Problems on the Harwich - Manchester "Boat Train"...

[Mcr Warrior]

Interesting little anecdote which appears in "Railways in and around Manchester and Stockport (The Modern Era)" (2018) by E.M. Johnson. (Book Law / Foxline).

Mentions an occasion when the diesel hauled loco for the Boat Train to Manchester (from Harwich) failed at Sheffield Victoria and had to be detached.

An electric loco was then substituted for the run over Woodhead, but apparently no-one remembered that the normally diesel-hauled train usually arrived at Piccadilly under the 25kv AC wires.

Chaos apparently then ensued when the train was crossed over at Ardwick Junction away from the Woodhead's 1500v DC system, resulting in the Co-Co's motors burning out.

Did this ever actually happen, and if so when? (Must have been prior to the closure of the Woodhead line in 1981).

 

[Mat17]

Johnson refers to this incident again in one of his other Woodhead books, I assume it's the Woodhead Electric Railway volume. So I have heard this one but not the full particulars that you have provided. Only that a DC loco was wrong routed onto the AC system and a great deal of damage was done.

 

[Ash Bridge]

If it did involve a Co-Co it would have been no later than the summer of 1968 as they had all been withdrawn from service by September of that year.

 

[kermit]

I was just going to say that! Given that there were only 7 Co-Cos, the absence of one for major repairs would have been noticeable. Still plausible though that it was one of the more numerous Bo-Bos, Class 76

If it did involve a Co-Co it would have been no later than the summer of 1968 as they had all been withdrawn from service by September of that year.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The "Woodhead - The Electric Railway" book (2001 edition), also by E.M. Johnson (Foxline), referred to upthread by Mat17, dates the incident as being "around 1969/70", but just mentions it being an electric loco routed onto platform 6 at Piccadilly under the 25kv.

Wonder who would have got the blame / picked up the tab under modern day delay attribution?

 

[randyrippley]

According to https://mancunian1001.wordpress.com...-services-of-greater-manchester-the-european/ the boat trains used Victoria until 1982, by which time Woodhead would have closed. But it seems they ran via Hope Valley anyway so the whole story seems confused.
If it ever happened it would seem more likely it was a last minute diversion away from the normal route

 

[Mcr Warrior]

...the boat trains used Victoria until 1982, by which time Woodhead would have closed. But it seems they ran via Hope Valley anyway so the whole story seems confused.

The story, if it can be stood up, seems to pre-date 1982 by over a decade or so.

 

[jfollows]

The Harwich Boat Train in the 1970s, after diversion from Woodhead to the Hope Valley, continued to use Manchester Piccadilly. It had to use platforms 5 & 6 so that its engine could be released; it stopped well short of the platform 5 end to allow the engine to be detached, pull forward, reverse through the crossover, run through platform 6 and re-attach to the country end of the stock in platform 5.

In 1977 it ran to the times attached, and was almost always hauled by a Class 45 diesel in my memory for that time, the same one in both directions obviously.

I think it ran, briefly, through Victoria (via Philips Park) subsequently because it continued through there to some place further north, such as Glasgow. This may well have started in 1982, but I can't be sure. What I can be sure about is that the Harwich Boat Train ran from Harwich to Manchester Piccadilly through the Hope Valley in the late 1970s.

Prior to the closure of the Woodhead route to passenger trains, and before my time as a regular traveller to Manchester Piccadilly, the Harwich Boat Train was electrically hauled over Woodhead. The story given here could have happened, I don't know, but it will have been prior to 1970 if so.

EDIT - by the way, https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/harwich-boat-trains.110515/ seems a good source of information on the train and its history.

EDIT - It's also telling that 1M72 and 1E87 occupied two platforms between 13:18 and 15:15 on a weekday, or at least the first hour or so required platform 6 to be unoccupied to release the locomotive, but platform 5 was occupied by the carriages all the time. Platforms 1-4 weren't accessible from the western lines (technically they were for diesel trains, but the connection was never used), and platform 10 wasn't really used until about 16:00, but Piccadilly still coped with only platforms 7, 8 & 9 during the period. Telling in that so few trains ran then compared to now.

