The 12:08 service to... [Archive] - Alternate History Discussion Board

Devvy

September 3rd, 2011, 01:17 AM

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/1/diary.jpg

Personal Diary: Walter Rose
December 1954

Had a top level meeting of the Ministry of Transport & Civil Aviation today with the rest of the board. British Rail management also attended in order to officially present their proposal and submissions into the modernisation of British Rail. They make an interesting case - thankfully for them the Government clearly wants action taken over the dreadful state that the BR network runs, and are willing to invest in the rail network in order to make change happen.

It seems like only yesterday that British Rail came into existence under Atlee. And now they want a large amount of money to invest in the network.

Times have changed though I guess....coal that was the lifeblood of the country is now starting to give way to foreign imports of oil. Although BR want to electrify huge swathes of the railways as well. I can't really see the benefit myself; all we are doing is swapping oil or coal burning in the train for burning it in a power station and then paying for a large electrical distribution network as well. BR should be thankful I'm not the Minister who seemed a lot more enthusiastic then myself about the ideas then I was. BR are also lucky they have such an articulate director as Sir Brian Robertson from the BTC as well.

In essence, they want millions of pounds in order to electrify large swathes of the rail network, they want to purchase large fleets of new diesel and electric locomotives in order to replace their current steam fleet and close some lines.

Questioned them later about their plans for freight - the BR management nicely glossed over the fact that rail freight is consistently dropping. Hardly suprising when road transport offers a quick and efficient door to door option. The Minister agreed with me on that - it seems absurd to spend such grandiose sums of money on huge freight yards if will sit quiet.

I don't expect the public will hear much of this for a few months. I always think it's a slightly weird situation that privately the Government's response is largely made up here and now, but in public it will sit and formulate a response for the next few months.

Notes:
- Walter Rose is just a fictional character, someone to help shed some light on what is going on as I start...there's a fair bit of groundwork to lay.

Devvy

September 3rd, 2011, 01:18 AM

Consider me subscribed and absolutely hooked already.

You seem to know your stuff, so I shan't patronise you, but was not the Cycling Lion still in use in 1955? I'm sure you're just using the later emblem because it's more iconic. (can you tell I'm into British Rail too?)

Erm yeah....that's a stupid gaff by me. Just because I think the double arrows are iconicly awesome too :)

Thank you - correcting now!

Meadow

September 3rd, 2011, 01:25 AM

Erm yeah....that's a stupid gaff by me. Just because I think the double arrows are iconicly awesome too :)

Thank you - correcting now!

Happy to help, and while I'm at it - Rose's diary is compelling and intriguing, but he wouldn't be talking about British Rail in 1955. It was known officially and unofficially as British Railways until 1965.

So, freight gets shafted while electrification potentially gets a heftier push? I'm listening. If you keep steam around longer I'll love you forever, but something tells me that isn't where this is headed.

Devvy

September 3rd, 2011, 01:36 AM

Happy to help, and while I'm at it - Rose's diary is compelling and intriguing, but he wouldn't be talking about British Rail in 1955. It was known officially and unofficially as British Railways until 1965.

So, freight gets shafted while electrification potentially gets a heftier push? I'm listening. If you keep steam around longer I'll love you forever, but something tells me that isn't where this is headed.

That's one of the reasons I kept it as a diary entry - it means some abbreviations can be put down to diary shorthand slang :)

BR back in the 1950s isn't really my strongest point hence the Rail typo, but I think it's a prime root of where BR inherited a lot of it's problems from so it's a bit of catch up for me. And I'm only 28 so the "love of steam" is sadly lost on me - I find fast sleek electric boxes amazing, but steam still has it's part to play :)

Right...sleep beckons....

Lord Brisbane

September 3rd, 2011, 04:02 AM

Subscribed.

The main problem with the '55 plan was that many of the new diesel designs were taken straight from the drawing board, and proved to be crap. If they took a little longer and either ordered some prototypes first or took existing designs, then so much could have been better.

I think however dieselisation is inevitable, firstly to reduce costs and staffing numbers (actually how long did it take for BR to move towards Driver Only Operations?)

Devvy

September 3rd, 2011, 01:21 PM

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/1/55modplan.jpg

1956 Government White Paper, summarising the BR Modernisation Plan:

1) The track and signalling must be improved to make higher speeds possible over trunk routes, and to provide for better utilisation of the physical assets; there will be an extended use of colour-light signalling, track circuits and automatic train control, the further introduction of power-operated signal boxes, and the installation of centralised traffic control where conditions are suitable; and the extended use of modern
telecommunication services - £250 million

2) Steam must be replaced as a form of motive power, electric or diesel traction being rapidly introduced as may be most suitable in the
light of the development of the Plan over the years; this will involve the electrification of large mileages of route, and the introduction of several thousand electric or diesel locomotives - £400 million

3) Much of the existing steam-drawn passenger rolling stock must be replaced; largely by multiple-unit electric or diesel trains; the remaining passenger rolling stock, which will be drawn by locomotives (whether electric, diesel or steam), must be modernised; the principal passenger stations and parcels depots will also require considerable expenditure - £300 million

4) The freight services must be addressed. Continuous brakes will be fitted to freight wagons, which will lead to faster and smoother operation of freight traffic; goods terminal facilities will be updated where appropriate, and in particular the number of marshalling yards will be greatly reduced - £150 million

5) Expenditure will be required on sundry other items, including improvements at the packet ports, staff welfare, office mechanisms, etc.; and a sum of at least £25 million for development and research work will be associated with the Plan - £50 million

Making a grand total of: £1,150 million

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/1/steam1.jpg
BR freight service by steam on the Great Central Main Line, mid 1950s

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/1/elec1.jpg
BR EM1 Sheffield bound freight service at Penistone, mid 1950s

------------------------

Personal Letter
<unknown> 1956

Ernest,

The Government are eventually publishing their white paper today - Sir Robertson is a capable orator and persuader. Eden has even been sold on the plan and gave it his rubber stamp in the end. Huge suburban electrification works to happen in (eastern) London and Glasgow. In London it is the Great Eastern Main Line and London, Tilbury & Southend Railway, and Kings Cross suburban lines that are going to be electrified.

Full electrification of the East Coast Main Line, West Coast Main Line and Great Central Main Line? At least the last one makes some sense, as part of the line is already properly electrified between Manchester & Sheffield. There were some limitations we got added in though - the WCML is only to be electrified as far as Manchester & Liverpool instead of Glasgow, and likewise the ECML will only be electrified as far as Newcastle.

Suprisingly sensibly though, BR are phasing out steam. The Clean Air legislation the Government is passing will make it near on impossible to run huge quantities of steam trains as we have in the past, especially into London. The air is obnoxious enough as it is with all the steam fumes, especially in the areas around Shoreditch and Finsbury Park.

I'm not really too sure what to make of the Government's move on freight. On one hand, it appears they've rightly dictated a move away from work as normal...local traffic is much better suited to use road transport as we both know, but there is some investment still occuring in the larger freight yards around big cities. Why not just close the lot down and save the money? They originally wanted large scale investment in huge numbers of freight and marshalling yards, but I guess as this represents such a significant climb-down the Government is willing to give them the rope. We'll see if they hang themselves with it.

Look forward to seeing you next month anyway.

Best regards,

Walter

------------
Notes
1) The Grand Central Main Line section through the Pennines between Sheffield and Manchester was electrified by the LNER and finished by BR, finishing in 1955.
2) The figures quotes differ from the OTL Modernisation Plan. Significantly less here is spent on 4) (freight), but more on electrification as more main lines are planned to be electrified and a bit more on research and development.

Devvy

September 3rd, 2011, 01:46 PM

Basileus Giorgios

September 3rd, 2011, 04:00 PM

Erm yeah....that's a stupid gaff by me. Just because I think the double arrows are iconicly awesome too :)

Thank you - correcting now!

Consider me subscribed and absolutely hooked already.

You seem to know your stuff, so I shan't patronise you, but was not the Cycling Lion still in use in 1955? I'm sure you're just using the later emblem because it's more iconic. (can you tell I'm into British Rail too?)

Guys- I'm reasonably sure that the Cycling Lion was in use until 1956, being replaced by the symbol that's currently on the thread in that year, which remained the official symbol until 1965, when double arrows and Corporate Blue came in. Meadow's right to say that, pre 1965, it's British Railways, not British Rail.

Interesting to see the GC gets electrified, does this mean BR will be ordering more EM2 (TOPS class 77) locomotives? The design's quite outdated by the mid 1950s, but this is cash-strapped Britain, still.

I'll be looking out particularly for the development of rail travel in the North West, where I suspect a lot of the extensive network will get the chop. Be interested to see if the ex Lancashire and Yorkshire electrification around Liverpool gets extended here, and linked up. Third rail EMU's in the north west to replace regular electrification?

Look forward to more! :D

Basileus Giorgios

September 3rd, 2011, 04:02 PM

The main problem with the '55 plan was that many of the new diesel designs were taken straight from the drawing board, and proved to be crap. If they took a little longer and either ordered some prototypes first or took existing designs, then so much could have been better.

Also, the desire to subsidise British companies (particularly Glasgow based North British) hobbled the programme somewhat. Whilst Preston-based English Electric was fine, North British products were universally awful.

Which has echoes in the modern debate in Britain about building trains in Derby at Bombardier...

Meadow

September 3rd, 2011, 04:05 PM

Guys- I'm reasonably sure that the Cycling Lion was in use until 1956, being replaced by the symbol that's currently on the thread in that year, which remained the official symbol until 1965, when double arrows and Corporate Blue came in. Meadow's right to say that, pre 1965, it's British Railways, not British Rail.

Interesting to see the GC gets electrified, does this mean BR will be ordering more EM2 (TOPS class 77) locomotives? The design's quite outdated by the mid 1950s, but this is cash-strapped Britain, still.

I'll be looking out particularly for the development of rail travel in the North West, where I suspect a lot of the extensive network will get the chop. Be interested to see if the ex Lancashire and Yorkshire electrification around Liverpool gets extended here, and linked up. Third rail EMU's in the north west to replace regular electrification?

Look forward to more! :D

Yes. Cycling Lion is different to 'Lion and Wheel' or 'Ferret and Spinning Wheel' as the less charitable call it. Cycling Lion was better IMO, it always faced direction of travel thanks to it facing different ways on the opposite sides of tenders.

Devvy

September 3rd, 2011, 06:42 PM

Thanks for the comments! One other thing I want to take a quick look at before we chew too much further on is the London Underground, as although it's not BR it does play a role in how BR conducts it's business in and around London.

Interesting to see the GC gets electrified, does this mean BR will be ordering more EM2 (TOPS class 77) locomotives? The design's quite outdated by the mid 1950s, but this is cash-strapped Britain, still.

Well I think after the obvious candidates of the WCML and ECML for electrification (and both of them were slated for electrifying in the 55 report, despite the ECML not being done until the 1980s), the 3rd choice would logically be the GCML. It's partly electrified already as we stated, and the line itself it very conducive to running express trains and freight over as it doesn't interface with many lines as it runs between Sheffield and London but has central stations in Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester. Most expresses from the East Midlands ran via the Midland Main Line (and still do OTL), but they would be easy to switch over given the advantages. As for the EM2, given the time taken to electrify 3 main lines, it depends if it is still in operation when the route is done.

I'll be looking out particularly for the development of rail travel in the North West, where I suspect a lot of the extensive network will get the chop. Be interested to see if the ex Lancashire and Yorkshire electrification around Liverpool gets extended here, and linked up. Third rail EMU's in the north west to replace regular electrification?

The network across Yorkshire and Lancashire is unavoidably going to pruned at some point - there's so much duplication....and well it looks like a mess of spaghetti quite frankly. I don't think anyone then or now could reasonably argue for the status quo at that point.

Also, the desire to subsidise British companies (particularly Glasgow based North British) hobbled the programme somewhat. Whilst Preston-based English Electric was fine, North British products were universally awful.

Which has echoes in the modern debate in Britain about building trains in Derby at Bombardier...

Aye - English Electric seem to of produced some decent stuff. Bombardier might still get the Crossrail tender though. Would be the political escape out of that conundrum.

Yes. Cycling Lion is different to 'Lion and Wheel' or 'Ferret and Spinning Wheel' as the less charitable call it. Cycling Lion was better IMO, it always faced direction of travel thanks to it facing different ways on the opposite sides of tenders.

Cycling Lion is OK, I prefer the dragony thing now at the top of the thread. It's rather regal with the crown and everything. But the double headed arrows still come top for me - simple, iconic and instantly recognisable.

JN1

September 3rd, 2011, 07:50 PM

Aye - English Electric seem to of produced some decent stuff.

'Some'? That's quite an understatement! :D
Just look at some of the things they built, the Class 55 is an icon of diesel traction and locos like the Class 08/09 and the Class 20 and 37 are still in revenue earning service, and that's without mentioning their AC electric locos.

Devvy

September 3rd, 2011, 07:57 PM

'Some'? That's quite an understatement! :D
Just look at some of the things they built, the Class 55 is an icon of diesel traction and locos like the Class 08/09 and the Class 20 and 37 are still in revenue earning service, and that's without mentioning their AC electric locos.

Being British and chronically understating things go hand in hand! :)

I quite agree about those, and I'd also add the 86 as the prime AC loco by EE.

trekchu

September 3rd, 2011, 08:00 PM

While I remember EE more for stuff that goes faster and higher than any train, I must call El Pip to this. We have this ongoing running joke where I say that nationalized Railways and essential services are a good thing and he objects to that.

Nebogipfel

September 3rd, 2011, 08:05 PM

The 12:08 service to...
An alternative British Rail timeline
.....

What ? A TL without vast piles of corpses ?? :eek::eek:

Excellent. :D:D

Subscribed.

Astrodragon

September 3rd, 2011, 08:49 PM

What ? A TL without vast piles of corpses ?? :eek::eek:

.

You're not a commuter on BR, are you....:D:D:D

Basileus Giorgios

September 3rd, 2011, 10:22 PM

Bombardier might still get the Crossrail tender though. Would be the political escape out of that conundrum.

Indeed, though Bombardier have the habit of producing expensive and unreliable trains, that they then deliver late- and then moan about not being selected for contracts. I don't have a vast amount of sympathy with the company, though the members of staff are of course another matter.

Anyway, I digress. Let's see what happens.

JN1

September 3rd, 2011, 10:37 PM

Being British and chronically understating things go hand in hand! :)

I quite agree about those, and I'd also add the 86 as the prime AC loco by EE.

Ah, well, can't blame you for understatement. Btw I will consider any TL that doesn't have the iconic EE locos as a dystopia. :D

Trekchu,
Yes, I know that EE are perhaps better known for the Canberra and Lightning. I always think that they have their counterparts in the locos - the Canberra was the Class 37, a long lived design that did it's job without too much fanfare, but an excellent job; the Lightning was the Class 55, a glamorous design known for being fast, glamorous and complex to maintain.

Devvy

September 4th, 2011, 02:38 AM

Article in local London Newspaper, 1959

Delayed by almost 20 years, the LPTB's grandiose "New Works Programme" is largely drawing to a close. Passengers may have largely forgotten the grand programme of updating and expanding the underground network embarked upon by London Transport, most of it's larger works having been finished many years ago, but the last remnants are now being completed. The scheme included the popular replacement of stairways with escalators, and the introduction of a huge fleet of new trains. Less obvious were the large infrastructure improvements across the network to electrical systems in order to improve the system. Network expansion also has played a large part, and is chiefly why the programme has dragged on for such a long time.

- The Metropolitan Line received additional tracks outwards from Harrow-on-the-Hill, with electrification reaching Amersham, Chesham & Watford
- The transfer of the lines to Stanmore from Baker Street to the Bakerloo line
- The extension of the Northern Line from Highgate station (now Archway) to connect to the former branches to Edgware and High Barnet
- The extension of the Central Line eastbound from Liverpool Street to Stratford and on to the branch lines to Hainult, Woodford & Ongar, and westbound to West Ruislip & Denham

Delays were experienced primarily with the Central Line extension from North Acton though - legislation passed by the Government in protection of the countryside hampered London Transport's plans for the westbound extension of 2 projects. The Central Line was only extended as far as Denham due to the desire of British Rail to close some stations on it's line into London from High Wycombe in order to allow faster and more frequent trains to operate along it's line. The Northern Line lost it's extension from Edgware to Bushey Heath as potential housing markets disappeared due to the legislation.

The Northern City line from Finsbury Park to Moorgate, was transferred from BR to London Transport in order to facilitate it's integration into the Underground network - it too has fallen prey to the whims of politicians, and eventually the project has been completely cancelled (leaving the line unused presently), resulting in the now formal end to the New Works Programme.

Despite the lengthy delays, mostly due to the Second World War, it's impact has definitly been felt across the network. "The seats are definitely more comfortable" remarked one passenger about the newer trains.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/1/1938bkrtube.jpg
A 1938 Bakerlook Line Tube Train, a result of the Programme

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/1/1959_tube_map_small.jpg
The London Underground network by mid 1959.

Notes:
As mentioned, the Northern Line extension from Edgware to Bushey Heath & Central Line extension from West Ruislip to Denham in OTL were cancelled as the London Green Belt evaporated the business case in one swoop. As a result, the Central Line was electrified all the way east to Chipping Ongar in this TL instead of finishing at Epping as per OTL. In this TL, although the Metropolitan Line electrification still finishes at Amersham/Chesham, in 1959 LU was still running steam trains (and changing to electric mid-way) from Aylesbury into Baker Street. The Hammersmith & City line wasn't granted it's own identity independent of the Metropolitan line until much later, but I'm too lazy to spend ages on changing the whole line's colours! :)

Lord Brisbane

September 4th, 2011, 02:51 AM

Yes, I know that EE are perhaps better known for the Canberra and Lightning. I always think that they have their counterparts in the locos - the Canberra was the Class 37, a long lived design that did it's job without too much fanfare, but an excellent job; the Lightning was the Class 55, a glamorous design known for being fast, glamorous and complex to maintain.
There are still English Electric locos puttering away in the colonies, Kenya, Tasmania, Western Australia... Queensland Railways had a steady succession of fairly successful locally built EE designs but we got rid of them by the 1980s as their electrical systems weren't compatible with EMD (Clyde) products. But they generally knew what they were doing, although they were more the 'export' designs (and kicked EMD's ass), but seemed to take a 'non british' design style, although there are some resemblances...

EE Type 1 (20 Class):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/20002_%26_20058_%2C_Woodthorpe.jpg/300px-20002_%26_20058_%2C_Woodthorpe.jpg

QR 1600:
http://www.home.railscene.com/zanatta/loco/1600.jpg

JN1

September 4th, 2011, 03:26 AM

Devvy

September 4th, 2011, 03:46 AM

Spain (or was it Portugal?) also has an EE loco similar to the Class 20.
Since DPS is using 20s and 37s on flask and other nuclear traffic they must still be pretty reliable. Indeed one DPS manager joked that the 37s work every day while the 66s break down all the time (he was at a celebration of 50 years of the 37s admittedly :p).

The Class 37's are rock hard - probably EE's best product considering how long it's lasted, it's continued use (in small numbers) in the UK on the network, it's exported use abroad and the number of them that are still in use on preserved railways here.

Plus, let's face it, they look the business!

Devvy

September 5th, 2011, 08:17 PM

Update time!

Skipped ahead to 1962 here. Not much to write about until the real effects of the Modernisation Plan start to come into effect, and obviously the Beeching Reports of the 1960's.

As always feedback is appreciated!

PS.

1960: The last remnants of the London Necropolis Railway to Brookwood Cemetary is removed. And you thought there'd be no dead bodies ;)

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/2/lnr.jpg
London Necropolis Railway

Devvy

September 5th, 2011, 08:20 PM

British Railways Progress Report on the 1956 Government Mandate for the BR Modernisation Plan, for the British Railways Board
January 1962

Electrification continues at pace on the West Coast Route & East Coast Route. The Great Central Route is scheduled to also be electrified as per the Government's strategy, commencing in 1964. The WCR electrification has been completed from Crewe to Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham; electrification is now concentrated on working towards London. We still envisage WCR electrification being completed by 1964. We are currently testing electrical multiple units, running between Birmingham and Manchester / Liverpool, with units from our Wolverhampton Works (classed AM4) looking promising.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/2/wcml-elec-61.jpg
An AM4 unit at Stafford on a Birmingham to Manchester service

East Coast Route electrification has started from the London end so as to complement the electrification project of the Kings Cross suburban lines. The ECML project commenced in 1960 and is currently on target to completion by 1966, with the suburban lines completed slightly sooner by 1964. Due to this, currently the long distance express services are still hauled by steam.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/2/ecml-steam-62.jpg
An express service running through Peterborough towards Leeds

On the LTS Route, full electrification of the Route was completed in December 1961, between London (Fenchurch Street) and Shoeburyness via both Grays and Upminster. The route is now being operated by AM2 electrical multiple units from our Doncaster Works which after initial trials have proved effective in use.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/2/lts-elec-61.jpg
An AM2 unit at Barking, on a Fenchurch Street bound service

For the Great Eastern Route between London and branching off to Southend Victoria, complementing the LTS Route, is already complete (finished in 1960) and is currently undergoing engineering testing and trials so that experiments can be verified in a real world scenario. As part of the trials, AM5 units are being operated between London Liverpool Street and Southend Victoria. The Lea Valley lines to Enfield, Cheshunt & Chingford is ongoing and expected to be completed next year.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/2/geml-elec-61.jpg
An AM5 unit at Stratford. Note all of the quadruple tracks have been electrified to prevent the need to rework later over the track

Due to the face that the Great Central Route is not being upgraded until 1965, we are using the GCR as a test line for operating services with new diesel trains. The English Electric Type 3 is performing notably well, having strong power and a fast top speed which makes it potentially equally suited to hauling passenger or freight trains which makes it all the more noteworthy. We are also testing the English Electric Type 1. Although a smaller locomotive, it looks a potential candidate to replace steam traction power on smaller country lines.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/2/gcml-stdi-62.jpg
The on-test English Electric Type 3 locomotive hauls a train past a steam train as it runs through Nottingham Victoria

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/2/wcml-dies-59.jpg
Two English Electric Type 1 locomotives operate back to back hauling a freight train along the West Coast Route

Signal upgrades are also ongoing on the WCR, ECR & GCR lines, although at a lower priority then electrification. This is because the signalling systems can be upgraded bit by bit without affecting services, unlike electrification which needs full routes completed to make a difference fully.

London Euston station is currently being rebuilt, in order to usher in the new all electric services when electrification is complete. We admit there has been some small public disbelief at the demolishment at the Euston Arch, however we still feel that the new, modern and efficient station will justify itself immediately.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/2/euston-62.jpg
London Euston in 1962. The station building behind the camerashot is mid-reconstruction, and the platform area will follow shortly.

We are also continuing work to identify the least used lines, that are used by a handful of passenger or freight trains per week. These lines, usually in the countryside linking sites of little importance together (or short in-city lines that have been largely replaced by buses), will continue to be nominated for closure in order to bring costs down.

We also recognise the appointment of Dr Richard Beeching to the Chairman of the new British Railways Board. We hope this summary of status update will help alleviate concerns of potential slow progress of the British Railways Modernisation and show that BR is in a good position to return to profitability once completed.

British Rail

Basileus Giorgios

September 6th, 2011, 09:44 PM

Wait a second. ECML electrification has butterflied the Deltics, hasn't it? :(

Devvy

September 6th, 2011, 10:32 PM

Not quite; the EE Type 3 / BR Class 55 that in OTL did most of the ECML trains are still required. Electrification hasn't hit Scotland yet, and as of yet there are no plans to go that far north. So the EE Type 3 currently under test on the GCML will still be required on the WCML & ECML to serve Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh when testing is complete.

Finding a way to write about Beeching is proving difficult without a whopping great big diagram to show what's been cut and what hasn't! :(

Basileus Giorgios

September 6th, 2011, 11:31 PM

But the Deltic was an EE type 5, not an EE type 3 (class 37), which is a very different beast. Deltic locomotives were specifically designed to haul express passenger services, whereas 37's were mixed traffic designs.

Then again, the northern fells of the WCML could be an ideal place for the Deltics ITTL. The prototype was in action before the POD, so the genesis is there! :D

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 12:02 AM

Lord Brisbane

September 7th, 2011, 12:49 AM

An interesting thought, but has there been an increase in the loading gauge, which I understand is quite small compared to many other systems?

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 08:14 AM

If you are talking about generally across BR, then kinda. Electrification obviously improves the loading gauge, as having masts to the side and an electric cable above necessitate some more room. The GCML was built to a continental loading gauge anyhow, most of it's stations were platform in the between a pair of tracks type so that the line could be easily quadrupled - or the loading gauge through the station increased by moving track further away from the platform.

On the GWML (to Bristol & Devon), the loading gauge was generous anyway, due to the fact that the main line was built as a broad gauge line to start with. To South Wales it's a little more restricted due to the Severn Tunnel.

Basileus Giorgios

September 7th, 2011, 08:36 AM

Moment of confusion by me earlier indeed! EE type 5 would be approaching service for the northern reaches of WCML/ECML as they are designed for the express passenger service. EE type 3 would probably end up being cascaded to the GWML for a few years I think at the moment until a better class comes into production.

So no diesel hydraulics, then? Another shame!

I think it's better to concentrate the 37s in East Anglia, and around South Wales, as IOTL. If Deltics are to take over the Northern Fells, this leaves the EE Type 4 Class 40s surplus to requirements, so I'm not sure what would happen to them.

Has Sulzer entered the market for British diesel locomotives ITTL? Will we be seeing "Rats", "Peaks", and "Duffs"?

Railway nerd alert. :D

Lord Brisbane

September 7th, 2011, 09:37 AM

JN1

September 7th, 2011, 10:17 AM

Wait a second. ECML electrification has butterflied the Deltics, hasn't it? :(

Not necessarily, depends on how extensive it is. Look at the ECML today and there is still an extensive need for diesel traction, services to Aberdeen for example. The Deltics are also ideal for things like Cross Country services.

What will be interesting to see is what the replacement for the 55s may be. I think we'll probably still see the DHST, but the APT may enter full service, or there may be something like the Class 91 earlier than in @.

MonsooN

September 7th, 2011, 11:43 AM

Very interesting timeline, Devvy. I'm looking forward to reading more :)

Geordie

September 7th, 2011, 04:06 PM

Firstly, as a bit of a rail nut, can I say that I welcome this TL? Secondly, I for one am glad you've used the 'Lion and Wheel' motif, as opposed to the 'Ferret and Dartboard'.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/2/ecml-steam-62.jpg
An express service running through Peterborough towards Leeds

Really? They look very much like ex-LMS/Midland locos to me...

Anyway, as others have said, electrification plus a surviving GCML give a fantastic chance to have continental loading gauges on at least the main lines. A slightly more considered move towards dieselisation should prevent some of the foolish spending of OTL. Class 37s/ EE type 3s were my favourite loco as a young boy, so concentrating on them certainly gets my approval. :)

With no diesel hydraulics, how goes Beyer-Peacock? IIRC, the standardisation plan wrecked an order of 300 "Hymek" Type 3 units from the London Midland region, essentially finishing them off. These were replaced by English Electric type 3s, but Beyer-Peacock had a good name in loco building. Could they be seen producing some successful diesel-electric classes in TTL?

Keep up the good work. :cool:

Meadow

September 7th, 2011, 04:20 PM

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 05:33 PM

Also, forgive the blatant plug, but if you fancy looking at my own foray into rail-alt-hist, plenty of it can be found in this chapter of my 'Red Britain' TL (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=3338740&postcount=18), which is written in-universe by a notable OTL figure.

Cheeky bugger ;) Although Jeremy Clarkson as a rail nut make me chuckle! Will check that out at some point.

Firstly, as a bit of a rail nut, can I say that I welcome this TL? Secondly, I for one am glad you've used the 'Lion and Wheel' motif, as opposed to the 'Ferret and Dartboard'.

Really? They look very much like ex-LMS/Midland locos to me...

Anyway, as others have said, electrification plus a surviving GCML give a fantastic chance to have continental loading gauges on at least the main lines. A slightly more considered move towards dieselisation should prevent some of the foolish spending of OTL. Class 37s/ EE type 3s were my favourite loco as a young boy, so concentrating on them certainly gets my approval. :)

With no diesel hydraulics, how goes Beyer-Peacock? IIRC, the standardisation plan wrecked an order of 300 "Hymek" Type 3 units from the London Midland region, essentially finishing them off. These were replaced by English Electric type 3s, but Beyer-Peacock had a good name in loco building. Could they be seen producing some successful diesel-electric classes in TTL?

Keep up the good work. :cool:

Well I grabbed the picture from Wikipedia, and it was tagged as being at Peterborough (North), and the picture fits in with what I know of the station at that point. But then it probably fits in with a dozen different stations....I don't know. Steam trains aren't really my strong point!

Found the link now as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peterborough_Syston_line_2_geograph-2189554.jpg

Looks like it was at Peterborough heading for Leicester. We'll keep that quiet! Feedback on the traction is appreciated though, it's difficult trying to juggle all the engine types and the butterflies caused by larger scale early electrification :)

Not necessarily, depends on how extensive it is. Look at the ECML today and there is still an extensive need for diesel traction, services to Aberdeen for example. The Deltics are also ideal for things like Cross Country services.

What will be interesting to see is what the replacement for the 55s may be. I think we'll probably still see the DHST, but the APT may enter full service, or there may be something like the Class 91 earlier than in @.

Well the GWML hasn't been electrified yet, and cost-wise I think it is difficult to do - unlike the WCML and ECML which have one trunk route that most trains run along and a small branch off to a destination, the GWML quickly splits up into different main lines (Exeter branches off at Reading, Oxford at Didcot, Gloucester & Cheltenham at Swindon and Newport & Cardiff at Wooton Bassett), which tears return on investment to shreds. You need as many trains as possible using OHLE to make it worthwhile, and for that on the GWML you'd have to electrify huge amounts of tracks with some areas only seeing 2 electrified expresses per hour. So...yes there will still be diesel trains needed, at the moment I still see the HST/IC125 being developed for the GWML, and probably Crosscountry as well for the same reasons.

So no diesel hydraulics, then? Another shame!

I think it's better to concentrate the 37s in East Anglia, and around South Wales, as IOTL. If Deltics are to take over the Northern Fells, this leaves the EE Type 4 Class 40s surplus to requirements, so I'm not sure what would happen to them.

Has Sulzer entered the market for British diesel locomotives ITTL? Will we be seeing "Rats", "Peaks", and "Duffs"?

Railway nerd alert. :D

Not too sure on those, time for some reading this evening!

Very interesting timeline, Devvy. I'm looking forward to reading more :)

Fascinating stuff. :)

Thanks for the comments! :D

Swede

September 7th, 2011, 05:44 PM

Geordie

September 7th, 2011, 05:55 PM

On another thought, a slower dieselisation process,as well as saving money, should keep steam going longer. Several of the BR Standard classes - the Britannia class, 9Fs and a host of smaller designs -could have gone into the 70s. In OTL, some of these designs were built several years after my Dad was born in 1952, and they were all gone a few months after he'd done his O Levels in 1968.

Compare this to the "Pacer" class 142. Designed by moulding a 16 ton wagon chassis and a Leyland National bus body, these horrendous pieces of low cost kit were built as a stop-gap, first rolling off the production lines in 1985. They must be withdrawn in 2019, as they cannot comply with disability legislation.

An even more extreme example. My father vaguely remembers the LNER G5 Class (originally NER Class O), one of which is currently being built from scratch. These locos ran most of the North Eastern's passenger branch line services from their introduction in 1894-1901. All of them survived to see BR, being withdrawn between 1950 and 1958! :eek:

Also, forgive the blatant plug, but if you fancy looking at my own foray into rail-alt-hist, plenty of it can be found in this chapter of my 'Red Britain' TL (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=3338740&postcount=18), which is written in-universe by a notable OTL figure.
Forgiven, my good man. That particular TL has been on an ever growing list of ones I want to get around to reading. After seeing that particular post, it has gone to the top.

Geordie

September 7th, 2011, 06:02 PM

Well I grabbed the picture from Wikipedia, and it was tagged as being at Peterborough (North), and the picture fits in with what I know of the station at that point. But then it probably fits in with a dozen different stations....I don't know. Steam trains aren't really my strong point!

Found the link now as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peterborough_Syston_line_2_geograph-2189554.jpg

Looks like it was at Peterborough heading for Leicester. We'll keep that quiet! Feedback on the traction is appreciated though, it's difficult trying to juggle all the engine types and the butterflies caused by larger scale early electrification :)

No problem. The Leicester bit explains all! If you need any help on pinning down types, just let me know. I'm better with LNER and LMS types than SR and GWR, but I should be at least able to tell you which of the four they came from!

EDIT: Apologies for double posting.

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 06:28 PM

Looking great so far :) AS I'm not all that familiar with OTL developments in this field (even if I am interested) I was wondering if more footnotes contrasting ATL to OTL could be made? Also: as for future trains/models/routes, just remember that the butterflies will keep models the came along even 5 years later a bit different from OTL.

Duly noted. FYI....

British Railways Progress Report on the 1956 Government Mandate for the BR Modernisation Plan, for the British Railways Board
January 1962

WCML: Electrification started at roughly the same time, but the earlier mentioned extra investment into electrification and R&D means that this is progressing quicker. OTL WCML electrification reached London in 1965 from Manchester & Liverpool but excluded the Birmingham loop and Northampton loop. Here the extra investment means that the full line from London to Manchester & Liverpool including those 2 loops is scheduled to be completed by 1964. Euston station was also being reconstructed in 1962 to "modernise" the station to reflect the modern electrification. And also committing the crime of demolishing Euston Arch :(

ECML: Although ECML electrification was proposed in the '55 Report, it never happened. Maggie Thatcher finally got it done from '85 to '88 from London to Leeds.

GCML: Probably the biggest butterfly so far, the GCML was not electrified or planned to be, and the line was fully closed by the Beeching Cuts in OTL.

LTS: Was electrified in '61 and '62 in OTL, whereas completed by 1961 here.

GEML: London to Southend done by 1960 in both TTL and OTL.

Compare this to the "Pacer" class 142. Designed by moulding a 16 ton wagon chassis and a Leyland National bus body, these horrendous pieces of low cost kit were built as a stop-gap, first rolling off the production lines in 1985. They must be withdrawn in 2019, as they cannot comply with disability legislation.

