Was electrification out to Slough ever considered in 1960s/70s?

[nw1]

One thing that's always struck me about the London suburban network is the almost rural nature of the local service between Paddington and Slough, particularly before Turbos were introduced and the 15-min interval service came into being (I can't remember if these occurred simultaneously). In the 60s, 70s and 80s, the service was half hourly, run by 117 DMUs.

Namely did they ever consider a small electrification project between Paddington and Slough, to provide a high-frequency suburban service (similar to the Gidea Park route on the other side of London perhaps) to Hayes, Southall etc? Perhaps it could have been done around 1976 and a batch of 313s used, for example, to provide a 15-min frequency all-stations service out to Slough. The DMUs for Reading and Oxford could then have fit in the gaps in between the electrics: the slower speed of the DMUs would be compensated by the fact that they would miss most stops. Such a service pattern was seen on the Altrincham line for example.

Maybe it was something to do with the nature of that corridor in west London and its population levels (lots of industry, but not especially high population) at the time? Certainly stood out as a London suburban service that didn't have the high-frequency electric service typical of most of London.

 

[JonathanH]

Seems highly unlikely - the service on the West side of London was very sparse throughout this period.

Maybe it was something to do with the nature of that corridor in west London and its population levels (lots of industry, but not especially high population) at the time? Certainly stood out as a London suburban service that didn't have the high-frequency electric service typical of most of London.

Even now the number of dwelling places visible from the railway between Paddington and West Drayton is significantly less than on almost all other corridors out of London - certainly nothing like the route out to Gidea Park.

The Piccadilly line isn't that far away to the South. The Central line isn't that far away to the north and both run through areas with more population. I note that the Uxbridge Road continues to support an express bus.

The interesting question is whether a business case was being made for class 210s at the start of the 1980s and whether the proposed compatability with class 317s could have led to some electrification but it seems unlikely.

 

[nw1]

Seems highly unlikely - the service on the West side of London was very sparse throughout this period.


Even now the number of dwelling places visible from the railway between Paddington and West Drayton is significantly less than on almost all other corridors out of London - certainly nothing like the route out to Gidea Park.

That was kind-of what I suspected, I have used this route intermittently since the nineties and the population seems a bit scattered with a lot of ex-industrial land - but last time I used the local service (into Paddington from Maidenhead, at the weekend, August 2015) the stations seemed fairly busy which made me think "what if they had tried to boost numbers in the 70s with an electrification project"? Also did Ealing Broadway to Reading on one occasion in 2008, before the evening peak, and the train was seriously busy.

 

[O L Leigh]

Yes, insofar as The Modernisation Plan envisaged a rolling programme of electrification that would have included the GW mainline. But that was 1955, so outside of the scope of the question.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Yes it was , and there was an article in Modern Railways about it - circa 1976 or so. The idea was , I think , to wire to Oxford - but even then the idea was "challenging" as the WR commuter patterns were knowhere near as intense as other routes.

(but then , consider the Bedpan scheme - which was nothing like later frequencies before Thameslink was conceived - 1 slow Luton and a very semi-fast Bedford off peak) , the Midland DMU's were very much up for replacement , whereas the WR made some peak use of loco hauled sets on high peak commuter flows.)

The Thames Valley was always different , some thought they deserved HST trains for Oxford flows.....!

 

[nw1]

Yes it was , and there was an article in Modern Railways about it - circa 1976 or so. The idea was , I think , to wire to Oxford - but even then the idea was "challenging" as the WR commuter patterns were knowhere near as intense as other routes.

(but then , consider the Bedpan scheme - which was nothing like later frequencies before Thameslink was conceived - 1 slow Luton and a very semi-fast Bedford off peak) , the Midland DMU's were very much up for replacement , whereas the WR made some peak use of loco hauled sets on high peak commuter flows.)

The Thames Valley was always different , some thought they deserved HST trains for Oxford flows.....!

Yes I do remember the WR having quite a quirky collection of stock, including in 1983-84 one of these loco-hauled sets running a small number of off-peak *stopping* Oxford services. It was quite interesting it has to be said, though maybe a high-frequency EMU service would have better suited the inner part beyond Slough.

