British Rail sanity options : 1948 - 2000

[focus9912]

Although the total amount of additional power needed with a maximum extent of electrification would be surprisingly small - AFAIK it's on the order of one 2,000W power station of the type built in fairly large numbers through the 1960s and 1970s.

Huh, perhaps there would be only one additional power plant that would be build to accommodate this, although with hindsight, they should haven build more than one since an old news report covering about British Rail (NSE in particular) in the 80s that mentioned the fact that they could not even put on longer electric train as a result of the huge power draw from the Docklands Development.

I don't know about inevitable - that depends how you feel about neoliberalism.

The reason I said inevitable was more of a reaction to the fact that it looks like the "really hard to persuade them to do things that aren't preferred by them" British Civil Service was one of the main driving force of the opinion that the railways needed to be broken up...

 

[El Pip]

British Civil Service was one of the main driving force of the opinion that the railways needed to be broken up...

It was 1991 under the Delors Commission that the EEC first start saying it liked the idea of splitting track operators from train operators - Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways - "if a distinction is made between the provision of transport services and the operation of infrastructure; whereas given this situation, it is necessary for these two activities to be separately managed and have separate accounts;"

Every single commission since then had held this line and only strengthened it, going from it being necessary to a full on legal requirement. The aim was a common rail area, under common safety and signals, so more cross-border train routes can be setup, to deepen integration, links and the common market. So to make sure that the track charges are 'fair' you split the accounts so there is no cross-subsidy and open it up to other operators to run services. This has been EU policy for thirty years under multiple commissions and has repeatedly been agreed with by the EU parliament and councils, it may have all sorts of operational problems and impracticalities but it is based on core EC/EU values and not some evil scheme imposed on it by anyone.

I also have to say the idea that the British civil service is full of elite puppet masters who can somehow convince everyone in the UK and Europe to implement their nefarious ideas is the kind of crazy conspiracy theory that only people who have never dealt with British civil servants could possibly believe.

 

[The History Man]

Hmm...I guess coal power station would be the first choice if there is a need for new power plants required to power thd additional rail electrification is it?

Back in the 1970s, yes. The 'dash for gas' came later (1980s/1990s). These days, there would be a push to expand the use of renewable energy.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

Any plans for that for the 'Unbuilt Britain' thread??

I'm not aware of any actual plans as such as I was basing my post on the building of the Metropolitan Line (when there was a ban on building train lines in London directly due to the 1846 Royal Commission on Metropolitan Railway Termini.

Here's a snippet from Wikipedia

The congested streets and the distance to the City from the stations to the north and west prompted many attempts to get parliamentary approval to build new railway lines into the City. None were successful, and the 1846 Royal Commission on Metropolitan Railway Termini banned construction of new lines or stations in the built-up central area. The concept of an underground railway linking the City with the mainline termini was first proposed in the 1830s. Charles Pearson, Solicitor to the City, was a leading promoter of several schemes and in 1846 proposed a central railway station to be used by multiple railway companies. The scheme was rejected by the 1846 commission, but Pearson returned to the idea in 1852 when he helped set up the City Terminus Company to build a railway from Farringdon to King's Cross. The plan was supported by the City, but the railway companies were not interested and the company struggled to proceed

I'll have a look though.

 

[MKD]

but it depends what your aim is.

Aim: reduction of cost via economy of scale and standardisation.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Any plans for that for the 'Unbuilt Britain' thread??

There's an article on Ian Visits:

Unbuilt London: Farringdon’s massive railway terminus

A giant railway terminus was once planned for central London that would have swept away all the land between Holborn and Farringdon. Obviously never built, its failure indirectly lead to the creation of the London Underground.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

The proposal was from 1842 , rather than the 1850s, so predates all the major London termini north of the river except Euston and Paddington. With provision for twenty-four north-facing terminal platforms in four sets of six, there's no way it would cope with all London's terminal traffic.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

There's an article on Ian Visits:

Unbuilt London: Farringdon’s massive railway terminus

A giant railway terminus was once planned for central London that would have swept away all the land between Holborn and Farringdon. Obviously never built, its failure indirectly lead to the creation of the London Underground.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

The proposal was from 1842 , rather than the 1850s, so predates all the major London termini north of the river except Euston and Paddington. With provision for twenty-four north-facing terminal platforms in four sets of six, there's no way it would cope with all London's terminal traffic.

Nice article.

There you go PMN1, job done.

 

[Dan1988]

Just curious - especially if we're having British Rail use standardized locomotives equipment etc., could it be possible for British Rail and other private companies to produce exportable material? Okay, so there already was some of that IOTL, so it's not as far-fetched as it sounds, *but* if we're especially going for standardization, it could also have some effect on overseas markets - and not just narrower-gauge systems due to Britain's unusual loading gauge. I am also thinking of the potential, especially for the lucrative American market, to stretch out the material and adapt it for ICC/FRA compliance, if need be.