Duly noted about the engines. Steam ITTL would probably be extended a bit to not rush the diesels, and also to continue running while electrification is occurring along the lines.

Also the Pacer's were terrible. I spent a lot of time in Yorkshire as a kid in Harrogate, and the Leeds - Harrogate line was run by Pacers back then. Horrible squealing on those trains, especially as we rounded the corner onto Crimple Viaduct approaching Harrogate. Not particularly comfortable either!

Swede

September 7th, 2011, 06:30 PM

On another thought, a slower dieselisation process,as well as saving money, should keep steam going longer.
Makes sense. Instead of a big push to get rid of steam in favour of diesel and some electric) this TL has a push to electrify. Logically they'd keep the newer stem engines around to use on lines that are a lower priority.

An even more extreme example. My father vaguely remembers the LNER G5 Class (originally NER Class O), one of which is currently being built from scratch. These locos ran most of the North Eastern's passenger branch line services from their introduction in 1894-1901. All of them survived to see BR, being withdrawn between 1950 and 1958! :eek:
ahem... we've got trams still running in Stockholm that are soon to be 62 years old - and still in regular service! i.e. they ain't heritage trams, they're still on the "real" job. :D being replaced in a few years tho.

Dunois

September 7th, 2011, 06:40 PM

Good start Devvy, its nice to see the GCML being electrified as well. This should almost by itself make the Channel Tunnel a LOT more used by freighters when it opens.

There needs to be a long term rolling programme of electrification put in place, since just electrifying the main corridors to the North is not enough. If BR is savvy on the commercial side of things, it would make sense to develop strong and integrated commuter networks for places like Birmingham and Manchester. A huge "metro like" network could be developped in both places, using what still exists or what was closed by Beeching. Might we see the Picc-Vic tunnel built in Manchester for example?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picc-Vic_tunnel

A similar tunnel might make sense in Birmingham as well considering the congestion of the New Street station should a real metro like system be developped.
Heck if the cash is there, you could even go down the route of having real underground systems similar to London being built in Manchester and Birmingham. This would be so much better than the useless toy trams built OTL!

Have you read the 1981 Electrification study and its report? It could be of use to you, especially its conclusions. If a similar report is made TTL I can honestly see almost all the network being fully electrified in TTL2011 save for perhaps some lines in Wales, Scotland or spurs like Castle Cary-Weymouth.

The Great Western will have to be electrified sooner or later, it will be expensive but worth it. It would be cool if you could have Beeching not close the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway around my place, the line can be made profitable if run well. The HSTs or whatever similar is developped can be cascaded to cross country duties once the line is electrified.
Don't forget the Bristol-Birmingham line either, its gradients make it a prime candidate for electric power motive.

Commercially, some closues are inevitable, especially the "stumps" which are impossible to operate profitably. You could however have a system instead of OTL where the lines might be taken over by heritage railways on steroids. In addition to the touristy stuff, these guys would still try and operate the line(s) for commuters and small scale freight as well. Integrating fares with BR should be doable if there is a push for it.
The work practices such as wagon loading have to be abandonned as soon as possible, moving to containerisation is the only way to keep the freight segment of BR profitable. What they achieved during their last decade of existance offers a good example of what BR was able to do with the right attitude, ie turn profits!
The passenger segment needs clockface timetabling (when was this implemented in Britain by the way, does anyone knows?) and fast and efficient services to maintain its market shares. With the right attitudes, it is possible to kill off coaches and intertown buses. BR must see the railways as a mean to and end and not as a mean in itself unlike what it did OTL at first.

No electrified trains to Scotland until the seventies or so means that British Airways shutles will take off the ground at some point in the early seventies. Unlike in our history I however have a feeling that London-Manchester flights will never capture a majority of the market share relative to the trains.

Are the attitudes towards infrastructure different in your TL overall? If yes, this might mean that Cublington airport gets built alongside an extra thousand miles or so of motorway. All very good stuff!

Swede

September 7th, 2011, 06:53 PM

WCML: Electrification started at roughly the same time, but the earlier mentioned extra investment into electrification and R&D means that this is progressing quicker. OTL WCML electrification reached London in 1965 from Manchester & Liverpool but excluded the Birmingham loop and Northampton loop. Here the extra investment means that the full line from London to Manchester & Liverpool including those 2 loops is scheduled to be completed by 1964. Euston station was also being reconstructed in 1962 to "modernise" the station to reflect the modern electrification. And also committing the crime of demolishing Euston Arch :(

ECML: Although ECML electrification was proposed in the '55 Report, it never happened. Maggie Thatcher finally got it done from '85 to '88 from London to Leeds.

GCML: Probably the biggest butterfly so far, the GCML was not electrified or planned to be, and the line was fully closed by the Beeching Cuts in OTL.

LTS: Was electrified in '61 and '62 in OTL, whereas completed by 1961 here.

GEML: London to Southend done by 1960 in both TTL and OTL.
Thank you :) Sounds like BR is going to avoid not just the deepest depths of cuts and lack of investment, but maybe also turn these depths into just a dip. Better rail won't just mean better connections for people living near the stations, it'll mean more people living near rail stations. This TL will change more than many might think.

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 07:03 PM

Cheers Dunois! Good to see you again...no updates for a while in the Franco-British Union :(

Yep - seen the Picc-Vic tunnel before, and here it stands a much better chance of survival. Indeed, BR did some work on it before it got cancelled so it did get going - just. As for Birmingham, I've got other ideas which we'll start to see in about 10 years of this timeline :)

As you say, whatever happens to Beeching here, line closures are inevitable. Especially in the north where there are a ton of lines that rely on freight and industry, and far too much duplication of lines.

The GWML will be inevitably be electrified at some point here, and other "in-fill" routes, it's just a matter of time. Attitude towards infrastructure investment here are probably much better then OTL, as BR will be able to show the '55 Modernisation Report delivered a reportable benefit unlike OTL where it showed it can....urinate...money down the drain and deliver little.

Beeching's recommendations in OTL, as well as mass closures, was full electrification of the WCML and ECML (which to that point only reached northern England) up to Glasgow & Edinburgh. He also recommended moving to containers in OTL, he did have *some* good ideas!

The Oncoming Storm

September 7th, 2011, 07:08 PM

Consider me subscribed, this looks very good so far! I'm glad to see more electrification and moves towards dieselisation happening in this TL so we won't have the farce of OTL's BR continuing to build steam engines until 1960. While you rightly say that some rationalisation and cuts were inevitable, had steam traction been phased out earlier then the economics of many lines could have improved to the extent that they survived Beeching.

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 07:19 PM

The Progress Report in '62 shows that steam was still going strong in 1962 (here (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4990819&postcount=26)). Steam can't be phased out by the time Beeching is around, electrification takes time to implement, and there's no point in just using untested diesels why electrification happens as it wastes money.

Also, the mass dieselisation that BR embarked upon following the '55 report in OTL led to large numbers of unreliable diesel locomotives as they were rolled out with insufficient testing, which led further to the apparent poor performance of the railways come Beeching. My progress so far is to slow down the dieselisation to a normal "develop-test-deploy" scheme, give the new loco's proper testing & bedding in to avoid this. Also steam will continue to be used for a while until the main lines that are being electrified are done and the hop to electric power can be done in one hop.

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 07:35 PM

Next update, still 1962.

Lewisham Crash - 5 years on
February 1962

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/3/lewisham-crash.jpg

5 years on from the Lewisham Rail Crash, have lessons been learnt in order to avoid this kind of catastrophe again? Firstly let us remind ourselves what happened. It is 4th December, 1957, and there is a thick fog in London. A 10-coach train from Charing Cross is bound for Hayes, and is stopped at a signal as the signaller was unsure as to it's destination. The train driver reported that visibility was down to about 20 yards.

A few minutes later, a train from Cannon Street bound for Ramsgate is heading along the line. Due to the thick fog, and that the steam locomotives that BR still uses are left-hand drive, whereas the signals are mounted on the right. This is usually compensated by having the fireman watch from the right hand side of the cab, but this was not done for reasons unknown here. The train crashed straight into the back of the Hayes-bound train at approximately 35mph.

From the Hayes train, the rear coaches were immediately destroyed. The first coach was pushed sideways from the force of the impact, and struck one of the supports of the flyover bridge which promptly buckled and collapsed over the front 3 coachs of the train. The misery was then compounded when a train that was meant to cross over the now collapsed bridge was unable to stop in time despite the driver noticing the problem, causing the front carriage to crash down on top of the disaster site.

108 people died in the crash, with a further 212 injured, the 3rd train from the bridge causes further fatalities to injured people from the 1st train. The main source of the blame rests with the driver of the Hayes bound train, Trew. However, amid ailing mental health caused by the accident, he was discharged. British Rail was partially blamed as well due to the slow progress in had made on installing rail safety systems. The collapsed bridge was rapidly replaced and operation were restored to almost normal operation within 3 months.

5 years on though and things have progressed. Faced with criticism for it's slow progress for installing the AWS safety system, BR has sped up it's implementation. It now covers the majority of BR's intercity and suburban lines. BR's already ongoing project to modernise itself is also improving safety; new diesel and electric trains have the driver sat in a cab at the front with clear and wide visibility over the whole of the line in front, with signals on both sides easily visible.

A plaque has been erected to the victims of the crash.

-----------------

Local London Newspaper, 1962
The new Victoria Line

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/3/victoria.jpg

Construction has started on the new Victoria Line for the London Underground. Designed as an express "tube" line with few intermediate stations, and a lot of interchanges it is initially designed to run from Victoria Station to Walthamstow (Hoe Street). Various proposals exist to extend the line from this short primary stage; either to take over the rest of the British Railways Chingford branch, to be extended to Woodford to provide interchange with the Central Line - and possibly take over the Central Line branch to Ongar. Southbound, more solid proposals exist that would see the line extended from Victoria to Brixton.

The line also utilises both new and old technologies. One simple but effective idea has been to build the stations at a higher level then the rest of the line - this results in trains going uphill and naturally slowing as they approach a station, and then going downhill as they leave providing a boost to acceleration and reducing the power needed. The line will also utilise cross platform interchange, so that southbound trains from 2 different lines use the two faces of one platform, with the northbound trains using the two faces of a different platform. Current London Underground lines are usually organised by line. This more efficient concept allows quick passenger transfers between lines as passengers are usually headed in one overall direction.

The line is expected to be finished by the end of the decade.

-----------------

Notes:
The OTL Lewisham train crash happened as described, except the third train that would of gone over the bridge saw the collapsed bridge and just managed to stop in time, avoiding further casualties (the train engine hung over the edge and was later towed back - it was a matter of sheer metres). Here in this TL, the train doesn't stop in time and crashes on top of the trains below causing further fatalities and injuries. It takes fire to turn iron into steel....

The Victoria line here starts in 1962, as in OTL, and the initial stage runs from Victoria to Walthamstow Central (then known as Hoe Street), again as in OTL.

Geordie

September 7th, 2011, 08:33 PM

And also committing the crime of demolishing Euston Arch :(
Definitely a crime. I am however, informed that everything at Euston, other than the arch, was a complete mess...

Also the Pacer's were terrible. I spent a lot of time in Yorkshire as a kid in Harrogate, and the Leeds - Harrogate line was run by Pacers back then. Horrible squealing on those trains, especially as we rounded the corner onto Crimple Viaduct approaching Harrogate. Not particularly comfortable either!
I can imagine, having gone through the curves at the ends of the bridges over the Tyne many times before the Metro extension saved my ears. Bogies were invented over a hundred years before those damn monstrosities, so there's no excuse!

Ahem... we've got trams still running in Stockholm that are soon to be 62 years old - and still in regular service! i.e. they ain't heritage trams, they're still on the "real" job. :D being replaced in a few years tho.
Sweet. Means I'll defintiely try visiting Stockholm sooner rather than later.

ECML: Although ECML electrification was proposed in the '55 Report, it never happened. Maggie Thatcher finally got it done from '85 to '88 from London to Leeds.
Beeching's recommendations in OTL, as well as mass closures, was full electrification of the WCML and ECML (which to that point only reached northern England) up to Glasgow & Edinburgh. He also recommended moving to containers in OTL, he did have *some* good ideas!
Actually, the East Coast Mainline is London Kings Cross to Edinburgh (then on to Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness...) The Leeds line is essentially a spur from Doncaster. Admittedly, this spur is as important as the line North, but it ain't the mainline. It is, however, a good place to head for first when elctrifying.

Beeching envisaged all Scotland bound traffic going up the WCML, claiming that the route from Carstairs on the WCML would suffice for Edinburgh, and the rest of Scotland could easily go to Glasgow. This would then allow him to terminate the ECML at Newcastle. Apart from Newcastle's northern commuter and coal lines, there would be nothing between there and Edinburgh. Lunatic. :mad:

The OTL Lewisham train crash happened as described, except the third train that would of gone over the bridge saw the collapsed bridge and just managed to stop in time, avoiding further casualties (the train engine hung over the edge and was later towed back - it was a matter of sheer metres). Here in this TL, the train doesn't stop in time and crashes on top of the trains below causing further fatalities and injuries. It takes fire to turn iron into steel....
Grim reading, but that's what the flap of a butterfly's wing can do. :(
The only question I have is how only the first carriage added to the mess, unless that could hit the wreckage while dangling, and so prevent the subsequent carriages joining it?...

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 08:37 PM

Actually, the East Coast Mainline is London Kings Cross to Edinburgh (then on to Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness...) The Leeds line is essentially a spur from Doncaster. Admittedly, this spur is as important as the line North, but it ain't the mainline. It is, however, a good place to head for first when elctrifying.

That's what I meant (although I can see how the ambiguity in what I wrote) - Thatcher electrified the ECML as far as Doncaster and the spur to Leeds by 1988, and the full stretch to Edinburgh was done 2 years later by 1990.

Basileus Giorgios

September 7th, 2011, 08:55 PM

Compare this to the "Pacer" class 142. Designed by moulding a 16 ton wagon chassis and a Leyland National bus body, these horrendous pieces of low cost kit were built as a stop-gap, first rolling off the production lines in 1985. They must be withdrawn in 2019, as they cannot comply with disability legislation.

Am I the only railway enthusiast in the UK who has a soft spot for Pacers? :p

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 09:24 PM

Am I the only railway enthusiast in the UK who has a soft spot for Pacers? :p

Pretty much :p

Geordie

September 7th, 2011, 10:16 PM

That's what I meant (although I can see how the ambiguity in what I wrote) - Thatcher electrified the ECML as far as Doncaster and the spur to Leeds by 1988, and the full stretch to Edinburgh was done 2 years later by 1990.
I assumed you knew, but taken with the whole Beeching trying to shut the thing down foolishness, thought I'd get defensive. I mean, at present, my godparents live about 90 minutes away in Edinburgh. If I had to go all the way to Carlisle, then three quarters of the way to Glasgow to reach them, I wouldn't be impressed. Then again, I'm currently bunking down in deepest Hampshire, so that's further still...

Am I the only railway enthusiast in the UK who has a soft spot for Pacers? :p
Yes. :p

The 140 literally was a bus on an old coal wagon chassis, and the 141s and 142s show it. Least the 143s and 144s looked vaguely like trains. They were built as cheap as possible, and it showed.

I once had a nice ride on one. The problem is, this was Newcastle to Darlington, on the ECML. While this rickety thing bowling along at 75mph was rather worrying, it worked well and smoothly on nice, straight, continuously welded rail. Pity it was designed for use on riveted, curving branches. Ask the Cornish how much Pacers like curves. :rolleyes:

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 10:35 PM

I assumed you knew, but taken with the whole Beeching trying to shut the thing down foolishness, thought I'd get defensive. I mean, at present, my godparents live about 90 minutes away in Edinburgh. If I had to go all the way to Carlisle, then three quarters of the way to Glasgow to reach them, I wouldn't be impressed. Then again, I'm currently bunking down in deepest Hampshire, so that's further still...

Haha, no worries :)

I live in Hampshire as well - so for personal reasons I'd rather like to keep the Alton line open right through to Winchester rather then being the stub it is at the moment!

Geordie

September 7th, 2011, 10:43 PM

I live in Hampshire as well - so for personal reasons I'd rather like to keep the Alton line open right through to Winchester rather then being the stub it is at the moment!
I respectfully request that you let me have an excursion on the Watercress Line before you destroy it with your meddling in the Space-time Continuum! :p

That suggests you're slightly deeper than I am, but it's all pretty far south to a Geordie lad!

Devvy

September 7th, 2011, 10:53 PM

Grim reading, but that's what the flap of a butterfly's wing can do. :(
The only question I have is how only the first carriage added to the mess, unless that could hit the wreckage while dangling, and so prevent the subsequent carriages joining it?...

Well apparently (OTL) "the first carriage of the train was tilted over the edge at an angle". Which leads me to imply from that, that is was an EMU, so no engine on the front.

ITTL, that first carriage has gone over the edge and crushed the carriages beneath it that it landed upon, but the second carriage isn't pulled over luckily. The couplings gave way as the back end of the first carriage was pulled off the edge at slow speed while the front of the second carriage was still on firm ground.

I respectfully request that you let me have an excursion on the Watercress Line before you destroy it with your meddling in the Space-time Continuum! :p

That suggests you're slightly deeper than I am, but it's all pretty far south to a Geordie lad!

Well I'm actually a Yorkshireman by birth (hence the time in Yorkshire as a kid) - which is still south to you I guess :)

Geordie

September 7th, 2011, 11:19 PM

Well apparently (OTL) "the first carriage of the train was tilted over the edge at an angle". Which leads me to imply from that, that is was an EMU, so no engine on the front.

ITTL, that first carriage has gone over the edge and crushed the carriages beneath it that it landed upon, but the second carriage isn't pulled over luckily. The couplings gave way as the back end of the first carriage was pulled off the edge at slow speed while the front of the second carriage was still on firm ground.
I hadn't considered the speed properly. That should be enough to shear the couplings without dragging the rest of the train down.

Well I'm actually a Yorkshireman by birth (hence the time in Yorkshire as a kid) - which is still south to you I guess :)
As a very dear (and at the time, very drunk) Devonian friend once declared: "everything North of Bristol is the South!" ;)

Dunois

September 8th, 2011, 01:00 AM

Am I the only railway enthusiast in the UK who has a soft spot for Pacers? :p

The Pacers have a place in my opinion on small branch lines, since their low maintenance and operating costs make them ideal to try and improve the margins there. Even then with current technologies, things like Parry People Movers might be a better choice. My feeling is that one day we will see "battery operated" multiple units for these kind of lines. Charging up on current when running under the wires and using the batteries on the branch lines.

Nevertheless between say Bristol and Taunton as I have had the ahem "pleasure" of doing recnetly, they don't have a place and actually shift patronage away from the trains and towards the roads in my opinion.

Devvy

September 8th, 2011, 05:18 PM

A National Newspaper
1963

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/3/beeching.jpg
Dr Richard Beeching, Chairman of the British Railways Board

The Government has asked Dr Beeching, Chairman of the British Railways Board, to carry out a wide ranging investigation into British Rail. Dr Beeching has been asked to examine the profitability, effectiveness and modernisation of British Railways after the substantial amount of money invested by the Government over the last 7 years. Ernest Marples, the Government Minister for Transport, had this to say:

"After British Railways published their Modernisation Report, which was duly backed by Her Majesty's Government, substantial amounts of money of over one billion pounds was invested in BR. After 7 years, we feel we are still seeing little development or progress. We think it is only right that Parliament instigates a full and frank analysis of the railways in Great Britain, and thus Dr Beeching, who was appointed a year and a half year ago to the British Railways Board, has been asked to carry out a full investigation into British Railways, including the results of it's Modernisation Plan, it's profitability, it's effectiveness and it's place in today's society. His report will be free to draw it's own conclusions about the best way forward for the country and for British Railways."

After so many years of investment, will British Rail be able to show decent results in order to justify the Government's faith?

-------------

PS: Just so we don't forget our Scottish friends. Glasgow electrification was done by 1963 and suburban electric trains running. Pamphlet below is from 1960.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/3/glasgow-elec.jpg

---
Notes:

Beeching was appointed Chairman of the BR Board in 1961 in OTL, instead of mid-1962 in this TL. OTL, he immediately instigated an analysis of BR to reshape it and attempt the make it profitable again. In this TL, he is appointed Chairman, and I'd envisage him talking to the Government and getting Government agreement to do the report as BR in this TL isn't losing as much money per year as in OTL (though still a lot) - we'll see the finances in few chapters time.

Glasgow electrification has happened pretty much the same in this TL as in OTL.

Prepare yourselves for some longer posts when the report is published :) - frequent but short updates are easier to do during the week though!

Devvy

September 9th, 2011, 03:07 PM

Completion of the West Coast Route Electrification
January 1964

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/4/wcml-elec-bns.jpg
An AL5 locomotive pulls into Birmingham

The West Coast Route electrification, a project launched by British Rail 7 years ago, has finally been completed for the English section of the route, allowing new trains to run between London, Birmingham, Manchester & Liverpool. Testing of the new locomotives over the last 2 years on the Birmingham - Crewe - Manchester/Liverpool segment has resulted in them being certified for main line usage on the new electric services. These services will run more frequently, be quieter, more energy efficient - and most importantly quicker, able to complete the Manchester to London trip in under 3 hours. The new timetables mean that there will be a London to Birmingham train once per hour, and a London to Manchester train once every two hours - a major upgrade on the former timetable.

------

Notes: This little snippet is rather essential before I plough into Beeching over the next few years in this TL. OTL, the WCML electrification wasn't complete until 1967, but as we've said the extra investments in the '55 report has enabled this to be finished quicker. It's actually an AL6 (CLass 86) in the picture, but it'll do as a stand-in for the AL5 / Class 85.

Lord Roem

September 9th, 2011, 03:37 PM

Superb effort, as with my fellow transport geeks, do consider me subscribed.

As you've said, earlier electrification will almost certainly lead to some divergences in rolling stock. I'd be interested to see if the less insular nature of strategic planning would lead to increased R&D by British Rail with the likes of DB and SNCF.

BG is unique in his love for Pacers as they are the most advanced technology allowed in Lancashire.

;)

Devvy

September 9th, 2011, 10:18 PM

BG is unique in his love for Pacers as they are the most advanced technology allowed in Lancashire.

;)

Actual lol ;)

Devvy

September 9th, 2011, 11:47 PM

Dr Beeching's Report
September 1964

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/4/beeching-report.jpg
The report itself

Following on from the British Railways Modernisation Report of 10 years previous, British Railways was still running a deficit. The Government was losing patience, and rapidly losing faith in British Railways despite BR's pleas to let it finish the course of it's Modernisation before judging it. In 1961, the Government appointed Dr Richard Beeching as Chairman of the new British Railways Board (which took over from the British Transport Commission) in charge of British Railways. Later in 1963, at the request of the Government, Dr Beeching initiated a full study across 2 weeks of all passenger and freight flows (conducted in October 1963), and analysed the accounts of BR. Despite the results being from 1961, the results still made stark reading as BR's accounts remained largely in the same situation.

1961 Accounts
£millions Revenue Gross Profit Net Profit

Passengers
Express 93.2 18.5 -21.8
Suburban 32.8 -23.1 -52.9
Local 42.8 0.0 -24.5

Parcels/Mail 62.3 17.1 6.8

Freight
Coal 108.3 24.8 2.8
Minerals 44.5 7.6 -3.7
General 102.8 -35.3 -57.5

Totals 486.7 13.1 -128.8

Revenue: Money generated from tickets/income from customer
Direct Costs: Costs of onboard staff, fuel
Overall Profit determined by additionally subtracting;
Indirect Costs: Rail maintenance, station upkeep, overall staffing

The conclusions were clear. Express trains remained generally profitable, but struggled to pay indirect costs. Local trains were in a better position, but were crippled by the upkeep on the rural and little-used lines they often ran upon. Only Parcels/Mail and Coal were fully profitable loads, and of that Coal was only just profitable and destined to shrink in market size as people switched to electricity; even BR itself was rapidly moving away from it. Dr Beeching also highlighted that one third of the entire BR network carried only 1% of it's overall traffic. In a similar vein, one half of the entire network only carries 4% of the total passenger miles and 5% of the total freight ton miles.

Dr Beeching therefore concluded that one half of the system earns far less than is sufficient to even cover it's own expenses. On long-distance express routes, particularly the Anglo-Scottish routes, air will continue to erode the loading of day trains, and will predictably continue to be eroded. Car ownership in the UK continues to rise exponentially, and will make significant inroads into the market share for local trips, further eroding the deficit of local stopping services. His proposals were numerous and controversial in places:

- Many of the small branch lines should completely close
Many of the small branch lines only see a few trains per day, carry few passengers and little freight. The line should be closed, and cheaper bus transport provided instead. The report specified lines to the amount of approximately 4,000 miles of track,

- Of the lines that need to remain open for freight traffic flows, all passenger stations should close. Freight traffic is extremely efficient when carried in bulk by train. Where there is reasonable demand for freight traffic, the line should stay open for freight only, and possibly be singled to reduce costs as far as possible.

- Hundreds of passenger stations should close, and many other have vastly reduced staffing hours. Even on well utilised routes, many small stations exist that have little passenger demand. Many others are staffed 18 hours per day which is unneccessary and not in proportion to the passenger utilisation of the station. Fewer intermediate stations will also allow train times to decrease. Beeching's appendix stated approximately 3,000 stations would be closed.

- BR should adopt containers for most freight traffic as is increasingly becoming the norm elsewhere. Around the world, and particularly in the United States, freight is increasingly becoming transported in standardised containers. Adopting freight traffic in containers will enable better integration between rail and ship transport and allow more efficient transport. This also allows the unloading of the container directly onto lorry for the end delivery. The report also called for a move away from traditional slow moving freight methods and adoption of faster trainload point to point operations.

- BR should continue to electrify it's primary express routes
Three of British Rail's prime express routes (West Coast Route, Great Central Route & East Coast Route) are currently being electrified. Further electrification should be conducted so that more intercity trains that run under electric wire but change to diesel traction for the last stretch of the journey need not change, thus lowering journey times. Early candidates would be the Transpennine route running from Liverpool to Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and Hull. The stretch north from Leeds to Newcastle is already electrified as the East Coast Route, and the stretch between Penistone and Huddersfield, and Huddersfield - Cleckheaton - Bradford should also be electrified. The Great Central Route branch to Birmingham via Banbury should also be electrified, as should the full stretch of the Great Eastern Route from London to Norwich. West Coast and East Coast Routes electrification should also be extended into Scotland, such that electric trains from either route will serve Glasgow and Edinburgh. Lines in the Southern Region should also be infilled with electrification in order to fully eliminate diesel & steam from the network.

- British Railways would be rebranded as "British Rail", with a new logo which would come to be known as the double headed arrow, and a new network-wide standard livery, named "Monastal Blue".

Dr Beeching's report into British Railways - dubbed "The Reshaping of British Railways" - came out to much fanfare but it's contents suprised people with the sheer amount of line closures and cutbacks it suggested.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/4/beeching-base-map-small.jpg
Beeching's proposed withdrawal of passenger services
Red: retain passenger services
Black: withdraw passenger services

----------------------------------

Notes: FYI, in this TL the WCML electrification is now completed, so work has started on the GCML before the release of this report. ECML electrification is still on target for 1966, and also here the electrification of the ECML is slightly different to OTL in that the electrification runs from London north to Doncaster and then north to the point where the present OTL ECML and Transpennine lines cross near Selby, before electrification heads west along the branch into Leeds from the east of the station. This was done to a) reduce electrification costs, b) reduce difficulties through Wakefield and Leeds approachs for the moment, c) decrease journey times between London and Leeds and d) allow easy operations of possible future train routes west of Leeds to Harrogate/Bradford etc. OTL ECML electrification in the 1980s for Leeds diverted off the ECML at Doncaster and proceed through Wakefield to Leeds (which is the route the present day "East Coast" trains take). The financial data here, and the points about traffic proportions over the network are lifted from the OTL Beeching Report which was published in March 1963 and the traffic studies occured in April 1962, although I have tweaked slightly to reflect the better results from the '55 Report in this TL. Bear in mind though that a large amount of money from that was sunk into electrification schemes in this TL (more so then OTL) which by their very nature take a long time to see results. Politicians are fickle and impatients beasts though!

OTL, Beeching published a second report in February 1965 which is usually less well known by the general public. It called for further development of trunk routes (and contained the recommendations on which trunk routes to use & develop which led to the downfall of the GCML). Whether Beeching was in favour of closing all other lines is up for debate as a lot of track mileage - some of it major trunk routes in OTL present day like the ECML between Newcastle and Edinburgh - it omitted from development. In this TL, because Beeching has already been Chairman of BRB for a while, and had time to sink his teeth into BR, I've run the two reports into one "master" report. The map is pretty much lifted from OTL Beeching Report, except I've redone the GCML to show preservation of services, and the Midland Main Line for closure between Bedford and Leicester.

We'll see the the aftermath, fallout and results of the Beeching Report next time!

Basileus Giorgios

September 9th, 2011, 11:56 PM

BG is unique in his love for Pacers as they are the most advanced technology allowed in Lancashire.

;)

How dare.

I just think that Pacers have a soul. Better a Pacer than a Voyager any day!

Also, Devvy, that's an AL6 class 86 loco, not an AL5 class 85. Classes 81-85 have sloping front ends, classes 86 and 87 have blunt ones. :)

Devvy

September 10th, 2011, 12:04 AM

Also, Devvy, that's an AL6 class 86 loco, not an AL5 class 85. Classes 81-85 have sloping front ends, classes 86 and 87 have blunt ones. :)

Cheers for the pointer, but check out the notes underneath it this time ;)

I couldn't find a decent picture of an AL5 at that point...

Basileus Giorgios

September 10th, 2011, 12:47 AM

Cheers for the pointer, but check out the notes underneath it this time ;)

I couldn't find a decent picture of an AL5 at that point...

Apologies!

Swede

September 10th, 2011, 06:44 AM

Another great update, with lovely notes comparing ATL with OTL at the end. :)

Devvy

September 11th, 2011, 11:51 AM

Beeching Report Aftermath
October 1964

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/4/nur-beeching.jpg
The National Union of Railwaymen's response to the Dr Beeching's report into British Railways, published later in 1964

The Beeching Report, dubbed as the Beeching Bombshell, caught the public unaware and caused significant protests, particularly from towns and villages that would be stripped of rail services.

Opponents of the cuts focussed on part of Beeching's report such as the trunk routes for further development, accusing Beeching of wanting to close down all other routes, paying little attention to the parts of the report advising for further investment in the network. However, Beeching had partly timed his report wrong and partly been caught unaware.

Following the publishing of Dr Beeching's report into British Railways, management with British Railways decided to prematurely release data on passenger numbers since electrification to the public - particularly the data pertaining to the newly electrified West Coast Route which went live 10 months earlier. New electric trains were running between London, Birmingham, Crewe, Liverpool and (most importantly) Manchester. The new electric trains were faster, cleaner, more efficient and ran a more intensive service, and the data showed an almost immediate rise in passenger numbers. This was a common theme across most of the electrified lines - passenger numbers were rising, albeit to different levels. The West Coast Route showed the biggest change; passenger numbers had risen over 5% within the 10 months and the increases showed no signs of slowing.

The Government was left under huge pressure, and Dr Beeching in particular as the Government's appointment to the British Railways Board. The increase in receipts and lowering of costs associated with electrification left huge doubt in Dr Beeching's assertions in his report. Dr Beeching soon left the British Railways Board in 1965, returning to his job at ICI under the significant public pressure, which saved the Government from a deciding between a humiliating about turn on it's own appointment or losing most public support. The Government replaced him with Sir Stanley Raymond who, in combination with British Railways management, scaled back the recommendations of the Beeching Report. The new Labour Government with PM Harold Wilson gave them a free hand. In a way, Dr Beeching had actually done British Railways a favour; he had given them an opportunity to dispose of the under-utilised and least used lines while still appearing to be the good guys, and combined with the ability to show a return on investment that the West Coast Route was increasingly doing, British Railways had every reason to be optimistic about the future.

---------------

Notes:

Unlike this TL, in OTL the new electric service on the WCML came to late to affect the Beeching report (first electric trains from Lonon ran in November 1965 vs the 1963 publication of the OTL Beeching Report). Here in this TL, the increase in passenger numbers shows that the benefits electrification brings to lower running costs, faster turn around times in terminii and the better rolling stocks will attract more passengers on to the trains. The public consensus is hoping that the extra profits from the express services can be used to subsidise the local stopping services and lines.

Going forth from here, I'm going to do a mini-series of "Spotlight on..." to see the effects on different areas of British Rail post Beeching. First will come a page from Raymond's diary to outline his intentions, then probably a look at freight, and then various sections of the network.

Basileus Giorgios

September 11th, 2011, 12:05 PM

Who's Howard Wilson?

Good update, though. Basically, BR is cutting, but not so ferociously as Beeching originally proposed, right?

Devvy

September 11th, 2011, 12:27 PM

Who's Howard Wilson?

Good update, though. Basically, BR is cutting, but not so ferociously as Beeching originally proposed, right?

Good point - cheers for the pointer. To cut a long story short, Beeching's report aided in Wilson's election campaign as Labour painted Beeching as the Conservative's appointment and thus the Conservative savaging of the railways. After Beeching had gone, it was Wilson's Government who appointed Raymond to the BRB, and them promising to reverse all of the proposed cuts.

BR will continue to "prune" the network, as they were doing before Beeching published his report, but in a more delicate manner.

So as in OTL, Labour/Wilson will end up backtracking on their "no rail cuts" promise and the smaller-than-Beeching cuts will continue.

Bahamut-255

September 11th, 2011, 02:29 PM

Who's Howard Wilson?

James Harold Wilson (1916-1995) was Labour Prime Minister from 1964-1970 & 1974-1976 OTL. He resigned under contoversial circumstances in 1976, perhaps fearing, like his mother that he would develop Alzheimer's Disease early on. Recent evidence indicates that he was already in the early stages during his final few months in office.

In any case, liking the timeline. Shows what some good planning and, at the very least, competent implimentation can achieve.

Subscribed.

Devvy

September 11th, 2011, 03:58 PM

I made a typo calling him Howard Wilson instead of Harold Wilson by accident at first which I think he was referring to! :) Cheers for the comments though!

