Why didn't the 1967 Bournemouth electrification extend to Poole?

[Grecian 1998]

The most obvious answer to this question is 'money', or lack of it. However, it does seem a curiosity given that electrification extended into the town of Poole as far as Branksome, in order to access Bournemouth depot. It would only have needed to be extended about 3 miles further to reach Poole station and the sidings to the west, which would presumably have also been electrified as a turnback point. It doesn't seem as though this would have been particularly expensive given the short distance, and would have been rather different to extending the electrification across the largely rural last 30 miles to Weymouth. I don't know if the level crossing on Poole High Street was a factor, although there are plenty of busy level crossings in SE England where the conductor rail stops fairly close to the crossing, and it doesn't seem to constitute a hazard.

In fairness the fact that Poole wasn't electrified probably helped the case for electrification in the 1980s, so it might have been a blessing in disguise. AIUI Poole had just 1tph to London pre-1988 compared to Bournemouth's 3 (express, semi-fast and stopper), although it was then served by a number of Crosscountry services.

As an aside, this led to the curious situation where electric trains ran into Dorset but didn't stop at any stations there. This altered in 1974 when Bournemouth was moved into Dorset - an unusual way of acquiring electrified services.

 

[stu]

This is only a guess/theory, but I suppose there was more space at Bournemouth to do the changeover to/from Diesel?

 

[30907]

This is only a guess/theory, but I suppose there was more space at Bournemouth to do the changeover to/from Diesel?

That's certainly an obvious reason: two sharply curved platforms, minimal sidings, and the level crossings as well.

The other will be that Bournemouth "always" was the principal station and more-or-less central to the conurbation, while Poole was (then) on the western fringe and, I suspect, much less of a passenger traffic generator, so overcoming the practical obstacles wouldn't have been worthwhile.

Interestingly, Poole became the terminus for the (then infrequent) inter-regional services, which ran round in the convenient up-side sidings beyond the station, and this remained so into the Voyager era.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The original intention was to retain and electrify to Bournemouth West - a more convenient station for the town centre and hotels - but the scheme was pared back as costs escalated.

 

[D7666]

This is a very very good question, one that I asked 50 years ago, hailing from that area, and I have been looking into ever since, and can not find one shred of evidence to why Bomo and not Poole. Indeed a family relation was very much involved with operating BOMO EMU depot and they could never answer this one either. Read this as above, accepting the point that Bomo includes Branksome, for the depot - but that actually adds to the question, Branksome being part way to Poole.

The scheme was anomalous to many preceding of SR (not BR SR) where non-suburban projects NOT going to a dead end terminal did extend beyond the main target station to generate traffic i.e. Worthing went to West Worthing, Hastings went to Ore, Chatham went to Gillingham (the latter was not a large place in 1930s), Aldershot [the target, large military traffic] went to Alton (+ other factors with Alton) . The big BR SR scheme preceding Bomo was Kent Coast - and the 'terminal' stations while not dead ends there all formed loops all in the scheme so there were no 'add ons' to run too.

I have seen space at Poole, lack of, as quoted, but, I don't accept that one - in operational terms for turn back all you had at Bomo Ctl was 2 reversing sidings, and you had two at Poole anyway (where 1970s etc XC used to run round; there was not the XC trains terminating Poole then in 1960s) . Also seen the level crossing suggested as an issue, but I don't get that either.

It is about 200% true the entire Bomo scheme was done on a second hand shoe string and very definitely costs was a big point, but it sure don't make a lot of sense. Especially as Poole was a rapidly expanding town from late 1950s onwards. Bomo was much much grander in original scope than the one that turned out, far far more rolling stock would have been involved for one thing. Much got descoped.

The only sensible suggestion I have seen re not Poole is that Bomo West was around in the early planning for many many years before they got any funds to start it. At /that/ time, pre-Beeching, Bomo West and all the other since closed lines serving it might have been too cluttered unless they revised things like S&DJR etc and from via Wimborne way to have terminated at Poole, which would have needed new bays. The suggestion I have seen is it was the very elimination of Bomo West as a passenger station from c.1964 that released the space for the depot that in turn tipped the balance, and, maybe, the pre- Beeching state plans were never re-evaluated, and they never re-looked at Poole.

