were ordered in the early 70s (74 i think) for electric services on the west coast main line when the wires were extended north of weaver junction.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,554
Location
Macclesfield
AFAIK, the class 87s were ordered in the early 70s (74 i think) for electric services on the west coast main line when the wires were extended north of weaver junction.
Yes indeed, the 87s began to enter service in late 1973 specifically to work the newly electrified Euston to Glasgow services when electrification was completed north of Weaver Junction. Hence they gained the nickname "electric scots".
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Definitely were - the decision to wire include the requirement for X amount of new stock, both locos and coaches. Design activity went on in parallel from what I remember.
Is there any reason why they didn't go for EMUs rather than loco and stock?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,554
Location
Macclesfield
Just that with this latest tranche of electrification plans, what stock will be allocated seems to be a lot of educated guess work at the moment.
The rolling stock allocations for the current tranche of electrification schemes is probably little more speculative than those in the past. I'm sure that had there been internet forums in the 1980s when the ECML electrification was being developed than there would have been just as much wild speculation about what rolling stock would be allocated to the route. I'm sure we would have seen plenty of discussions along the lines of:

"Will the ECML be getting class 89s and mark 3s? Or class 91s and mark 4s?" "I thought the 225s were destined for use on the WCML first?" "Will the HST mark 3s be rewired as loco hauled stock to work with the class 89s?" "Will the class 89s work with new loco hauled mark 3s? Will they have plug doors?" And then, once the route learning and driver training runs were up and running "The 91s are now working with mark 3s and converted HST power cars as DVTs: I've heard that when the mark 4 carriages are delivered, some 91+mark 3 rakes will be kept for working off the wires".

You've got to bear in mind the timescales involved as well: It is probably six years at least until the MML electrification is completed: Once again returning to the ECML electrification scheme, six years before the wires were switched on to Leeds, the last of the Deltics had only just been withdrawn and APT was still a going concern on the WCML!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Is there any reason why they didn't go for EMUs rather than loco and stock?
Because multiple unit formations weren't BRs' policy for Intercity rolling stock? The IC225 formations were the final evolution of the electric APT, even if they incorporated a number of different technologies their genesis and concept was still the same. And BR would have followed exactly the same fomula with the Intercity 250 as well in the early nineties; with class 93 locos, mark 5 carriages and a DVT.

Even the TGV derived Eurostars weren't far removed from the idea of a loco and hauled stock push-pull formations, and it is only in recent times that Alstom have developed a distributed traction variant of the TGV design. Long distance EMUs weren't nearly as prevalent an idea in the early nineties.
 
Last edited:

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Because multiple unit formations weren't BRs' policy for Intercity rolling stock? The IC225 formations were the final evolution of the electric APT, even if they incorporated a number of different technologies their genesis and concept was still the same. And BR would have followed exactly the same fomula with the Intercity 250 as well in the early nineties; with class 93 locos, mark 5 carriages and a DVT.
In the case of the East Coast electrification I would have thought they would have wanted to reduce journey times as much as possible and EMUs may well have helped with this due to improved acceleration. I'm not quite sure why there would have been a policy against EMUs back then.
 

Polarbear

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2008
Messages
1,624
Location
Birkenhead
Is there any reason why they didn't go for EMUs rather than loco and stock?

Probably because EMU's weren't really considered appropriate for long distance work at that time.

The railways, like most other forms of transport are in a constant state of evolution. Traditionally, most if not all services in the steam era consisted of loco's & separate coaches. As time went by, the multiple unit became the standard train for suburban work & EMU/DMU type trains have gradually improved over the years (yes, I know for some that's subjective).

When the ECML electrification was being planned, the trains were originally planned as Cl 89 + Mk3's. However, it was decided at a fairly early stage to switch to 91's & Mk4's on the basis that a) they could uprate the line speed to 140mph at some point in the future (not possible with Mk3's) and b) tilt could be added as a future option. That neither ever happened rather sums up the way BR was run in that era, but that's another story.

So in short, EMU's weren't considered as the perceived need at the time was for a loco & stock. Since the early 1980's much has changed & now the trend is firmly with fixed formation trains for which an EMU is of course suitable.
 