Swede

September 12th, 2011, 09:04 AM

Unlike this TL, in OTL the new electric service on the WCML came to late to affect the Beeching report (first electric trains from Lonon ran in November 1965 vs the 1963 publication of the OTL Beeching Report). Here in this TL, the increase in passenger numbers shows that the benefits electrification brings to lower running costs, faster turn around times in terminii and the better rolling stocks will attract more passengers on to the trains. The public consensus is hoping that the extra profits from the express services can be used to subsidise the local stopping services and lines.
A better/smarter first report leading to somwhat faster/better upgrades done, with better timing of the second report leading to [und so weiter, und so weiter...]. Perfectly plausible and the effects are comulative. Which makes OTL all the more depressing.

Dunois

September 12th, 2011, 11:58 AM

The map is pretty much lifted from OTL Beeching Report, except I've redone the GCML to show preservation of services, and the Midland Main Line for closure between Bedford and Leicester.

We'll see the the aftermath, fallout and results of the Beeching Report next time!

It will be very interesting to see if the Midland Main Line is closed between Bedford and Leicester. If it indeed is, then ALL the traffic coming from Sheffield, Leicester-Debry-Nottingham will have to go on the Grand Central Line and thence to Marylebone station.

Regardless of whether or not this happen and considering the butterflies it is unlikely that it will. Don't forget that Marylebone station was and remains a very small station, electrification of the Grand Central Line will mean a booming traffic from the north and the Midlands into the station which will quickly become too small and constrained.
Sooner or later it strikes me that Marylebone station will have to be significantly expand, even more or if the MML closes and Saint Pancras is relegated into a commuter station (to be closed once Thameslink comes online?).

If BR keeps improving its act compared to OTL and manage to scrape profitability in commuter services as well. I wonder if we could see an extensive Crossrail network being built during the eighties/nineties. Doing so would release a huge amount of pressure on surface stations like Waterloo, Liverpool Street and Paddington. It would also significantly boost patronage as happened in Paris when the RER network was put in operation. If BR ends up with RER like networks in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool a lot of currently semi profitable lines in the regions will become profitable, further bettering the company position.

If BR is keen on gaining new markets and new passengers, I also wonder if we might not see an earlier but better Heathrow Express. Not just a spur but something maybe allowing through services from the West Country to Paddington VIA Heathrow Airport.

Will there be butterflies on the motorway and airport building programme actually? Since investment works TTL I have a feeling that this might be the case? If Cublington Airport gets build then its perfect!

Also what are your plans on the Channel Tunnel?

Devvy

September 12th, 2011, 05:43 PM

A better/smarter first report leading to somwhat faster/better upgrades done, with better timing of the second report leading to [und so weiter, und so weiter...]. Perfectly plausible and the effects are comulative. Which makes OTL all the more depressing.

Indeed. Politicians never seem to grasp the long time scales involved in rail projects, which in itself makes things harder because the once the other party gets into power they start re-examining the project and demanding better results to show they are "in control".

It will be very interesting to see if the Midland Main Line is closed between Bedford and Leicester. If it indeed is, then ALL the traffic coming from Sheffield, Leicester-Debry-Nottingham will have to go on the Grand Central Line and thence to Marylebone station.

Indeed - although in this TL the Bedford-Leicester stretch is marked for closure, as was Beeching's plans, much of his closure plans won't happen (see stuff I'll post later this evening.

All the booming passenger traffic from the East Midlands & South Yorkshire will come into Marylebone which will put a strain on the then 4-platform station I believe (platforms 5 & 6 there were only added recently by Chiltern from the old carriage sidings I gather). The immediate solution is to route express traffic down the New North Main Line into Paddington, but then that obviously induces congestion at Paddington at some point. Long term from that...not sure yet, too far into the future! Maybe Crossrail/Superlink will free up Paddington station capacity, or we'll reroute the express trains somewhere else.

I'm guessing that because Marylebone is so quiet on a Sunday afternoon, that's the reason I think it ended up being the station used in that new annoying thetrainline.com adverts currently on tv.

If BR ends up with RER like networks in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool a lot of currently semi profitable lines in the regions will become profitable, further bettering the company position.

There were a couple of Crossrail/Thameslink type propositions by BR before privatisation that didn't get very far. Thameslink will end up differently then OTL - stay tuned for that. As for HEX trains, I think that'll come earlier as you say. But that's closely related to the views on domestic aviation...I'm no expert on that. Suffice to say I think while Heathrow T5 will be built eventually, there'll be far less need and debate over a third runway as there will be little need for domestic flights. But then that leads on to lesser demand for trains to Heathrow I guess...have to look at that later. As for Cublington airport, following on from my admission I know far less about aviation (other then I like going on holiday to far away places :) ), I actually don't know anything about Cublington other then what I've just seen on the web that it was a proposed London airport near MK that didn't get approved at all. Please enlighten me more! :)

The airports debate is closely linked to what happens with the Chunnel as well I guess...suffice to say there will be a Chunnel, and I'm aiming to get the international trains better integrated into the European transport. Which will further dampen cross-Channel flights.....

JN1

September 12th, 2011, 05:46 PM

Am I the only railway enthusiast in the UK who has a soft spot for Pacers? :p

There's a preservation group apparently. :eek:
Been the source of a couple of letters to The Railway Magazine recently.

EDIT: I'm presuming that the WHL, Kyle Line and Far North Line will get saved as in @? I'd also suggest a reprieve for the Waverley Route and the Woodhead line as both would be pretty useful today. Hopefully the Woodhead route might be changed from DC to AC, which would do a lot to make it more attractive to retain.

On privatisation I butterflied it for passenger services at least by giving John Smith and Robert Adley a few more years of life.

Devvy

September 12th, 2011, 06:04 PM

There's a preservation group apparently. :eek:
Been the source of a couple of letters to The Railway Magazine recently.

EDIT: I'm presuming that the WHL, Kyle Line and Far North Line will get saved as in @? I'd also suggest a reprieve for the Waverley Route and the Woodhead line as both would be pretty useful today. Hopefully the Woodhead route might be changed from DC to AC, which would do a lot to make it more attractive to retain.

On privatisation I butterflied it for passenger services at least by giving John Smith and Robert Adley a few more years of life.

The Scottish lines were saved due to political pressure from the Scots apparently, so I'd be confident the same pressures would apply in this TL. As for Woodhead - Beeching didn't want to ditch it in OTL anyway, and here with the electrification of the GCML it's not going to be closed. It'll be converted to AC power when the GCML electrification team get up there. Beeching wanted to scrap the Hope Valley line, but that got reprieved via political pressure. In this TL it remains to be seen if that one stays open.

As for the Waverley line...it has steep gradients and doesn't seem much shorter then Carlisle - Edinburgh via Carstairs (the OTL WCML route), which has the advantage of allowing electrification of one line only further north, reducing costs. Will probably get cut for these reasons, but we might be able to keep it open as as Edinburgh suburban line as far as Galashiels or something.

Devvy

September 12th, 2011, 06:19 PM

Short interview with Sir Stanley Raymond, in a National Newspaper
January 1965

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/5/newspaper.jpg
January 1965 Newspaper

......
Interviewer: How have the first 3 months in charge of the British Railway Board been?
Raymond: Somewhat busy. I've been holed up in offices reading through statistics, data and reports trying to get my head around the proceedings at BR. The state it's in isn't great.
Interviewer: So that means there are things you want to change?
Raymond: Indeed. There are many thoughts that we have shared with each other at BR in order to continue the Modernisation trip that BR embarked upon 10 years or so ago.
Interviewer: Such as?
Raymond: Well one plan we are currently evaluating is the adoption of a new branded network for the long distance trains named "InterCity" rather then the disjointed system of trains we have currently. That isn't on the drawing board right now though.
Interviewer: So no cuts then?
Raymond: Well, let's be realistic here. While I disagree with Dr Beeching's conclusions in his report, his statistical data does bear taking into account. Some rural lines are hardly used and require substantial amounts of money to keep running. These small rural lines are the lines we need to examine to see if we can keep them open, one by one, rather then planning the closure of huge swathes of the rail network.
Interviewer: Do you think the British Railways still has an important role to play in the Britain?
Raymond: Definitly, for both freight and passenger transport. We are currently examining the increasing use of standard containers by the shipping industry and are looking as to whether we can adopt that concept for the railways as well, which would ideally result in a faster and more efficient rail freight system. Passenger wise, people have already shown they are still willing to use the train when the service is quick, reliable and comfortable. This isn't something we want to detract from.
Interviewer: So we can expect further investment in the railways then?
Raymond: Within reason; BR has a large deficit that we need to work on reducing. Part of the solution for that is further electrification as the results on the West Coast Main Line show. We are currently evaluating extending the electrification on both the West Coast Main Line & East Coat Main Line up to Scotland to serve both Glasgow and Edinburgh, as well as the Transpennine Main Line from Liverpool to Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds & Hull as this is a main line corridor that can be utilised by larger amounts of passengers. It would also allow electric trains from London to serve Hull.
Interviewer: Electric trains to Scotland is certainly an ambitious target.
Raymond: It is, and I'd just emphasise that it is still in the evaluation stage at the moment. But it would allow faster Anglo-Scottish trains to run faster, something I'd hope could allow London to Glasgow to be travelled in under 6 hours.
Interviewer: 6 hours would be an incredible time.
Raymond: Well the old LMS trains in the late 1930's managed it in 6.5 hours, so with better electric traction I'm sure we can improve on that.
Interviewer: Thank you for your time Sir Raymond.

------------
Notes: I can't find a picture of Sir Raymond of BR anywhere online! :/ On other notes, the Transpennine Main Line was originally planned to be closed under Beeching, this represents a u-turn by Raymond. I don't think he would want to be associated with Beeching consider the manner of his departure in this TL. Long stretches of this line were built as quadruple track as well, which is ideal for a main line. In OTL, this line ended up being reduced to double track, and present day OTL the line is heavily congested with passenger trains and struggling to cope.

Devvy

September 12th, 2011, 06:31 PM

Spotlight on: Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway
January 1965

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/5/cromer-beach.jpg

The M&GNR is a small network of routes, characterised by mainly rural lines with tight corners and steep gradients, forming an anomaly within British Rail. It was started by the Midland Railway and Great Northern Railway in 1893 and enabled direct access from the English Midlands to the ports of East Anglia. It also rapidly developed as a lucrative route for holiday traffic to the beach resorts of Norfolk. It built a network reaching across the northern sections of Norfolk, linking the towns together, which beforehand had only had lines stretching north/south from London which were run by the Great Eastern Railway.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/5/mgnjr-map.jpg

M&GNR had survived the Grouping of the Railways into the Big Four, becoming jointly owned by the LNER and LMS instead, but the nationalisation of the railways into British Railways left the network vulnerable. The 1955 Modernisation Report had specified that small, rural lines that saw little traffic should be closed in order to save money, and with freight now able to choose it's route independently of the Big Four, the future looked bleak for the M&GNR.

With the turn of 1960, BR closed the M&GNR lines westward of King's Lynn, routing freight traffic south from King's Lynn via Watlington & Wisbech to reach the East Coast Main Line. By 1961, the line east of Cromer to Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft closed, and later the same year the line east of Melton Constable towards Great Yarmouth shut as well.

Elsewhere in Norfolk though, rural railways had not faired much better. Dr Beeching's report into the state of BR had recommended some pretty wide ranging railway closures as well. While the larger lines were to stay open, most small lines were to be closed, and public outcry erupted. Although Beeching had now been replaced by Raymond, the fact that several of the remaining branch lines cost a lot to maintain and produced little in terms of revenue. On the positive side though, Beeching had been vehemently anti-light rail, and objection that had now vanished.

British Rail's new proposal was to segregate the network from the rest of it's network, and then spin off the network into a new "North Norfolk Railways" subsidiary company that could run the network as a trial into light rail concepts. The network was perfect for the trial; it was primarily rural although it did serve towns, it had it's own terminus in Norwich and it would be completely segregated from the rest of BR's railways upon the closure of the Fakenham to Dereham branch and the laying of one extra line along the side of it's own rails into King's Lynn (which would also take the branch to Hunstanton). The independent nature of the network would then allow it to trial small and older trains that were ill-equipped to run on the main network, and adopt less complicated signalling techniques.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/5/mgnjr-map2.jpg

-----------
Notes: Much of the M&GNJR was closed before Beeching came along, with the rest killed off by him. Also Aylsham lost it's railway station, that's a little add by me. OTL line from Norwich to Cromer (via North Walsham) carried on via a u-turn in Cromer to serve Sheringham as well. Parts of this TL's NNR network have survived in the form of the North Norfolk Railway (preserved steam railway) between Sheringham and Holt (a little north of Melton Constable) and between Walsingham (little north of Fakenham) and Wells as the Wells & Walsingham Light Railways, a narrow gauge light railway.

Russell

September 12th, 2011, 10:13 PM

First off - loving the timeline!

Secondly, as a Glaswegian with certain love of Industry and architecture I am curious if you have any ideas what will happen to Glasgows four main termini? Obviously some will have to close, at the very least Buchanan Street Station but what of the other three? It would be nice and actually probably better if St Enoch could survive - it was after all the largest of the stations and even central stuggles considerably with thodays traffic.

Russell

Dunois

September 12th, 2011, 11:06 PM

There were a couple of Crossrail/Thameslink type propositions by BR before privatisation that didn't get very far. Thameslink will end up differently then OTL - stay tuned for that. As for HEX trains, I think that'll come earlier as you say. But that's closely related to the views on domestic aviation...I'm no expert on that. Suffice to say I think while Heathrow T5 will be built eventually, there'll be far less need and debate over a third runway as there will be little need for domestic flights. But then that leads on to lesser demand for trains to Heathrow I guess...have to look at that later. As for Cublington airport, following on from my admission I know far less about aviation (other then I like going on holiday to far away places :) ), I actually don't know anything about Cublington other then what I've just seen on the web that it was a proposed London airport near MK that didn't get approved at all. Please enlighten me more! :)

The airports debate is closely linked to what happens with the Chunnel as well I guess...suffice to say there will be a Chunnel, and I'm aiming to get the international trains better integrated into the European transport. Which will further dampen cross-Channel flights.....

To be fair I don't think that the better performance of BR will have much of an impact on domstic aviation. A significant proportion of Manchester-London or Glasgow-London flyers are connecting passengers, taking another flight to say Hong Kong or Dallas in Heathrow. Even with full electrification and an hourly clockface timetable, BR express intercity trains won't be able to take all the market away from the airlines. As I have said before, I expect British Airways to go ahead with their walk on shuttles as per OTL during the early seventies. Remember that this was before security measure became really tight in airports. It was still possible in the late nineties to arrive at the airport fifteen minutes before the shuttle was due to depart. Right now in Paris Orly airport you can still be there just 20mins before your shuttle flight to Marseille or Nice is due to depart. Its hard for trains to compete on timings on these distances, for the London to Scotland runs trains would need to take less than 3hours to really make a huge dent on the airlines market share.
The incredible for 1965 six hours journey time does not fare well against a 30mins taxi ride to Heathrow, 30mins of check-in, one hour of flying to Glasgow and another half an hour of taxi ride to central Glasgow. That's just 2h30 in total so the plane still wins big if you are in a hurry.

If Thatcher stills gets in or any Conservative government keen on freeing up the economy, then open skies and airline deregulation will happen sooner or later.

The Third Runway in Heathrow has nothing to do with domestics flights but more to do with expanding the airport capacity in the long run. Despite what the current government says, it will still be needed even if HS2 get built.

Cublington was the proposed site for a third London airport in 1969, it had the advantage of being in the middle of the country side and not too far away from rail and road arteries. It was ditched nevertheless in favour of Maplin Sands, since building in Cublington would lead to the loss cultural artefacts as well as greenfield land. In the end Maplin was not built either and Stansted was expanded as an alternative.
If the airport gets built, the costs will be high and it will need very fast links to London to be competitive with Heathrow. If it had indeed been built, I suspect that it would have been very well used by 2011 but that it would not have "killed off" Heathrow. Charters, Low-cost and cargo airlines would use it a lot, but British Airways and the other majors would have stayed in Heathrow due to its proximity to London. A better and cheaper idea would perhaps be that "reservations" are implemented in Heathrow in order to meet the future needs of the airport. The area was not as built up then compared to now, so there would be some room for this.

Better integrated Chunnel services are a good idea in theory, but to make money out of this idea won't be an easy task. Freight trains will have the advantage of the Great Central Mainline which will help. But for passenger trains, any journey over 4h in length won't be competitive with the airplanes. As it stands, it took until 2003 and the first stage of HS1 for Eurostar to really badly eat into the airlines share of the London to Paris market. Without high speed trains and the related infrastructure able to sustain 300km/h on both sides, trains won't be competitive it is as simple as that.
Night train services which were planned OTL under the Nightstar brand, so they might go ahead TTL and could attract good patronage if well marketed and organised.
Regional services from cities other than London to Paris or Brussels face the stage length issue, Birmingham and Manchester might just be doable if the Grand Central Mainline is upgraded to 200km/h or even better 220 km/h throughout.

Devvy

September 13th, 2011, 07:07 AM

Russ - I think St Enoch will survive, particularly as a terminus for trains from Edinburgh as it looks to me like it's generally angled that way. Opinions welcome on that though!

Dunois - I quite agree that trains will have a hard deal competing with the airlines, definitely for Anglo-Scottish routes. The trains can beat the airlines on price and comfort only, but those can be pretty strong incentives. I think they'll both be comfortable until Glasgow and Edinburgh come in under 4 hours travel time as you say. Flights to northern England from London will die out though.

As for the chunnel....by better integrated I was thinking along the lines of more destinations what will be this TL's version of Eurostar whatever that may be named. Amsterdam & Frankfurt are around the 4 hour mark once the high speed lines are constructed through Belgium so are doable and integrating it with the current day OTL Thalys makes a more cohesive transport network. I don't think destinations further north of London are going to be that possible, like OTL, because of time and capacity restrictions. "HS1" prime destination will be central London, and freight will route round the outside of it. The problem with raising the speed on the GCML is freight - freight is large user of the GCML and the higher the passenger train speeds on the line, the less capacity there is for slow freight trains. The problems with destinations further north of London is guaranteeing a large enough market for immigration & customs to open up there due to the UK staying out of Schengen (which I don't see changing here).

The LGV Nord on the French side of the tunnel opened in 1993....I'd hope with the more investment friendly BR that the HS1 line could be opened in the '90s.

Anyhow - off to work. Thanks for the comments on Heathrow & Cublington though, definite food for thought :)

Russell

September 13th, 2011, 09:18 AM

Russ - I think St Enoch will survive, particularly as a terminus for trains from Edinburgh as it looks to me like it's generally angled that way. Opinions welcome on that though!

If you look at the St Enoch shopping center (that was built over the station) on Google Earth and look east over the car park you can see the old St Enoch railway line that still heads east as well as south across the river. It used to be four tracks wide but is now only two. I believe before it was closed St Enoch served both the Edinburgh routs and the London ones as well.

Hope this helps - keep it up!

Russell

Bahamut-255

September 13th, 2011, 01:24 PM

Hmmm. I wouldn't know much about it. Despite having been to the St Enoch Shopping Centre a few dozen times myself. I tend to get there via the Helensburgh-Glasgow Trains or the Gourock-Glasgow Central Trains. They both work quite well. And recently, the Helensburgh-Glasgow became Helensburgh-Edinburgh, without having to change trains OTL.

Gonna be interesting seeing how this TL turns out.

Dan1988

September 13th, 2011, 01:38 PM

Reading through the TL, and I have to say - it is interesting so far. However, although the following quote deals with modern stuff, I feel like responding to it:

Indeed, though Bombardier have the habit of producing expensive and unreliable trains, that they then deliver late- and then moan about not being selected for contracts. I don't have a vast amount of sympathy with the company, though the members of staff are of course another matter.

Anyway, I digress. Let's see what happens.

I somewhat disagree. Bombardier's sets for the MBTA Red Line in Boston and the Montréal Métro (the latter being built in the 1960s/1970s) are still going strong, and that's just the beginning. (Though I probably agree that there is probably a difference between Bombardier stuff built in North America and Bombardier stuff built in Europe.)

Geordie

September 13th, 2011, 06:39 PM

IIRC, Glasgow St Enoch's main route was the trains to London St. Pancras via Kilmarnock, Dumfries, the Settle & Carlisle and the MML. The Beeching map had the S&C on the blacklist, as well as the Bedford to Leicester stretch of the Midland, so more local Scottish trains may be its only hope...

Did the S&C survive? Do you dare shut it?

I think the section of the Waverley route between Hawick/Gala' and Carlisle is doomed, but they are reopening from Edinburgh into the borders, so this first part could survive.

What about Whitby? The line is black, but was obviously reprieved in OTL...

I like the idea of the North Norfolk Light. Light railways are something Britain just doesn't seem to understand. :(

Anyway, keep up the good work! :)

Devvy

September 13th, 2011, 09:57 PM

I somewhat disagree. Bombardier's sets for the MBTA Red Line in Boston and the Montréal Métro (the latter being built in the 1960s/1970s) are still going strong, and that's just the beginning. (Though I probably agree that there is probably a difference between Bombardier stuff built in North America and Bombardier stuff built in Europe.)

Bombardier over here have made a few high profile incidents with their Voyager family of trains which have sullied their otherwise reasonable performance, and what is worse is that those incidents have been stupid design overlooks. The biggest one that springs to mind is the fact they have rheostatic breaks with the resistor banks on the roof...which got covered in salt water once as one of the lines the trains runs down runs right along the shoreline. The salt water instantly caused problems with the resistor banks and caused the control software to shut down power to the whole train. Stupid oversight!

As for St Enoch, the more I read about Glasgow railways, I think it may well stay open, as we can keep the line that will now (OTL) be Glasgow Crossrail open from the start. I would see ECML express trains serving Edinburgh then running via Airdrie & Bathgate and terminating at Glasgow St Enochs potentially.

For Whitby, I'm not sure. I guess public pressure might keep it open, but even now passenger numbers are hardly enough to justify it.

The Settle & Carlisle line was slated for closure, and I think BR tried to close it a number of times, but public pressure kept it open. Freight traffic was always strong along it, and it's a useful diversionary route for the WCML, so I can't see it closing in this TL.

Waverley line as you say is doomed I think from Galashiels to Carlisle, but Galashiels to Edinburgh could probably stay open as a normal commuter line.

We've never really done light railways in Britain, but as mentioned that little network stub is ideal as it serves a city with it's own terminus and is almost completely segregated from the rest of the network with BR having no need to run through trains over it. Not a lot of other rural places in the UK can say that....

Devvy

September 13th, 2011, 10:06 PM

JN1

September 13th, 2011, 10:09 PM

Basileus Giorgios

September 13th, 2011, 10:13 PM

PS. A few more pieces of "Spotlight on" I'm still writing cover Tyneside, Manchester & I think I'll do a bit on Glasgow now. And a little snippet for the end of 1965 with a map of the main lines rail electrification. Then we'll continue along the timeline a bit.

Any chance of Merseyside too? :)

The Voyagers are also much less pleasant trains to travel in than the older HSTs - much harder seats, less comfortable ride and often a feeling of claustrophobia because some seats have almost no window. Conversely the Mark 3 coaches used by the HST are very nice places to be.

Yes, I quite agree. Bloody Voyagers.

Devvy

September 13th, 2011, 10:39 PM

Any chance of Merseyside too? :)

Might include a bit on Merseyside with Manchester as they are closely linked...both Liverpool and Manchester's freight trade will be declining strongly by this point so it'll be an interesting area to cover.

The Voyagers are also much less pleasant trains to travel in than the older HSTs - much harder seats, less comfortable ride and often a feeling of claustrophobia because some seats have almost no window. Conversely the Mark 3 coaches used by the HST are very nice places to be
Yes, I quite agree. Bloody Voyagers.

To be fair, I think the Voyager's suffer from a similar problem the Pendolino's - while they are much less pleasant trains to ride in, they are much safer for it. That Pendolino that crashed at...Grayrigg served as testiment to this - the carriages went all over the place but all of them remained intact.

Can I make a request to save at least part of the Fife coastal route? There are currently proposals to re-open it for freight and passengers at least as far as Leven. It would also help if the S-A-K line wasn't closed in the first place too as it was expensive to restore.

Yeah I can see justification as far as Leven...as for the whole of the route I'm not sure whether that's realistic. Maybe the other end from the Cupar over to St Andrews, which would also break up the Fife Circle Line into 2 seperate lines, one to Leven and the other to St Andrews. Which is the S-A-K line?

EDIT: Just found the S-A-K line on the Scottish Transport site. Stirling to Dumfermline via Alloa and Culross is doable because it looks like there is a large coal fired power station there that will want coal trains inbound which will help pay for infrastructure.

Devvy

September 16th, 2011, 03:11 PM

Spotlight on: Merseyrail
January 1965

The rail system on Merseyside is being renovated following the report of Beeching. Dr Beeching had advocated dismantling much of the Merseyside rail infrastructure, but after appeals by Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority the rail network is being renovated with the project being financed in part by the MPTA. Most of the urban and suburban rail lines in and around Liverpool & Birkenhead will be transferred into a new British Rail subsidiary named "Merseyrail" who will take on the responsibility for running the new rail network.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/5/merseyrail-map-1.jpg
The Merseyrail planned network before amendments were made

The original plan quickly changed though - the immediate plan to link Moorfields and Central stations to form a north-south rail line, linking south Liverpool & Widnes to Southport, Preston & Wigan (via Kirkby) will still go ahead as the first stage. The second stage now revolves around the divertiong of the Wirral Lines after passing through James Street eastwards through new platforms (and perpendicular to the north-south platforms) at Central Station before heading for an underground station at Lime Street and then using the Waterloo Tunnel out to Edge Hill via to serve destinations such as Wigan (via St Helens), Runcorn as well as north Liverpool.

Current plans are to have the north-south tunnels finished by 1970, followed by finishing the east-west tunnel by 1975 including all electrification works. Debate is ongoing currently as to whether the 3rd rail system should be used, or the overhead line system as BR has standardised on now, with BR's weight leaning towards overhead line so that it integrates into the West Coast Main Line electrification system.

------------------------
Spotlight on: Tyneside Electrics
January 1967

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/5/tyneside-electrics.jpg
A Tyneside Electric train in 1962

The Tyneside Electrics was formerly a small network of electrified routes in and around Tyneside, operating out of Newcastle Central station. It was one of the first suburban networks to be electrified in the country (first lines were done around 1904 onwards and the last line in 1938), and utilised the third rail electrification system in a similar fashion to the present BR Southern Region. However, falling passenger numbers and vandalism were taking their toll on the network, and by the mid 1960's, the electrical systems were failing. BR's solution as to de-electrify the lines, reduce services and close lines and services to some areas.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/5/tyneside-map-1.jpg
The Tyneside Electrics service in 1962

However, having seen the progress Liverpool Council had made with their "Merseyrail" project, the local councils around Newcastle decided to approach BR with a similar concept. The trains would remain running, on a mostly segregated network, and would be locally branded. However, BR only agreed to save and renovate the lines if the Tyneside Councils bought them. As it turned out at the time, some of the councils formed a joint "Tyneside Transport Board", and leased 2 lines from British Railways. One went north from Newcastle Central, serving Gosforth where it split into 2 branches, one to Ponteland and the other to Forest Hill where an interchange with BR services would be built. South of the Tyne, the line from Gateshead to Pelaw would be taken where the line branched to South Shields and south to Washington and Chester-le-Street was leased. In the middle, the line would run underground through Gateshead, Newcastle Central station and 2 stops in the city centre.

This also helped BR; the line north to Gosforth was one of the lines that merged in a large mess of a junction right outside Newcastle Central station, which did little to keep the station running efficiently. By removing one of the lines, BR aimed to improve the timeliness and efficiency of it's services through Newcastle, particularly it's East Coat Main Line expresses which would at some point be electrified through the station. The former electrified lines out to Tynemouth and Whitley Bay would be de-electrified though - BR was unwilling to pay for the essential replacement of the electrification system so went for the cheaper option of running new diesel trains along the lines as the new Tyneside Transport Board was unable to lease them.

The new TTB would run the new line as a metro service through the centre of the city once it opens - something planned for 1969.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/5/tyneside-map-2.jpg
The planned Tyneside Metro Line

---------
Notes: Sorry for the lack of pictures - there's a lack of pictures of past trains for Merseyrail. Anyhow, so Merseyrail is in creation stages in mid-1965 here, in a similar manner to OTL. BR wants to shed lines, Liverpool council are willing to chip in money to create a suburban network of it's own so BR agrees. The original plan was stuck with in OTL, rather then my slight change to a complete east-west tunnel to link the City Lines in the east and the Wirral Lines on the west. Seems far more logical to me! The map is the original plan for the Merseyrail network.

For Tyneside, BR ran down most of the lines, and de-electrified them. Several were totally dismantled. It was only in the 80s that the OTL Tyne & Wear Metro system was built along the former rail alignments. Sorry about the poor quality of the diagram for the Tyneside Metro Line - I'm not much of a graphics artist!

Swede

September 19th, 2011, 07:12 PM

Notes: Sorry for the lack of pictures - there's a lack of pictures of past trains for Merseyrail. Anyhow, so Merseyrail is in creation stages in mid-1965 here, in a similar manner to OTL. BR wants to shed lines, Liverpool council are willing to chip in money to create a suburban network of it's own so BR agrees. The original plan was stuck with in OTL, rather then my slight change to a complete east-west tunnel to link the City Lines in the east and the Wirral Lines on the west. Seems far more logical to me! The map is the original plan for the Merseyrail network.
So it's not just me who sees that loop the Wirral lines do as very strange and counter-productive?

For Tyneside, BR ran down most of the lines, and de-electrified them. Several were totally dismantled. It was only in the 80s that the OTL Tyne & Wear Metro system was built along the former rail alignments. Sorry about the poor quality of the diagram for the Tyneside Metro Line - I'm not much of a graphics artist!
The graphics are just fine :) T&WM getting started in a big way a generation earlier, that's gonna have massive impact on so many lives in the area.

Dunois

September 19th, 2011, 08:08 PM

Can I make a request to save at least part of the Fife coastal route? There are currently proposals to re-open it for freight and passengers at least as far as Leven. It would also help if the S-A-K line wasn't closed in the first place too as it was expensive to restore.

The Voyagers are also much less pleasant trains to travel in than the older HSTs - much harder seats, less comfortable ride and often a feeling of claustrophobia because some seats have almost no window. Conversely the Mark 3 coaches used by the HST are very nice places to be.

The Voyagers are not as good as the HST, I really hate the push button locks on the toilets, as you can't tell if they are really locked or not.
But the engines makes a nice little humming noise which I find rather pleasant. Though it is not as good as what Paxman Valenta powered HSTs made some time ago, that turbine like screaming was just awesome.

Great further updates Devvy, the North Norfolk Railways should hopefully lead to interesting results. Good developments on the local suburban networks too!

MonsooN

September 19th, 2011, 08:35 PM

Interesting to see the Tyneside railway reaching down to Washington, which, of course, would have still been a collection of small villages at the time. I believe it's been considered on many occasions IOTL to connect the Metro up to Washington as there are several old mineral lines that connected the Washington area with Gateshead.

Also, The line through Washington connected to the Leamside Line in the Lambton and Fatfield area and from there could have linked up to Houghton Le Spring, Durham and the Ferryhill area too.

Devvy

September 19th, 2011, 09:32 PM

Doing multiple quotes in one post is complicated on this thing it seems!

For Tyne and Wear Metro (if that's what it ends up being called!), you need many trains to make the tunnelling economically viable. To me, judging by historical examples, that should be at least 12tph at the minimum. North branches are easy to grab, as the branch that we have being taken here contests and overly complicates Newcastle station mouth which means BR would be happy to sacrifice it to aid smoother running up and down the ECML - expresses are usually where the money is anyway.

Which means we need some southern branches in order to give the trains somewhere to terminate. South Shields as the OTL Metro does is a fairly obvious one, but after some looking I think Washington is the other. It's a relatively unimportant line at the time with coal use dwindling and the area having ample other lines to use, and Washington was deemed a new town for major expansion in the mid 60s. This would obviously mean a large increase in population would be expected, which creates a market for the metro and secondly helps attract people into the new town. Here I would imagine 8tph on the branches, resulting in 16tph each way through the central tunnels.

Extensions further afield later in this TL can be expected :)

As for push button locks on toilets Dunois, they do my head in! SWT has them on most of their fleet now, and several times I've used the toilet on one of the Desiro trains only to find the door opening mid-pee. Rather awkward moments!

Oh and as for the Wirral lines loop, it seems completely absurd. I have no idea why they didn't do a tunnel through the centre in OTL to connect to the City Lines - something that would of been a lot more efficient use of the railways. :confused:

Anyhow....just writing a 1967 bit on how electrification is progressing, and then I want to do a little snippet on the adoption of TOPS which I can't wait for as I know trains by their BR Class number rather then the pre-TOPS classification! Should make life easier as the trains get more modern!

I'm going to leave a spotlight on Manchester for a bit, and we'll cover it when the Picc-Vic tunnel plans come up in the early 70s - not too far away!

Devvy

September 20th, 2011, 08:29 PM

Spotlight on: Railway Electrification
February 1967

West Coast and East Coast Main Line electrification works are complete (WCML as far north as Crewe including the branches to Northampton, Birmingham, Liverpool & Manchester - ECML as far north as Leeds). Progress is being made on the Great Central Main Line, with OHLE in place from London to just west of High Wycombe. High Wycombe town centre is currently being redeveloped, and BR has taken the opportunity to straighten out the alignment of the GCML through High Wycombe and redevelop the station, with quadruple track stretching from High Wycombe to Gerrards Cross to allow stopping trains to be overtaken by express trains.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/6/high-wycombe.jpg
High Wycombe station before redevelopment

The Transpennine Main Line is also currently being electrified. Work has just started (commenced September 1966), and is scheduled to be finished mid-1971. Despite the shorter length of this line compared to other lines we have electrified, the Transpennine causes a different set of problems due the lines suburban nature in areas. The Transpennine project will also include the short connecting line from Penistone on the GCML to Huddersfield on the Transpennine route, and the branch from Huddersfield to Bradford via Cleckheaton. OHLE on the Great Eastern Main Line has reached Ipswich.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/6/br-elec-al6.jpg
A BR AL6 locomotive on a Euston Express service

BR are currently building a fleet of new AL6 locomotives to continue replacing diesel and steam traction. They are currently being deployed to haul express trains from London to Leeds on the ECML, as well as provide a few more services on the WCML - passenger numbers were continuing to rise. Since electrified services went live on the WCML approximately 3 years earlier, passenger numbers had risen roughly 30%, and the rise was still showing absolutely no sign of slowing. BR are also continuing to build new electric multiple units, currently the AM8 and AM10, based on the new Mark 2 carriage design are under construction. The AM8 are designed for the Great Eastern Main Line commuter services that serve the settlements in Essex and Suffolk. The AM10 units are aimed at WCML commuter services from London to Watford, Northampton and the new city of Milton Keynes.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/6/rail-elec-66-small.jpg
Current electrification status
Solid red: Electrified
Dotted red: Electrification in progress of planned to be

---------

Internal BR memorandum snippet
BR to adopt a new system
March 1967

BR has decided to implement a new operations system, labelled TOPS (Total Operations Processing System). The system originates from the USA, and will require an IBM 360 mainframe from IBM to be installed at BR so this will require Governmental approval. All locomotives and multiple units will be reassigned new numbers that are compatible with the new system.