But why on earth the 1966 pattern of bi-hourly 91 to Weymouth, hourly 92 to Bomo (one alternaitng opposite the 91 to Weymouth) could not have been hourly Poole trains, and the 93s still use Bomo bay could not have worked, which would have given 2 TPH to Poole. You can then debate if Branksome and Parkstone could be 1 or 2 TPH and which ones called.

1 push pull 33/1 diesel loco diagram would have been saved, you'd only need 2 to serve west of Poole, BUT one more Rep tractor unit would have been needed. There must have been some real fine cost paring if that 4 less miles of third rail and one less Rep were the issue, especially as they did 19 33/1 in reality you actually only need 5-6 at most to cover even the most maxxed out summer SO.

Given that Hamworthy also was expanding in the same era, and is really part of the same built up area, applying the SR (not BR SR) philosophy to generate traffic, third rails would have gone one station to Hamworthy Junction.

 

[RT4038]

The Bournemouth electrification was done as cheaply as possible. The railways had little investment money (apart from what it could generate from land and scrap sales from closed lines etc.) Poole was not necessary, so it wasn't done.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Money would have been one thing, but from a railway operating perspective, it would have been a no brainer. Post steam days, Bournemouth (Central) was where the crew depot was/is located, and so any activity which required additional crew activity, performing splitting/joining activities etc, is always best placed most convenient to where there are resources (crew) to deal with same. Simples!
The Poole terminators IIRC were a later concept to some degree, long after the loss of the Bomo West Jn to Gas Works Jn side of the triangle. The Carriage Working plans for the initial EMU operations from the 'new' Bournemouth Depot, in CWN format, I think I may have in my loft....I'll dig them out when I have a spare moment....

BOLD: edited for accuracy, AFAIR.

 

[The exile]

This is a very very good question, one that I asked 50 years ago, hailing from that area, and I have been looking into ever since, and can not find one shred of evidence to why Bomo and not Poole. Indeed a family relation was very much involved with operating BOMO EMU depot and they could never answer this one either. Read this as above, accepting the point that Bomo includes Branksome, for the depot - but that actually adds to the question, Branksome being part way to Poole.

The scheme was anomalous to many preceding of SR (not BR SR) where non-suburban projects NOT going to a dead end terminal did extend beyond the main target station to generate traffic i.e. Worthing went to West Worthing, Hastings went to Ore, Chatham went to Gillingham (the latter was not a large place in 1930s), Aldershot [the target, large military traffic] went to Alton (+ other factors with Alton) . The big BR SR scheme preceding Bomo was Kent Coast - and the 'terminal' stations while not dead ends there all formed loops all in the scheme so there were no 'add ons' to run too.

I have seen space at Poole, lack of, as quoted, but, I don't accept that one - in operational terms for turn back all you had at Bomo Ctl was 2 reversing sidings, and you had two at Poole anyway (where 1970s etc XC used to run round; there was not the XC trains terminating Poole then in 1960s) . Also seen the level crossing suggested as an issue, but I don't get that either.

It is about 200% true the entire Bomo scheme was done on a second hand shoe string and very definitely costs was a big point, but it sure don't make a lot of sense. Especially as Poole was a rapidly expanding town from late 1950s onwards. Bomo was much much grander in original scope than the one that turned out, far far more rolling stock would have been involved for one thing. Much got descoped.

The only sensible suggestion I have seen re not Poole is that Bomo West was around in the early planning for many many years before they got any funds to start it. At /that/ time, pre-Beeching, Bomo West and all the other since closed lines serving it might have been too cluttered unless they revised things like S&DJR etc and from via Wimborne way to have terminated at Poole, which would have needed new bays. The suggestion I have seen is it was the very elimination of Bomo West as a passenger station from c.1964 that released the space for the depot that in turn tipped the balance, and, maybe, the pre- Beeching state plans were never re-evaluated, and they never re-looked at Poole.

But why on earth the 1966 pattern of bi-hourly 91 to Weymouth, hourly 92 to Bomo (one alternaitng opposite the 91 to Weymouth) could not have been hourly Poole trains, and the 93s still use Bomo bay could not have worked, which would have given 2 TPH to Poole. You can then debate if Branksome and Parkstone could be 1 or 2 TPH and which ones called.

1 push pull 33/1 diesel loco diagram would have been saved, you'd only need 2 to serve west of Poole, BUT one more Rep tractor unit would have been needed. There must have been some real fine cost paring if that 4 less miles of third rail and one less Rep were the issue, especially as they did 19 33/1 in reality you actually only need 5-6 at most to cover even the most maxxed out summer SO.