The only departures from the main station (western side, platforms 5 upwards, but realistically platforms 7-9) during the period between the arrival and departure of the Harwich Boat Train in 1977 were:
13:35 2H71 B3 to Whaley Bridge
13:43 2K67 to Stoke-on-Trent
14:05 2H71 B3 to Buxton
14:12 1A53 to London Euston via Stoke-on-Trent
14:23 1V93 to Swansea via Stoke-on-Trent
14:35 2H71 B3 to Whaley Bridge
14:43 2G67 to Birmingham (EMU stopper)
15:05 2H71 B3 to Buxton
15:12 1A58 to London Euston via Wilmslow

That's it - 9 departures!

 

[Revaulx]

As far as I’m aware the Harwich was moved onto the Hope Valley as soon as Woodhead closed to passengers at the start of 1970. The first time I travelled on it, which was 1971 at the latest, it certainly went that way.

I remember seeing a photo of a 37 emerging from Woodhead Tunnel about the same time; it had been diverted that way as its by-then usual route (HV) was suffering engineering work (Sheffield Area Resignalling?). So Woodhead WAS used for diversions, albeit retaining the diesel loco.

I suppose it’s feasible that the failure of the diesel coincided with a diversion over Woodhead.

 

[daodao]

The only time i travelled over Woodhead was on the Harwich boat train in 1969. It was late, and I was disappointed that it did not change to electric traction at Sheffield Victoria and the diesel locomotive (?class 37) hauled the train rather slowly over the Pennines; I do recall having lunch in the griddle car.

 

[Elecman]

The "Woodhead - The Electric Railway" book (2001 edition), also by E.M. Johnson (Foxline), referred to upthread by Mat17, dates the incident as being "around 1969/70", but just mentions it being an electric loco routed onto platform 6 at Piccadilly under the 25kv.

Wonder who would have got the blame / picked up the tab under modern day delay attribution?

Presumably it would be the TOC ass the driver accepted the wrong route

 

[kermit]

Interesting little anecdote which appears in "Railways in and around Manchester and Stockport (The Modern Era)" (2018) by E.M. Johnson. (Book Law / Foxline).

Mentions an occasion when the diesel hauled loco for the Boat Train to Manchester (from Harwich) failed at Sheffield Victoria and had to be detached.

An electric loco was then substituted for the run over Woodhead, but apparently no-one remembered that the normally diesel-hauled train usually arrived at Piccadilly under the 25kv AC wires.

Chaos apparently then ensued when the train was crossed over at Ardwick Junction away from the Woodhead's 1500v DC system, resulting in the Co-Co's motors burning out.

Did this ever actually happen, and if so when? (Must have been prior to the closure of the Woodhead line in 1981).

Going back to the OP - if the train was routed via Sheffield Victoria, then the incident, if it happened, must have pre-dated closure of that station in January 1970. (Victoria was reopened from 20th to 22nd January 1973, to provide Sheffield with a station while Midland was closed for commissioning of the new power box, but that seems quite a bit later than the "around 1969/70" quoted above).

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably it would be the TOC ass the driver accepted the wrong route

It goes to root cause, which in this case is whoever decided to put the D.C. loco on and not advise Piccadilly box.

 

[jfollows]

It goes to root cause, which in this case is whoever decided to put the D.C. loco on and not advise Piccadilly box.

London Road, please!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

London Road, please!

Surely Manchester Piccadilly in 1969/70, the renaming would have been almost 10 years previously in 1960?

 

[jfollows]

Surely Piccadilly in 1969/70?

Well, the station was for sure, but the signals were still "LR" prefix until the signal box was demolished and control moved into the tower block, at which point the signals became "MP" or similar. 1980s. So I always think of the signal box as London Road anyway, I visited it once in the late 1970s which was interesting.

 

[Bald Rick]

London Road, please!