---------

Notes: The GCML through High Wycombe, and remains unstraight even today. Not so much of a problem though as super express trains no longer run through the station but stop there on the Chiltern Main Line from Birmingham to London Marylebone which uses the remaining part of the GCML. The line also remained double track only with passing loops only at the stations. The Transpennine Main Line (OTL known as the North Transpennine Line) has never been electrified in OTL, despite the frequent services on the line. TOPS is the system that classified the loco/multiple units as "BR Class xxx" which is what most people, myself included, know the trains as.

Geordie

September 20th, 2011, 08:50 PM

For Whitby, I'm not sure. I guess public pressure might keep it open, but even now passenger numbers are hardly enough to justify it.
I know it's not very logical, but I summer days in the moors finishing there have given me a soft spot for Whitby. Incidentally, one line that should definitely be kept open is the little spur of line from Nunthorpe to Guisborough. There would be serious commuter traffic there now, but it didn't survive. If Whitby is culled, I suggest keeping the line open as far as Guisborough...

The Settle & Carlisle... so I can't see it closing in this TL.
I'll call off the angry mob. :p

Spotlight on: Tyneside Electrics
Interesting. The only issue I have is the North Tyneside loop (Wallsend, North Shields, Whitley Bay, Benton). Even now, that is probably the most important part of the network. Before the extension to Sunderland, South Shields was very much the poor relation. I don't know that Ponteland (closed to passengers in 1929) would be a useful replacement...

The Washington line, on the other hand, seems a very good idea. Especially regarding increasing North-South traffic. While somewhat off topic, this could affect local government reorganisation. Sunderland's boundaries in Tyne and Wear are absolutely huge, including half of North East County Durham and Washington. With Washington being dragged towards Tyneside, it could end up part of Gateshead council area, and thus Tyneside proper.

As for push button locks on toilets Dunois, they do my head in! SWT has them on most of their fleet now, and several times I've used the toilet on one of the Desiro trains only to find the door opening mid-pee. Rather awkward moments!
I've been revealed in mid urination by the sliding door of doom on the Waterloo-Basingstoke service at least 3 times.

Geordie

September 20th, 2011, 09:10 PM

Apologies for the double post, but I started writing about two hours before finishing. Another good update, Devvy. Glad to see electrification progressing...

Devvy

September 20th, 2011, 10:32 PM

I know it's not very logical, but I summer days in the moors finishing there have given me a soft spot for Whitby. Incidentally, one line that should definitely be kept open is the little spur of line from Nunthorpe to Guisborough. There would be serious commuter traffic there now, but it didn't survive. If Whitby is culled, I suggest keeping the line open as far as Guisborough...

As far as I can see, Guisborough station was a small terminus station on a branch off from the "main line". I'd definitely see the line to Guisborough staying open for a Middlesbrough - Guisborough service (and would probably figure in the Tees Valley Metro plans OTL today if the line still existed). Although Nunthorpe - Whitby would be culled, I think we can keep the Tees Valley Line open as far as Whitby - it serves industry even now I think, there are a few other small towns to serve as well which makes it a decent proposition (Saltburn station would be closed and a new station opened to serve the town on the through line). Although I have to comment while I love the rolling hills of Yorkshire, I can't stand fishing :p

Interesting. The only issue I have is the North Tyneside loop (Wallsend, North Shields, Whitley Bay, Benton). Even now, that is probably the most important part of the network. Before the extension to Sunderland, South Shields was very much the poor relation. I don't know that Ponteland (closed to passengers in 1929) would be a useful replacement...

The Washington line, on the other hand, seems a very good idea. Especially regarding increasing North-South traffic. While somewhat off topic, this could affect local government reorganisation. Sunderland's boundaries in Tyne and Wear are absolutely huge, including half of North East County Durham and Washington. With Washington being dragged towards Tyneside, it could end up part of Gateshead council area, and thus Tyneside proper.

The reason I suggest Ponteland is that the infrastructure is pretty much there and ready to use for a heavy rail -> metro rail conversion. I concur that I wouldn't see them using it if they had to relay the line, but as it's there they might as well make use of it and see if it stimulates some demand. I left North Shields out at first as I figured that Newcastle Council (or whatever they would of been known as back then) only have so much funds, and that BR Tyneside (now Diesels!) lines to Tynemouth & Whitley Bay appear to serve reasonably populated areas, so BR's service to those areas are likely to be easier to make money from and so BR would want to keep them. However I still see them eventually being transferred to this TL T&W Metro, maybe in the 1980s for an east-west line. BR would continue to serve Blyth, Bedlington & Ashington though, via what is now OTL Palmersville T&W station - hence the Forest Hill interchange on this TL T&W map, unlike OTL.

I've been revealed in mid urination by the sliding door of doom on the Waterloo-Basingstoke service at least 3 times.

Actually laughed there!

Devvy

September 20th, 2011, 10:40 PM

Oh and PS. I did debate sending T&W Metro to Sunderland as in OTL, but I figured the BR of the 1960s wouldn't be too keen on having separately operated light rail vehicles sharing it's line to Sunderland.

My current pondering is for when the network expands, whether extending the line from Washington over the Victoria Viaduct and east into Sunderland is viable (be that the 1980s or whenever).

Geordie

September 21st, 2011, 12:33 PM

As far as I can see, Guisborough station was a small terminus station on a branch off from the "main line". I'd definitely see the line to Guisborough staying open for a Middlesbrough - Guisborough service (and would probably figure in the Tees Valley Metro plans OTL today if the line still existed). Although Nunthorpe - Whitby would be culled, I think we can keep the Tees Valley Line open as far as Whitby - it serves industry even now I think, there are a few other small towns to serve as well which makes it a decent proposition (Saltburn station would be closed and a new station opened to serve the town on the through line). Although I have to comment while I love the rolling hills of Yorkshire, I can't stand fishing :p
Whitby is seriously iffy. IIRC, the line along the cliffs from Saltburn to Whitby needed serious work on some of the bridges, in addition to some rather steep gradients. The best possible result would be to close the line between Nunthorpe and Battersby, keeping the line open from Battersby to the Northallerton line. Services could then run Middlesbrough-Eaglescliffe-Picton-Battersby and on to Whitby... However, this is the best case scenario.

Ps, I hate fishing too.

Ponteland and North Shields
That makes sense.

BR would continue to serve Blyth, Bedlington & Ashington though, via what is now OTL Palmersville T&W station - hence the Forest Hill interchange on this TL T&W map, unlike OTL.
The real trick here is to try and serve Blyth, Ashington, Bedlington, Morpeth and Cramlington in some sort of 'Northumberland circle'. It can be done. OTL, even now there's a diusued/dormant colliery line from Ashington, joining the southbound ECML at Pegswood. If that can be upgraded to passenger workings, then closing the bit from Blyth to Newsham and renaming the latter 'Blyth' gets rid of all the silly little branch lines...

Devvy

September 21st, 2011, 10:14 PM

Whitby is seriously iffy. IIRC, the line along the cliffs from Saltburn to Whitby needed serious work on some of the bridges, in addition to some rather steep gradients. The best possible result would be to close the line between Nunthorpe and Battersby, keeping the line open from Battersby to the Northallerton line. Services could then run Middlesbrough-Eaglescliffe-Picton-Battersby and on to Whitby... However, this is the best case scenario.

Just read some more about that coastal line and I see what you mean. Picton - Battersby closed to passengers in 54, before my POD, so I can't keep it alive easily once freight dries up unfortunately. It was Beeching who closed the Malton - Pickering - Grosmont - Whitby line though, so maybe we can keep that open as Whitby's connection to the rail network. Considering the rural and isolated nature of the line and an assumed public pressure to keep the (by that point) only line to Whitby open, if a 3rd line was added between Rillington Junction and Malton/Norton station was added I think we could get BR to spin it off as a subsidiary light railway company similar to North Norfolk. Or we could just single the main line between Rillington Junction and Malton/Norton and use the other line for the Whitby branch actually which would be considerably easier. It's not exactly heavy with traffic!

The real trick here is to try and serve Blyth, Ashington, Bedlington, Morpeth and Cramlington in some sort of 'Northumberland circle'. It can be done. OTL, even now there's a diusued/dormant colliery line from Ashington, joining the southbound ECML at Pegswood. If that can be upgraded to passenger workings, then closing the bit from Blyth to Newsham and renaming the latter 'Blyth' gets rid of all the silly little branch lines...

Agreed. As I mentioned earlier, I'm still thinking about how this TL "Tyneside Metro" evolves. Current thoughts are that the original network opens as expected, and then in the mid 1970's at some point the network is expanded to connect to Sunderland from Washington (across Victoria Viaduct and head east) on the south side, and on the north side to make the junction three-way and then head north with the new line past Gosforth Wood and parallel the ECML to Cramlington. I'm not sure if it's worth doing yet, but it does significantly expand the scope of the metro, adding large towns onto the network without requiring any new tunnelling. So maybe...

Currently working on a piece for 1971 about the London Underground. Victoria line opens, and construction on the Fleet Line begins. And a piece for 1970 about the....hold your breath....APT :)

Dathi THorfinnsson

September 23rd, 2011, 01:37 AM

Interesting. Keep it up.

Geordie

September 23rd, 2011, 05:43 PM

Just read some more about that coastal line and I see what you mean. Picton - Battersby closed to passengers in 54, before my POD, so I can't keep it alive easily once freight dries up unfortunately. It was Beeching who closed the Malton - Pickering - Grosmont - Whitby line though, so maybe we can keep that open as Whitby's connection to the rail network.
I always forget about the Malton line, as it goes the 'wrong way' as far as I'm concerned. However, Pickering's bigger than all the little villages served (sometimes in name only) by the Esk Valley line. That would be useful. You've ruined many of my summer days in childhood, by destroying the NYMR, but if you replace it with a NYLR, I might forgive you.

Agreed. As I mentioned earlier, I'm still thinking about how this TL "Tyneside Metro" evolves. Current thoughts are that the original network opens as expected, and then in the mid 1970's at some point the network is expanded to connect to Sunderland from Washington (across Victoria Viaduct and head east) on the south side, and on the north side to make the junction three-way and then head north with the new line past Gosforth Wood and parallel the ECML to Cramlington. I'm not sure if it's worth doing yet, but it does significantly expand the scope of the metro, adding large towns onto the network without requiring any new tunnelling. So maybe...
Going as far South as Washington means Sunderland will need to be linked in before any other great extensions really. North of the Wear, would the line go straight for Pelaw (OTL), head towards South Shields, or both? I then think North Shields, Tynemouth and Whitley Bay need to be included, possibly with the line going West from the centre towards Elswick, Benwell and maybe Blaydon. The grand Northumberland Circle, or whatever it's called, would probably be later than this...

Sorry for delving into such minutiae. I really like this TL, and don't want to bog you down with petty details. On the other hand, you've combined my love of history, railways, and my home-place in one thread. I may end up a bit anorak-ish!

Currently working on a piece for 1971 about the London Underground. Victoria line opens, and construction on the Fleet Line begins. And a piece for 1970 about the....hold your breath....APT :)
LU, good... Victoria and Fleet lines, interesting... Ye gods, he said the forbidden letters! :p

In all seriousness, I look forward to both. Even if the latter causes mild trepidation...

Devvy

September 23rd, 2011, 09:51 PM

Project Update for British Rail
March 1971

Project Hermes

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/7/apt-const.jpg
The Advanced Passenger Train Prototype (APT-E) under construction

The Advanced Passenger Train is currently in it's early trial phase, with an experimental unit being constructed to test out the new technologies involved in it's speed, tilt mechanisms, articulated carriages and electric engines. Originally this train was envisaged with gas turbine engines, but the widespread adoption of electrification on the main line railways in Great Britain has led us to conclude that electric power would be much better suited to this train. This is not without some hindrance - particularly around mechanisms to keep the pantograph upright against the overhead lines despite the train tilting.

The tilting nature of the train makes it particularly well suited to fast main lines with long curves involved, so we would envisage the APT serving routes such as London - Manchester, London - Liverpool and London - Scotland (all via the WCML) when the electrification to Scotland is finished. Over primarily straight tracks, the train will be quicker then other trains today, but it's primary advantage of tilting, allowing higher speeds round corners, will be lost.

The project is still on course - the experimental APT will be running by November this year, upon which we will be running intensive trials on it, probably for several years to perfect the many new technologies and concepts.

Project Hephaestus

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/7/hst-concept.jpg

The concept design for the High Speed Train

The design for the High Speed Train will be shortly turned into reality with an prototype version too. This train is designed for non-electrified lines as it will be powered by 2 new diesel powered engines - one at either end, which will be very highly powered. They will sandwich a rake of new coaches designated the Mk3 coaching stock that will run in a fixed train, thereby negating the need to switch the engines from one end to the other at terminii. We would ideally see them being used on the Great Western Main Line and Crosscountry routes.

-----------
Notes: While the Greek God project names may be my little addition (Hermes as he is the messenger, protects travellers & is athletic, Hephaestus as he is crippled - from the train's lack of a pantograph - and is highly linked with fire, coming from the diesel engine), both projects are very real for British Rail both here and in OTL. The APT was ill-fated due to political and management issues, which we'll highlight in later stages on those notes. The HST was better fated, becoming the Intercity 125, which is still in widespread use today.

Devvy

September 23rd, 2011, 09:52 PM

London Underground Progress Report
August 1971

The Victoria Line extension to Brixton has opened successfully. Services now run from Walthamstow Central (renamed from Hoe Street earlier this year) all the way to Brixton, allowing express north-south travel across London. Although the line has been cut back to Walthamstow Central, we have built the line to be easily extended in future. Continuing east from Walthamstow across to Woodford is one option, and south to Herne Hill and beyond are both options which remain possible.

Now that the Victoria Line has finished, our attention can now turn to the Fleet Line. Planning has all been approved, and construction will commence this year on this new line. It has been much needed, in order to reduce congestion on the Bakerloo Line to the north, resulting in too many trains needing to run through the central section. In order to combat this, the Bakerloo line branch to Stanmore will be transferred to the new Fleet Line. Earlier plans dating from the 1965 Underground Railways Plan for London called for the line to run from Stanmore to Baker Street, then calling at Bond Street, Green Park, Trafalgar Square, Aldwych, Ludgate Circus, Cannon Street (with link to Monument), Fenchurch Street, and then curving to join the East London Line, Lewisham, and then taking over the line to Hayes. However, the plans have evolved, and the line now under construction follows the following plan:
a) Phase 1 would taken over the Stanmore to Baker Street line (formerly of the Bakerloo line) and then extending underground from new platforms at Baker Street to Bond Street, Green Park and then Charing Cross.
b) Phase 2 would extend the line from Charing Cross to Aldwych, Ludgate Circus, Cannon Street station and Fenchurch Street station (as follows the 1965 plan).
c) Phase 3 would then extend from Fenchurch Street station to St Katherine's Docks, Wapping, Russia Dock (following the closure of these docks), Poplar (by filling in the northmost "Import" dock of the West India Docks as trade is declining), North Greenwich and surfacing on the north side of the Royal Victoria Dock. The line would then take over the currently BR line to North Greenwich with stops at Royal Victoria Dock (which would also serve as the new terminus of the BR line), Silvertown and North Greenwich.
d) Phase 4 would finally see the line extended under the Thames from North Greenwich, calling at Woolwich Arsenal and Plumstead stations, before using the rundown BR line former Royal Arsenal branch to terminate at the new town of Thamesmead.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/7/jubilee1.jpg
The two plans for the Fleet Line - original plan on the left, revised plan including potential branch to Barking on the right

Phase 1 will be the section under construction by the end of the year, with the hope of all 4 phases of construction completed by 1980. Although this alignment of the Fleet Line is more expensive then the original plan, it has the advantages of serving areas of East London that are deprived and lacking in transport options, as well as serving the new town of Thamesmead. It will also help alleviate traffic around North Greenwich, sandwiched as it is between the West India Docks and the River Thames.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/7/1971-tube-map.jpg
The 1971 London Underground Map

--------------

Notes: The Fleet Line, renamed as the Jubilee Line before it opened, was originally meant to go to Hayes & Addiscombe as originally shown. However, disagreements and budget cuts meant that only half the line got finished (Stanmore to Charing Cross) until the 1990s. In the OTL 90s, work got underway to extend the line through Canary Wharf to Stratford - a completely different plan to the original vision. So much so, that the extension actually attached to the original line at Green Park, resulting in Charing Cross losing Jubilee Line services. Even today, Charing Cross has platforms on a little stub/branch off the Jubilee Line, although it obviously isn't served by trains any more (apart from services terminating at Green Park which then turn around using the short Charing Cross branch). Nowadays, OTL, the Charing Cross platforms and sections of tunnel are being pondered for an extension of the DLR from Bank to Charing Cross.

Devvy

September 23rd, 2011, 09:56 PM

Newspaper Snippet
November 1971

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/7/br-class-85.jpg
A BR Class 85 in the new livery

...BR has adopted a new corporate blue livery for it's trains. It's now become widespread across the network, along with it's new logo - a simple double headed arrow. BR's management hope it will re-define BR as modern, simple and efficient....

------
Notes: Not much to say here. The trains are now blue, and the famous double headed arrow comes into play. It goes red in the 1980s I think. I still think the Intercity Swallow livery is the nicest out of all. And maybe NSE for the colour! Note the caption being "BR Class 85" now - TOPS has now come in to play.

Dan1988

September 23rd, 2011, 09:59 PM

So far, so good.

So, let me get this straight - the APT will become operational soon? That's a good sign.

Devvy

September 23rd, 2011, 10:09 PM

I always forget about the Malton line, as it goes the 'wrong way' as far as I'm concerned. However, Pickering's bigger than all the little villages served (sometimes in name only) by the Esk Valley line. That would be useful. You've ruined many of my summer days in childhood, by destroying the NYMR, but if you replace it with a NYLR, I might forgive you.

A NYLR here in 1971 would probably run for a decade or something. Personally I see Thatcher getting BR to sell it off as it's not BR's core business as due to the light rail nature it is segregated from the line. Perhaps then it becomes a preserved railway as in OTL....

Going as far South as Washington means Sunderland will need to be linked in before any other great extensions really. North of the Wear, would the line go straight for Pelaw (OTL), head towards South Shields, or both? I then think North Shields, Tynemouth and Whitley Bay need to be included, possibly with the line going West from the centre towards Elswick, Benwell and maybe Blaydon. The grand Northumberland Circle, or whatever it's called, would probably be later than this...

Yep - I think an east-west line will come first. Maybe a Metro 2 line running from Whitley Bay, Tynemouth, North Shields, Byker, then running under the main line, Newcastle Central, then running out west (on the north side of the Tyne) using the rail alignment there out as far as Wylam (not crossing back over and joining the BR Newcastle - Carlisle line). Maybe with a branch from Byker to St Anthony and hugging the coast line using that rail alignment, and when the MetroCentre is built a branch over the Tyne to equalise the branches if that makes sense. Following that, definitly extension to Sunderland. I'd envisage the line going from Newcastle to Pelaw as OTL - the alignment is there, much less tunnelling is required and the junction is further east - all things that help keep cost down.

Sorry for delving into such minutiae. I really like this TL, and don't want to bog you down with petty details. On the other hand, you've combined my love of history, railways, and my home-place in one thread. I may end up a bit anorak-ish!

To be honest, I love looking at maps, studying lines and looking at route details. So it's great - geekish, but who cares :) Thanks for the feedback - it helps especially for the north east that I'm not that familiar with!

LU, good... Victoria and Fleet lines, interesting... Ye gods, he said the forbidden letters! :p In all seriousness, I look forward to both. Even if the latter causes mild trepidation...

BR have proved they can invest money and deliver on results in this TL, so expect to see the APT reach maturity and appear properly on the network. The same investment kindly mentality that I'm putting on LU now to deliver the Fleet line within the 70s instead of leaving it until the 90s to finish.

So far, so good.

So, let me get this straight - the APT will become operational soon? That's a good sign.

As above - expect to see the APT making something of itself in this TL! :D

Swede

September 24th, 2011, 09:30 AM

The APT has for years reminded me of the Swedish X2000 trains, with pantographs even more so!

The Fleet line going along the north bank of the Thames means the south bank still lacks Underground. Another line for that later on?
Also: I'm thinking Crossrail. Crossrails 1 thru 3. build 'em! ;D

JN1

September 24th, 2011, 09:55 PM

Please, please, please make the APT work, it's the TSR.2 of railways. If it hadn't been rushed as much as it was in @ then it probably would have entered service.
It's not actually that well known that the APT-P did actually enter revenue earning service a few months after the very public problems on relief services on the WCML. If BR had held it's nerve then the APT-S would have probably gone into production.

As it is the IC225 is essentially a non-tilting APT in many ways; a lot of APT technology went into it. The train even has space for tilt-packs.

Riain

September 24th, 2011, 10:43 PM

The biggest issue with the APT you`ll have to fix is the hydro kinetic brakes, which aren`t actually brakes at all but more retarders along the lines of a jake brake on a truck, or working back through the gears in a car. The h-k brakes would slow the train from 155mph to 50mph where regular brakes would take over, with seamless computer transfer of course. The whole idea was to provide a braking system to slow/stop the train from 155mph within the 1.25 mile signal distance.

You could of course move the signals out to 1.5 miles or whatever when you`re doing everything else so that the h-k brakes aren`t needed.

Dunois

September 25th, 2011, 12:26 AM

Good updates, might we see the Chelney line making an apperance as well in London in the Fleet Line is finished during the seventies/eighties?

The Oncoming Storm

September 25th, 2011, 12:47 AM

Wasnt another problem with the APT was that in order to keep power flowing to the motors when it rounded a curve and the pantograph on a lead power car would lose contact with the wire it was decided instead to have a single power car in the centre of the train. While this solved the cornering problem it effectively divided the train in two resulting in a need for additional crew and a two buffet cars. Apparently BR did consider an alternative configuration with 125 style power/driving cars at each end with a high voltage cable running the length of the train to ensure that the power supply remained continuous but this was rejected for some reason.

JN1

September 25th, 2011, 01:12 AM

APT-S would have had a different configuration than APT-P. From drawings I've seen it would have looked much more like the current IC225, which was originally intended for use on the WCML rather than the ECML.

Just had a horrible thought that there may well be far fewer preserved railway lines in this TL. Beeching did the railway preservation movement in the UK a great favour in closing many lines that now do great business as preserved lines (btw I'd recommend a visit to the Nene Valley Railway).

Dunois

September 25th, 2011, 01:10 PM

Devvy

September 25th, 2011, 01:43 PM

There are two main design "glitches" with the OTL APT I think:

1) Traction power. As I understand it, after they went electrical, they decided not to:
- Have 2 separate power cars with their own pantographs as the pantographs from the first car causing oscillations in the cable which affect the pickup of the second.
- Have 2 separate power cars with 1 pantograph and a high voltage power cable between the two power cars as the high voltage power cable is "dangerous" as Dunois put it :) (despite SNCF doing it).
- Have both power cars at one end and a DVT at the other, as the high speed of the APT might cause stability issues when the train is propelled from the rear

Hence the power cars together in the middle. I'd like to think that by the 1980s that they could squeeze some more room out for the gangway that did exist between the two halves but which was "noisy and cramped". Squeeze some room so the passageway does exist and heavily soundproof it. Or by the time 1980 comes around BR are happy to have a high voltage line connecting 2 power cars at either end.

2) Brakes. Hydrokinetic brakes do look complex (if a very slick solution in theory) to me. Again, by 1980 technology has evolved. Anyone know when regenerative breaking was thought up - doing that and feeding the power back into the power grid would be nice and could then be used with regular brakes at lower speeds.

Also when BR introduced the IC225 in the 80s, they experimented with a 5th aspect on signals (flashing green) which I believe acted as a normal green for sub-125mph trains, and a "slow down as the next signal is orange" for faster-then-125mph trains like the IC225 if it ran at it's designed 140mph speed. The train could would then have 2 signalling blocks to slow down and stop by the red signal.

3) Pantograph on a tilting trains. I think (although I can't remember where I read this) the pantograph was on a reverse tilt mechanism to keep the pantograph upright despite the train tilting to avoid this.

All things in this TL that can be addressed given enough time, which BR wasn't allowed to have in OTL :(

Devvy

September 25th, 2011, 01:51 PM

Just had a horrible thought that there may well be far fewer preserved railway lines in this TL. Beeching did the railway preservation movement in the UK a great favour in closing many lines that now do great business as preserved lines (btw I'd recommend a visit to the Nene Valley Railway).

There will definitely be fewer preserved lines, but there will be some. The lines that BR converts into "light lines" would be run with older stock, and use older simpler signalling technologies. By the time 1980s come around, and Thatcher is looking to privatise stuff, I imagine BR selling some of them and them ending up as preserved railways (I doubt BR would be bothered about continuing to use semaphore signals on those light lines, so they would be perfect for preservation).

Good updates, might we see the Chelney line making an apperance as well in London in the Fleet Line is finished during the seventies/eighties?

Come the 1980s, expect to see an overhaul of London transport (the transport, not the governing bodies) :)

Devvy

September 28th, 2011, 09:53 PM

Manchester Crosslink Progress Report
May 1974

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/8/picc-vic-logo.jpg
The original Picc-Vic Tunnel Logo

The 1971 Picc-Vic Tunnel project proposed has now evolved from the original vision, and has been rebranded accordingly as "Manchester Crosslink". The core system remains the same though, through the middle with stations at Victoria Station, Market Street, Albert Square (with link to Central Station), Princess Street (with link to Oxford Road Station) and Piccadilly Station. All 5 stations would have had escalator links directly to the surface, as well as into the station building which includes a travelator link for Oxford Road and Central Stations. CIS and PA systems will also be installed to keep staffing levels to a minimum and automate the system.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/8/crosslink-map.jpg
The central section of the Crosslink network

The system now uses main line stock though, in order to serve destinations further afield, thus increasing the level of service through the core section. It also means that more sections of the network will be completely dedicated to Crosslink, avoiding having potentially disrupting services to other locations as far as possible. Locations now served include Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Bacup, Accrington in the north, and the Airport, Stockport, Wilmslow, Macclesfield, Hazel Grove & Buxton in the south. The International Airport would be served by a new branch off the current line just south of Heald Green, and the resulting diversion of services into the airport means that Styal station would be closed to avoid conflicting services.

Services are intended to be 4 trains per hour on each of 4 branches (north and south), resulting in 16 trains per hour through the central section - or roughly a train every 4 minutes between Victoria and Piccadilly stations. This will result in markedly better transport from the north and southern suburbs into Manchester centre.

Funds have not been particularly forthcoming from the Treasury, however we hope that the new appointment of a Labour Chancellor should be more understanding of the situation due to the social benefit the project will provide. To aid the funding situation, we have also seeked and gained funding from the new GMPTE (under a similar case to Merseyrail), and Manchester International Airport has agreed to provide some funding towards the construction of the airport branch.

---------
Notes: The Picc-Vic Tunnel was originally proposed by SELNEC (South East Lancashire & North East Cheshire), but SELNEC became the GMPTE in 1974 (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive). Note here the link to Manchester Central station, which in this TL is still open - in OTL it was closed mid 1969. In this TL it still serves destinations to the south west'ish of the city - places like Warrington (via Lymm and Irlam), Altrincham (and on to Northwich, Chester & Crewe), and round to Cheadle Heath and Hazel Grove (though not the same station as Hazel Grove 'Crosslink' station) now. The Picc-Vic Tunnel was never named Crosslink in OTL either, as it hardly got off the drawing board - central Government denied funding for the project.

In this TL, the extension of the Crosslink trains to slightly further away destinations and the subsequent consumption of traditional suburban projects makes the project more desirable as it frees up terminus capacity and largely segregates the system. I did look at the branch line from Bury to Holcombe Brook, but apparently it closed in 1952 - beyond my capacity to keep alive :(

There's no overall map for this as it's a large map I'd have to do from scratch, but as I intend to revisit Manchester again later in the 1980s, I'll probably do a LU-style map then. To the preservationists - sorry! G-Mex Exhibition Centre has been butterflied away, along with the East Lancashire Railway.

Devvy

September 28th, 2011, 09:54 PM

British Railways Main Line Stock Report
May 1974

West Coast Main Line

WCML electrification all the way to Glasgow and Edinburgh will finish later this year in October. Electrified trains are currently running, hauled by BR Class 85 units, between London, Birmingham, Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester. A BR Class 47 unit is attached to the front of the train at Preston currently in order to haul the train to Glasgow and Edinburgh until full electrification is finished. Suburban services from London to Northampton, and from Rugby to Stafford are served using BR Class 310 services under the electrified wires. Electrification infill works from Stafford to Stoke is pending, at which point the services will be extended from Stafford to Stoke.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/8/br-class-86.jpg
Two BR Class 86 engines at London Euston station

East Coast Main Line

ECML electrification to Edinburgh is finished. Services are now run by BR Class 86 using the electrified infrastructure, although for this reason the services are cut short to Edinburgh rather then Glasgow as the electrification to Glasgow (using the nominally WCML lines) will not be finished until October. Suburban lines are also running using electrified trains - BR Class 308 trains, which run from London to Hertford, Welwyn, Stevage and Peterborough. The Northern City Line in London, from Finsbury Park to Moorgate has not been electrified using overhead lines due to the restrictive diameter of the tunnel. ECML electrification is currently being evaluated for expansion to secondary towns and cities on ECML branches, these include Lincoln, Bradford (via Shipley), Harrogate, Middlesbrough and Sunderland. Hull will be electrified as part of the Transpennine Main Line electrification project.

Great Central Main Line

GCML electrification is complete, although delays were experienced completing the stretch between Penistone and Huddersfield due to the rural nature of the line. Despite it's main line designation, electrified services from London to Nottingham, Sheffield, Huddersfield and onwards are run using BR Class 311. This is a temporary measure until BR's newer electric main line trains (the Advanced Passenger Train) comes into service; at which point the APT will run on WCML routes, and the currently using BR Class 85 locomotives and trains will be cascaded to the GCML. GCML electrification on the Birmingham branch (via Banbury) will be finished by June 1975, all the way through Birmingham Snow Hill and into Dudley, Walsall and Wolverhampton Low Level, although plans are currently being mooted to extend this from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury to potentially allow the semi-express London - Birmingham via Banbury services to run to Telford and Shrewsbury.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/8/br-class-311.jpg
A BR Class 311 at High Wycombe station

Transpennine Main Line

TPML electrification will be complete by December 1975. We have experienced many complicating factors on this line, primarily revolving around the Standedge Tunnels and electrification around Leeds station which was redesigned late on to allow easy expansion of the electrification system late on, primarily around the western approaches which has complicated pointwork. New BR Class 313 units are under construction currently to run services across the Pennines between Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Hull & Newcastle.

Great Eastern Main Line

GEML electrification remains as far as Southend and Ipswich thus far. Electrification for the Ipswich to Norwich stretch is planned to start in October 1975 and last 3 years. Due to the pending electrification of this line, it is currently being operated with BR Class 37 engines for the express London - Norwich services.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/8/br-class-37.jpg
A BR Class 37 on relief work at Cambridge

Great Western Main Line

Electrification is not planned for the GWML so far. This is the main reason for Project Hephaestus, to replace the trains currently run with BR Class 55 units as they have now been running for approximately 12 years (and will likely be used for another 2 - 3 years). The new trains, designated BR Class 252, are currently being trialled on London - Bristol and London - Cardiff services and we would foresee another 2 years of enhanced testing before widespread takeup of the train across the GWML network.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/8/br-class-252.jpg
A BR Class 252 unit running a trial service bound for Bristol at Reading

Cross Country
The highly distributed nature of the Cross Country routes (interurban routes centred on Birmingham) means that electrification is costly and hard to justify currently. Trains are currently operated with a mixture of legacy BR Class 20 locomotives and newer BR Class 37 locomotives, of which we intend to fully use BR Class 37 locos after electrification to Norwich is completed, allowing the cascade of the engines from the London - Norwich trains.

Project Hermes

The Advanced Passenger Train Experimental Train will continue trials and experimentation until the start of 1976. The data from all the tests will then be collated and collectively analysed by BR's engineers and then worked upon to build a prototype version of the train for further testing in limited passengers services, in order to refine how the train performs in real life. We foresee the need for several years of testing for this prototype version before the APT is ready for mass production.

The Ministry of Transport has offered to cover 80% of the cost for 8 prototype APT trains, something the Board intends to formally conclude shortly, with prototype trains entering service in at the end of the decade.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/8/br-apte.jpg
The BR APT-ET in sidings after a trial run

----------
OTL Notes:
WCML - was being run by BR Class 85/86 engines by now.
ECML - was being run by BR Class 55 engines.
GCML - had been dismantled during the Beeching Cuts.
TPML - was an unelectrified commuter lines rather then a main line here.
GEML - was unelectrified as far as Norwich and therefore run using BR Class 37 engines.
GWML - was unelectrified as in this TL, and run using BR Class 52 engines.

The Oncoming Storm

September 28th, 2011, 10:47 PM

Another excellent update! Im really looking forward to seeing how the HST and APT fare in TTL.

Riain

September 29th, 2011, 06:50 AM

modelcitizen

September 29th, 2011, 12:51 PM

I subscribed.

I've barely read the first post, but, it looks compelling.

Has a Jet Train happened, perchance? (I know, I'll read and discover.)