Given that Hamworthy also was expanding in the same era, and is really part of the same built up area, applying the SR (not BR SR) philosophy to generate traffic, third rails would have gone one station to Hamworthy Junction.

Surely the reason for all those electrification extensions beyond the “natural” end point is because that was the closest place you could put in the new stabling sidings / depot (all of the projects would have involved an increase in stock required and needed stock at the outer end at the beginning of the day)? Not sure about Alton, though, as the sidings are at Farnham.

 

[Taunton]

A good indication is the 2018 passenger figures for the stations, 2.75m for Bournemouth and 1.1m for Poole.

 

[30907]

But why on earth the 1966 pattern of bi-hourly 91 to Weymouth, hourly 92 to Bomo (one alternaitng opposite the 91 to Weymouth) could not have been hourly Poole trains, and the 93s still use Bomo bay could not have worked, which would have given 2 TPH to Poole.

3 per 2hr, surely, uhtil the fasts went hourly?

1 push pull 33/1 diesel loco diagram would have been saved, you'd only need 2 to serve west of Poole,

I make it still 3 diagrams but with longer layovers at Poole (and an extra REP - though I suppose you could have decided to work half the semi-fasts with Cig-Big-Cig?).

Given that Hamworthy also was expanding in the same era, and is really part of the same built up area, applying the SR (not BR SR) philosophy to generate traffic, third rails would have gone one station to Hamworthy Junction.

That would have made sense, certainly (though the SR didn't actually propose to electrify beyond Southampton, which was Raworth's 1944 proposal).

 

[Snow1964]

A number of local bo9ks on railways around Bournemouth say it was partly due to a structural weakness in the older Bourne valley viaduct. The original curved 10 arch brick viaduct was built when the connecting line through Bournemouth Central was opened in 1888 which linked the extension of the Christchurch branch (which ran from near Ringwood via Hurn) from Bournemouth East to Bournemouth West.

Originally the electrification was planned on basis trains would continue to terminate at Bournemouth West. But because of the viaduct weakness the direct line was closed, instead the later 1893 built connecting line to Branksome got electrified instead. For completeness the station at Bournemouth West was also going to become rather underused with closure of Somerset and Dorset line, so Beeching cuts can also be blamed.

I have never found any reference to what the weakness was (the viaduct is still there). Although there are references to few nearby Luftwaffe bombs (probably dropped on aborted missions, or dumped by damaged planes as opportunity targets). Possibly the damaged viaduct was just a myth used as cover story as part of Bournemouth West closure and cutbacks to electrification.

 

[Falcon1200]

The Bournemouth electrification was done as cheaply as possible.

Indeed; Much of the 'new' stock for the Bournemouth electrification was actually repurposed Mark 1 stock, ie half the REP vehicles and all the TC vehicles!

 

[Snow1964]

Indeed; Much of the 'new' stock for the Bournemouth electrification was actually repurposed Mark 1 stock, ie half the REP vehicles and all the TC vehicles!

Just the y frames and bodies, with doors windows, compartment partitions, and some other parts.

They had new bogies, new electric heating, new aluminium fittings, new upholstery etc

 

[D7666]

Surely the reason for all those electrification extensions beyond the “natural” end point is because that was the closest place you could put in the new stabling sidings / depot (all of the projects would have involved an increase in stock required and needed stock at the outer end at the beginning of the day)? Not sure about Alton, though, as the sidings are at Farnham.

The SR principle was always to go past the target town station; that took precedent; that the EMU sheds (e.g. Ore, West Worthing) are where they are is a function of the extension through the town, not the other way round no way did they go past Hastings or Worthing just to provide a car shed.

Unfortunately writers on this stuff do not do their research fully, wrote incorrectly or incompletely, then that false story becomes embedded as history as is gets repeated and repeated.

Alton / Farnham is different for applying the same principle but impractical for other reasons. Aldershot was the target town, electrify extension to Farnham was the plan. But, a different cost factor then arose: to combine terminating electric trains at Farnham from the east AND all the steam services from the west (there were 4 different routes converging in the area) meant a complete rebuild of Farnham beyond its 2 platforms to handle all that. Not economic to rebuild. The next place west is Bentley where one route diverged, but, only a little further is Alton, a bigger town (although not that big) where 3 routes converge, and room for maneovure, so become the logical place, the money spent on third rails to Alton off set the steam savings of the three different branch services not going east of there.