I stand corrected - I never went to Manchester until 1989, and the signals were all MP by then. But I see it was London Road until 1988.

 

[jfollows]

The original story in this thread is at least believable in that, from post 10 and elsewhere, the train was apparently operated by a Class 37 locomotive from March depot in the last year of its operation over the Woodhead route, so presumably 1969.

Sounds potty to me to use a diesel locomotive over Woodhead at the time, but there will have been "reasons".

And the train would have needed routing to platform 5/6 at Piccadilly for the same reason as when it was subsequently sent over the Hope Valley route, in order to allow the locomotive to run round and re-attach for the return working. (No crossovers in any of the other platform pairs at Piccadilly station)

So a one-off case in which an EM1 or EM2 locomotive was substituted at Sheffield Victoria would have been possible, and then a misunderstanding could have directed it to platform 5 at Piccadilly with the consequences described.

However I'd blame the driver mainly if that was so, he'd have been aware that it was an unusual working if that was the case and taken appropriate care. And it will have been "he" of course in 1969 ..... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Harrison)

By 1977 a Class 37 locomotive in Manchester Piccadilly would have been an unusual sight, although they seem to get everywhere now I never saw one until I ventured away from the Manchester area in the 1970s.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Would any attempt to run a electric loco off the DC Eastern Lines on to the 25kv part of the station throat not have resulted in a de-wirement?
Whilst crossovers would have existed, permitting a diesel train to make the move, they could not have been wired.

 

[jfollows]

Would any attempt to run a electric loco off the DC Eastern Lines on to the 25kv part of the station throat not have resulted in a de-wirement?
Whilst crossovers would have existed, permitting a diesel train to make the move, they could not have been wired.

Yes, I do think there's quite a possibility of the original story being an "urban myth" for this reason. Plus getting any of position 1, 2 or 3 "feather" at LR112/205 at Ardwick should have been an enormous hint to a driver of an electric engine (route for down fast, up slow, down slow [the up fast wasn't reversible so no route onto it] ). It's quite possible that it was approach-released also, given a 60mph line speed at the same place following the 35mph through the curves at Ardwick Junction, and the crossover to the "western" side was limited to 15mph.

There was no later crossover than the one immediately after Ardwick Junction to get to platforms 5 and above at Piccadilly Station from the east lines. Note also from the diagram the layout at Ardwick Junction station which used to have a pathetic separate up platform; today the former down island platform is used in both directions and there are only two running lines through the station.

 

[john prytherch]

I'm not sure whether the incident under discussion resulted in the damage speculated upon in this thread. My recollection, which I posted on 17 September 2020 at 2119, in a thread "Trains where they shouldn't have been / weren't route cleared" in the "Infrastructure and Stations" forum, was as follows.

"I think one of the books on the Woodhead route recalls an incident in the 1960s, when a DC loco-hauled train arriving at Manchester Piccadilly off the Woodhead route was mistakenly signalled into an AC platform on the western side of the station. The driver realised the error, lowered the pantographs just before the point where a big bang would have happened, and skilfully managed to coast in and bring the train to a stand as if it had arrived normally! I don't know whether he would have had only the loco handbrake, or some vacuum braking would still have been available. Then there would have followed the embarrassing business of arranging for a diesel shunter to shunt the EM1 or EM2 (don't know which it was) back to the DC side."

Perhaps no one can recollect what actually happened, or could there have been more than one such incident?

John Prytherch.

 

[Whisky Papa]

This story was recounted to me by a now-retired member of staff in Northern's service planning office, who had been a guard from the late 60s covering the Manchester Piccadilly area. He went on to comment that the Harwich Boat Train coming into London Road was subsequently timed to stop at Ardwick, where a plunger was installed for the conductor to confirm to the signaller that the train had diesel traction and could be safely routed into a 25 Kv platform. I have no particular reason to think he was having me on, but if anyone else has any further information I would be interested to confirm or refute this.