Basileus Giorgios

September 29th, 2011, 02:49 PM

Your class 86s are at Euston, not Preston. I presume from the images headcode boxes have been phased out as OTL? Or are you just using "approximate" images?

Also, it's Manchester Oxford Road station, rather than Oxford Street.

Finally, will we get to see anything on Merseyrail? I've had a few ideas on the matter if you'd tolerate a PM on the subject...? :)

JN1

September 29th, 2011, 03:26 PM

Has a Jet Train happened, perchance? (I know, I'll read and discover.)

In @ the APT-E was GT powered, though the APT-P and the proposed APT-S would have been AC.

Devvy

September 29th, 2011, 04:59 PM

Just a thought. IIUC the main reason behind the APT was the twisty WCML where conventional trains couldn't get good average speeds. The APT `solved` that problem by tilting, good acceration and awesome braking performance.

But if the GCML remains open the long distance trains which lose so much time negotiating the twisty bits of the WCML between London and say, Manchester, could run up the middle at high average speeds without the need to tilt and save a lot of time. The WCML could become a bit of a backwater, a regional line.

Or am I deluding myself?

The GCML runs up to Yorkshire though before cutting across to Manchester, whereas the WCML is a lot more direct to Manchester/Birmingham/Liverpool as it runs up the correct side of the Pennines. It's also largely quadruple tracked as opposed to the GCML's double track.

I subscribed. I've barely read the first post, but, it looks compelling.

Has a Jet Train happened, perchance? (I know, I'll read and discover.)

In @ the APT-E was GT powered, though the APT-P and the proposed APT-S would have been AC.

Yeah, OTL the experimental APT was powered by a gas turbine. In this TL, we've made it electrically powered via OHLE due to the much more widespread OHLE electrification here.

Your class 86s are at Euston, not Preston. I presume from the images headcode boxes have been phased out as OTL? Or are you just using "approximate" images?

Also, it's Manchester Oxford Road station, rather than Oxford Street.

Finally, will we get to see anything on Merseyrail? I've had a few ideas on the matter if you'd tolerate a PM on the subject...? :)

I got the 86 picture from here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crewe_86211_86248_Guild_of_Preston.jpg

Clearly I failed at reading, as they aren't at Preston but one of the locos is called City of Preston. Although it's noted as being in Crewe - agree/disagree?

As for Manchester Oxford Street......erm.......the council renamed it in 1970? ;) Bit of a lackadaisical error there...correcting it now.

As for Merseyrail - there's a bit about it on page 5 of this thread, so cast your eye over that. Any more ideas/thoughts I am open to, so please PM me!

Basileus Giorgios

September 29th, 2011, 05:05 PM

Although it's noted as being in Crewe - agree/disagree?

Disagree- I'm 95% sure that's Euston, though I wouldn't totally rule out Birmingham New Street.

I shall take a look, unsure how I missed that!

Geordie

September 29th, 2011, 05:52 PM

Another couple of good updates, Devvy. I do hope that you can somehow keep Class 37s on passenger duty long enough for me to ride behind them, but I reckon they'll be long gone. :(

Other than that, cracking stuff! :)

JN1

September 29th, 2011, 08:32 PM

I'm pretty sure that the 37s will see service in the Highlands on passenger traffic, succeeding the 27s as they did in @. I also think that it is very likely that they will go on for ever on freight duties and on charters (also as in @).

Riain

September 30th, 2011, 06:03 AM

The GCML runs up to Yorkshire though before cutting across to Manchester, whereas the WCML is a lot more direct to Manchester/Birmingham/Liverpool as it runs up the correct side of the Pennines. It's also largely quadruple tracked as opposed to the GCML's double track.

I was thinking mostly for trains running to Scotland, they could bypass all those cities well served by the WCML and maybe achieve journey times competitive with air travel without having to resort to the technically challenging and expensive APT.

Devvy

September 30th, 2011, 03:19 PM

The fastest times are available via the ECML anyway I think, as it's rather flat and straight (although obvious capacity restraint at Welwyn). I don't think the GCML can really compete with either the WCML or ECML on speed, even if you run straight through Bradford on a (much discussed but never happened) new through alignment, then to Skipton and the S&C Line to Carlisle. It's less direct and has steeper gradients then the WCML. In 1962, a Glasgow - St Pancras service via the Settle & Carlisle and Midland Main Lines took approx 9 hours - even if we take off an optimistic hour for using the GCML it doesn't compete with the 7.5 hours on the WCML. Pre-Big Four times, the Midland competed for the passengers on the basis of comfort and luxury for the trip rather then speed.

Today it takes about 4.5 hours via ECML or WCML from Glasgow. The WCML will remain a major main line wherever Anglo-Scottish traffic is routed though, as it's the prime express route for London to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Preston traffic.

Dunois

September 30th, 2011, 06:48 PM

Manchester Crosslink Progress Report
May 1974

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/8/picc-vic-logo.jpg

AWESOME!

While I am not from Manchester and have never even been there, the whole idea of converting heavy rail line into shitty tramways has always stroke me as daft (it actually seem that some people are regretting the conversions now ...)

Nice to see the Deltics roaming the west as well. Though I would rather get an electric train, I smell IC225 for the GWML by the late eighties ...

Devvy

September 30th, 2011, 11:01 PM

Aye - it still seems a bit a tad stupid to do. I appreciate that OTL, the money for a full Picc-Vic tunnel wasn't there, so they opted for the cheap tram option instead, but I think they should of left more of the lines as heavy rail then converted to tram.

I can understand some lines being converted, as they are suitable for short-range transport, but using them as longer distance suburban commuter routes seems....odd. Using trams also means they can't integrate and use the normal heavy rail routes either, so serving the more populated areas that keep their train services is harder. No Stockport service or easy access to the Airport, unlike this TL :). At least I don't have to suffer it either!

Coming up soon; Channel Tunnel time. OTL, 1975 was when Labour (fresh into power) cancelled the first Channel Tunnel project as they embarked upon cuts to help the economy. Here....I think the political turmoil over the EEC will still trump the Chunnel at first, but we'll probably get things going a little earlier.

JN1

September 30th, 2011, 11:31 PM

JN1

September 30th, 2011, 11:41 PM

Dunois

October 1st, 2011, 09:18 AM

A question just occurred to me. Since the ECML is only electrified to Edinburgh (as in @), what happens to the London to Aberdeen services? I can think of two possible solutions:

1: Class 55s pull the service all the way, a bit like the HSTs do now.
2: There is a loco swap at Waverley, or Haymarket. Something like a small fleet of Deltics, Class 37s, or 40s based at Haymarket MPD could be useful for this option.

Later on I could see HSTs essentially doing what they do in @, or something like Virgin do with the Pendolinos - a loco hauls the train north once the wires run out.

Electrification of the ECML north of Edinburgh is probably not worth it and I'd love to see how someone would hang OHLE from the Forth Bridge and stop the whole structure from becoming live. :eek:
That said politically express services have to run from London to Aberdeen. It won't be acceptable to say 'sorry, the ECML is going to stop at Edinburgh and Glasgow now, and you'll have to change to a local train'.

Electrification as far as Aberdeen and Inverness was planned in the Option V of the 1981 BR Electrification study. I therefore think that we stand a chance of seeing the wire reaching said places TTL as well, albeit only during the nineties or early noughties.

I also think that more local electrification in Scotland, chiefly the Glasgow-Edinburgh routes is likely sooner or later TTL. There is a strong potential for developing effective commuter and express interurban services in the Lowlands.

Save for the Stirling-Inverness line I can't see electrification happening anywhere in the Highlands, Class 37 will shoulder on for a good while there I think.

Devvy

October 1st, 2011, 11:16 AM

This artisit's impression of the Picc-Vic looks quite interesting. The train looks like it should be in London.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c350/JNiemczyk1/Picc_vic_artists_impression.jpg

At least Manchester has a working tram system, unlike Edinburgh.

Yeah that's why I left that artist's impression out - I want Crosslink to end up more like OTL Crossrail in London. I want it (and think it's the most logical considering the short 4 station nature of the tunnel) to be able to completely integrate with the normal BR services if needed.

That comment reminded me of Kevin Bridges (the Scots comedian): "We had some tourists in Edinburgh the other day, they were waiting on the platform and asked me when the tram leaves. I said about 2014" (or something like that). Always makes me smile. :)

A question just occurred to me. Since the ECML is only electrified to Edinburgh (as in @), what happens to the London to Aberdeen services? I can think of two possible solutions:

1: Class 55s pull the service all the way, a bit like the HSTs do now.
2: There is a loco swap at Waverley, or Haymarket. Something like a small fleet of Deltics, Class 37s, or 40s based at Haymarket MPD could be useful for this option.

I think an engine swap is most likely, as currently BR Class 86 AC locos are hauling the train to Edinburgh, it's therefore not too bad to swap the locos over at Waverley. Electrification of busy Edinburgh - Glasgow routes is very likely in this TL.

JN1

October 1st, 2011, 07:15 PM

BR used to do engine swaps all the time, so it shouldn't be a problem. IIRC it was common for 55s to be taken off cross-country trains at York and 47s to take them north from there.
The A-B route is electrified so the Waverley to Queen Street route would be another good candidate. North of Edinburgh, for example the Fife Circle, the SAK route etc, I think that DMUs and diesel loco hauled trains are the best solution.

I do hope you can come up with something better than 156s for the Far North, Kyle and Oban lines. I'd hate to have to go all the way from Glasgow to Mallaig in a 156 for example. :eek:

Geordie

October 1st, 2011, 09:49 PM

Loco swapping works fine and dandy. They did it for years with steam, diesel and electric.

Only other critique is regarding the MML timings quoted, Devvy. If I remember correctly, by the sixties, there were some rather large problems in North Notts and South and West Yorkshire regarding line subsidence due to undermining, or some-such. There were pretty severe speed restrictions to counter this, pushing things like the Thames-Clyde Express back to times such as that quoted.

I'm not saying that the ECML and WCML aren't really the only viable routes for Caledonian expresses, but I do think that the 9 hours is a bit of a red herring. However, this is all being dredged up from memories of Dad's books, which I haven't seen for at least five years, possibly ten...

ObssesedNuker

October 3rd, 2011, 06:42 PM

Did the Soviet Navy fly MiGs?

JN1

October 3rd, 2011, 08:38 PM

Did the Soviet Navy fly MiGs?

Wrong thread?

ObssesedNuker

October 3rd, 2011, 09:26 PM

Wrong thread?

Wrong thread. >_<

Devvy

October 4th, 2011, 10:46 PM

Devvy

October 4th, 2011, 10:47 PM

The forecast for the Channel Tunnel
A national newspaper
March 1975

With Harold Wilson's majority Government from late last year, one wonders what the fate of the Channel Tunnel will be. It's been a long, and largely unsucessful road for the tunnel thus far, with a history stretching back over a hundred years. There were several plans and proposals during the 1800s for a cross Channel link of sorts, from both British and French sides. The only one that got off the drawing board occured as a result of 1867 proposals by William Low and Sir John Clarke Hawkshaw - this proposal even got as far as drilling pilot tunnels on both sides, but British political and press campaigns forced the shutdown of the project, largely due to national security fears over an invasion from France.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/9/1856-chunnel.png
The 1856 vision of Frenchman Thome de Gamond for an early Channel Tunnel

By 1919, and the end of the First World War and Paris Peace Conference, the British this time floated the idea of a Channel Tunnel as a way of reassuring France of Britain's alliance and willingness to defend against German aggression. The French thought little of the idea and didn't take Lloyd George seriously. In hindsight, such a tunnel would of proved invaluable against German aggression during the Second World War and would of given the French and British forces in northern France a massive advantage. It might even of put the Germans off invading France, and primarily concentrating on eastern Europe (against the Soviets) if such a concrete symbol of the Franco-British alliance was present.

By the 1960s though, any military advantages or disadvantages of a Channel Tunnel were disregarded due to military airpower, as had been demonstrated by the Luftwaffe and RAF during the Second World War. So in 1964, a team of British and French engineers commenced a detailed geological analysis in preparation for construction of a tunnel under the English Channel. By 1970, the had produced a detailed report, outlining the geology of the area, and a proposed route running from just north of Folkestone to just south of Coquelles, with terminals for car shuttles at Folkestone and Calais.

Despite all the prior planning however, Wilson's Government has slashed the scope of the project, apparently due to concerns over joining the EEC and a struggling economy. Indeed, it was only the good and constantly improving performance (and profitability) of British Rail with regards to it's express trains and investment wisdom that it wasn't scrapped completely. However, the EEC merits of a fully single market, gives a large incentive to the completion of the Channel Tunnel thus allowing much greater and easier cross-Channel freight.

The end result was basically cost slashing whereever possible, without the scrapping of the entire project. The Channel Tunnel continued to be bored, but at a slower rate to spread the capital cost over more years. The entire roll-on roll-off vehicle scheme was scrapped (effectively forcing the French to do the same), saving money from expenditure on the complex terminals and vehicle trains. The tunnel was therefore left as a straight rail link (as two seperate rail tunnels, with a service tunnel between the two for emergencies) between the two countries, and the tunnel was slightly realigned accordingly. The tunnel now emerged onto the South Eastern Main Line just east of Folkestone next to the SEML Martello Tunnel portal, and emerged on the French side adjacent to Calais on to a T-junction to run into Gare de Calais-Ville or onto the Lille-Fontinettes line to run towards Lille and Paris.

The line would still allow rail freight to run through the tunnel from all over Europe to a variety of rail freight terminals within the UK, and some London - Paris trains were planned for when the tunnel opened - something currently planned for 1986.

Aside from the Channel Tunnel project, British Rail set about to quadruple the track between Sandling and Martello Tunnels on the SEML in order to compensate for increased traffic along this section of the SEML, especially with the stations present.

-------------------------
Notes: OTL, the 1975 attempt at a Channel Tunnel got completely cancelled by Wilson's Government. The initial tunnels bores they managed before completion were later used during the successful Channel Tunnel. Here the initial tunnel survives just, in order to run London - Paris trains and allow rail freight to use the tunnel. Rail freight through the tunnel to London & the provinces will probably be more popular then OTL without a Chunnel able to transport lorries on train shuttles.

OTL, the Chunnel route runs from just north of Folkestone to interface with the M20 for the vehicle shuttles, and for the same reason to the west of Calais. Here in this TL, the tunnel appears straight on to the SEML just east of Folkestone, and in France straight on to the rail line for service into Calais and on to Paris, in order to save costs.

Devvy

October 4th, 2011, 10:48 PM

Interview with Sir Richard Marsh
August 1975

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/9/br-arrows.jpg

...........
Interviewer: So, Sir Marsh, good and bad news regarding the Channel Tunnel over the last few months?
SRM: Yes, we are delighted that the overall project has been approved by the Government, even if we have had to sacrifice some features to keep the tunnel itself going.
Interviewer: The public may see the project as having lost a lot of it's "raison d'etre" though.
SRM: Indeed, although with the tunnel being built as it is, there is nothing to stop terminals for car shuttles being added later when funds become available.
Interviewer: It's good to see the option still being planned for eventually then. What else is there planned for the tunnel?
SRM: Well it's most publicly visible role will be the transit of London to Paris trains, although there are still a lot of formalities to work around that such as immigration rules and differing railway standards. The latter also applies to the much greater role the tunnel will play; that of European freight trains.
Interviewer: What travel time do you expect for a London to Paris train though? Surely the popularity will be dependent on the train times against air travel?
SRM: Well, British Rail, in combination with the French SNCF for the French side, are investigating the possibility of new high speed railway lines running from the Channel Tunnel to our respective capitals of London and Paris, so that much faster and frequent services can run the route. Speed and recognisable frequency will be key to winning passengers over from air transport.
Interviewer: And you anticipate more freight being transported the Continent to the UK via train as well then?
SRM: Indeed. It's one of our core aims now, to increase the amount of freight transported into and across the UK via train. The oil crisis of earlier this decade has shown that rail freight still has a large role to play in this country.
Interviewer: Are British Rail planning other schemes as well then to enhance rail freight?
SRM: We are developing a freight "trunk" route network that primarily uses secondary main lines (with lesser traffic) to transport freight quickly and efficiently around the country. And containerised freight is the most efficient way of transporting freight, something that we are going to embrace fully.
Interviewer: So that freight from, say Germany, could run through the tunnel and then directly to a regional city?
SRM: Precisely. One of the freight trunk routes will run around London (not through it) from the Channel Tunnel to then link to the various areas of the country. We are then planning to develop selected large freight yards to receive freight trains and quickly unload the containers onto lorries for the final few miles.
Interviewer: So you think that haulage companies will see a benefit in having freight transported via train and then shifted onto lorries?
SRM: Indeed. In particular, this avoids the need to queue and wait at the Channel Ports for a ferry across, avoids driver time being wasted behind the wheel and reduces fuel cost. Something we think will be rather compelling.
Interviewer: Are there any other plans associated with the Channel Tunnel?
SRM: Not directly. The two other major projects that British Rail is working on are regarding rebranding and an "Intercity" passenger network.
Interviewer: Could you run through both of them for us?
SRM: Of course. The rebranding is to finalise the little noticed transistion from British Railways to simply "British Rail", and the adoption of a new logo which we have developed - something simple and easily recognisable as BR. We've nicknamed it the double headed arrow.
Interviewer: And the Intercity one?
SRM: Again, this is partly rebranding, but all our long distance express BR services such as those from London to Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Scotland etc will become a distinct BR service named "Intercity", so that people know what to expect from these services. The trains will be specially liveried, will have seating arrangements suitable for long distance travel, catering arrangements and will run at speed and regularly through the day.
Interviewer: The hope for that being?
SRM: That it will drive up passenger numbers so that when people know they can use an Intercity service that they will get a fast, comfortable and convenient service.
Interviewer: I guess this goes hand in hand with the passenger increases you've seen on the West Coast Main Line?
SRM: Exactly. Following electrification on the WCML, we saw year on year increases in passenger numbers. It's now been roughly 11 years since electrification was completed on that line and the new express services were introduced. Compared to numbers before then, passenger numbers have now doubled on the line - something quite astonishing.
Interviewer: Doubled? That's quite a staggering endorsement of the services.
SRM: Yes, and it vindicates BR's approach of modernising the infrastructure to allow fast and frequent services to attract more passengers. We are working on infill projects now, as many trains will now be running on a lot of electrified lines except for a short section which requires the train to be diesel powered. Infilling the short sections, particularly in urban areas, will allow further commuter services to be converted to electric trains.
Interviewer: Thank you for your time Sir Richard.
SRM: My pleasure.

-----------------------
Notes: The Channel Tunnel never spurred a development of a freight "trunk network" - at least not publicly. Something I've invented here to try to keep rail freight competitive. Hopefully it'll lead to less European lorries on the UK roads by the present day in this TL! The Intercity rebranded started to appear network wide by the 1970s. And yey - double headed arrow awesomeness :D

JN1

October 5th, 2011, 07:58 PM

Wee nitpick but SRM would be called 'Sir Richard', not 'Sir Marsh'.

Devvy

October 5th, 2011, 09:11 PM

Corrected - thanks :)

El Pip

October 5th, 2011, 10:04 PM

Devvy

October 6th, 2011, 09:05 AM

The Channel Tunnel on the cheap? Hmmm so when the construction costs go way, way over budget due to the unavoidable construction/geological problems on the French side (OTL the construction teams didn't meet in the middle, they met 2/3rds of the way to France) and the odd 'lasers bending in wet chalk dust' problem flares up, what exactly is the backup plan? This is the government financed scheme, is Labours plan just to hurl more tax money down the hole and hope? Can't see that going down well with the public, it might also ruin BRs financial reputation if they get blamed for causing government so much extra expense.

Interesting.....Piccadilly Line extension to Heathrow being butterflied in the 1970s is fine. It still terminates at Hounslow West currently, and - let's face it - will certainly be extended to Heathrow at some point considering Heathrow's nature. With our OTL benefit of hindsight, it had also occurred to me it might ruin BR's better-then-OTL reputation for managing money. I haven't decided how this will play out yet, but in BR's defence they can point at the Chunnel project, correctly say it's not a BR project, and distance themselves from it. Obviously BR want it to go ahead (car shuttles don't particularly matter for them apart from an interest in bettering rail transport) as it opens a door to the continent for them, but when the....human waste hits the spinny thing, then they can easily back off.

And let's face it, no company/Government department has a 100% record, everybody makes mistakes somewhere. Financially, the Chunnel is a disaster. But politically, environmentally, for business and consumers it's been a sure fire winner. Living as I do in the south east of England, I've used Eurotunnel to nip across for a day, and Eurostar to go over to Paris on a day trip and it's fantastic. Far better then the alternatives - ferry or flying.

That aside if it does go ahead I think you just killed the Piccadilly Line extension to Heathrow, or at least delayed it and taken Manchester CrossLink with it - pretty much the entire UK tunnel industry worked on Channel Tunnel OTL so there's no-one left over to do the work. On the other hand the slow boring scheme wont spread the capital costs at all (your main costs are labour and energy, going slowly doesn't save much on either of those), so if they're actually doing it cheaply they'll use less open faces; i.e. rather than digging the service tunnels and main tunnels at the same time they'll do them one at a time. Drives up the overall cost considerably but spreads it out, it would also need less manpower so there would be people free to work on those other jobs, but it would still be a hell of a stretch.

Now that is something that hadn't occurred to me - labour capacity. I hadn't envisaged the slower project to save money, but as you say it does allow expenditure to be spread over more years. The treaties to allow the rail, by late 1975, are completed (OTL tunnelling had started in 1974 on this project). So tunnelling will rock on here. As for capacity - Manchester Crosslink is a very short tunnel with 4 underground stations. The design and pre-construction works have been completed by 1974, so construction for that project won't take that long - 2 or 3 years seems reasonable I think. At which point they switch to the Channel Tunnel project which then receives more workforce as the tunnelling gets going. I had already planned for the Fleet Line to halt after Phase 2 had been completed (so it runs as far as Fenchurch Street with tunnels extending a bit further) for budgetary reasons. Taking your comments into play, Fleet Line construction stops after Phase 2 in order to let the tunnelling engineers move to the Channel Tunnel as it is a "national project". Nicely convenient, I don't really want the Fleet Line going to far east before Canary Wharf is on the rise!

One last thing, if they do go for one at a time for all three tunnels, plus time for predatory works and treaties, you could end up with a ~20year construction time! You may well hit the OTL 1994 opening date in fact. Of course you could start doing work in parallel to cut that time, but then you are increasing the annual capital spend again. Tricky balance to find.

Sorry if this is all a bit negative, I am actually enjoying the TL, I just got a bit carried away. If you could do without any tunnelling comments then please say and I'll go back to just lurking. :)

Thanks for the comments - much appreciated, so don't stop. :) As mentioned, they've given me a convenient reason to halt Fleet Line construction at Fenchurch Street. Currently the treaty only covers the rail link between the UK and France (as well as the cancelled car shuttles). As SRM mentioned in his "interview", the high speed links from the tunnel to the capital will then deliver a proper passenger service through the tunnel, which will probably require another treaty to cover passenger services.

JN1

October 6th, 2011, 09:47 AM

Corrected - thanks :)

No worries.

One thought did occur to me yesterday - you have solved one of the perrenial problems of the ECML in @; OHLE being blown down in high winds. If in this TL the OHLE is built to the same standard as the WCML then it will happen on far fewer ocasions.

iopgod

October 6th, 2011, 10:43 AM

Excelent stuff!

Have you thought about how the BR finances are going by this point? Im not sure if there are any OTL data to compare to. If its now more profitable, (what with less wasted freight investment and more passenger numbers), that might be another pot of money to pour down the Channel Tunnel black hole...

I hadn't realsied Beeching wanted to close the Leeds-Manchester line... such a popular (overcrowded!) link nowadays.

Have you had a look at http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=57544?

simmilar concept, though looking at a more broad transport policy (and abandoned :()

Keep it up!

JN1

October 6th, 2011, 11:01 AM

There's a good article in The Railway Magazine on named trains this month. Might be worth a look for this, especially if you can keep more named services.

Devvy

October 6th, 2011, 08:01 PM

No worries.

One thought did occur to me yesterday - you have solved one of the perrenial problems of the ECML in @; OHLE being blown down in high winds. If in this TL the OHLE is built to the same standard as the WCML then it will happen on far fewer ocasions.

Indeed - ECML standards are the same as WCML standards, so no more halted trains stranded on the ECML due to no power. Woop!

Excelent stuff!

Have you thought about how the BR finances are going by this point? Im not sure if there are any OTL data to compare to. If its now more profitable, (what with less wasted freight investment and more passenger numbers), that might be another pot of money to pour down the Channel Tunnel black hole...

I hadn't realsied Beeching wanted to close the Leeds-Manchester line... such a popular (overcrowded!) link nowadays.

Have you had a look at http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=57544?

simmilar concept, though looking at a more broad transport policy (and abandoned :()

Keep it up!

That Green & Pleasant Land TL was interesting to flick through (wasn't too interested in the non-train bits :) ), and gave me some food for though (around the TPO/Mail Trains and Motorail). Personally I'm not sure what to make of Motorail....I have no idea whether it would be more popular now. The network would have to be large in order to cover enough people's destinations, but the size of the network would then mean that most places would receive few Motorail services per day or week. Non-frequent services are a putoff to passengers - you want something that you can just turn up and go for. While it might be quicker via Motorail, does that count in an hour or two waiting at the Motorail terminal for departure?

Let me know your thoughts on this please!

As for the mail trains, I think that barcodes would probably speed up the sorting process and allow more efficient trains carrying mail due to the much quicker and more reliable rate of sorting mail when just scanning a barcode.

I do want to look at BR's figures, but I think we need to wait until the 1980s for that. Data is hard to get for pre 1980s, and the Serpell report has some financial data in it if I remember right which will be useful. Although remember - while this TL BR has more passengers and thus more revenue, passengers numbers are still massively declined in OTL, and I think this is unavoidable here due to the economic conditions in the world. As you say though, a BR that can contribute funds to the Chunnel would be good :)

There's a good article in The Railway Magazine on named trains this month. Might be worth a look for this, especially if you can keep more named services.

Unfortunately I don't have a subscription to the magazine, so I don't get to read it. However, as personal taste, I think named engines are cooler then named train services. When I get the opportunity in this TL, I want to name 3 engines "Jim Raynor", "Sarah Kerrigan" and "Tassadar". Bonus points if you know where they are from ;)

JN1

October 7th, 2011, 06:57 PM

They're from StarCraft, IIRC.
I'd like to see more locos keep regimental names. I always think it's a pity that EC don't keep up the tradition of the names the 55s had (regiments and racehorses).

Named train services is a tradition that goes back to the mid 19thC and it survived until the introduction of units and stock that could be used more intensively. There are still named services, such as The Flying Scotsman, Night Riviera, Highland Chieftain and Northern Lights.

Devvy

October 16th, 2011, 07:59 PM

British Rail Press Release
February 1976

InterCity services launch

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/10/ic-1.jpg
InterCity 1 at Cardiff Central station

In combination with the successful introduction of the new diesel powered "High Speed Trains", BR has launched them as part of a new service - "InterCity". The InterCity service will be a new branded rail service, operated by British Rail, which will cover all express train routes on the main line such as those from London to Scotland, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle & Leeds. The InterCity brand is designed to enabled travellers to easily identify such services, which will be well suited to long distance travel with on-board catering, comfortable seats, fast travel times and well facilitated stations.

The newly in-service trains, formerly known as the "High Speed Trains" will be marketed as the "InterCity 1" - which will in good time be accompanied by the "InterCity 2", which is the still in trial "Advanced Passenger Train" project and other trains in the future.

The new InterCity 1 services are now methodically replacing older locomotive hauled trains on services in the Western Region, serving routes from London to south west England and south Wales.

Devvy

October 16th, 2011, 08:00 PM

London Underground Press Release
October 1978

The Fleet Line will opened this week on the Monday 6th November, 1978, with a full service running between Stanmore and Fenchurch Street station in the City. The first train departed Stanmore at 05:10 GMT, and successfully arrived at Fenchurch Street later that morning.

Sean Lockston, general manager for the Fleet Line project, said "Now that the Fleet Line has successfully opened, the benefits will be felt across a wide section of the network. The Metropolitan Line will receive much needed traffic relief, relieving the pressure on Baker Street, and providing a new route through the centre of London relieving the Central Line. It will also serve to provide Fenchurch Street with London Underground access - something that had been sorely missing from the station, forcing commuters arriving at Fenchurch Street to walk over to Tower Hill tube station to continue their journies."

He continued "Although the project has been cut short from it's original vision of continuing on through East London to Woolwich and Thamesmead, the tunnels have been left open to finish this later. Understandably, the Channel Tunnel project is consuming many resources during it's construction which has played a part in the Fleet Line situation."

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/10/1977_tube_map_small.jpg
The London Underground network in 1978.

Devvy

October 16th, 2011, 08:05 PM

Sorry, updates are few and far between at the moment. Was away last week with work, and next week I'm off to Blizzcon (grin :D ), so don't have much time to write.

Plus the 1970s are boring...there's very little going on really. Although once the 1980s arrive it's all change with sweeping changes and investment again (Thatcher obviously can't electrify the ECML, but that money will find another home).

JN1

October 17th, 2011, 11:58 AM

I would hope that Mrs T might put the money into IC250, or something similar.

I have been thinking about early ECML electrification and I have a sneaking suspicion that in some ways BR has created a bit of a time-bomb for itself. In this TL London to Edinburgh is handled by electric locos pulling Mk1, 2 and later 3 stock with a loco change for Aberdeen and Inverness. All hunky dory so far.
Now what happens in the '80s when the replacement for the loco hauled stock is going to be something like the IC225 (91s and Mk.4)? I'd suggest that there may have to also be a new class of high speed diesel loco to take over the Mk.4 sets at Edinburgh, or BR could bring in IC125 sets from elsewhere to run on the non-electrified sections of the ECML.

It could all be potentially costly.

El Pip

October 17th, 2011, 06:41 PM

So the Aldwych branch of the Piccadilly Line got closed early I see. I wonder why, after all in OTL it was only the cost of the lift replacement that killed it off. Indeed as I recall the original plan was for a second interchange with the Picc Line at Aldwych (as part of a long term plan to kill off the Aldwych branch).

But having neither the Pic or Fleet station there is odd, strange changes afoot in LU clearly. If nothing else they appear to have invented the East London Line a few decades early, which will help reduce passenger confusion I imagine.

EDIT - Plus very interesting they went straight for Phase II Fleet rather than the Piccadilly Line extension to Waterloo, which they even got parliamentary approval for before it was canned. My understanding was Phase I Fleet, Picc to Waterloo and then Phase II Fleet. Hmm.

Devvy

October 17th, 2011, 10:56 PM

Now what happens in the '80s when the replacement for the loco hauled stock is going to be something like the IC225 (91s and Mk.4)? I'd suggest that there may have to also be a new class of high speed diesel loco to take over the Mk.4 sets at Edinburgh, or BR could bring in IC125 sets from elsewhere to run on the non-electrified sections of the ECML.

It could all be potentially costly.

2 options I think:

1) The IC225 is technically a loco-hauled train. If the loco is always at the one end, a similar designed diesel version could easily swap places to haul the train.
2) The Class 91 has buffers - could be designed to have a diesel loco attach to the front and haul the entire IC225 up across Scotland/other non-electrified areas.

So the Aldwych branch of the Piccadilly Line got closed early I see. I wonder why, after all in OTL it was only the cost of the lift replacement that killed it off. Indeed as I recall the original plan was for a second interchange with the Picc Line at Aldwych (as part of a long term plan to kill off the Aldwych branch).

But having neither the Pic or Fleet station there is odd, strange changes afoot in LU clearly. If nothing else they appear to have invented the East London Line a few decades early, which will help reduce passenger confusion I imagine.

EDIT - Plus very interesting they went straight for Phase II Fleet rather than the Piccadilly Line extension to Waterloo, which they even got parliamentary approval for before it was canned. My understanding was Phase I Fleet, Picc to Waterloo and then Phase II Fleet. Hmm.

Well, first off congrats on noticing the missing Piccadilly line branch to Aldwych. I mistakenly left that off the original map I created (created backwards from the current day official one), no-one noticed it so I crossed my fingers that I'd get away with that mistake. I now officially note that in this TL, the Piccadilly line branch to Aldwych closed in 1958 under (same as OTL) London Transport plans (instead of staying open with a barebones service). Realistically, it's existence hampers the rest of the Piccadilly line as it stops the rest of the line to the west of Holborn running at full capacity.

Although I've seen the proposals to extend the line to Waterloo, as far as I could gather they never got completely approved. Either way - here in this TL, the Fleet Line was built all the way to Fenchurch Street to provide relief to the Central Line, and bring Fenchurch Street properly into the Underground network (rather then relying on Tower Hill). Aldwych could of been reopened as an interchange, but this would mean the reduction of Piccadilly line services west of Holborn, so the idea was dropped.

I did toy with the idea the other week of extending the Piccadilly line through Waterloo from Aldwych and into south London, and then rerouting the western half of Piccadilly line along a new alignment to eastern London, but that function has now been served by the Fleet line, so Piccadilly line will stay as it is. Minus the Heathrow branch that is, which will come later - but means the exact track layout mess under Heathrow will be different to OTL as T4 will exist by the time the line gets extended to Heathrow.

JN1

October 18th, 2011, 12:59 PM

Both are potential options. You'll need something either like Kestrel, or maybe a Class 67.

Dunois

October 18th, 2011, 01:31 PM

JN1

October 18th, 2011, 01:34 PM

How does one electify the Forth Bridge? ;)

Dunois

October 18th, 2011, 02:01 PM

How does one electify the Forth Bridge? ;)

I am sure that this point was considered as part of the various studies made in the early eighties.

Otherwise if the Forth Bridge is really a huge issue, Then perhaps building a combined road-rail bridge near it paid off by motorists tolls would be a good option. There is always a tunnel as well.

To be fair this brings up the issue that a lot of existing rail estuary crossings are now obsolete. The Severn tunnel sprins to my mind immediately, the whole thing leaks apparently making electrification impossible and sending maintenance costs ever upwards. A new tunnel/bridge built for higher speeds would likely be a far better long term option than maintaining the present tunnel.

Devvy

October 18th, 2011, 02:59 PM

If there is an Electrification Report TTL, I bet that they will recommend the electrification of the Aberdeen and Inverness lines in Scotland, so changing stock would not be a problem anymore.