Regarding HSTs I remember that in around 1984, when some Oxford fasts (not all) were HSTs - though to be fair they may just have been using them for Oxford trains in-between the peaks, when they (at that time) didn't need a half-hourly Bristol service off-peak.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Yes I do remember the WR having quite a quirky collection of stock, including in 1983-84 one of these loco-hauled sets running a small number of off-peak *stopping* Oxford services. It was quite interesting it has to be said, though maybe a high-frequency EMU service would have better suited the inner part beyond Slough.

Regarding HSTs I remember that in around 1984, when some Oxford fasts (not all) were HSTs - though to be fair they may just have been using them for Oxford trains in-between the peaks, when they (at that time) didn't need a half-hourly Bristol service off-peak.

Yes - very interesting times - and once the sectors came in , the national reallocation of HST sets led to a tightening up. (which is how the MML got some transferred in) , but it made sense to use them off peak on the WR if they were available.

Loco hauled "commuter" and a pool for useful weekend use from OOC hung on for a good while , when 321's took over on the WCML Northampton cobbler sets , - the best ones went to OOC for a last bit of use. ........and ironically the better 117's got a further life of the WR when 2 car sets were sent to the "Network North" divsion for use on Bedford - Bletchley and the Gospel Oak line ! (once the Turbo's came around - but I seem to recall a view that the Turbo's were originally conceived as convertible to A/C use as part of the early plans for Crossrail (1) ...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In the early 60s the WR out of Paddington had been re-equipped with DMUs and diesel locos (and diesel Pullmans).
So there was no business case for electrification until that kit was life-expired - around 1990 for the DMUs, replaced by Turbos.
The final trigger for wires out of Paddington was the project to build the Heathrow branch from the GW main line in the 1990s, which had to be electric in the Heathrow tunnels.
Even then it took another 15-20 years to extend the wires westwards, and it's now the Turbos turn to be almost life expired.

While I was at Reading Uni (in 1962) we had a visit and lecture from the BTC Chairman Sir Brian Robertson, and someone asked him much the same question.
His answer was basically that the WR kept dividing (at Reading, Didcot, Swindon etc) and it was difficult to make a case to electrify any one route.
Meanwhile the WCML then being electrified had a much longer trunk before dividing (as do the ECML and the MML).
This was just before he was replaced at BR by Richard Beeching and the railway world changed.
At one point even the half-completed WCML scheme was under threat.

There was also a belief that the WR was "not interested" in electrification, having put their eggs in the diesel-hydraulic basket (a policy which backfired on them in the 70s).
The first section of the ex-GWR network to be electrified was from Wolverhampton HL to Oxley sidings on the Shrewsbury line (by then part of the LM Region), which became the inter-city electric depot for the West Midlands.

 

[A0wen]

There was also a belief that the WR was "not interested" in electrification, having put their eggs in the diesel-hydraulic basket (a policy which backfired on them in the 70s).

Their hydraulics were only locos though - their DMUs were mechanical - it was the Lea Valley (class 125) and Bedpan (class 127) which got hydraulic DMUs which supposedly had better acceleration. Surprising that BR Western Region didn't lobby for hydraulic DMUs as well.

 

[matt_world2004]

Wouldn't it have been mooted in the various crossrail plans that existed since the 1940s

 

[Clarence Yard]

Their hydraulics were only locos though - their DMUs were mechanical - it was the Lea Valley (class 125) and Bedpan (class 127) which got hydraulic DMUs which supposedly had better acceleration. Surprising that BR Western Region didn't lobby for hydraulic DMUs as well.

The GWR pioneered the use of the underfloor diesel mechanical engined DMU and WR just followed suit with 3 car suburban units, which kept the power/weight ratio at acceptable levels. They didn’t need to introduce another power train variant.