 

[kermit]

Would any attempt to run a electric loco off the DC Eastern Lines on to the 25kv part of the station throat not have resulted in a de-wirement?
Whilst crossovers would have existed, permitting a diesel train to make the move, they could not have been wired.

If this ever happened, then at any appreciable speed, surely the DC pantograph would dewire, and then in the next instant, foul the 25kV catenary. Bang and damage?

 

[Beebman]

If this ever happened, then at any appreciable speed, surely the DC pantograph would dewire, and then in the next instant, foul the 25kV catenary. Bang and damage?

Having had something of an interest in electrification and OHLE for many years, I remember once arriving at Piccadilly by train from Euston around 1980-ish and as I was on the right-hand side I had a look to see if there were any gaps between the AC and DC catenary where there were track connections. My recollection is that the wiring did actually stretch cross the connections but that both the catenary and the contact wires had large porcelain insulators separating the different electrical systems. If that was indeed the case then I'd have thought that the pantograph head of the errant 76 or 77 would have been damaged and maybe ripped off by the insulator on the contact wire, but perhaps it was still able to somehow touch the AC catenary causing internal damage to the loco?

 

[kermit]

Judging by the absence of any specific evidence in the posts above, perhaps it was all just a flash in the pan. I'll get my coat.........

 

[Spartacus]

I've absolutely no doubt that the wrong routing, with the driver taking the route could have happened, it's what happened after that would be open to conjecture. Details of something like that didn't tend to get out until very recently, much of what later because to be the accepted version was often little more than platform end speculation.

Sounds like there was some isolated connectivity between AC and DC before the lads from down under, I'd be surprised if there wasn't to protect against the whole station throat being brought to a halt for all services in the event of such an incident. I dare say motors could have been burnt out, though that would have probably caused enough damage to the AC side to have that put of of use for a short while. I think it's more likely the driver managed to get the pans down quick enough and was able to coast in, or damaged them on the insulator which caused them to drop. The stranded loco, damaged or not, would probably have just been left on the blocks waiting for an opportunity to shift it, and in the meantime give people opportunity to come up with various theories as to how it got there.

 

[Taunton]

I presume there is some form of fuse on the loco to guard against overvoltage. Otherwise a lightning strike on the OHLE, by no means unknown, is going to damage any locos in the section.

I, too, recall looking at the wiring approaching Piccadilly in the dual voltage days, which was strung side-by-side on adjacent tracks from the same structures, and do recall the large insulators which were in place, and no apparent protection to ensure only diesels used the connecting crossovers.

For the several years until 1959, until the AC was installed, did the DC wiring ever go right across the station throat?; the Altrincham trains, DC since the 1930s, terminated at what is now the through platforms 13/14, and when the Sheffield line had gone DC in about 1950 there would have been electric services just a few tracks apart.

 

[jfollows]

For the several years until 1959, until the AC was installed, did the DC wiring ever go right across the station throat?; the Altrincham trains, DC since the 1930s, terminated at what is now the through platforms 13/14, and when the Sheffield line had gone DC in about 1950 there would have been electric services just a few tracks apart.

The MSJ&A electrification terminated in the bay platforms at Manchester Oxford Road, didn't it? Before my time, a bit, I started using Oxford Road in 1973.

 

[47296lastduff]

The Altrincham electrics ran through to London Road (now named Piccadilly) until Sept 1958, from when they terminated in the bay at Oxford Road. This was in readiness for installation of ac wiring to Oxford Road as part of the Crewe to Manchester scheme.

 

[Beebman]

For the several years until 1959, until the AC was installed, did the DC wiring ever go right across the station throat?; the Altrincham trains, DC since the 1930s, terminated at what is now the through platforms 13/14, and when the Sheffield line had gone DC in about 1950 there would have been electric services just a few tracks apart.

The Foxline book on the Woodhead electrification has some photos of the station throat pre-1959 which clearly show that no DC wiring went across to the MSJ&A lines. I've seen an historical photo somewhere (probably in the Oakwood Press book on the MSJ&A) which has a good view of the OHLE termination structure at the eastern end of what is now platforms 13/14.