That's going to be expensive as hell for Inverness, if not for Aberdeen as well. The sheer distance across the highlands, and the few amount of trains that would use it will surely make it prohibitively expensive for little return? Might as well stick to diesel traction of that stretch I think, which means no worries over the Forth Bridge. :) Probably have the IC225 pull up behind a diesel loco and have it attached for onward travel (like how Virgin Trains used to run their Pendolinos for the North Wales Coast Line).

The OTL planned electrification of the Severn Tunnel will definitely be problematic as you say. The thing is apparently damp as hell, which my physics teacher always taught me does not mix well with electricity. I think the Severn Barrage for tidal electric power was planned with a rail bridge across the top which would of solved things (especially if it was a sealed tunnel apart from the ends to avoid water/salt on the line). But apparently harnessing tidal power in the Severn isn't environmentally sound...never quite got my head around that.

Got some initial notes going now for me to work on when I'm back next week. The early 1980s (yey stuff starts happening again) features:
- Some real progress for the APT
- A revamp for central London
- A look at the finances of BR
- Channel Tunnel update
- Sectorisation hits

El Pip

October 18th, 2011, 07:06 PM

But apparently harnessing tidal power in the Severn isn't environmentally sound...never quite got my head around that.
Large tidal barrages wipe out huge numbers of species in the estuaries they flood, there is only a small sample available admittedly (one in France, one in South Korea) but they both killed a very impressive number of plants, animals and fish.

However if you are prepared to kill off alot of wildlife then there are options, you'll have to go for the small low-power tidal scheme though (Shoots Barrage) in order for the combined crossing to be anywhere near the current Severn crossings. The low-power output means the already terrible economics look even worse. Conversely if you want the high-power schemes you end up nowhere useful transport wise so can't do the combo option. There is a reason the scheme never got anywhere. ;)

The calculation on the Severn crossing, like most of the old damp crossings, is that the maintenance cost isn't actually that high; more frequent rail replacement and that's about it (you can't really maintain a tunnel lining). Sure that's expensive compared to other tunnels, but in absolute terms it's not a lot of money.

However a new high speed rated Severn tunnel would be very expensive, £500 million odd for the tunnel at least (maybe as much as 50% more if you build to modern safety standards and include an escape tunnel), then signals, comms, track and the cost of the portals at each end. Could easily top £1billion and you haven't touched the track either side. Makes replacing a few rails look cheap.

JN1

October 18th, 2011, 07:20 PM

Dunois

October 18th, 2011, 09:41 PM

How about electrify both sides but not the tunnel? Then do with the trains going through what you do with the 225 but on a much smaller scale?
Sounds a bit mad, and would probably not be cheap, but would still be cheaper than a whole new tunnel, or bridge.

The HST replacement in the south west will likely be an hybrid anyway so the Tunnel if unelectrified won't be a problem for them.

To be fair though, I think atht full scale electrification is better, the extra revenue and lower maintenance cost make this worthwhile wherever it is done!

El Pip

October 18th, 2011, 10:43 PM

The HST replacement in the south west will likely be an hybrid anyway so the Tunnel if unelectrified won't be a problem for them.

To be fair though, I think atht full scale electrification is better, the extra revenue and lower maintenance cost make this worthwhile wherever it is done!
I'd go the opposite, either electrify everything OR have hybrid trains. The cost of a hybrid train is going to be higher (development, production and maintenance) so you've got to make saving elsewhere, like not-electrifying tunnels, low bridges or difficult stations. Conversely if you've saved a fortune and got pure-electric trains then the money saved on the trains can be spent on all those infrastructure upgrades.

As I think they have to have hybrid trains due to all the stuff that isn't going to be electrified under any plan, you might as well make use of the capability and save on some of the more expensive bits of infrastructure.

Devvy

October 25th, 2011, 04:42 PM

And back.....

I think the cost of reboring the Severn Tunnel just to provide electrified lines will be prohibitively costly - especially when there is nothing wrong with the existing tunnel for diesel trains. I'd imagine seeing diesel under the wires for London - South Wales services (probably continuing to use existing IC1 (OTL IC125) units) for when the GWML at some point gets electrified in this TL. Electrification will still benefit London - Bristol, London - SW England (probably as far as Plymouth) and London - Worcester (run via Swindon & Gloucester).

Interesting stuff about the Severn Barrage El Pip. What gets me is that any solution that relies upon harnessing "green" energy is either inefficient or intrusive on the environment. Solar is obviously only any good for half the day, and isn't *that* great this far north of the equator, and you need large amounts of panels to generate decent amounts of electricity. Wind you end with large tracts of mills which people whinge about. Hydroelectric dams are about the most friendly, but even that involves flooding areas into lakes behind the dam which then people moan about. Tidal power suffers the same fate as hydroelectric.

To go a little off-topic, green energy is a great idea and worth pursuing, I'm not advocating continued use of oil/gas/coal, but people have to understand there will be sacrifices in order to provide a decent ROI.

Devvy

October 25th, 2011, 04:50 PM

PS. As a plausibility check, do we think that rather then having hydrokinetic brakes on the APT, the designers might have opted for rheostatic braking (and eventually converted to regenerative at some later point when the infrastructure supported it) in order to solve the problems?

I'm no mechanical engineer, so I'd be interested whether people think it'd be plausible at all.

Geordie

October 25th, 2011, 05:50 PM

As far as discussions regarding hybrid trains, or diesels working under wires, you could try the solution used in the early days of electrification to Leeds. If memory serves me, for reasons unknown, early trains ran with a 91 (225 powercar) on one end, and a 43 (125) on the other. The 43 was supposed to be just ticking over - providing heating, or air conditioning to the train - while the 91 did the hauling. This was found to be detrimental to the 43, so they had to be run on full power.

My Dad claims these were, and possibly still are, the most powerful trains ever run on Britain's rail network.

JN1

October 26th, 2011, 11:55 AM

Geordie

October 26th, 2011, 10:09 PM

The reason for that was that the DVT and Mk.IV stock were not ready. The 43s were supposed to act as 'surrogate' DVTs and at first ran dead. However it was quickly found that this was damaging the traction motors, so it was better to have the power car live. They did for a while help to form the most powerful trains in the UK (record now held by a train hauled by 5 Deltics!).
Thanks for the clarification. I was posting information half remembered from lectures from my Dad.

The 43s with buffers are the ex-surrogate DVTs.
Definitely remembered wrongly on my part. I thought the buffers were the GWML units (originally 253s). This is what happens when I'm in Hampshire, and Dad and all of his books are on Tyneside. :o

EDIT: Relevant wiki page for anybody interested in such Intercity 125 based minutiae. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_43_%28HST%29 Point 2.1, Buffered Units.

Devvy

October 27th, 2011, 08:43 PM

October 1980
Serpell Report

Executive Summary (Report Conclusions)

1) The report has been primarily concerned with the financial state of British Rail, in terms with our charge. However, we have found it difficult to solely report on the finances, without considering the larger context of the rail industry of Great Britain (Northern Ireland Railways continuing to be separate).

2) While certain areas of British Rail work efficiently, there remains significant scope to improve efficiency and reduce costs. This can be done while keeping the network broadly within it's current remit. We would however back British Rail's plan to build a new high speed line from the currently under construction Channel Tunnel to a new terminus in central London, which is broadly similar to French plans to link their side of the tunnel to Paris at high speed.

3) While the cost of operating the railways are likely to increase over the next control period of 25 years (as set out in our opening remit), we do not see the level of subsidy required by British Rail raising significantly, given that British Rail achieves it's efficiency targets.

4) Given the results of electrification under previous projects by British Rail, it can be concluded that the passengers numbers (and thus revenue) can be improved by the modernisation of routes. Primary thought should be given to the frequency of services, their comfort and their speed between the primary destinations.

Executive Recommendations (Report Recommendations)

5) Large drives for efficiency can be only be reasonably targeted when departments cater for specific market types. Currently, British Rail is divided in 5 geographical regions: North Eastern, London Midland, Scottish, Southern and Western regions. We recommend the re-organisation in distinct business units that can specifically cater to market needs:
a) Intercity, which will run all British Rail express trains on the main lines
b) London & SE, which will run all London commuter services and other local services within a reasonable radius of London
c) Wales & West, which will run local & commuter services in western England and south Wales
d) Central, which will run local & commuter services in and around Birmingham and the greater West Midlands region
e) North West, which will run local & commuter services in the north west of England as well as north Wales (including Merseyrail and Crosslink)
f) Yorkshire, which will run local & commuter services in and around Yorkshire
g) Tyneside, which will run local & commuter services around the Tyne/Wear/Tees areas
h) Scotland, which will run all services in Scotland except for those already catered for under Intercity
i) Freight, which will run all freight services over the entire British Rail network
j) Mail, which will run specific mail and parcels trains across the entire British Rail network

Splitting the passenger operations off into smaller local business units will allow greater cohesion and integration between services, allow local Passenger Transport Executives an easier oversight role over their specific areas and allow each business unit to tailor it's services to local needs.

6) Despite the Channel Tunnel project costs starting to rise, we would advocate the completion of this project. This will allow rail freight to run directly on to the British Rail network, and is predicted to lead to a new rise in rail freight (particularly container freight). British Rail is already planning to cope with this with their strategic freight network, which primarily consists of a rail route around London rather then through it, linking the Channel Tunnel to routes north west and north east. They also plan 6 rail freight depots for quick transfer of containers from rail to road, increasing the incentive for freight operators to send containers to, and across, the UK by rail.

7) In combination with the Channel Tunnel project, British Rail is currently in the preliminary stages of stage 1 planning for a new high speed rail link from London to the Channel Tunnel. The London to Paris air route is well used, and thus a high speed rail link between London and Paris city centres could reasonably expect to capture a large market share as well as new customers. It could also serve the Kent region with better London commuter services potentially. In light of the rising costs of the Channel Tunnel however, British Rail could be expected to shoulder a greater portion of the construction cost of the line itself, by driving better cost efficiencies across it's organisation.

Executive Report (Financial Summaries)

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/11/serpell-finances.jpg

8) It should be noted that the steel strikes of this year have resulted in a much lower quantity of steel freight being transported, which has resulted in the lower freight revenues for 1980 so far. This should pick up again next year. The general trend of British Rail is slowly projected to level out at approximately a deficit of £350m without any of the previously mentioned recommendations being implemented. While capital costs would still likely continue to be needed from central Government, British Rail should at least be tasked with covering it's costs.

--------------
Notes: The OTL Serpell Report did not contain any recommendations. It solely concentrated on the financial situation of BR as it was, and the likely financial results of further shrinking the network. It did not contain any studies of further investment into BR. It was received by the public largely as another Beeching Cut which became politically unpalatable, and was dropped by the Government of the time. Here, because BR fares better then OTL (although is still not quite able to cover it's costs), the report investigates options to push BR over the line and get it to cover it's own costs, and thus makes several recommendations.

OTL Sectorisation though, only divided the passenger sectors into 3; Intercity, London & SE (later Network South East), and Provincial (later Regional Railways). Provincial contained all passenger services outside of the London & SE area.

Coming up next....a little "Spotlight on: Intercity" and a BR response to the Serpell Report

JN1

October 27th, 2011, 08:52 PM

Out of sectorisation I think the most success was in Intercity, Network South East and Scotrail (the later is not all that much changed today). Btw which sector runs the sleeper services? NSE was so successful it seems to have even run services outside its geographical area.
IIRC back in the '80s Intercity ran it, but my memory is not too clear on this.

In @ Serpel's conclusion seems to be that much money could be saved by cutting the network back. In absolute terms that makes logical sense, but if you follow that logic to its conclusion you'd have no network at all. :D

On another matter I think that the @ freight sector had some of the nicest liveries in its various sub-sectors. I especially liked the way how the letter F was incorporated and that each sub-sector (e.g. metals, petroleum etc) had a symbol that identified it visually.
This is also the era of cast shed badges.

Devvy

October 27th, 2011, 09:23 PM

Agreed. Intercity & NSE were the run away successes of BR. NSE did run some far out services (Exeter springs to mind), but they were all either "commuter" services to London (read non-Intercity!) or London area lines (like the North Downs line that runs around London). I have some fond memories of train travel in NSE time, and watching the colourful trains go past...

NSE Map:
http://www.rodge.force9.co.uk/images/map.jpg

As for Intercity, I think it's the sector that BR can reasonably expect to make a profit from, which can cross-subsidise the small services. SNCF managed it...

Serpell did make some bizarre suggestions. Their version of a completely "commerically viable" network which would generate a profit saw the network completely gutted, and only the main line Intercity running lines and a few others surviving, although you could argue that they merely pointed this out rather then actually suggesting it (although it was the most prominent of their various options).

Dunois

October 27th, 2011, 11:51 PM

As for Intercity, I think it's the sector that BR can reasonably expect to make a profit from, which can cross-subsidise the small services. SNCF managed it...

The SNCF NEVER managed to cross-subsidise its regional and Parisian operations with the revenues coming from the intercity trains chiefly the TGVs. The situation may very well have been better than it is now during the eighties but presently the SNCF recieves on average eight billions of euros a year from the French state through various means. That's double the amount the British Railways as a unit get every year and it was a lot less under BR by the way.
The commercial potential of the TGV has never been fully embraced by the SNCF, it took years for clockface timetables to be implemented on the major lines and to this day the organisation of the TGV network is weird and inefficient in a lot of respects. The whole thing about compulsory seat reservations also has issues of its own shall we say, since a train is not a plane after all.
Regional operations are more often consisting of coach lines rather than train lines, clockface timetabling is still non existent in regions like Brittany where the regional trains could efficiently compete with the major roads. I won't ever get started on staff going on strike because the coffee machine is broken (true in southern France).

A simple visit to the SNCF website is all that needed to see that the SNCF commercial awareness is close to zero.

Rant over!

The enhanced sectorisation will greatly help especially as far as the regional lines are concerned, with the right attitudes and the right people miracles might happen and patronage might increase significantly.
When privatisation comes along I would expect this nearly profitable BR to be privatised as a single unit or along the interesting lines JN1 has mooted in his last war story.

Devvy

October 28th, 2011, 09:37 AM

The SNCF NEVER managed to cross-subsidise its regional and Parisian operations with the revenues coming from the intercity trains chiefly the TGVs.

Duly noted - my knowledge on SNCF solely comes from Wikipedia as you can tell :)

The enhanced sectorisation will greatly help especially as far as the regional lines are concerned, with the right attitudes and the right people miracles might happen and patronage might increase significantly.
When privatisation comes along I would expect this nearly profitable BR to be privatised as a single unit or along the interesting lines JN1 has mooted in his last war story.

Indeed - personally I can't understand the logic in OTL of going for sectorisation, but leaving local passengers services in Cornwall in the same business unit as Leeds - Manchester commuter services. It just makes no sense.

I think we'll end up going down the route of privatising BR as one entity, basically as it is. I guess fully owned by the state.

JN1

October 28th, 2011, 12:53 PM

Yeah, Exeter is hardly in the South East! :D

My solution for privatisation would be to sell off the freight part of BR as in @ because the freight companies have done better than BR, but to retain passenger services and track maintenance in a publicly owned BR(-), with guaranteed access for Open Acces operators like GC.

It was the idea I used in my own TL, btw (blows own trumpet :p), though it comes from Christian Wolmar.

Devvy

October 29th, 2011, 02:43 AM

Indeed, freight will be an easy target for privatisation. As far as the network and passenger services are concerned, I want to keep BR intact as a government owned company similar to DB or SNCF I think, rather then the mess we have OTL today.

Devvy

October 29th, 2011, 02:45 AM

British Rail Response to Serpell Report
February 1981

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/9/br-arrows.jpg

Norman Fowler, MP
Secretary of State for Transport

I wish to thank you for the recent Serpell Report into the state of British Rail. It is always valuable to have an external mind probe and ask questions about the state of business, in order that we do not rest on our laurels. I would like to report my feelings about the report.

On the whole, we agree with the recommendations of the Serpell Report. We are currently beginning the initial stages to reorganise British Rail into market focussed business units in line with Serpell's "Sectorisation" plan. We have also set up a temporary department to calculate the boundaries of each passenger sector, and therefore to recommend which services should lie in which sector.

Our High-Speed department is currently planning a new high speed line through Kent to complement the under-construction Channel Tunnel. This will allow high speed services to run from London to Paris (with the complementing line in France by SNCF also built), and we plan to compete for the market between the two capitals. A lot of will rest on the ease of travel, and we are currently liasing with the UK Immigration Service on how this will function.

In France, SNCF is planning to built it's high speed line from Paris to the Channel Tunnel through Amiens, but then branching - one towards the Channel Tunnel and the other towards Lille (and ideally onwards to Brussels if SNCB in Belgium co-operates). There is a potential opportunity therefore to also run London - Brussells services.

We are currently planning the route for a London - Channel Tunnel high speed line, along with it's London terminus and other requirements in collaboration with the London Transport Executive. The report is planned to be published in November this year. By this time, the new "TGV" high speed line in France between Paris and Lyon will of opened, and it will be of interest to us to pay attention to any lessons learnt by SNCF so that we may avoid those mistakes here.

In combination with our own high speed projects, our engineers have redesigned the braking system and we have lowered the top speed to 125mph in order to fit in with existing signalling systems and braking distances. The train will retain it's tilting mechanisms though, which will enable the train to run at it's full 125mph speed for much greater distances.

Carrying forth the experience of high speed attempts on our main lines, we are currently investigating the possibility of building a new high speed line from London to the north of the country. We are observing with great interest the afore-mentioned new high speed line in France to see it's conclusions. Currently, we are not recommending such a line, merely investigating the possibilities. We anticipate the findings being made public by late-1982 (so that it may properly comment on the progress of high speed rail in France).

In line with other sections of the Serpell Report, we also agree on the need to strive for greater cost savings and better efficiency. To this end, we are investigating the possibility of streamlining our operations in certain areas. This may well entail the closing of certain stations that cater for very few passengers, and the divesting of peripheral interests in order to concentrate on the core business. We do not foresee the need to fully close any lines, but a full report on all planned closures will be provided to the Ministry of Transport before publication in recognition of any potential public reactions. Saved monies would be likely directed towards the high speed London - Channel Tunnel line, and possibily financial assistance to the Channel Tunnel project in light of recent troubles.

We hope this will serve to inform the Ministry of Transport and yourself of the current status of British Rail, and it's commitment to further modernisation.

Yours sincerely,

Sir Peter Parker
Chairman of the British Railways Board

---------------------
Notes: Unlike the OTL Serpell Report, which realistically had no real implications as it was immediately discarded by the Government, but here in this TL, it has had some effects. Expect BR to divest itself of peripheral businesses (the several light railway systems it has developed), and further streamlining of other networks where appropriate.

Also in this TL, BR will be watching the LGV Sud-Est in France with great interest to see it's effects on the transportation market. I'm writing Spotlight on: Intercity at the moment as well.

Geordie

October 29th, 2011, 11:03 AM

Interesting to see TTL Serpell report. Sensible suggestions all round, by the looks of things. I especially approve of the decision to try and maintain BR (at least the passenger outfit) as a government owned company. Anything which avoids OTLs shenanigans should be heartily welcomed.

One small nitpick: I imagine the folk in Sunderland and Middlesbrough may get a bit miffed having 'Tyneside' painted on their trains. They never really appreciated being complimented as 'Geordies'. Maybe 'Northumbria', 'North East' or 'Tyne-Tees'/'Tees-Tyne'. The latter would nicely link back to the 'Tees-Tyne Pullman' of rail's earlier days...

As always, I'm enjoying this immensely, please keep up the work!

Devvy

October 29th, 2011, 01:19 PM

Those bloody southeners never understand the north of the country ;)

Broader Liberty

October 29th, 2011, 07:18 PM

Speaking of peripheral interests, would BR still have had its hotel interests at this point OTL?

Geordie

October 29th, 2011, 10:09 PM

Those bloody southeners never understand the north of the country ;)
Well, those parochial Mackems and Smoggies tend to get a bit cross. :p

When the Regional Assemblies were being planned by the glorious Mr Prescott, talk was that the North Eastern one would have to be in Durham. Any of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland would have been objected to by the other two!

Devvy

October 30th, 2011, 12:58 AM

Speaking of peripheral interests, would BR still have had its hotel interests at this point OTL?

As hinted in the previous installment, BR will be selling off assets in the 80s, any remaining hotels being one of the victims. I figure that the hotels that aren't directly attached to stations may of already gone.

Well, those parochial Mackems and Smoggies tend to get a bit cross. :p

When the Regional Assemblies were being planned by the glorious Mr Prescott, talk was that the North Eastern one would have to be in Durham. Any of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland would have been objected to by the other two!

Aye. Also bear in mind that those are the "official" sectors names for BR, but won't be the actually trading/operating names. London & SE sector will trade as "Network South East", West Midlands sector will trade as "Central Trains" etc etc....plus those names give me an easy way of producing pictures ;)

I kinda want to name the north east sector as the "Tyne, Wear and Tees Sector" just for the abbreviation.....juvenile humour :)

JN1

October 30th, 2011, 01:05 AM

TWTS? Am I missing something..ah, you're including the 'and' in the acronym.

I'd imagine we'll also have Sealink sold off. Always remember a BR ferry appearing in the credits of Bergerac. :D

Geordie

October 30th, 2011, 11:01 AM

Aye. Also bear in mind that those are the "official" sectors names for BR, but won't be the actually trading/operating names. London & SE sector will trade as "Network South East", West Midlands sector will trade as "Central Trains" etc etc....plus those names give me an easy way of producing pictures ;)
Good point.

I kinda want to name the north east sector as the "Tyne, Wear and Tees Sector" just for the abbreviation.....juvenile humour :)
Why stop there?

You could have *Network South East as 'LOndon South Eastern Railways'. I can think of an awful one for *Central Trains, but shan't lower the tone... :o

Dunois

October 30th, 2011, 02:23 PM

In France, SNCF is planning to built it's high speed line from Paris to the Channel Tunnel through Amiens, but then branching - one towards the Channel Tunnel and the other towards Lille (and ideally onwards to Brussels if SNCB in Belgium co-operates). There is a potential opportunity therefore to also run London - Brussells services.

In order for London-Brussels to be competitive there has to be an high speed line between the tunnel and Lille which does not seem to be the case here, as you have the SNCF going for the option of a line through Amiens. I suppose the normal Lille-Calais line could be used with the proper connection, but speed will be limited to 160 km/h.

Having said that, high speed trains going from Paris to London via Amiens and not Lille, will save at the very least half an hour on the journey time relative to OTL. If the British high speed line is finished by the time the Chunnel opens, it is not too far fetched to imagine the first services between Paris and London taking 2h30 to do the journey (with one or two stops) and possibly merely 2h15 for eventual non stopping services. These are the current journey times of OTL 2011 for a route that goes through Lille!

If TTL Eurostars can do Paris to London in 2h30 from the begining, the Paris to London airoute will be gutted almost as soon as the train services begins. I would not be surprised at all if by TTL 2011 there are less than a dozen Paris to London daily flights, likely mainly used by connecting passengers and all using small airplanes. There are still around twenty daily flights today by comparison.

truth is life

October 30th, 2011, 02:55 PM

In order for London-Brussels to be competitive there has to be an high speed line between the tunnel and Lille which does not seem to be the case here, as you have the SNCF going for the option of a line through Amiens. I suppose the normal Lille-Calais line could be used with the proper connection, but speed will be limited to 160 km/h.

Your quote seems to indicate that they are building a HSR line to Lille via Amiens (which I suppose must be fairly backwards from your quotes, but that's what it says). They're hoping that if the Belgians cooperate, they can extend it up to Brussels, which would seem to make it reasonably competitive...

Devvy

October 30th, 2011, 07:18 PM

Here is what I was thinking in a more explanatory graphical fashion (base map from openstreetmap). Opinions welcome, as my SNCF knowledge is less then stellar....

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/11/lgv-nord.jpg

First built is LGV Nord, the yellow line, linking Paris - Amiens - Chunnel (- London). This is built for high speed London - Paris services, and fast domestic Paris - Amiens - Nord-Pas-de-Calais services.

Second built is LGV Belgique, the green line, linking (Paris -) Amiens - Lille - Belgian border, co-ordinated with HSL1 (the brown line), linking the French border to Brussels. This allows high speed Paris - Amiens - Lille - Brussels - onwards services. It's an add-on to LGV Nord, built a fair few years later to augment the growing TGV network.

Third built (most likely with BR financial assistance as it won't benefit the French much) is LGV Angleterre-Belgique which allows high speed London - Brussels services.

SNCF could of built a tight three-way junction (as in OTL outside Lille), if there's a few years gap between the stages happening I'm not sure whether it would be a tight 3-way, or a spread out 3-way as in my diagram (if that makes sense to you guys!).

EDIT: I didn't mentioned the third Anglo-Belgian chord earlier, apologies for the confusion.

Geordie

October 30th, 2011, 08:20 PM

Here is what I was thinking in a more explanatory graphical fashion (base map from openstreetmap). Opinions welcome, as my SNCF knowledge is less then stellar....
*Closes eye, lifts telescope* I see no map... :confused:

Broader Liberty

October 30th, 2011, 08:51 PM

*Closes eye, lifts telescope* I see no map... :confused:
I think that's a problem on your end, I can see the map fine.

Devvy

October 30th, 2011, 09:15 PM

Map shows fine for me as well!

JN1

October 30th, 2011, 09:42 PM

And for me.

Geordie

October 30th, 2011, 10:26 PM

I think that's a problem on your end, I can see the map fine.

Map shows fine for me as well!

And for me.
Hmm. No idea. I am using NoScript, but there aren't any scripts forbidden on this page, so I don't think that's it...

Devvy

October 30th, 2011, 10:39 PM

Hmm. No idea. I am using NoScript, but there aren't any scripts forbidden on this page, so I don't think that's it...

I've posted the map picture in exactly the same way I've done for all the other pictures in this thread...

Devvy

October 31st, 2011, 09:35 PM

Spotlight on: Intercity
March 1981

InterCity has been a British Rail brand for some time before sectorisation, the name dating back to express trains run from London to the West Midlands. The name slowly spread, and with the advent of sectorisation the brand name was adopted as the business unit name for running all express passenger services across Great Britain. It was one of the first sectors to rapidly adopt the name, with trains being reliveried and branded as quickly as possible.

Diagrams below omit some smaller stations.

Great Western Main Line
-----------------------

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/12/gwml.jpg

The GWML serves destinations to the west of England, and southern Wales as well. The services were revitalised in the late 1970s by the introduction of the APT1 diesel trains, shrinking journey times and providing passengers with new more comfortable seating arrangements.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/12/br-c43.jpg
An APT1 departing from Swansea station

British Rail's plans for this segment are the straightening of lines (where possible) between Swindon and Westerleigh Junction (adjacent to Yate) to increase train speeds, further cutting journey times.

West Coast Main Line
--------------------

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/12/wcml.jpg

The WCML serves a variety of destinations, the principal ones being Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. Trains are currently still hauled by the BR Class 86 locomotive, pending the introduction of the APT2 trains which are currently under trials. APT2 trains have been integrated into the timetable to test the trains in a full service environment. They have suffered some setbacks, but the introduction of rheostatic brakes instead of hydrokinetic brakes has vastly increased reliability, along with the decision to lower the top speed to 125mph in order to comply with signalling. The tilt mechanism will allow the APT2 trains to run at higher speeds then the current trains however.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/12/br-apt2.jpg
An APT2 train on a high speed run north to Manchester

British Rail's plans for this segment are to get the APT2 into full service, as well as the refurbishment of Manchester Mayfield station to serve as the Manchester terminus to allow the segregation of lines around Manchester.

East Coast Main Line
--------------------

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/12/ecml.jpg

The ECML also serves a variety of destinations, the principal ones being Leeds, Northumbria and Edinburgh. Trains are currently still being hauled by the BR Class 86 locomotive, but due to the delays in the APT2 project, British Rail are considering alternatives as the WCML is the first priority for the APT2. The flatter and straighter nature of the ECML means there is much less of a requirement for a tilting trains while still allowing a high top speed.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/12/br-c86.jpg
A BR Class 86 locomotive hauling an express train London bound

Immediate plans for British Rail on this line are to continue investigating potential motive power replacement instead of waiting for the APT schedule.

Great Central Main Line
-----------------------

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/12/gcml.jpg

The Great Central Main Line definition has grown to encompass the branch via Leamington Spa to Birmingham, as well as it's principal destinations in East Midlands; Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. Originally the GCML was meant to be a lower priority then the WCML and ECML, but the overrunning APT2 project has meant that the GCML has ended up with newer trains then either of them. Trains are now hauled with newer BR Class 87 locomotives.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/12/br-c87.jpg
A BR Class 87 locomotive hauls an express train on relief work.

Current plans for British Rail on this main line are to investigate the potential electrification of the line north of Birmingham Moor Street to possibly allow services to be extended to Dudley, Walsall or Wolverhampton (Low Level).

Transpennine Main Line
----------------------

The Transpennine Main Line is the line from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds, where trains then serve a variety of onward destinations including Hull, Middlesbrough and Newcastle. Trains are currently run with very old BR Class 85/84/83/82/81 locomotives which is having an impact on reliability now. New trains are on order (class as BR Class 319) which will be electric multiple units, giving passengers a more comfortable travel. The trains will be quicker to accelerate as well which will vastly improve journey times on the short stretchs across the north of England.

Cross Country Lines
-------------------

The Cross Country is a raft of Intercity routes, focussed on Birmingham instead of London as per the normal Intercity services. The services radiate from Birmingham, and serve all areas of the country. Trains are run using largely using BR Class 55 locomotives, displaced from the GWML post-APT1 introduction. There are still some BR Class 47 locos used however.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/12/br-c47.jpg
A BR Class 47 on a Birmingham bound Cross Country train.

--------------------
Notes: Astute readers will notice the lack of Chippenham and Bath from the GWML. Chippenham will probably lose London expresses, but Bath will retain London services under the NSE banner (you'll see how when I get round to doing Spotlight on: NSE probably later on in the 80s). There are some older stations names there as some of the towns still have multiple stations due to the less-then-OTL network closures, which will be pruned further this decade.

Patience is starting to wear thin for the APT2 (OTL APT), however progress is being made. Expect to see it properly in service by the late 1980s on the WCML. However, the patience-wearing will result in BR chasing a different path for the ECML (cough IC225/Class 91 cough).

Also, due to butterflies, correct pictures are getting harder to find, so I've surreptitiously not mentioned the exact location as some of the pictures aren't even of the correct line. Especially in the case of the ECML & Transpennine line which wasn't even electrified yet in OTL.

Channel Tunnel update for 1981 coming....

Incognitia

October 31st, 2011, 09:50 PM

As a Bristolian, one thing occurs to me - no Bristol Parkway on the London-South Wales line?

I guess it's been butterflied since the PoD was 15 odd years before it opened; but I would have assumed that the logic for building it held true, of giving Bristol a faster connection to London on the more direct line?

Devvy

October 31st, 2011, 10:04 PM

Well, part of the reason for Bristol Parkway existing have been butterflied here.

OTL reasons were:
- Provides a convenient interchange between Cross Country trains from B'ham, IC trains between Wales & London, and local services.
- Trains from Bristol Parkway (originating in Wales) were quicker to London then the Bristol Temple Meads services which first have to wind their way through Bath etc.
- Northern suburbs of Bristol were growing
- Car parking easier to accommodate

In this TL, these reasons are solved. A new chord from the South Wales Main Line Swindon-bound on to the original Cross Country line into Bristol via Mangotsfield was built, which means:

- Mangotsfield station provides an interchange between CC trains from B'ham to Bristol, IC trains from Bristol to London, and commuter services between Bristol, Bath and Gloucester way.
- As the trains quickly head out on to the South Wales Main Line (and thus the GWML), the services are a lot quicker
- Mangotsfield is located in the northern suburbs anyhow
- Car parking is still restricted somewhat, but a second stop out of town on the Intercity means there is less need to go to Bristol TM to catch the London train.

Bristol Parkway might come to life later though, probably 90s if it does when passenger traffic explodes.

EDIT: PS. Mangotsfield station could have a largish car park adjacent to it in the middle of the junction to the east, which is close to (and still open fields between) the A4174 although I have no idea when that opened. So Mangotsfield could act as a park & ride station as such.

Swede

November 1st, 2011, 12:10 PM

MonsooN

November 1st, 2011, 02:15 PM

I have nothing to add, apart from my apreciation for this great T/L!

I grew up a stone's throw from the Sunderland-Hartlepool line, which was used heavily for coal transportation. This T/L brings back lots of memories!

Geordie

November 1st, 2011, 10:43 PM

Firstly, I can now see the map on the previous page. No idea what was going on there. I reckon the tight triangular junction would not be conducive to the fast running that the LGVs should be maintaining, so a loose one would be more beneficial.

Secondly, interesting Spotlight on: Intercity.

It's interesting that more of the mainlines' secondary routes appear to have survived (ie Sunderland, Lincoln, Hull, Wakefield on the ECML). The problems with the APT2 will surely give the GCML an extra shot in the arm, which will be nice. When the ECML goes down the 225 route, will they (as OTL) be designed to end up tilting at a later date?

Interesting times in Bristol (as elaborated) and Manchester. Have I read that correctly, believing Mayfield is to be the London terminus?

As ever, good work, Devvy. :)

Edit: I know Lincoln, Hull and Sunderland are pretty much back on the ECML thanks to Grand Central and Hull Trains, but they were neglected for a number of years. Sunderland and Hartlepool lost their mainline services altogether, while the others suffered from pretty limited ones, IIRC.

Dunois

November 1st, 2011, 11:34 PM

Here is what I was thinking in a more explanatory graphical fashion (base map from openstreetmap). Opinions welcome, as my SNCF knowledge is less then stellar....

MAP WHICH I SEE ;).

First built is LGV Nord, the yellow line, linking Paris - Amiens - Chunnel (- London). This is built for high speed London - Paris services, and fast domestic Paris - Amiens - Nord-Pas-de-Calais services.

Second built is LGV Belgique, the green line, linking (Paris -) Amiens - Lille - Belgian border, co-ordinated with HSL1 (the brown line), linking the French border to Brussels. This allows high speed Paris - Amiens - Lille - Brussels - onwards services. It's an add-on to LGV Nord, built a fair few years later to augment the growing TGV network.

Third built (most likely with BR financial assistance as it won't benefit the French much) is LGV Angleterre-Belgique which allows high speed London - Brussels services.