In fact, Aldershot / Farnham / Alton worked out in reality what Bournemouth / BournemouthWest + Branksome / Poole should have been.
_

But why on earth the 1966 pattern of bi-hourly 91 to Weymouth, hourly 92 to Bomo (one alternaitng opposite the 91 to Weymouth) could not have been hourly Poole trains, and the 93s still use Bomo bay could not have worked, which would have given 2 TPH to Poole. You can then debate if Branksome and Parkstone could be 1 or 2 TPH and which ones called.

3 per 2hr, surely, uhtil the fasts went hourly?

I said that. I wrote bi hourly 91 and hourly 92 => 3 TP2H (three trains per two hours) - alternate 92 went to Weymouth while the bi-hourly 91 existed => hourly Poole.
_

I make it still 3 diagrams but with longer layovers at Poole (and an extra REP - though I suppose you could have decided to work half the semi-fasts with Cig-Big-Cig?).

Perhaps I should have said "could" not "would" - by twiddling timings is where 3>2 33/1 could have been done.

12ICBC on 92s would have led to less efficient Rep fleet. Never a suggestion from me nor imply it. The Rep pattern at Waterloo was up 92 > down 91 > up 91 > down 92 cycles all day; if the Up were 12ICBC then it can't be the next Down push-pull, and v.v.

Quite apart from that, there were no SWD IG stock at this period in time, all Cig/Big was on the CD.
_

Just the bodies, with doors windows, compartment partitions, and some other parts.

They had new bogies, new electric heating, new aluminium fittings, new upholstery etc

Not the underframes then ??????

It is the underframe that is the most important re-used part.

Indeed; Much of the 'new' stock for the Bournemouth electrification was actually repurposed Mark 1 stock, ie half the REP vehicles and all the TC vehicles!

Not just that. Rebuilds etc :

19 33/1 converted to push pull.
10 74 converted from 71.
3 'new' de-icer ex Lav/Hal
4 air brake shunters (15230233)

The only new build budgeted against the project was - as you said - the original 22 Rep motor coaches, and then 20 4Vep and 12 EDL. Originally all 42 73/1 were to have been booked against it, but they did some creative accounting, offset 30 of the JBs against SED and wrote off the book value (for this purpose) against transferring already existing 33s.

There was also a huge number of LH stock for peak trains and boat trains that was counted in the original project that was eroded by traffic loss and descoping and other accounting. There was a plan at one time for 4 vacuum braked sets for peak hours trains to be push pull loco operated with a single driving trailer at the opposite end; still BR SR 27 way train controls, but using vacuum not EP braking.

Another confusing factor is Weymouth boat trains; at the time the original BR SR Bomo line was schemed out - c.1955-1958, Weymouth was all WR and the CI boat trains (up to 4 per sailing at peak times) were Paddington. There were no Waterloo CI boat trains until when was it 1962???? when the area transferred to Southern Region. This was simply one more input to an ever moving target.

 

[Snow1964]

The population of Poole (whole Borough) was nearer 91k per 1961 census, the area around Broadstone was all open heathland. It is now about 141k for Poole Borough.

Had the rail line remained (was open for freight until about 1977) then probably now be reopened as it is built up beyond Poole station through Broadstone, Wimborne, Ferndown. And area suffers with quite lot of traffic congestion

 

[D7666]

The population of Poole (whole Borough) was nearer 91k per 1961 census, the area around Broadstone was all open heathland. It is now about 141k for Poole Borough.

Had the rail line remained (was open for freight until about 1977) then probably now be reopened as it is built up beyond Poole station through Broadstone, Wimborne, Ferndown. And area suffers with quite lot of traffic congestion

(Brockenhurst) Ringwood Wimborne (Poole) as a loop line would make a lot of sense these days, notwithstanding twixt Ringwood and Brockenhurst there lies almost nothing.*** It would be quite an operationally effiicent service if they went through the Christchurch Bournemouth Poole Broadstone Wimborne combined urban areas in a loop back towards Ringwood (itself much expanded) thence back to Brockenhust.

Probably not economic to re-open it, but, had it never closed, it would have been a good deal.