I seem to recall a Modern Railways article about an electrification scheme in the 1970’s but the chance of any WR electrification in that era would be nil - they would be well down the pecking order for the small amount of capital spend that was then available to the BRB.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Although arguably the first part of the GWR to be electrified was the Central Line to Ealing Broadway, or, by another count, the same Central Line to West Ruislip.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The GWR did of course propose electrification of everything west of Taunton in the 1930s (amazingly including all the branches), to reduce the high operating costs of the South Devon banks and the expense of transhipping locomotive coal from South Wales to the far-flung depots of the west. It was just a paper exercise and didn't get very far, but one wonders why a more realistic scheme in the Thames Valley, emulating its Southern neighbours, wasn't selected instead. Cheap government finance was available for schemes of this nature to help alleviate unemployment and enthusiastically taken up by the Southern and LNER.

 

[etr221]

Although arguably the first part of the GWR to be electrified was the Central Line to Ealing Broadway, or, by another count, the same Central Line to West Ruislip.

I think actually the first 'GWR electrification' was the Hammersmith & City, etc, in conjunction with the Met.

The GWR did of course propose electrification of everything west of Taunton in the 1930s (amazingly including all the branches), to reduce the high operating costs of the South Devon banks and the expense of transhipping locomotive coal from South Wales to the far-flung depots of the west. It was just a paper exercise and didn't get very far, but one wonders why a more realistic scheme in the Thames Valley, emulating its Southern neighbours, wasn't selected instead. Cheap government finance was available for schemes of this nature to help alleviate unemployment and enthusiastically taken up by the Southern and LNER.

With regard to the 'West of England' projected electrification, the story I've read was that it was all about to providing the GWR with a consultants' report that they could use to persuade the coal owners to reduce the price of loco coal... which they did, and thought the money spent on the report was well spent.

 

[Beebman]

Sometime in the mid-80s there was a Meet The Managers event at Paddington where I asked if electrification of WR local services was ever likely to happen. I was told that the Government considered that there was no business case seeing as the Thames Valley was ‘well served’ by the M4.

 

[nw1]

While I was at Reading Uni (in 1962) we had a visit and lecture from the BTC Chairman Sir Brian Robertson, and someone asked him much the same question.
His answer was basically that the WR kept dividing (at Reading, Didcot, Swindon etc) and it was difficult to make a case to electrify any one route.
Meanwhile the WCML then being electrified had a much longer trunk before dividing (as do the ECML and the MML).

I've heard that as the main reason for lack of electrification of the WR as a whole - and it makes sense in many ways because otherwise you'd have to:

- Electrify secondary routes such as the Cheltenham branch from Swindon or the Worcester route, which could be inefficient use of funds;
- Electrify only the core routes (Bristol both ways, Swansea, Oxford) and either run diesels under the wires or run diesel shuttles for the secondary routes.

So it's somewhat problematic either way, although one could have envisaged a pattern in more recent times in which the Bristol and South Wales routes were electrified, and the secondary routes as well as the west of England line were HST-operated. That way you'd have a mix of electrics and HSTs running all the services which wouldn't have had major pathing problems, presumably, as they would be similar speed.

Before the advent of the bi-modes it must have been quite a challenge diagramming the fast lines out of Paddington, as you had to fit one to three Turbos an hour (Bedwyn always, and some Oxford/Worcesters) in between HSTs and 180s with higher max speed. I recall a major timetable recast around 2004 which provided a more regular departure pattern and they did achieve this - I think one key factor was that the Bedwyn (xx18; Turbo) was non-stop to Reading while the following Oxford or Worcester (xx22) called at Slough which would presumably allow an HST or 180 to be used without catching up the preceding Turbo.

 

[Western Lord]

For the typical commuter heading for the City Paddington is one of the most inconvenient London termini, so it's no surprise that commuting from the GWML was much less than from lines into Cannon St./London Bridge/Fenchurch St./Liverpool St. Even the ECML, the MML and the WCML had limited peak hour services into Broad St and Moorgate, but from Paddington it was (and is) a trek across London on the Underground. Crossrail will improve the situation, but it is still on the wrong side of London for City commuters (if there are any left in future).

 

[etr221]

For the typical commuter heading for the City Paddington is one of the most inconvenient London termini, so it's no surprise that commuting from the GWML was much less than from lines into Cannon St./London Bridge/Fenchurch St./Liverpool St. Even the ECML, the MML and the WCML had limited peak hour services into Broad St and Moorgate, but from Paddington it was (and is) a trek across London on the Underground. Crossrail will improve the situation, but it is still on the wrong side of London for City commuters (if there are any left in future).