SNCF could of built a tight three-way junction (as in OTL outside Lille), if there's a few years gap between the stages happening I'm not sure whether it would be a tight 3-way, or a spread out 3-way as in my diagram (if that makes sense to you guys!).

EDIT: I didn't mentioned the third Anglo-Belgian chord earlier, apologies for the confusion.

Perfect that's what I had in mind with my quote.

The Belgian government will be happy to help paying for the Calais-Lille-Brussels line as well.
As I said I however, think that services between London and Brussels will be possible using the normal lines between Calais and Lille/Brussels.

There was a huge debate OTL before building the LGV Nord regarding whether or not to go to Lille via Amiens, so the "Y" option you are proposing is very good and rather plausible in my opinion.

I expect the line to be connected to CDG Airport and Disneyland during the nineties as per OTL as well.

Regarding the GWML Intercity services, I am surprised to see Mangotsfield being a stop on the line and not Bath!

Devvy

November 2nd, 2011, 03:36 AM

I keep reading this thread, and I keep liking it. The notes on the differences from OTL are a great help too, thank you for those. By the last update it seems to me that the British public are getting a very noticeably bigger bang for their BR-subsidy buck.

I have nothing to add, apart from my apreciation for this great T/L!

I grew up a stone's throw from the Sunderland-Hartlepool line, which was used heavily for coal transportation. This T/L brings back lots of memories!

Thanks for the feedback :D

Firstly, I can now see the map on the previous page. No idea what was going on there. I reckon the tight triangular junction would not be conducive to the fast running that the LGVs should be maintaining, so a loose one would be more beneficial.

Secondly, interesting Spotlight on: Intercity.

It's interesting that more of the mainlines' secondary routes appear to have survived (ie Sunderland, Lincoln, Hull, Wakefield on the ECML). The problems with the APT2 will surely give the GCML an extra shot in the arm, which will be nice. When the ECML goes down the 225 route, will they (as OTL) be designed to end up tilting at a later date?

Interesting times in Bristol (as elaborated) and Manchester. Have I read that correctly, believing Mayfield is to be the London terminus?

As ever, good work, Devvy. :)

Edit: I know Lincoln, Hull and Sunderland are pretty much back on the ECML thanks to Grand Central and Hull Trains, but they were neglected for a number of years. Sunderland and Hartlepool lost their mainline services altogether, while the others suffered from pretty limited ones, IIRC.

Firstly don't expect to see tilting "IC225" (which in this TL will become the APT3 - although interestingly in OTL the IC225 was going to use the APT branding as far as I can tell until the APT failed and they gave the IC225 it's own branding to separate it from the APT failure). The ECML is generally speaking a lot more flat and straight then the WCML, so there is a lot less need for it. While the APT will enter full service soon, the scars will be ever present for BR and will serve as a reminder against trying wholesale change with new and unproven technologies.

Secondly, I think the reason the ECML lost a load of it's secondary destinations is due to the core-routes only electrification of the 1980s (feel free to correct me here guys). The secondary destinations of Lincoln, Sunderland etc won't see a fully regular (ie. 1tph) service I think, but maybe something like 1tp2h or 3h. Hull is big enough though to warrant a proper service I think.

And the thinking behind Manchester....as always best demonstrated with a picture.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/12/manchester.jpg

So the lines from the south are 2 pairs, black on the left (local lines for Crosslink, which go dotted when in tunnel), and red on the right for the express lines (London services). Lines from the east are 2 pairs, blue pair is express services for Transpennine from Leeds and Woodhead Line from Sheffield. Brown is local services from Manchester area.

So you can see that chucking London services into Mayfield means nice and convenient separation of services avoiding crossings. If Mayfield (read when ;) ) get's restored, then it can share the same Crosslink station as Piccaddily station anyhow and the stations linked via a short footbridge across Fairfield Street. However there will be closures in Manchester in the 1980s as BR looks for more efficiency savings, as part of Thatcher's play to cut back on the nationalised industries.

Perfect that's what I had in mind with my quote.

The Belgian government will be happy to help paying for the Calais-Lille-Brussels line as well.
As I said I however, think that services between London and Brussels will be possible using the normal lines between Calais and Lille/Brussels.

There was a huge debate OTL before building the LGV Nord regarding whether or not to go to Lille via Amiens, so the "Y" option you are proposing is very good and rather plausible in my opinion.

I expect the line to be connected to CDG Airport and Disneyland during the nineties as per OTL as well.

Regarding the GWML Intercity services, I am surprised to see Mangotsfield being a stop on the line and not Bath!

Cool, on the same wavelength then! As for CDG and Disneyland, probably - bit outside my remit though for this, so they'll probably just be mentioned in passing when we hit that time.

As for the GWML, my 2 principal assumptions when drawing those diagrams were:
- BR stands the most chance of breaking even if it maximises it's revenues from Intercity services.
- More people will use Intercity services if the trains are as fast and convenient as possible between the primary destinations.

So for the GWML to Bristol, obviously London - Reading - Swindon - Bristol are the principal stops. I'm not sure where to find population data on the internet for Bath in 1980, but I'd wager it's not going to rival those main points. I therefore tried to keep the trains as fast as possible between those points. The South Wales Main Line nicely intersects at a friendly angle the original MR line from Birmingham to Bristol, via Mangotsfield, so I thought that's probably the best way to route trains. It also means that Cross Country trains can run to Bath easily as well if needs be (although the mess of Cross Country routes put me off attempting a diagram for those). Mangotsfield is a nice out-of-centre point for interchanges between the different services, in a similar way that Stockport and Solihull serve (and a similar concept that London will adopt in the 1990s when passenger traffic explodes again).

However, Bath will retain London services, but run via Network South East. It will be take longer then Intercity used to for them obviously, but Bath is a relatively small town. I'm looking at NSE service of London - Slough - Reading - Newbury - Hungerford - Pewsey - Devizes - Semington (Melksham) - Bradford upon Avon - Bath. I'd estimate a travel time of approximately 2:00 - 2:15 for that which isn't *too* shabby.

Devvy

November 2nd, 2011, 03:46 AM

And also...I'm looking for opinions on Heathrow.

Come 1985, London Underground and Heathrow airport will be eager to extend the Piccadilly line to Heathrow, and are just waiting for tunnelling resources to be freed up by the Chunnel.

Will Terminal 4 still of been built the same? Is it possible it might be built slightly differently at the east end of the airport but between the runways (and stuff on that site moved to the OTL T4 site)? While I don't really want to tread too much into air traffic, doing the railways is difficult enough, the London airports have a massive effect on the public transport provisions for London.

As far as I can tell for Cublington, it's proposed position was in the middle of an important site of natural beauty or scientific interest, and next to a town full of Tory voters which wouldn't of gone down well. Rather then that, might we of seen a bigger revitalisation of Stansted airport with 2 runways and a bigger terminal from the outset (possibly to Luton's decrement) or maybe something else?

Opinions welcome from one and all....

Swede

November 2nd, 2011, 03:39 PM

The Piccadilly line to/from Heathrow is one I've used several times and the current set-up at Heathrow is almost mad in its strangeness. No loop, no spurs! One line, keep it simple. And make the underground station also prepared to be an interchange with services like OTL Crossrail, OTL Heathrow Express and the possible HSR lines.

/usually comes in via Heathrow and has family living on the Piccadilly line...

Dunois

November 2nd, 2011, 04:47 PM

As for the GWML, my 2 principal assumptions when drawing those diagrams were:
- BR stands the most chance of breaking even if it maximises it's revenues from Intercity services.
- More people will use Intercity services if the trains are as fast and convenient as possible between the primary destinations.

So for the GWML to Bristol, obviously London - Reading - Swindon - Bristol are the principal stops. I'm not sure where to find population data on the internet for Bath in 1980, but I'd wager it's not going to rival those main points. I therefore tried to keep the trains as fast as possible between those points. The South Wales Main Line nicely intersects at a friendly angle the original MR line from Birmingham to Bristol, via Mangotsfield, so I thought that's probably the best way to route trains. It also means that Cross Country trains can run to Bath easily as well if needs be (although the mess of Cross Country routes put me off attempting a diagram for those). Mangotsfield is a nice out-of-centre point for interchanges between the different services, in a similar way that Stockport and Solihull serve (and a similar concept that London will adopt in the 1990s when passenger traffic explodes again).

However, Bath will retain London services, but run via Network South East. It will be take longer then Intercity used to for them obviously, but Bath is a relatively small town. I'm looking at NSE service of London - Slough - Reading - Newbury - Hungerford - Pewsey - Devizes - Semington (Melksham) - Bradford upon Avon - Bath. I'd estimate a travel time of approximately 2:00 - 2:15 for that which isn't *too* shabby.

The population of the towns you serve is irrelevant in my opinion since they don't necessarily reflect the realities on the ground. In the case of Bath, Bath Spa station annual usage has always hovered around three million passengers a year (it is now close to five millions), which is more than Swindon, Taunton, Newbury, Westbury, Gloucester, Cheltenham, three times more actually in the case of the later batch of stations.

There has always been a huge tourist market and clientele using the trains to go to Bath, something which First Great Western has been very good to tap into during the last few years and I bet that BR did exactly the same when they were still around. Bath is the second most visited place in the United Kingdom after London after all ...

I must say that I also have my doubts on whether Mangotsfield would be that great as an interchange station. Most cross country services go from Plymouth to Birmingham and the number of long distance cross country services using the Somerset & Dorset joint railway line to points on the south coast was very limited even during the heydays of the line to one or two a day at most.
In the case of an efficient hourly clockface cross-country service, these services would have to disappear to be replaced by connecting trains from the south coast. Bristol TM would be as good as Mangotsfield as an interchange station, likely better in fact as larger facilities can be build especially if the entire station is fully rebuilt (not something I would advocate mind you).

Bristol Parkway would also more sense that Mangotsfield on the basis that interchange with the road network and the M4/M5 motorways would be much easier there than elsewhere. Interchange from the south to the South Wales mainline would also be easier, without Bristol Parkway, passengers would have to use the slow stopping trains to go to Wales from Bristol and points south, with Bristol Parkway there you can use the fast trains after a short commuter ride.

I agree that keeping the Bristol surburban sections of the S&D Joint Railway makes sense, but only as commuter railways and nothing else. I am also of the opinion that some form of reorganisation is needed if you want to keep this line thriving. I would suggest closing the line between Kelston and Bath and connecting it to the GWML. In the south, the line going to Bath should be connected to the Wessex Mainline and from thence to the GMWL. This way you remove reversal in Bath Green Park and you considerably facilitate interchange between the S&D Joint Railway line and the Western network.
The other option is to bypass Bath completely but if you do this you lose valuable interchange opportunities.

Regarding the Devizes line, it frankly should be canned as per OTL as it serves nothing of real importance. It makes more sense to concentrate on Westbury as an interchange point, rather than dispering lines everywhere.

How many lines have been closed in rural Somerset TTL just out of curiosity? Less than OTL I imagine but a lot of the small lines will be a bitch to turn into something somewhat profitable and useful. The Cheddar Valley Line and the Bristol and North Somerset Railway have a definite potential and so has the Somerset and Dorset Line. But frankly buses operated by British Rail and integrated into its fare system would do a far better job in serving the remainder of Somerset. If you go ahead with my AvonRail idea I can easily see the Bristol and Somerset Line becoming part of this system.

And also...I'm looking for opinions on Heathrow.

Come 1985, London Underground and Heathrow airport will be eager to extend the Piccadilly line to Heathrow, and are just waiting for tunnelling resources to be freed up by the Chunnel.

Will Terminal 4 still of been built the same? Is it possible it might be built slightly differently at the east end of the airport but between the runways (and stuff on that site moved to the OTL T4 site)? While I don't really want to tread too much into air traffic, doing the railways is difficult enough, the London airports have a massive effect on the public transport provisions for London.

As far as I can tell for Cublington, it's proposed position was in the middle of an important site of natural beauty or scientific interest, and next to a town full of Tory voters which wouldn't of gone down well. Rather then that, might we of seen a bigger revitalisation of Stansted airport with 2 runways and a bigger terminal from the outset (possibly to Luton's decrement) or maybe something else?

Opinions welcome from one and all....

Stansted airport is in the middle of almost nowhere catchment area wise compared to Cublington.

If the governments are smarter than OTL with regards to airport development then perhaps Heathrow perimetre might have been expanded to the north of Bath Road all the way to the M4. This way there would be enough splace for four/five runways and six terminals.

May I ask which software you usd to draw the maps by the way?

Geordie

November 2nd, 2011, 08:06 PM

JN1

November 2nd, 2011, 09:37 PM

Since I heard mention of the Woodhead Pass on the radio travel news tonight it made me wonder if the Woodhead route has been lost, as in @, or saved? If there was money for electrification maybe it got re-wired for 25v AC?
I've read that it was not financially viable towards the end, but it's loss is now regretted as a freight route.

Devvy

November 2nd, 2011, 10:06 PM

Thanks for the replies. The Manchester stuff (which I can see ;)) all makes good sense.

I know far too little about Heathrow to comment, other than to state the obvious: OTL's Heathrow underground services looks ridiculous.

1.5 or even 2 trains an hour sounds like pretty good going for Sunderland, Lincoln and the like. Even given Grand Central's sterling work, Wearside and Tees-side don't have that sort of service now.

As akways, I look forward to reading more. :cool:

That's 1 train every 2 or 3 hours, which is probably more realistic :)

The Piccadilly line to/from Heathrow is one I've used several times and the current set-up at Heathrow is almost mad in its strangeness. No loop, no spurs! One line, keep it simple. And make the underground station also prepared to be an interchange with services like OTL Crossrail, OTL Heathrow Express and the possible HSR lines.

/usually comes in via Heathrow and has family living on the Piccadilly line...

Yep, Heathrow underground network is a mess. But you can understand why it's happened looking at the history of the airport. If T4 can be situated at the east end of the airport between the runways, then the Tube situation can be implemented nicely. Is an extension of the airport boundary to the M4 for a third runway feasible? I can see the Government agreeing to it, but will it wash with the people and local government in the 1980s?

The population of the towns you serve is irrelevant in my opinion since they don't necessarily reflect the realities on the ground. In the case of Bath, Bath Spa station annual usage has always hovered around three million passengers a year (it is now close to five millions), which is more than Swindon, Taunton, Newbury, Westbury, Gloucester, Cheltenham, three times more actually in the case of the later batch of stations.

There has always been a huge tourist market and clientele using the trains to go to Bath, something which First Great Western has been very good to tap into during the last few years and I bet that BR did exactly the same when they were still around. Bath is the second most visited place in the United Kingdom after London after all ...

..................

OK, you have me convinced! Didn't know about the Bath tourist market, but it seems obvious now it's mentioned. GWML network map redrawn accordingly.

I agree that keeping the Bristol surburban sections of the S&D Joint Railway makes sense, but only as commuter railways and nothing else. I am also of the opinion that some form of reorganisation is needed if you want to keep this line thriving. I would suggest closing the line between Kelston and Bath and connecting it to the GWML. In the south, the line going to Bath should be connected to the Wessex Mainline and from thence to the GMWL. This way you remove reversal in Bath Green Park and you considerably facilitate interchange between the S&D Joint Railway line and the Western network. The other option is to bypass Bath completely but if you do this you lose valuable interchange opportunities.

This was my though, when I write about BR cuts in the 1980s a portion of it will focus on rail simplification in cities. The line to Bath Green Park can easily be redirected to run into Bath Spa, and then use the as OTL Wessex line.

Regarding the Devizes line, it frankly should be canned as per OTL as it serves nothing of real importance. It makes more sense to concentrate on Westbury as an interchange point, rather than dispering lines everywhere. How many lines have been closed in rural Somerset TTL just out of curiosity? Less than OTL I imagine but a lot of the small lines will be a bitch to turn into something somewhat profitable and useful. The Cheddar Valley Line and the Bristol and North Somerset Railway have a definite potential and so has the Somerset and Dorset Line. But frankly buses operated by British Rail and integrated into its fare system would do a far better job in serving the remainder of Somerset. If you go ahead with my AvonRail idea I can easily see the Bristol and Somerset Line becoming part of this system.

Either way, a Newbury semi-express service is better able to run somewhere of interest (Bath) by using the Devizes branch. It's a more convenient interchange point, and it keeps Devizes with a train service.

Stansted airport is in the middle of almost nowhere catchment area wise compared to Cublington.

Surely that's what makes it better in part - obviously it's not too far in OTL considering the passenger numbers. The fact it's in the middle of nowhere makes it much easier on expansion, opening times for flights etc... See earlier comments about Heathrow as well, I'm after a decent suggestion to fly with :) . Personally I think T4 between the runways is reasonable, no idea about the rest, let me know!

PS. No pun intended there, genuinely!

May I ask which software you usd to draw the maps by the way?

Got the maps from openstreetmap.org (rather then copying Her Majesty's Ordnance Survey), Prt Scr to grab a screenshot of the area, then some careful work in MS Paint. Nothing complex - I am a terrible graphics artist!

JN1

November 2nd, 2011, 10:16 PM

On the ECML, to go back to an earlier point. I tend to think of it as going all the way to Aberdeen, though the section between the Cross and Waverley is the core.

I take it that services that continue on to Aberdeen (and Inverness) maybe have 37s, or 55s from the Cross Country pool put on at Waverley, or Haymarket? Thinking about it Haymarket might make more sense for a loco swap - it is under the wires and close to the MPD, so light engine moves don't have to go so far.

Geordie

November 2nd, 2011, 10:34 PM

That's 1 train every 2 or 3 hours, which is probably more realistic :)
Oops, bit of a brain fart on my part there :o Still better than OTL, though.

Got the maps from openstreetmap.org (rather then copying Her Majesty's Ordnance Survey), Prt Scr to grab a screenshot of the area, then some careful work in MS Paint. Nothing complex - I am a terrible graphics artist!That could prove useful, if I ever start any of the three TLs I'm planning in earnest. :o

On the ECML, to go back to an earlier point. I tend to think of it as going all the way to Aberdeen, though the section between the Cross and Waverley is the core.

I take it that services that continue on to Aberdeen (and Inverness) maybe have 37s, or 55s from the Cross Country pool put on at Waverley, or Haymarket? Thinking about it Haymarket might make more sense for a loco swap - it is under the wires and close to the MPD, so light engine moves don't have to go so far.
Agreed on all parts. The heavier duty overhead wires would make it easier to electrify up to Aberdeen and Inverness, but Deltics taking over at Haymarket isn't exactly a bad second choice.

Devvy

November 2nd, 2011, 10:38 PM

I didn't bother drawing in rare services, Inverness and Aberdeen are measured in the few services per day rather then hour so I left them off so the maps didn't end up a tangled mess!

I agree with you guys though, engine swap at Haymarket at least for the time being. We'll see about onwards electrification later :)

Glad to help on the maps front!

El Pip

November 2nd, 2011, 10:51 PM

Stansted airport is in the middle of almost nowhere catchment area wise compared to Cublington.

If the governments are smarter than OTL with regards to airport development then perhaps Heathrow perimetre might have been expanded to the north of Bath Road all the way to the M4. This way there would be enough splace for four/five runways and six terminals.
I agree Standsted is in the middle of nowhere, it owes it's OTL growth entirely to low cost budget airlines which weren't really possible till the mid 1990s. Luton is also out as the runway is just too short and tricky to expand, not impossible just expensive.

That leaves Gatwick or Heathrow, as Gatwick has just had a new terminal (North) in '83 Heathrow is due a terminal so it's going to happen there, baring a complete change in government aviation policy. That said Heathrow T4 may not go ahead as planned, it was supposed to be for point to point business travel but with Intercity stronger and an earlier London-Paris rail link on the cards there may be a change in plan. If you expect rail to hover up some or all of the short range business travellers you would not build the OTL T4, instead you'd load up on international capacity with a T5 style terminal.

So if it is designed from scratch as another major international terminal it would probably go where the OTL Terminal 5 went (T5 was already on the books in the early 1980s, just the demand wasn't forecast to be there for a few year and no-one thought the planning process would take a decade). Indeed as BA has spent decades dreaming of having everything in one terminal, build it as a dedicated BA terminal from the start instead of the horror that was BA trying to squeeze into T4.

Looking ahead the OTL plan for 3rd Runway and Terminal 6 was to put them between Bath Road and the M4. Looking at the layout and safe clearances you might get two terminals in that gap, but definitely only one runway. It's a solid long term plan though and it's been around for years, indeed its one of the reasons the Heathrow Express is in tunnel from north of the M4 (the other being the M4 itself!)

Sticking T4 in any form in the east of the site really isn't an option whatever you chose though, that's the main maintenance area at Heathrow and there are some colossal hangars and so on that will have to be moved. That means demolish the site by the Cargo Terminal, build the new hangars and connections (assuming they fit on the site), shift the maintenance over and only then start on clearing the site and building the new terminal. It's a slow and expensive option and I just can't see it.

If T4 gets built as hub terminal and gets put on the OTL T5 site there are some big savings on the transport side; no Heathrow cargo tunnel for instance and no need for a loop of the Picc Line to T4. That will free up some of the 'transport' investment BAA had to provide to get approval for T4, that money might get put into something like Airtrack to link Heathrow to the network south of London.

For the rest the Heathrow Express pretty much has to get built (the planning condition was fairly restrictive), if built by someone competent they might dodge the OTL collapse, but all that really does is store up problems for later. NATM is going to go wrong at some point, the OTL collapse had no casualties and so was the 'easiest' way to learn that lesson. Though looking at the timeline if it's built early enough they could dodge SCL/NATM completely, build it conventionally and leave some poor LU job in central London to have the first collapse!

That's quite a dump of text, hope you can find something useful in amongst it all! ;)

JN1

November 3rd, 2011, 01:33 PM

Talking of electrification in @ Scotrail has an ambitious plan to wire the Waverley to Queen Street route, including the Falkirk Grahamston loop, and to the docks at Grangemouth. Stirling and Alloa are to be included in that scheme.
ITTL you could extend the wires from Stirling up to Inverness and from Alloa along the Fife coast to Dunfermline, though this would be a much slower route that the direct Forth Bridge.
IMVHO electrification north of the Central Belt probably isn’t worth it for the number of trains.

I agree on the ECML, it’s just my opinion more than anything else.
On the loco that takes the trains north of Haymarket, may I suggest using Deltics? Tractors, or Duffs could probably easily handle the trains, but these services, especially the Northern Lights and the Highland Chieftain, are top link prestigious trains and even in the changed circumstances of TTL the 55s are the most prestigious diesels in the BR fleet. The 55s named after Scottish Regiments could be based at Haymarket MPD, both for these services and for Anglo-Scottish Cross Country services.

iopgod

November 3rd, 2011, 02:41 PM

Does Manchester Mayfield therefore avoid the need for the Picadilly platforms 13-14? What is Manchester Central being used for?

Devvy

November 3rd, 2011, 05:30 PM

Does Manchester Mayfield therefore avoid the need for the Picadilly platforms 13-14? What is Manchester Central being used for?

Platforms 13/14 are still in use for cross-Manchester services - primarily Transpennine services from Leeds and beyond (via Huddersfield), and Sheffield and beyond (via Penistone/Hadfield). However Mayfield being renovated, and once open will mean that all sets of services through the Mayfield/Piccadilly throat will be segregated. Express trains into Mayfield won't cross any other services, nor will Transpennine to Leeds/Sheffield cross any other as per the diagram on the previous page. This makes the throat much more efficient, and means that delayed services on one set of lines won't have any effect on any other set of lines.

Manchester Central is used for local services - those to Hazel Grove via Didsbury, to Northwich via Altrincham, Warrington Bank Quay (Low Level) via Altrincham, and Liverpool via Warrington Central.

Talking of electrification in @ Scotrail has an ambitious plan to wire the Waverley to Queen Street route, including the Falkirk Grahamston loop, and to the docks at Grangemouth. Stirling and Alloa are to be included in that scheme. ITTL you could extend the wires from Stirling up to Inverness and from Alloa along the Fife coast to Dunfermline, though this would be a much slower route that the direct Forth Bridge.

IMVHO electrification north of the Central Belt probably isn’t worth it for the number of trains.

I don't have much of an exact idea on Scotrail yet, but it'll come. I'm planning to do a "Spotlight on" each of the passenger sectors as we chew through the 1980s. I think the Falkirk triangle (of Falkirk - Glasgow, - Edinburgh, and - north) is possible for electrification later, but as you say many lines north of the Central Belt will struggle to justify electrification due to the sparse usage.

I agree on the ECML, it’s just my opinion more than anything else. On the loco that takes the trains north of Haymarket, may I suggest using Deltics? Tractors, or Duffs could probably easily handle the trains, but these services, especially the Northern Lights and the Highland Chieftain, are top link prestigious trains and even in the changed circumstances of TTL the 55s are the most prestigious diesels in the BR fleet. The 55s named after Scottish Regiments could be based at Haymarket MPD, both for these services and for Anglo-Scottish Cross Country services.

Well, I think half the prestige the Class 55s gained was their use on the flagship services, which they haven't done in this TL, so they aren't quite as glamorous here! But after the APT1 (OTL IC125) was introduced on the GWML, some have been cascaded to the north to provide motive power on ECML services north in this TL as you say!

<Airports snip>

Thank you Pip! - that's explained a lot about the London airports. I think we'll assume the following:

- OTL Heathrow T4 did not get built due to the better Intercity links, and the prospect of Channel Tunnel services sucking a lot of the market up for London to Paris trips.
- Consequently, Heathrow T4 is currently being planned and in public consultation in 1981 (which would serve a role akin to OTL Heathrow T5), at the west end of the airport.
- The Bath Road / M4 strip is being slowly being bought up by BAA in preparation for a Heathrow expansion.
- Gatwick / Stansted / Luton will continue reasonably as per OTL.

This means that now in this TL:

- Once the Chunnel is finished, Piccadilly line will be extended to Hatton Cross, Heathrow Central (T1,2,3) and Heathrow T4
- If Heathrow T5 goes ahead (between new northern runway and the thence central runway) all Piccadilly line trains will run to Heathrow Central, before then running to either T4 or T5.
- For a variety of reasons, I don't see a National Rail branch from the GWML to Paddington happening significantly before OTL, maybe 1990 at earliest, along the same route. Which means that NATM will probably be used again and the same issues encountered I guess.
- When the GWML-Heathrow branch is build, it gets constructed all the way through to Staines so this TL Heathrow services run through from London to Heathrow and on to Bracknell/Wokingham/Reading and Woking/Guildford. Although the tickets from those stations (except Reading) to London Paddington (via Heathrow) will be much more expensive then using the Waterloo services to discourage London passengers using airport services and thus using up the room.

My only debate left to resolve is:

- Heathrow terminal interchanges. If National Rail services (which unlike OTL are not run by Heathrow, but by BR) are charging for use between terminals, like the Underground does, what does LHR do about interchange between terminals. Carry on using buses, or might they seek a light-rail scheme like Gatwick? Buses seem very....opposite to the image of Heathrow as a fast, modern and efficient airport, but a light rail link will be expensive.

JN1

November 3rd, 2011, 06:58 PM

El Pip

November 3rd, 2011, 07:26 PM

- Heathrow terminal interchanges. If National Rail services (which unlike OTL are not run by Heathrow, but by BR) are charging for use between terminals, like the Underground does, what does LHR do about interchange between terminals. Carry on using buses, or might they seek a light-rail scheme like Gatwick? Buses seem very....opposite to the image of Heathrow as a fast, modern and efficient airport, but a light rail link will be expensive.
I'm fairly sure the quick and free interchange and rail link to London was something the regulator, government and airlines all insisted on for T4 and got written into BAAs planning approval. There has to be something done to provide additional public transport to Heathrow and I don't think Picc Line expansion does it. IF you blitz it with as much automation as possible AND a full signal upgrade AND mess about with Acton Town to just run Acton to Heathrow shuttles AND buy some more rolling stock you might push it from 24 tph to maybe 32 tph. It's not going to be enough even if it's affordable and practical. I think there has to be a national rail link and if you want BAA to pay for it as per OTL they are going to want to run it, which is not unreasonable.

On your actual question the regulation of airports is pretty complicated but in essence it's heavily based on 'approved' capital expenditure with little/no allowance on operational cost. So the more BAA spend on capital projects that the regulator and the users (airlines) want, the more they can charge in landing fees. However if they build something that means they have a bigger operational or maintenance bill each year they just have to swallow the losses and can't pass the cost on. That means their is massive incentive for BAA to go for the expensive to build but cheap to run option and to avoid the opposite. So definitely no buses if they can possibly avoid it!

I think it has to be light rail of some kind, probably along the route of the 'pods' they've got running between OTL T5 and the main airport. Maybe an early DLR type scheme? With the money saved on no Cargo Tunnel to T4 there is a big pot of money right there, should be enough for a light surface rail you'd hope.

Swede

November 3rd, 2011, 08:07 PM

It ain't Heathrow, but the planning ideas could be worth looking at...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5466485&postcount=162

Devvy

November 3rd, 2011, 08:28 PM

You're absolutely right on the 55s, they probably won't have the same sort of cache with the public, though I'm sure the bashers will still love them. :D
Thinking about it logically while a 47 can do the Haymarket to Aberdeen portion it doesn't have anything like the horsepower of a 55. The loco hauled trains of that era were pretty heavy before the lighter HSTs and 225s came along and I can see a 47 struggling in several places to get started again.
Even 55s had to go at full power in places like the incline out of Inverkeithing; modern HSTs and Verminous...sorry Voyagers...don't notice that incline.

If BR wants good times north of Edinburgh it will need a powerful loco. I also personally think we need to keep some major section of the network un-wired because diesels are cool. :p

Well by now the BR Mk3 coaching stock is in, so the trains are somewhat lighter. But as you say a nice powerful loco is always good, hence the cascade of 55s from the GWML.

I'm fairly sure the quick and free interchange and rail link to London was something the regulator, government and airlines all insisted on for T4 and got written into BAAs planning approval. There has to be something done to provide additional public transport to Heathrow and I don't think Picc Line expansion does it. IF you blitz it with as much automation as possible AND a full signal upgrade AND mess about with Acton Town to just run Acton to Heathrow shuttles AND buy some more rolling stock you might push it from 24 tph to maybe 32 tph. It's not going to be enough even if it's affordable and practical. I think there has to be a national rail link and if you want BAA to pay for it as per OTL they are going to want to run it, which is not unreasonable.

On your actual question the regulation of airports is pretty complicated but in essence it's heavily based on 'approved' capital expenditure with little/no allowance on operational cost. So the more BAA spend on capital projects that the regulator and the users (airlines) want, the more they can charge in landing fees. However if they build something that means they have a bigger operational or maintenance bill each year they just have to swallow the losses and can't pass the cost on. That means their is massive incentive for BAA to go for the expensive to build but cheap to run option and to avoid the opposite. So definitely no buses if they can possibly avoid it!

I think it has to be light rail of some kind, probably along the route of the 'pods' they've got running between OTL T5 and the main airport. Maybe an early DLR type scheme? With the money saved on no Cargo Tunnel to T4 there is a big pot of money right there, should be enough for a light surface rail you'd hope.

More great interesting stuff - thanks :)

I don't doubt that a National Rail connection is necessary, Underground connection around 86-87, and National Rail around 90-91 are my thoughts at the moment. If BR is interested in expanding to Heathrow, then I would wager that a reasonable option is a combined BR/BAA funded construction of the branch, and then BR operating the trains. Guaranteed free use of trains between terminals, and a land lease fee paid to Heathrow for the tracks on their land. Everyone seems to win, sound reasonable?

The OTL Cargo Tunnel funds can be then thrown at the expansion of third runway/more terminals.

Devvy

November 3rd, 2011, 08:59 PM

It ain't Heathrow, but the planning ideas could be worth looking at...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5466485&postcount=162

I'm always concerned when people talk about Thames Gateway airport as:
- I'm led to believe the risk of birdstrike at coastal airports is much higher, and at an airport as busy at this one would be that would be disastrous on timetabling
- The airport is on the wrong side of the airport for most of the population.
- The pictures show 2 sets of runways, each set with 2 adjacent runways. I was under the impression there is a minimum distance between runways for concurrent operation of them (which is why Gatwick only has one operational runway despite having 2 runways)
- I don't see why people north of Birmingham would be bothered about using a Thames Gateway airport, and I don't think there would be enough people to sustain a 1 or 2 trains per hour service to TG airport. And if that isn't there, then the rail services aren't convenient and people drive.

Interesting though for some of the statistics. OTL-wise I'm all for laying down HS2 and onwards, and slapping a domestic air tax on inside GB (not applying to NI or RoI) flights to help pay for it after it's operational.

Bureaucromancer

November 3rd, 2011, 09:27 PM

El Pip

November 3rd, 2011, 10:46 PM

The thing is BR wasn't interested in expanding to Heathrow, apparently the chaps on the Western Main Line hated it as it interrupted their plans and disrupted ops (to say nothing of BAAs on-platform-check-in experiment at Paddington!).

It got so bad they were disrupting any and all Heathrow bound trains before they'd do anything to a regular service, in the end the ORR had to come in and issue some formal warnings to make people treat Heathrow trains fairly by the rule book. So the politics is poisonous; left to their own devices BR would chose not go to Heathrow and BAA would not give up control of something they had built and paid for, even partially, unless you tore it from their cold dead hands. The root problem is BAA will take the view there is nothing BR do that they can't do themselves as well or better, looking at the current Heathrow rail link you have to agree they might have a point.

Either way I really don't think BR will end up part funding it. Faced with the massive money pit of the Channel Tunnel the government will be looking to slash infrastructure spending elsewhere to balance the books, and where better than the railways who got them into the mess in the first place? (OTL of course it was a purely private venture so the spiralling costs didn't matter). When BAA say 'we'll pay for it if we can run it' and BR say 'lend us even more money, run up larger debts and risk getting embroiled in yet another money pit tunnelling job' can you really see anyone going for the BR option? The Channel Tunnel cost over runs being a government expense TTL will leave deep scars on politicians of all stripes and that can't be ignored.

Open Access might be a solution, though as BAA will have paid for the infrastructure there is an argument that it should be BR paying for access to the Heathrow link and not the other way round! At which point why bother with BR at all? Just keep the OTL solution, maybe with a properly marketed Heathrow Connect service, but even then not sure there's a big advantage to be had.

Nice idea on wider use of DLR, the more I think on it the more of a goer it is.