No doubt in the mean time some twit would build Burley New Forest & Hurn International Airport Parkway station in the middle of it.

*** I have to say /almost/ as one of the nowheres east south east of Ringwood is the homeland of my ancesters 3-5 generations back.

 

[eldomtom2]

The SR principle was always to go past the target town station; that took precedent; that the EMU sheds (e.g. Ore, West Worthing) are where they are is a function of the extension through the town, not the other way round no way did they go past Hastings or Worthing just to provide a car shed.

Do you have a source for this claim?

 

[contrex]

Unfortunately writers on this stuff do not do their research fully, wrote incorrectly or incompletely, then that false story becomes embedded as history as is gets repeated and repeated.

From time to time it is still necessary to stamp on the '850 volts (west of Pirbright Junction)' myth that arose, as far as I can make out, from a typo in a railway magazine. It's 750, and always has been.

 

[D7666]

From time to time it is still necessary to stamp on the '850 volts (west of Pirbright Junction)' myth that arose, as far as I can make out, from a typo in a railway magazine. It's 750, and always has been.

Absolutely.

750 it ever was.

AIUI 850 is open circuit no load at the rectifiers and irrelevant to what is in the live rail

The same issue came up with the new-ish substation at Farringdon where 850 was alleged

On systems I have for my work I can look at traction sections that are nominally 630 or 750 but can show up to 890 on no load. that don't make them 890 V supply

Same applies this thing with 4vep quoted with 275 hp motors nay nay thrice nay they are they were the same motors as Cig and anything else; what happened was a press release stated a different value without saying with reference to what.

 

[Mr. SW]

Interesting. Personally, I never thought about why the electrification should have gone beyond Bournemouth. The simplest and easiest answer was that traffic fell off beyond and therefore not worth going to Poole.

But, would be there another reason be for the closures beyond Poole? The S&D, the Wimborne route and even the Swanage branch were being slated for closure/being run down/being closed/actually closed at the time of the electrification process. Perhaps BR thought that getting as much of these routes off their hands as quickly as possible would somehow cut down on local pressure to extend or make improvements beyond Bournemouth? (The Swanage branch lingered but that would be safely regarded as being too far. The Wimborne line lingered for freight) Did local people notice? Did they understand?

Too many questions.

 

[paul1609]

I suspect the answer is finance, down here in Kent it is stated that the Marshlink electrification on which preliminary work had started (again) was cancelled and the equipment that had been purchased transferred to the Bournemouth line.

 

[Magdalia]

The Poole terminators IIRC were a later concept to some degree, long after the loss of the Bomo West Jn to Gas Works Jn side of the triangle.

Cross country Poole terminators/starters go back a long way.

The summer Saturday train from/to Bradford via the Great Central was already going to/from Poole in the late 1950s.

The daily through train from/to Newcastle (summer)/York(winter) switched to Poole when Bournemouth West closed, this included its last year of operation via the Great Central.

 

[Taunton]

From time to time it is still necessary to stamp on the '850 volts (west of Pirbright Junction)' myth that arose, as far as I can make out, from a typo in a railway magazine. It's 750, and always has been.

I still have the very magazine. It's a Modern Railways from 1967, when the scheme opened. The paragraph continues, to state that now there was an electric route to Eastleigh, suburban stock for works overhaul there could now travel themselves, instead of being hauled as previously. But for the older SUB units, because of this higher voltage and their earlier circuit designs, they need to run with the saloon lights turned off.

Is that a fiction as well?

 

[Tester]

I still have the very magazine. It's a Modern Railways from 1967, when the scheme opened. The paragraph continues, to state that now there was an electric route to Eastleigh, suburban stock for works overhaul there could now travel themselves, instead of being hauled as previously. But for the older SUB units, because of this higher voltage and their earlier circuit designs, they need to run with the saloon lights turned off.

Is that a fiction as well?

No, that is entirely logical.

Those units had their saloon lighting fed, Christmas tree style, in series across the traction voltage, so the higher voltage would not have been good for them!

If one lamp in a carriage failed, they all did, however as there were two separate strings for each side of the carriage, complete darkness was unusual - half light was not at all unusual though!

 

[edwin_m]

There is considerable variation in the voltage depending on load, and without this regenerative braking wouldn't be possible. If I recall correctly 850 is within the permitted range where the nominal voltage is 750, so it's correct in the sense that the voltage might go that high sometimes.