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
118
Location
Newcastle Under Lyme
Locos the preferred option due to their ability to pull other stuff, i.e. freight. Before toc's and foc's started hacking the network into pointless (and artificial) chunks, it wasn't uncommon to see the same loco going one way with freight at 05.30, and back with passengers at 15.30.

That is why 91's only have a slab cab at their 'wrong' end, as virtually all up workings would have been freight. (Does anyone know if they are limited when going blunt end first?)

Hope that answers you in a fairly definitive manner.

Oh, and with coaching stock, you don't have to drag a dead emu on diversions, or to Holyhead, thus making them more fuel efficient.

BR may have had major flaws, but perhaps we through the baby out with the bathwater.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
Probably because EMU's weren't really considered appropriate for long distance work at that time.

The railways, like most other forms of transport are in a constant state of evolution. Traditionally, most if not all services in the steam era consisted of loco's & separate coaches. As time went by, the multiple unit became the standard train for suburban work & EMU/DMU type trains have gradually improved over the years (yes, I know for some that's subjective).

When the ECML electrification was being planned, the trains were originally planned as Cl 89 + Mk3's. However, it was decided at a fairly early stage to switch to 91's & Mk4's on the basis that a) they could uprate the line speed to 140mph at some point in the future (not possible with Mk3's) and b) tilt could be added as a future option. That neither ever happened rather sums up the way BR was run in that era, but that's another story.

So in short, EMU's weren't considered as the perceived need at the time was for a loco & stock. Since the early 1980's much has changed & now the trend is firmly with fixed formation trains for which an EMU is of course suitable.

In the late 1950s BR thought long and hard about the appropriate rolling stock for the WCML then starting to be electrified. As a result the Class 309s as they became (or Clacton sets) were designed as a potential train for the WCML.

As it happened BR went for locos and coaches but the Clacton sets were much better vehicles than any previous EMUs built in Britain with good ride and lots of power, so fast. They were very popular and also very reliable. Much better than anything running today (150 - 200,000 miles/failure) although how the numbers were crunched is not known to me.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Before toc's and foc's started hacking the network into pointless (and artificial) chunks, it wasn't uncommon to see the same loco going one way with freight at 05.30, and back with passengers at 15.30.
This started before privatization though with sectorization. In 1992 there was a restructuring where each sector took over ownership of specific infrastructure.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,554
Location
Macclesfield
Locos the preferred option due to their ability to pull other stuff, i.e. freight. Before toc's and foc's started hacking the network into pointless (and artificial) chunks, it wasn't uncommon to see the same loco going one way with freight at 05.30, and back with passengers at 15.30.

That is why 91's only have a slab cab at their 'wrong' end, as virtually all up workings would have been freight. (Does anyone know if they are limited when going blunt end first?)
The principal night time use of class 91s was expected to be sleeper trains , parcels and fast Freightliner traffic.

The class 91s are limited to 110mph when running blunt end first.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
That is why 91's only have a slab cab at their 'wrong' end, as virtually all up workings would have been freight. (Does anyone know if they are limited when going blunt end first?)
If almost all up workings by the 91s were to be freight then what was going to haul the up passenger trains and the down freight trains? It would seem quite a strange plan to have a loco that is only used for passenger workings in the down direction and only used for freight workings in the up direction.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
I should have said non-passenger. The up workings would be headed by the dvt, with the 91 pushing.
If there had not been any plans for freight use though, would they really have had two streamlined ends when this would likely never have been needed due to the DVT?
 
Last edited:

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,554
Location
Macclesfield
I doubt that they'd have had much of a cab at the blunt end at all. Maybe a small shunting cab for depot movements, but it's all speculation
It's all speculation that what would have not had much of a cab at the blunt end at all?

The class 91s have a fully functioning, fully equipped cab at the blunt end that features all the same controls as the "sharp" end and is still used, as it comes in useful when running with a DVT with a cab fault, or when the front cab of a 91 has some sort of fault, or for that matter for light engine moves, such as Bounds Green to Kings Cross.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top