Devvy

November 3rd, 2011, 10:52 PM

IIRC at some point you said that the network was or would be available for Open Access Operators; wouldn't that be the simplest solution to the Heathrow problem? I could very well see it being a cost cutting option coming out of a light rail study.

That said, I could definitely see a DLR like system being a significantly better service for connecting passengers. I see a few options for how that might work, but would like to plant the seed of it being directly tied into the first phase of DLR. Bear in mind that the other countries that have built generally equivalent technologies in that timeframe (France with VAL, Canada with ICTS/ART and Japan with a few monorail and rubber tired systems) were quite aggressive in looking for demonstration projects and marketing them for sale overseas. DLR itself would actually be quite marketable IMO as it has less exotic technology than most light metro type system, being in essence only conventional light rail with automation (to the extent that you can find former DLR units running in street in Germany)... If the program looked somewhat like ICTS did in Canada I could very well see something like Midlands Metro being pushed in that direction, and certainly a second project at Heathrow being supported even by the Thatcherites as a sort of marketing exercise for British technology.

Well firstly for Heathrow, someone still has to build the infrastructure to get to Heathrow. And this is still pre-EC rules on free access; BR still has a monopoly on all trains. IIRC, I mentioned open-access was feasible for freight operators (and probably the right thing for freight).

As for the DLR, I haven't actually worked out yet what shape the DLR takes, or even if it exists at all. Come the growth of Canary Wharf, I see the Fleet Line being extended along it's original course through Canary Wharf, and on to at least North Greenwich station (if not all the way to Thamesmead).

Personally I think the OTL DLR was a fluke of success. I think there are several other options in this TL which are feasible without the DLR even existing in this non-Beeching Axe world. As mentioned the Fleet Line can run through Canary Whard. Also the line from Fenchurch Street to Blackwall (which OTL was closed east of Stepney Junction, where the OTL Limehouse DLR station is) still exists in this TL, although is increasingly run down as freight finally dries up from the West India Docks. The line from the north (which OTL now is DLR running from Poplar to Bow Church where it curves east to Stratford). The line originally ran to Homerton and connected to the North London Line, but was badly damaged during WW2 I believe. It could be restored, providing a link across north London into Canary Wharf (the OTL A12 runs across it, but isn't built until the early 90s).

OTL DLR just seems...like a cheap imitation of the Underground, which OTL is understandable, but in this TL I think there are better options. I've been corrected before though :)

--
EDIT: PS. It was only cheap because they could use so much disused infrastructure left over from the Beeching Axe which hasn't falled round anywhere near as hard.

Devvy

November 3rd, 2011, 11:01 PM

Dunois

November 4th, 2011, 12:56 AM

OK, you have me convinced! Didn't know about the Bath tourist market, but it seems obvious now it's mentioned. GWML network map redrawn accordingly.

This was my though, when I write about BR cuts in the 1980s a portion of it will focus on rail simplification in cities. The line to Bath Green Park can easily be redirected to run into Bath Spa, and then use the as OTL Wessex line.

Either way, a Newbury semi-express service is better able to run somewhere of interest (Bath) by using the Devizes branch. It's a more convenient interchange point, and it keeps Devizes with a train service.

An extension of the Newbury services might help in creating new patronage especially by serving Devizes (it is still a small town though). Bear in mind however that Bath would make a very poor terminus station as there are only two platforms and the station cannot be extended. The terminus of these services would therefore have to be Bristol TM.

Got the maps from openstreetmap.org (rather then copying Her Majesty's Ordnance Survey), Prt Scr to grab a screenshot of the area, then some careful work in MS Paint. Nothing complex - I am a terrible graphics artist!

I was talking about the maps of the various lines ;).

I agree Standsted is in the middle of nowhere, it owes it's OTL growth entirely to low cost budget airlines which weren't really possible till the mid 1990s. Luton is also out as the runway is just too short and tricky to expand, not impossible just expensive.

That leaves Gatwick or Heathrow, as Gatwick has just had a new terminal (North) in '83 Heathrow is due a terminal so it's going to happen there, baring a complete change in government aviation policy. That said Heathrow T4 may not go ahead as planned, it was supposed to be for point to point business travel but with Intercity stronger and an earlier London-Paris rail link on the cards there may be a change in plan. If you expect rail to hover up some or all of the short range business travellers you would not build the OTL T4, instead you'd load up on international capacity with a T5 style terminal.

So if it is designed from scratch as another major international terminal it would probably go where the OTL Terminal 5 went (T5 was already on the books in the early 1980s, just the demand wasn't forecast to be there for a few year and no-one thought the planning process would take a decade). Indeed as BA has spent decades dreaming of having everything in one terminal, build it as a dedicated BA terminal from the start instead of the horror that was BA trying to squeeze into T4.

Looking ahead the OTL plan for 3rd Runway and Terminal 6 was to put them between Bath Road and the M4. Looking at the layout and safe clearances you might get two terminals in that gap, but definitely only one runway. It's a solid long term plan though and it's been around for years, indeed its one of the reasons the Heathrow Express is in tunnel from north of the M4 (the other being the M4 itself!)

Sticking T4 in any form in the east of the site really isn't an option whatever you chose though, that's the main maintenance area at Heathrow and there are some colossal hangars and so on that will have to be moved. That means demolish the site by the Cargo Terminal, build the new hangars and connections (assuming they fit on the site), shift the maintenance over and only then start on clearing the site and building the new terminal. It's a slow and expensive option and I just can't see it.

If T4 gets built as hub terminal and gets put on the OTL T5 site there are some big savings on the transport side; no Heathrow cargo tunnel for instance and no need for a loop of the Picc Line to T4. That will free up some of the 'transport' investment BAA had to provide to get approval for T4, that money might get put into something like Airtrack to link Heathrow to the network south of London.

For the rest the Heathrow Express pretty much has to get built (the planning condition was fairly restrictive), if built by someone competent they might dodge the OTL collapse, but all that really does is store up problems for later. NATM is going to go wrong at some point, the OTL collapse had no casualties and so was the 'easiest' way to learn that lesson. Though looking at the timeline if it's built early enough they could dodge SCL/NATM completely, build it conventionally and leave some poor LU job in central London to have the first collapse!

That's quite a dump of text, hope you can find something useful in amongst it all! ;)

Luton and Stansted (and now Southend) airports should never have been allowed to develop to the extent they did OTL in my opinion. Luton is unexpendable and Stansted has a poor catchment area and transport links.
I would also add London City airport in the list as well, since lets face it the airport can't expand to any large extent and is very limited in the type of planes it can handle.

There was and there still is enough space for a four runways airprt in Cublington, easily expandable to six or even eight runways in the very long term should there be a need for it. With the right transport links, the airport could have been the airport not just of London but of almost the entire South East and parts of the Midlands as well.

You seem to know a lot of stuff about Heathrow, especially the past plans and such. I would be interested to know what your sources are from just out of curiosity because I would love to get my hands on more information about Heathrow for my own TL.
I agree that here, building T4 in the space of T5 as a midfield terminal makes perfect sense. This alt T4 could easily be expanded to accomodate upwards of 40 million passengers in the long run as well.

There is apparently enough space for a fourth runway in the north as well, BAA mentionned it as a possibility.

- OTL Heathrow T4 did not get built due to the better Intercity links, and the prospect of Channel Tunnel services sucking a lot of the market up for London to Paris trips.
- Consequently, Heathrow T4 is currently being planned and in public consultation in 1981 (which would serve a role akin to OTL Heathrow T5), at the west end of the airport.
- The Bath Road / M4 strip is being slowly being bought up by BAA in preparation for a Heathrow expansion.
- Gatwick / Stansted / Luton will continue reasonably as per OTL.

This means that now in this TL:

- Once the Chunnel is finished, Piccadilly line will be extended to Hatton Cross, Heathrow Central (T1,2,3) and Heathrow T4
- If Heathrow T5 goes ahead (between new northern runway and the thence central runway) all Piccadilly line trains will run to Heathrow Central, before then running to either T4 or T5.
- For a variety of reasons, I don't see a National Rail branch from the GWML to Paddington happening significantly before OTL, maybe 1990 at earliest, along the same route. Which means that NATM will probably be used again and the same issues encountered I guess.
- When the GWML-Heathrow branch is build, it gets constructed all the way through to Staines so this TL Heathrow services run through from London to Heathrow and on to Bracknell/Wokingham/Reading and Woking/Guildford. Although the tickets from those stations (except Reading) to London Paddington (via Heathrow) will be much more expensive then using the Waterloo services to discourage London passengers using airport services and thus using up the room.

Sounds good to me!

It ain't Heathrow, but the planning ideas could be worth looking at...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5466485&postcount=162 (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5466485&postcount=162)

The London Orbital Railway is definitely interesting, for a passenger one I would rather go Ashford -> Gatwick -> Heathrow -> Watford though.
As for the Thames Estuary Airport, well I really think it is time the Cublington option is dusted off again. But considering the mess luddites and other nimbysts are making over HS2 in the area it sadly won't happen with this government :rolleyes:.

Interesting though for some of the statistics. OTL-wise I'm all for laying down HS2 and onwards, and slapping a domestic air tax on inside GB (not applying to NI or RoI) flights to help pay for it after it's operational.

You don't need to tax air travel within Great Britain to reduce its market share, fast and efficient trains will do it just as well as the French experience has proven.

Moreover if you tax domestic flights, you will severly penalise people using Manchester to London flights to connect onwards to say New York ot Singapore. The airline industry is already burdened with taxes in this country, so enough is enough in my opinion unless we want to see the Gulf Arab carriers taking yet more market share.

The trains will moreover never compete on certain segments, like going from southwest England to Scotland. So let's leave it to the passengers to decide what is best and not the government!

Bureaucromancer

November 4th, 2011, 04:46 AM

Devvy

November 4th, 2011, 08:04 AM

An extension of the Newbury services might help in creating new patronage especially by serving Devizes (it is still a small town though). Bear in mind however that Bath would make a very poor terminus station as there are only two platforms and the station cannot be extended. The terminus of these services would therefore have to be Bristol TM.

Duly noted!

I was talking about the maps of the various lines ;).

Ah - well the answer is still some careful use of MSPaint! Give me a shout if you want any help :)

You don't need to tax air travel within Great Britain to reduce its market share, fast and efficient trains will do it just as well as the French experience has proven.

Moreover if you tax domestic flights, you will severly penalise people using Manchester to London flights to connect onwards to say New York ot Singapore. The airline industry is already burdened with taxes in this country, so enough is enough in my opinion unless we want to see the Gulf Arab carriers taking yet more market share.

The trains will moreover never compete on certain segments, like going from southwest England to Scotland. So let's leave it to the passengers to decide what is best and not the government!

Fair points. As long as they build HS2 I'm not too bothered really. I think a network of high speed lines as some people are clamouring for is unrealistic in GB, but a high speed line from London to the north could do wonders on many factors.

Devvy

November 4th, 2011, 05:00 PM

Just to clarify my thoughts on open access for Heathrow, I had in mind something like an inter terminal shuttle run by BAA on an otherwise BR Heathrow branch to solve the problem of charging for connections.

Of course this doesn't solve any of the problems relating to a lack of BR interest, but it does seem like an option if it were to get built before a serious need for inter terminal rail appears.

Of course, if we're talking a DLR like system, especially if its's a technology demonstrator maybe there's no Heathrow branch at all, just a light rail station offering a transfer to national rail at Hayes & Harlington and Ashford, Staines or Feltham.

Interesting thoughts about the BAA shuttle on a BR line. Food for thought - cheers :)

Otherwise, I think the mind shift resulting from the 1950s PoD means that BR will be willing to fund and construct the Heathrow branch itself. It's already found out that people are more then willing to pay and use fast and convenient trains (as per it's electrification successes), so tapping into the central London - Heathrow link with a fast and convenient train will be bait enough.

Dunois

November 4th, 2011, 05:16 PM

Fair points. As long as they build HS2 I'm not too bothered really. I think a network of high speed lines as some people are clamouring for is unrealistic in GB, but a high speed line from London to the north could do wonders on many factors.

I think the best high speed network Britain could hope for would be:
HS1: Channel to London
HS2: London to Birmingham and Leeds/Manchester
HS3: Leeds to Newcastle and Edinburgh/Glasgow
HS4: Manchester to Leeds (reusing Woodhead)

This way the bulk of the intercity traffic from London to points north would be transfered on the line and a significant part of Cross-Country trains would also be able to use the line further maximising its use.

In the longer term there might be a case for an HS5 which would be a London Orbital line similar to Paris interconnexion line. Extending HS3 to Glasgow and perhaps building an HS6 from London to about say Swindon through the Marlborough Downs. This way the GWML would be relieved of most of its long distance traffic until Swindon and journey times to Bristol and more importantly Exeter and Plymouth would be significantly improved.

There is no business case for a full Great Western high speed line, especially as the GWML itself could be significantly upgraded. Electrification alone would shave off between fifteen and twenty minutes on the Bristol to London journey. Upgrading the line speed to 200km/h and eventually 220km/h throughout, would also save a lot of time and the GWML is lucky to have an infrastructure initially designed for a broad gauge railway.

As much as I support HS2 I think that a lot of mistakes are being made already regarding the future use of the line. One mistake made in France when building the first high speed lines, was not to see them as "airplanes on rails" and not to include enough connections to the normal network. Looks like this mistake will be made with regards to HS2 by not including a station in High Wycombe for example.

The lack of electrification of the wider network will also limit synergies between HS2 and normal lines, which is a great shame.

If you TL it seems that while more lines have been electrified to an extent, there are huge gaps in the network and a lot of diversionary routes are left unelectrified. I very much hope that during the eighties your BR will adopt a rolling programme of electrification, as otherwise the potential savings brought in by electrification won't be maximised.

Devvy

November 4th, 2011, 05:39 PM

I think the best high speed network Britain could hope for would be:
HS1: Channel to London
HS2: London to Birmingham and Leeds/Manchester
HS3: Leeds to Newcastle and Edinburgh/Glasgow
HS4: Manchester to Leeds (reusing Woodhead)

This way the bulk of the intercity traffic from London to points north would be transfered on the line and a significant part of Cross-Country trains would also be able to use the line further maximising its use.

In the longer term there might be a case for an HS5 which would be a London Orbital line similar to Paris interconnexion line. Extending HS3 to Glasgow and perhaps building an HS6 from London to about say Swindon through the Marlborough Downs. This way the GWML would be relieved of most of its long distance traffic until Swindon and journey times to Bristol and more importantly Exeter and Plymouth would be significantly improved.

There is no business case for a full Great Western high speed line, especially as the GWML itself could be significantly upgraded. Electrification alone would shave off between fifteen and twenty minutes on the Bristol to London journey. Upgrading the line speed to 200km/h and eventually 220km/h throughout, would also save a lot of time and the GWML is lucky to have an infrastructure initially designed for a broad gauge railway.

As much as I support HS2 I think that a lot of mistakes are being made already regarding the future use of the line. One mistake made in France when building the first high speed lines, was not to see them as "airplanes on rails" and not to include enough connections to the normal network. Looks like this mistake will be made with regards to HS2 by not including a station in High Wycombe for example.

The lack of electrification of the wider network will also limit synergies between HS2 and normal lines, which is a great shame.

In your TL it seems that while more lines have been electrified to an extent, there are huge gaps in the network and a lot of diversionary routes are left unelectrified. I very much hope that during the eighties your BR will adopt a rolling programme of electrification, as otherwise the potential savings brought in by electrification won't be maximised.

For your HS4, the distance between Leeds and Manchester is not far, so the advantages of high speed over "normal" 100-125mph operation isn't that significant. In light of that, the lines from Manchester to Huddersfield were built as quadruple track:
- Manchester to Standedge tunnels as 2 pairs of 2 tracks.
- Standedge tunnels to Huddersfield as 4 track width, with 2 tracks existing
- Huddersfield to Dewsbury Junction is 4 track width, with mostly 3 tracks existing.

Dewsbury to Leeds is a bit more complex, but it's a very short distance to have to widen the line for 4 tracks. The inner 2 can then run fast doing ..... - Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds - ......

Otherwise I completely agree, although I'm way of posting all trains down a single link to London. Maybe separate high speed versions of WCML and ECML to London?

To skip back to this TL:
- More main lines are electrified. The only ones that aren't are the GWML and the cacophony of Cross Country routes.
- The rolling electrification only tailed off in the mid 1970s when the Anglo-Scottish WCML and ECML were finished off. Consider those engineers as currently as party studying & working on London - Chunnel link, partly doing some infill DC electrification in the south east of England and partly developing an electrified freight network. They'll be back in the 1980s.

A lot of BR's focus isn't really extending the electrification, but really getting the most out of the electrification they currently have at the moment. The APT2 project is dragging, and having an APT2 to run on the ECML as well seems a very long way off, so they are pondering different quickly obtainable trains at the moment. There is also a sizeable amount of thought going into the London - Chunnel link, where it terminates in London, how that affects Network South East services etc etc etc.

Devvy

November 6th, 2011, 01:55 PM

Channel Tunnel Update
August 1981

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/13/1880-chunnel.jpg
Works have uncovered the 1880 attempt at a Channel Tunnel

Damp conditions are continuing to hamper construction, and the damp air is causing issues with the laser precision. It is only thanks to the planned slow pace that things are generally still adhering to schedule, and things are still planned to be finished by 1986.

Further works beyond those originally planned have been required though, mostly with relation to improving safety and reducing environmental impact. These have pushed the projected final cost figure to roughly £2,500 million, an increase of almost 25%.

--------------
Notes: Sorry for the brevity. My in depth knowledge on exactly how tunnelling occurs is sadly lacking. Just tidying up BR's plans for HS1 currently, expect it later today.
EDIT NOTICE: Figure has been revised to £2,500 (25% higher) in response to El Pip's comments below.

El Pip

November 6th, 2011, 02:17 PM

Costs at £2.8 billion and it's a 40% over spend already? This is going to be nasty.

The OTL construction costs was something like £4.5 billion (not counting trains, control rooms and all sorts of other things that were dumped onto other budgets). So as they are building slowly TTL, which is more expensive, there at least another £2 billion to go, probably more. I'd say low end this will be £5 billion total if we're being generous.

In fact as as TTL the Chunnel has the joy of being funded and managed by the British and French governments in 'co-operation', the problems of the French construction being way behind schedule will cause some hilariously expensive political rows. And that's before we consider how many poor contractors and firms get hired due to 'political considerations' rather than being any good at the job. The potential for even bigger cost over runs than OTL is enormous.

But lets be optimistic, taking the low end £5 billion figure means a modest cost over run of only 250% - which is going to get future BR tunnel jobs crucified before they start. The next time they propose a big capital spend, like say Heathrow spur, they are just going to be laughed out of the room by the government. That or just punched in the face for the cheek of suggesting it.

Devvy

November 6th, 2011, 07:13 PM

El Pip

November 6th, 2011, 07:43 PM

Even though BR aren't involved in the Channel Tunnel... - BR are not managing or doing the tunnelling. If BR were to turn up and offer to invest money in the tunnel, surely they would be in a better position?
The problem is that the government has had to pay the costs of the Chunnel not the private sector. So every year during construction the Chancellor has had to revise his figures as the ever escalating costs of construction breaks his budget. They will therefore not been keen on ever taking on unlimited liability for a tunnelling job again.

This wont be a BR specific problem (though BR's ongoing support for the scheme wont help their reputation for engineering judgement or cost estimation), ANYONE proposing a tunnel scheme will get a bad reception. Could be some interesting fun for London Underground for instance.

Devvy

November 6th, 2011, 09:02 PM

El Pip

November 6th, 2011, 10:51 PM

I might revise the figure down a bit then...the figure is going to be inflated from the original, but I don't want to do it too high...

Maybe 25% higher (£2,500 mil). After all, the original OTL Channel Tunnel went wildly over budget, yet the Jubilee Line extension still went ahead.

Wikipedia quote: "At the 1994 completion, actual costs were, in 1985 prices, £4650 million: an 80% cost overrun."

So in this TL, I'm thinking a final cost of roughly £3,500 mil (at 1978 prices) - sound reasonable? That would be a cost overrun of 75% (similar to OTL overrun).
I agree with that number, but probably not for reasons you'll like!

The issue is comparing '78 and '85 prices. Inflation was terrifying around then, I think it topped 20% in 1980, so £3,500 mill in '78 prices works out at £6,500 mill in '85 prices. Looking at all the problems and allowing for typical government overspend I'd say that looks all too plausible. Also makes the actual price look cheap!

That said I can see one way you can save some money, the job is pre-King's Cross Fire TTL so there will be no fire safety improvements or modifications. The down side is that means when there is a fire, and given TTL Chunnel is being built on the cheap there will be far more fires, it will be a terrible, terrible disaster.

Basically if you want a safe and properly built tunnel the cost is going to be 'too high', there are too many things people only found out once they were down there. No-one knew the French would have such problems making progress (and letting the British dig it instead wasn't possible OTL, let alone now this is a public project!), and of course TTL there isn't even the Japanese experience to draw on so the Chunnel will have to learn those lessons itself, which will also bump up the cost.

Of course you could try and argue that the joint Frano-British civil service efforts accurately priced something, but that's just ASB isn't it? :D

Dunois - I did a lot of underground inspections around Heathrow, (tunnels, shafts, the morgues, that sort of stuff) so had to go through all the records and speak to the on-site guys. I picked the history up from there so no sources I can point you at I'm afraid, all in my head.

Devvy

November 6th, 2011, 11:38 PM

Cheers. I'll leave that figure in place then, even if it makes it bloody expensive come '85 prices.

Need to figure out how not to completely stunt growth...without at least most of HS1, this TL version of Eurostar will have somewhat stunted growth.

With regard to fires, if road vehicles aren't going through tunnel because there are no vehicle trains yet, will there still be many fires? Both the serious fires in the Chunnel have been caused by HGVs on the HGV shuttle train - something that isn't going to happen here (at least not yet). And with electric-only operation fire risk will be reduced (although not completely, I'll touch on that another time).

(Although come to think of it this afternoon, the price will be half each for the UK and French governments...)

Devvy

November 7th, 2011, 06:19 PM

British Rail High Speed 1 Project Plan
Published November 1981

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/14/cannon-street.jpg
London Cannon Street station during recent maintenance works

British Rail, in co-ordination with SNCF, is planning a high speed link from London to the Channel Tunnel and onwards to Paris in order to offer high speed train services from London to Paris. These services are intended to be fully competitive with air travel in order to maximise the market share and revenues.

We have considered a range of ideas, routes and terminii in order to evaluate all options with the goal of selecting an option for British Rail to take forward. Overall, the link between London and Paris would offer a city centre to city centre route which avoids the need to travel out to an airport for transport. The link could also potentially offer far faster domestic links to outlying areas of Kent, which all suffer from long train times into central London.

Travel times between London and Folkestone currently take approximately 1hr 50 minutes. Early projections of travel time between the two using the High Speed 1 link would take approximately 1 hour - almost a 50% saving.

High Speed 1: Part 1

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/14/hs1-1.jpg
Map of High Speed 1, eastern half

High Speed 1, from the Channel Tunnel end, would first require the quadrupling of the South East Main Line (SEML) through Folkestone. Maximum speed for the Channel Tunnel is planned to be 100mph, so even international express speeds can pass through Folkestone (both stations) at a lower speed.

The line will then run adjacent to the SEML, but at a safe distance to allow high speed running without affecting SEML services. Upon reaching Ashford, the line will fork to allow stopping services at dedicated high-speed platforms, with the other side of the fork passing over the station (and line to Canterbury West). North of Ashford, the two branches will re-merge to continue running north-west adjacent to the M20 until Maidstone where the line passes under the A249, whereupon it curves north to then run adjacent to the M2 (and later A2) towards London. Upon passing Gravesend, we hit Part 2.

High Speed 1: Part 2

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/14/hs1-2.jpg
Map of High Speed 1, western half

High Speed 1 will then enter a tunnel that will run directly under the A296/A207B210, in a dead straight line, towards London as far as Greenwich Park. Upon crossing Greenwich Park (still in a straight line), the line will run underneath the Greenwich Line, before rising as it has passes Deptford Station to join the rest of the London terminii bound lines (on the north side). A new intermediate junction station will be constructed (potentially called Bermondsey Junction), in order to be able to provide an interchange point for passengers. The line then runs through London Bridge station with out stopping, before turning north into London Cannon Street station, which will be redeveloped for dedicated high speed operations. Services currently using Cannon Street station will be displaced elsewhere (to be discussed in the Redevelopment of Rail in London Project Plan).

-----------------
Notes:
Obviously HS1 was eventually built OTL, but it's development took a markedly different approach. HS1: Part 1 was built almost identically, the only difference being around Folkestone. Due to the OTL vehicle trains requiring a vehicle station to load/unload, all trains bypassed Folkestone running past the Eurotunnel terminal and then up towards Ashford. Here, the absence of Eurotunnel trains means the line curves slightly further south, emerging just east of Folkestone and then running through Folkestone.

HS1: Part 2 is very different however. The OTL plans (in the 1990s) were to run through SE London and then have a terminus around Kings Cross, which would realistically be underground which is highly expensive. In this TL though, the 80s money situation means BR have reined in their proposals, to redevelop an already existing station for the new line and reroute traffic elsewhere to create the capacity.

I chose Cannon Street as it's immediately in the business district of the City of London (where a lot of the potential London - Paris market will be), with reasonable tranport connections (and more in the Redevelopment of Rail in London Project Plan) and is facing the right direction. It also already has long platforms for the commuter services, that can semi-easily be extended over the river if neccessary. The tunnel run approaching London is a straight line as well under a road which makes tunnelling a little easier (no/very few overhead buildings). Rail services currently using Cannon Street can be reasonably easily diverted to Blackfriars and Charing Cross.

And I intend to look at how and why BR managed to get HS1 following on from chronic Government overspend on the Channel Tunnel itself later.

Dunois

November 7th, 2011, 08:12 PM

Good update but I am very skeptical about Cannon Street being the terminus in London as it is right in the middle of nowhere.

The OTL plans before the diversion of HS1 through Stratford for political reasons courtesy of that cunt Michael Heseltine, indeed included an underground station in King's Cross but this was only one of the possible options. The second option being using Waterloo as terminus and building HS1 through south London, something which apparently only required tunneling in some shirt sections as opposed to under entire areas of London.

I could see the Waterloo option gaining as much traction TTL, since it could after all only be a first stage before then building on an underground line towards King's Cross. I must alos note that while expensive an underground line to King's Cross offers the huge asset of subsequently making onwards connections to the north a lot easier. You would essentially end up with an High Speed Crossrail where trains coming from Paris could continue on to Manchester (and pick up domestic passengers on the way) and trains coming from the north continue onwards to the continent or terminate at say Ashford or Dover.
Commercially this option would yield more dividends in the long run, as it would create new services.

The connection to the wider BR network will be very poor in Cannon Street as well, something to bear in mind since OTL some trains were diverted to Waterloo precisely in order to make journeys from outside London to the Continent easier (there used to be a HST service from Bristol to Waterloo until about 1998 for this reason).

You call but I don't think that Cannon St cuts it personally. Even more so considering that only the Circle/District and TTL Jubilee lines serve this station.

Devvy

November 7th, 2011, 09:57 PM

I shall answer that with....(kapow)....the "Redevelopment of Rail in London Project Plan".

Devvy

November 7th, 2011, 10:06 PM

Redevelopment of Rail in London Project Plan
Published November 1981

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/9/br-arrows.jpg

In collaboration with the British Rail High Speed department's recommendations for High Speed 1 and the London Transport Executive, British Rail has been evaluating options to provide capacity for the new high speed terminus at London Cannon Street station.

Many options have been considered in order to cater for the new high speed line in London. The rising passenger levels and potential for overcrowding on transport links in London have also been evaluated, in order to maximise benefits from any potential new infrastructure. We are therefore pleased to propose a new cross-London transport link.

The Cross London Rail Link

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/14/cross-london.jpg
Cross London Rail Link logo

The core of the proposal is the transfer from the London Transport Executive of the Northern City Line to British Rail, joining it to the local services lines to the north of London, and extending it to the south via the currently disused Bricklayers Arms Branch.

This will allow services from the north of London to run directly through the heart of London to the south of London. By using the Bricklayers Arms branch to access the Brighton Main Line to the south, the busy London Bridge section of line can be avoided, freeing up lines and capacity for the proposed High Speed 1 line.

By utilising the Northern City Line and Bricklayers Arms branch as a starting point, new infrastructure works are kept to a minimum; new tunnelling is only required from Old Street to the Bricklayers Arms depot, with new stations at Moorgate (underground), Cannon Street (underground), Borough (underground) and at Bricklayers Arms (primarily above ground). New tunnelling is required from Old Street to Moorgate in order for the line to be deep enough to cross under the River Thames.

Services to the north of London will take over current services from Kings Cross station to Welwyn Garden City and Hertford, as well as using the London Underground line to High Barnet, in total providing 3 branches to the north of London. To the south of London, services will take over the branches to Sutton (via West Croydon), Tattenham Corner and Caterham, as well as the stopping services to Three Bridges (via Redhill).

As well as freeing up capacity for the High Speed 1 line, it will also serve to reduce congestion on the London Underground Northern Line (Bank branch) by carrying some passengers from the High Barnet branch, and creating a new north-south line broadly mirroring the Northern Line through the City of London.

Bakerloo Line Extension

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/14/bakerloo.jpg
Bakerloo Line at Queens Park

The second part of the Redevelopment of Rail in London Project Plan is the extension of the Bakerloo Line from Elephant & Castle station into south east London. The line will be extended to the new Bricklayers Arms station (with an intermediate stop at New Kent Road) and then south east along the A2 Old Kent Road with stations at Camberwell and Peckham underneath the A2 road. The extension will then continue underneath the main roads, with an interchange station at New Cross Gate, and then head over to Lewisham with an intermediate station for St Johns (with the corresponding British Rail station closing). The line will then have a station at Lewisham (another interchange point) and Blackheath (with the BR station closing as well). The line will rise above ground through the Kidbrooke Tunnel by digging out the bottom of the tunnel and then take over the rest of the Bexleyheath Line, terminating at a new station for Barnes Cray just before the line reaches the North Kent Line.

Bermondsey Junction

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/14/junction.jpg
Rail Junctions

Bermondsey Junction will a new railway station proposed, that is proposed to be situated to the west of Deptford Park where the lines from London Bridge diverge. It will serve as a major interchange point between rail services, and potentially high speed services from Kent. The station will offer interchange between services on:
- Routes along High Speed 1, between London and Kent
- Routes towards North Kent (via the Greenwich, North Kent & Dartford Loop Lines)
- Routes along the South East Main Line (that have not been transferred to the HS1 line
- Routes along the Hayes Line
- Routes along the Brighton Main Line (including the new Cross London services)

Inner South London Line services from London Victoria station will be diverted away from London Bridge station to terminate at the new Bermondsey Junction station using the extant permenant works from a previous link between the ISLL and the East London Line, which will result in South Bermondsey station closing. The East London Line will continue to terminate at New Cross and New Cross Gate stations to the south, but will gain an additional station for Bermondsey Junction.

North London Line

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/14/nll.jpg
North London Line crosses the Great Western Main Line

Considering the dilapidated state of Broad Street station, it is proposed to close Broad Street station and demolish it. The land can then be sold for redevelopment for business in the well sought after area. The line down to Broad Street (through Hoxton and Haggerston) from Dalston will close, although the LTE have expressed an interest in taking over the line to Dalston and extending the East London Line from Shoreditch to Dalston which would add a great deal of value to the line. British Rail will be happy to transfer the line for London Underground usage.

Pending more concrete plans from the London Dockland Development Corporation, British Rail will investigate the re-opening of the line from Hackney to the Docklands. The line was badly damaged during the Blitz in World War II and never re-opened subsequently.

Fleet Line

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/abr/14/fleet-line.jpg
Promotional diagram for the new Bond Street station before the original Fleet Line construction

The Fleet Line was planned to reach into east and south eastern London, but construction was halted just east of Fenchurch Street during the 1970s, in part due to financing issues and in part due to the Channel Tunnel construction. The London Transport Executive is now planning to extend the line, broadly along the same alignment. This will result in British Rail transferring to the London Underground the eastern tip of the North London Line, east of Custom House (which will act as an interchange point between the services. The line will also utilise Plumstead station to the east of Woolwich before taking over the ex-military alignment towards Thamesmead. The alignment from Custom House through Beckton has also been safeguarded for a second branch for the Fleet Line.

-------------
Notes:

Cross-London Link
In 1980, BR produced a Cross-London Link brochure (where the picture comes from), which investigated several options (showing they were keen on building a new cross London BR underground line - but bizarrely not including the now Thameslink line at all, even as an option). The one I've used here was not documented at all, but considering the future use of Cannon Street, it seems sensible. The two ends of the Bricklayers Arms branch and the end of the Northern City Line are not far apart, and the required building infrastructure is small in comparison to other major projects, which keeps the cost down. This gives Cannon Street direct access to services from the south and north. Also, because of where the location of Cannon Street, come this TL "Regional Eurostar", this will be possible using HS1 and then sending services up the currently unused line through Blackfriars and onwards to Birmingham (via WCML) or Nottingham (via MML). I think destinations further north are out of realistic reach (ie. Paris - Manchester) as the journey time is too long. Although I intend that as being the thought at this point in the TL, I think that BR will end up using the OTL-Thameslink line for the same use as OTL - Thameslink commuter services due to the congestion in London.

Bakerloo Line extension
Extending the Bakerloo seems to be talked about every decade, but has never actually happened. Here, it has been extended in order to reduce the demands on the London Bridge throat and free up room for Cannon Street "International". Almost all Bakerloo line extension proposals either take the form of an extension to: Camberwell and sometimes Peckham (original proposal dating back to 1947, Hayes and Addiscombe via the Hayes Line from Lewisham, or the Bexleyheath line (as I've done here).

Bermondsey Junction
Out of town interchange to spread passenger loads

North London Line
Broad Street station closed in the 1980s as well, the funds from the land sale being used to redevelop Liverpool Street station in it's current guise. The line leading to it remained BR, but derelict though. So here we will transfer to London Underground (rather then wait 20 years then transfer to London Overground) for continued use if possible.

Fleet Line
Extension to at least North Greenwich and Beckton likely, possibly extensions on that to Thamesmead (as per original plans in this TL) and Dagenham respectively.