Up to WW2 there were through services from the GWR over the Metropolitan to the City (with a loco change at Paddington in the electric era)

 

[Taunton]

I think actually the first 'GWR electrification' was the Hammersmith & City, etc, in conjunction with the Met.


With regard to the 'West of England' projected electrification, the story I've read was that it was all about to providing the GWR with a consultants' report that they could use to persuade the coal owners to reduce the price of loco coal... which they did, and thought the money spent on the report was well spent.

The GWR Taunton-Penzance electrification always has seemed a bit surprising, because it would have required among other things the complete reorganisation of the track layout at Taunton as the loco changing point. This itself had just been completely rebuilt only a couple of years before the 1938 report came out, as part of the 1930s big expansion of the Taunton layout and station. The GWR just didn't write off capital investment (and it had been a big project) like that.

Regarding the H&C electrification, didn't some of the new electric cars actually have owners plates on them that they belonged to the GWR, although wholly operated by the Metropolitan?

Before the advent of the bi-modes it must have been quite a challenge diagramming the fast lines out of Paddington, as you had to fit one to three Turbos an hour (Bedwyn always, and some Oxford/Worcesters) in between HSTs and 180s with higher max speed.

It had been like this since the HSTs came along in 1976, although for a long time dmus were not allowed on the fast lines in the peak, only the 95mph-capable Class 47 loco hauled trains.

And I seem to recall the rationale behing accepting Heathrow Express on the fast lines, which were otherwise at the time regarded as "full", was that in the peak a Class 47 would depart, followed by a Heathrow Express, turning off at Southall, followed by an HST or two, which took advantage of the window created by the Express turning off.

 

[nw1]

The GWR Taunton-Penzance electrification always has seemed a bit surprising, because it would have required among other things the complete reorganisation of the track layout at Taunton as the loco changing point. This itself had just been completely rebuilt only a couple of years before the 1938 report came out, as part of the 1930s big expansion of the Taunton layout and station. The GWR just didn't write off capital investment (and it had been a big project) like that.

Regarding the H&C electrification, didn't some of the new electric cars actually have owners plates on them that they belonged to the GWR, although wholly operated by the Metropolitan?


It had been like this since the HSTs came along in 1976, although for a long time dmus were not allowed on the fast lines in the peak, only the 95mph-capable Class 47 loco hauled trains.

I do note that in the 1981 timetable (see timetableworld.com) HSTs were flighted out of Paddington, something like xx15 xx20 xx25 in alternate hours, which must have helped. The other alternate hour, one of these three didn't run. There was then another HST the opposite side of the hour; I think the pattern was hourly to each of Plymouth, Swansea and Bristol, with an additional Bristol every two hours.

The timetable around 1984 didn't do so much in the way of flighting, it was xx45 Plymouth, xx00 Swansea and xx15 Bristol. Also the 0945 and 1345 to Penzance were loco-hauled; this has come up before and I think this was related to the need for HSTs on the MML.

I do remember the Paddington-Oxford fasts in the 80s didn't seem to keep to a clockface; they appeared to 'slot in wherever they fit' if I recall correctly. But I also remember some irregularities with the HST timetable in 1984, with irregular additional Bristol or Cardiff services at various points in the day.

And I seem to recall the rationale behing accepting Heathrow Express on the fast lines, which were otherwise at the time regarded as "full", was that in the peak a Class 47 would depart, followed by a Heathrow Express, turning off at Southall, followed by an HST or two, which took advantage of the window created by the Express turning off.

That would indeed help, I think the pattern was xx10 Heathrow Express and xx15 HST.

 

[Alfie1014]

As have many have said the WR suburban operation was a much quieter affair back in the 70s and 80s. A friend of mine who commuted in from Newbury commented that Paddington was the only London termini which ran 1 car peak trains! And here’s the evidence from 1983, in the days when the Greenford service ran through to the terminal and did indeed have some 1 car workings.

 

[Route115?]