 

[Devvy]

Just curious - especially if we're having British Rail use standardized locomotives equipment etc., could it be possible for British Rail and other private companies to produce exportable material? Okay, so there already was some of that IOTL, so it's not as far-fetched as it sounds, *but* if we're especially going for standardization, it could also have some effect on overseas markets - and not just narrower-gauge systems due to Britain's unusual loading gauge. I am also thinking of the potential, especially for the lucrative American market, to stretch out the material and adapt it for ICC/FRA compliance, if need be.

Standardisation is nice, but I don't think it'll help the export market to the USA. For example, US/Canada have couplings which can accommodate heavier loads, so the trains are longer and thus the locomotives are both larger and much more powerful than those in the UK. Greater export markets to Australia and New Zealand would be interesting though; even the Kiwi rail system uses largerly the same rail equipment with just the wheels squashed together a bit.

You might also be able to spin out some export markets in other Commonwealth nations in Africa, but I think Aus/NZ is probably the best bet similar to the IC125 export.

 

[Dan1988]

Standardisation is nice, but I don't think it'll help the export market to the USA. For example, US/Canada have couplings which can accommodate heavier loads, so the trains are longer and thus the locomotives are both larger and much more powerful than those in the UK.

OTOH, though, around the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was serious talk in Boston, MA, to replace the existing commuter rail network, at least up to I-495, with an extension of the subway system (yes, I know, sounds crazy). Of the existing lines where "express" service could be used, at least two have loading gauges narrow enough for a British MU to fit, probably either Mark 2 or Mark 3 based. So a straight export could work, if need be with a local partner. Also, just because there are differences between North American rail systems and British ones does not preclude the possibility of accommodation to make it workable. Otherwise, I understand.

 

[Devvy]

OTOH, though, around the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was serious talk in Boston, MA, to replace the existing commuter rail network, at least up to I-495, with an extension of the subway system (yes, I know, sounds crazy). Of the existing lines where "express" service could be used, at least two have loading gauges narrow enough for a British MU to fit, probably either Mark 2 or Mark 3 based. So a straight export could work, if need be with a local partner. Also, just because there are differences between North American rail systems and British ones does not preclude the possibility of accommodation to make it workable. Otherwise, I understand.

Fair point, I didn't think about the passenger segment. The low platform height is a challenge (as there's no need for platform steps in the coach in the UK), but that's not impossible to get over if it at least has some capability to fit steps if needed (see: Eurostar / 373 units). There's probably scope for coaching stock, Mk3 coaches especially as they are a good solid design with heating/air conditioning built in, decent seating - could potentially replace the Amfleet coaches in OTL?

 

[Ogrebear]

In terms of the export market what about India? They use a similar setup to the UK don’t they?

On a different matter when BR was formed they also got a bunch of hotels and ferries as I recall, what if they where allowed and did keep them to generate revenue?

 

[Dan1988]

Fair point, I didn't think about the passenger segment. The low platform height is a challenge (as there's no need for platform steps in the coach in the UK), but that's not impossible to get over if it at least has some capability to fit steps if needed (see: Eurostar / 373 units).

At least as far as Boston's system in concerned, whenever they built extensions to the subway IOTL (cf. the Southwest Corridor to the Orange Line or the South Shore Line extension to the Red Line, to give some recent ones - GLX is different as the Green Line is LRT), high-level platforms are taken for granted as part of the construction. However, as a good portion of the commuter rail network involves many historic stations, what the MBTA historically did was utilize "mini-high" platforms instead (primarily for ADA compliance). Otherwise, what you mentioned makes a lot of sense.

There's probably scope for coaching stock, Mk3 coaches especially as they are a good solid design with heating/air conditioning built in, decent seating - could potentially replace the Amfleet coaches in OTL?

Sounds like a plan, particularly with the travails of the Metroliner in the 1960s. Once BR has begun exporting material across the Atlantic, then there's scope to expand further into coaching stock. It would just need at least someone to get the ball going.

For example, in the case of the MBTA, a Mark 3 MU would be in place of the Hawker-Siddley units that came online in 1978 (for the Blue Line) and 1981 (for the Orange Line, and in that case directly replacing earlier Pullman-Standard units from the 1950s), both based on a proven type used for the PATH around that time, as well as various other units by Pullman-Standard in the early 1970s and UTDC in the 1980s for the Red Line (although because of the older age of the Red Line, a Mark 2-derived MU could also work). Much like the distinction between inner-suburban and outer-suburban models that BREL, Metro-Cammell, and others used for the Mark 3-derived units, the MBTA's requirements (if we're going with the plan to extend the subway), would involve more rapid transit-esque "local" units (so something more Waterloo and City Line-esque, but with the loading gauge of a normal British train rather than the Tube - although for the Red Line the main difference is a 10 ft./~3 m width) and regional "express" units for suburban/regional service. One interesting idea here (as mentioned in a report dated late 1972/early 1973 commissioned by the T) would be something akin to how the Blue Line operates IOTL, where on conventional lines used for suburban/regional rail the units could use pantographs, but once it got into the rapid transit network proper it would switch to third rail power (600V DC for all three lines), normally as it's stopped at a station while loading and unloading passengers. If using British units is successful in Boston, then other orders could come in from different systems wanting new rolling stock.