 

[Taunton]

Those units had their saloon lighting fed, Christmas tree style, in series across the traction voltage, so the higher voltage would not have been good for them!

But what higher voltage (the nub of this discussion)? What were the voltages either side of Pirbright Junction?

 

[Tester]

But what higher voltage (the nub of this discussion)? What were the voltages either side of Pirbright Junction?

I'm not expert, but the nominal figures I recall at the time were 630V east and 750V west.

 

[Snow1964]

But what higher voltage (the nub of this discussion)? What were the voltages either side of Pirbright Junction?

Prior to Bournemouth electrification, the boundary wasn't at Pirbright Junction, but at Sturt Lane Junction. Only the local lines (outside tracks only, not centre pair) were electrified from Brookwood to Sturt Lane Junction (where peak hour trains ran through Frimley to Ascot).

East of Brookwood all four tracks were electrified. Third rail was added to other tracks as part of Bournemouth scheme and section to Basingstoke went live in 1966.

I think the 1937-39 schemes had been done at 660v.

The LSWR electrification of 1904 for District line trains was 600v
The 1913 LSWR inner suburban scheme was at same voltage
The post First World War extensions beyond Claygate and to Windsor were at slightly higher voltage of 630v

 

[Taunton]

So 660v all the way to Portsmouth? I'm surprised. I did think it stepped up at Hampton Court Junction. SUB units did run from Waterloo to Portsmouth on Summer Saturdays.

 

[D7666]

The original 3rd rails were 630/600 V depending on what value is being quoted : 630 is the 'proper' value when making comparison with 750.

Subs. Lights. It is true about the strings of light bulbs in series, this actually applied to all SR stock of that generation and earlier. But Subs were a bit more complexicated than that - when 750 was adopted, as the units passed through overhaul they were re-wired for 750 *if* the work required re-wiring. It was passive work in the sense if it needed a re-wire then all re-wring was done to the latest standard = 750, but if re-wiring was not needed, then it remained 630. There was no actual project specifically to uprate Subs from 630 to 750. The other complexication was motors - despite what the spotting books might tell you, not all Sub had 507 motors even to the very end, many had 33 motors, and, even that is muddled as batches that were built new with either got motor swaps per usual SR maintenance regimes, the 339s were 630,mostly, even that is not simple.***

The point to take from the above is not that ALL Subs had restrictions, but tat the fleet was so muddled it was easier to impose a general paper ban, but then Control etc had a list of 750 allowed Subs and it is these that worked without faffing around with lights etc.

The comment about the Portsmouth direct line 630 or 750 country end : this is one I have never understood either. 1930s electrification I am pretty sure was at 630 but at least from 1950s onwards seems to have had no restriction on EMU types working over it. Whether it got uprated or the original info was wrong, I have no idea. It sure can not have been 750 all the way from Waterloo anyway, that area was 630. 630 / 750 east / west of Pirbright came in with Bomo electrification - and that at least implies Woking was 630, so Guildford (Subs via New Line) must have been 630 - whether or when it went 750 further south no idea.


*** Sarah Siddons has 339 motors for 750
_

There is considerable variation in the voltage depending on load, and without this regenerative braking wouldn't be possible. If I recall correctly 850 is within the permitted range where the nominal voltage is 750, so it's correct in the sense that the voltage might go that high sometimes.

Yes, this is analagous to the 750 / 850 issue above; you can get 850 open circuit no load, and can get 900 (I believe) on a modern day circuit (someone might be able to correct that) where regen is allowed (which is almost everywhere these days I believe).

It is something that a lot of people do no appreciate is these numbers are nominal values; they do not mean 750.000 V, they vary greatly. Indeed, when you look at your IA / P5 spotting books and see your EMU$$$ or quoted with a 250 hp motor, that is 250 hp at 675 V not 750 V. 675 is the value used for timetabling and performance. This is yet another confusion sources in the 630 660 675 750 850 900 issue - these things should always be quoted with a reference.

$$$ same applies to locos; your 1420 hp class 73 is 1420 hp at 675 V not 750 V. Further, similar applies to AC EMU and loco - the spotting book values are at 22.5 kV not 25 kV. Any one want proof of this should consult the BR Diagram Book diagrams and you will see the gen in the spotting books comes from there but they omit the 675 V or 22.5 kV bit.