When I joined BR in 1981 the GW suburban routes were a combination of DMUs (2/hr all stns to Slough and two s/f to Oxford, off=peak I think). these were augmented by a number of loco hauled services (Class 47 + Mk 1) which must have cost a fortune to run. They were based at Old Oak Common and ran ecs to Oxford, or wherever the started from & back to OOC, reversed in the evening. Additional locos were needed to run around trains and trains were steam heated so required a second man, at least in the winter. I'm sure that the punters liked the low density seating. You could have electrified to Oxford and Newbury and bought a fleet of EMUs but electrification funds were not unlimited in those days and the capital cost may have been prohibitive. (I think that schemes were meant to achieve a 7% return on capital, though I'm not sure). The stock was used for summer Saturday reliefs to the West Country which wouldn't have been possible with EMUs.

Part of the WR was electrified - the short distance after the regional boundary on the line from Waterloo but the SR was responsible for its maintenance.

 

[30907]

When I joined BR in 1981 the GW suburban routes were a combination of DMUs (2/hr all stns to Slough and two s/f to Oxford, off=peak I think). these were augmented by a number of loco hauled services (Class 47 + Mk 1) which must have cost a fortune to run. They were based at Old Oak Common and ran ecs to Oxford, or wherever the started from & back to OOC, reversed in the evening.

Interesting - back in the 70s, when I used occasionally to wander down to the station in the evening, 4 sets berthed overnight at Oxford IIRC (all different combinations/numbers of Mk1s)

The stock was used for summer Saturday reliefs to the West Country which wouldn't have been possible with EMUs.

Quite - and better than using DMUs (though earlier the Swindon Inter City sets had got as far as Minehead at their max of 70mph).

 

[Gloster]

One of the loco hauled sets around 1987 worked down to Banbury as the newspaper train, although there was no more than a van or two for newspapers. It came back via High Wycombe and Greenford East Junction as the morning commuter service. I think the evening Down train came back ecs to Old Oak.

 

[nw1]

When I joined BR in 1981 the GW suburban routes were a combination of DMUs (2/hr all stns to Slough and two s/f to Oxford, off=peak I think).

Yes, that was the pattern in 1983/4:
2tph all stations to Slough
2tph to Ealing Broadway, Slough, and all to Reading, with one continuing to Oxford.

In the peaks these, I think, increased to 3tph, the Readings all terminated at Reading, and the Readings made additional stops such as (I think) Southall, Hayes and Harlington and West Drayton. The Oxfords as you say became loco-hauled in the peaks, fast to at least Maidenhead.

In 1983/84 there appeared to be one off-peak Oxford stopper which was loco-hauled, I think it interworked with Oxford fasts which would explain it. 1359 off Reading I think and was double-headed by 'Invincible' and 'Howe' on the occasion I saw it.

It looks like the same basic pattern prevailed in 1965 and 1973 (timetableworld.com) so was clearly a long-standing pattern throughout the 117 era. (Incidentally does anyone have any info about the service pattern in NSE days, either late classic DMU or early Turbo?)

For the avoidance of doubt, I was wondering specifically about electrification of the inner suburban section, i.e. Paddington to Slough, rather than anything further out as the nature of the WR makes large-scale electrification challenging, at least before bi-modes.

these were augmented by a number of loco hauled services (Class 47 + Mk 1) which must have cost a fortune to run.

Yes, these were the fast peak-only hauled services I mentioned above. That was a unique, by this stage, feature of the Western - presumably using additional DMUs would have the problem that they couldn't use the fast lines out to Reading so hauled was the only option. Made for an interesting railway though I never experienced the full peak, only the start.

There were also some interesting workings like Paddington to Twyford, which then went empty to Reading sidings and ran round.

There were through Henley peak services at that time, which were limited-stop, but presumably these were DMUs as then Henley branch couldn't handle reversing a loco, I presume.

The stock was used for summer Saturday reliefs to the West Country which wouldn't have been possible with EMUs.

That was a nice efficient use of the stock. I did experience a 'summer' Saturday at Reading when I saw many of these trains - 29 September 1984, which is very much stretching the definition of summer but nice to see the season extend so late into the year.

 

[Dr Hoo]

For the avoidance of doubt, I was wondering specifically about electrification of the inner suburban section, i.e. Paddington to Slough, rather than anything further out as the nature of the WR makes large-scale electrification challenging, at least before bi-modes.

I am still failing to see how there would be any benefit or justification for all the expense of electrification, signal immunisation, new depot, new rolling stock, power feed and electrical control, training and so on for a tiny proportion of overall services whose diesel units were still relatively new. Especially 'in isolation' and at a time when investment capital was in such short supply.

Similar expenditure elsewhere in terms of extending an existing electrified area would achieve much more.

 

[Taunton]

Yes, these were the fast peak-only hauled services I mentioned above. That was a unique, by this stage, feature of the Western - presumably using additional DMUs would have the problem that they couldn't use the fast lines out to Reading so hauled was the only option.

There were likewise, on Euston to Northampton, electric-hauled, and Liverpool Street to Cambridge, Class 47 but changed over to electric locos. The Northampton sets, still Mk 1, did various weekend services as well; one used to be on a Sunday evening Liverpool to London service I used to use, then ecs to Northampton for Monday morning.

The Reading/Oxford peak services also used to call first stop at Slough; I used them several times. Once the 125mph HSTs took over most main line services the 70mph dmus had to be kept very much off the Main lines, the speed differential was too much.

I've always felt that, if only the Relief and the Main lines from Paddington were the other way round, Windsor Central would have made a very effective terminus for the inner suburban services, even for Crossrail, but the immediate tight junction west of Slough from the Main line side makes this impractical. There's no space for a flyover with the adjacent road bridges, and a diveunder would probably go beneath the water table of the Thames nearby.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

While a nice idea the other Thames Valley branches left from the north side of the formation, though Staines West did head south pretty quickly.

 

[BeijingDave]

For the typical commuter heading for the City Paddington is one of the most inconvenient London termini, so it's no surprise that commuting from the GWML was much less than from lines into Cannon St./London Bridge/Fenchurch St./Liverpool St. Even the ECML, the MML and the WCML had limited peak hour services into Broad St and Moorgate, but from Paddington it was (and is) a trek across London on the Underground. Crossrail will improve the situation, but it is still on the wrong side of London for City commuters (if there are any left in future).

Paddington is very handy for Edgware Road, though, which has long been one of the centres of the advertising industry. Granted, there isn't as much money flowing through there as the City but that's still a lot of potential commuters.

 

[Grumpy]

The OP is enquiring whether electrification to Slough was considered in the 1960's/70's.
The simple answer is that it was, but part of a proposal to electrify to Oxford. This was pushed by the London Division of the WR in the early 1970's and a fair amount of desk top feasibility work was done by the Division. The Divisional head of operations (Kirby?) produced a full set of diagrams assuming units similar to the AM10's, with a maintenance depot at Didcot. Due to lack of enthusiasm at higher levels/shortage of capital/internal politics it didn't receive support.
In the early 1970's the Western Region was showing the highest growth rate of passenger income of any BR Region , and the London Division was showing the highest growth rate in the Region. This came about from external factors such as the building of the M4 resulting in a lot of companies relocating out of London to the Thames Valley, particularly Reading. Also the rapid growth of computing companies in the Thames Valley attracted by the easy access to Heathrow and excellent service to London Paddington. The Paddington-Reading suburban service wasn't eligible for Grant Aid (unlike most services in the South East) as it was fully profitable on a Cooper Brothers costing basis, although the Paddington-Slough trains were unprofitable and Grant-aided. It should also be remembered at that time the DMU's were expected to have a 20 year life, and being introduced in 1959 were thought to be over half way through their planned life.
So a profitable base, good passenger growth and existing stock likely to need replacing why shouldn't it be considered for electrification? Paddington was also handling more commuters than St Pancras.

So the Division's proposals for electrification didn't progress. However they did start lobbying for something else
around the same time-pointing out that the Southern's lobbying for a route into Heathrow had been getting nowhere for years, and that a route from the Western near Hayes seemed feasible and looked a lot cheaper.