In terms of the export market what about India? They use a similar setup to the UK don’t they?

Not since it was recreated after independence - they replaced their stock with American locomotives and Swiss coaching stock which they then locally manufactured, so it's long gone towards that direction.

 

[focus9912]

the Kiwi rail system uses largerly the same rail equipment with just the wheels squashed together a bit.

Speaking of using the same rail equipment but with the wheels squashed a bit, a Pacer train had been sent to Thailand & Malaysia for some trials before immediately rejected (probably due to poor build quality) and instead choose to buy either Japanese DMUs (NKF and THN class) or Hungarian railbus respectively. That being said, Thailand did eventually bought some Sprinters (ASR class) in the early 90s and some BR Class 360s in the 2000s, while Malaysia bought Hunslet designed KTM class 81, which derived heavily from the BR class 323...

Perhaps in a better performing BR that meant they could afford to only focusing on developing the Sprinters (instead of also desperately in need to deploy the Pacers), a class 150 prototype (which should at the very least have better build quality) instead would be shipped to South East Asia, BREL should at the very least get the contract for supply railcars to the Thai railway..

 

[Dan1988]

Perhaps in a better performing BR that meant they could afford to only focusing on developing the Sprinters (instead of also desperately in need to deploy the Pacers), a class 150 prototype (which should at the very least have better build quality) instead would be shipped to South East Asia, BREL should at the very least get the contract for supply railcars to the Thai railway..

For me, for some strange reason that even I cannot explain, I've found the Class 210 to be an interesting idea worth pursuing, either on its own and/or as an option for joint manufacture with someone else. In the case of the latter, there's all those unused body shells from Budd's disastrous SPV-2000 project meant to be a modern successor to the RDC - and, as Budd has licensed its technology to other companies, could also see similar involvement in other markets with Brazil's Mafersa, Portugal's Sorefame, Japan's Tokyu Car Corporation, and the like. The Class 210 could coexist with the Sprinters, which could also take over many of the roles of the Pacers IOTL, by bring a "Super/Express" version well before the actual versions IOTL - if the problems could be worked out beforehand, or maybe if both the Classes 210 as a DMU and 317 as an EMU were in development as a single project idea. Rather than two separate versions of the 210, then, the three-car inner-suburban version (along with the original railbus conception) could be used for the 150 and 151 (if the issues Metro-Cammell had were fixed beforehand), hence focusing the 210 solely on the four-car outer-suburban version along with the 317.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Perhaps in a better performing BR that meant they could afford to only focusing on developing the Sprinters (instead of also desperately in need to deploy the Pacers), a class 150 prototype (which should at the very least have better build quality) instead would be shipped to South East Asia, BREL should at the very least get the contract for supply railcars to the Thai railway..

Actually, one of the WIs for the 1980s is BR being able to convince the government that Pacers actually aren't any cheaper than Sprinters. Because they weren't. If every Pacer ordered was built as a 150 instead, that would be a marked improvement for rail travel in a good part of the UK.

 

[Dan1988]

Actually, one of the WIs for the 1980s is BR being able to convince the government that Pacers actually aren't any cheaper than Sprinters. Because they weren't. If every Pacer ordered was built as a 150 instead, that would be a marked improvement for rail travel in a good part of the UK.

The problem with that thinking, however, is balancing that with British Leyland's woes - hence why the bus body was used in the first place. Otherwise, I agree that it would be cheaper to turn those OTL Pacer orders into Sprinters, even if they were one-car versions.

 

[focus9912]

The problem with that thinking, however, is balancing that with British Leyland's woes - hence why the bus body was used in the first place. Otherwise, I agree that it would be cheaper to turn those OTL Pacer orders into Sprinters, even if they were one-car versions.

Ehh, what was British Leyland woes actually, is it just only money problem, or is there something else (like perhaps lots of finished bus bodies need to be disposed of)that I wasn't aware of...?


One would argue a better performing British Rail could potentially already butterfly BL's woes by the 1980s, either by persuading the British government that investment into public transport works, and order more buses as well to complement BR services ITTL, or by making their car sales lower as a result of less demand for private transport and bankrupting British Leyland faster, which perhaps....eventually...persuade Thatcher to breakup & privatize BL earlier (during her first term).

Besides, if British Leyland somehow end up similar ITTL and therefore Leyland really need to get a work contract... couldn't BR partner with Leyland to develop or at the very least eventually build the Sprinter, since IIRC BL eventually did partner with BREL to build the class 155 and 153s IOTL?

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

How about actually putting the APT (Class 370) into service instead of giving up on them.

According to reports most of the problems apart from the braking mechanisms had been fixed by 1984 and three sets were in common usage on the ECML.

Would putting in a entire fleet on the ECML help?
Are there plenty of sales opportunities if this happens?
Could both the Class 43's (InterCity 125) and Class 370's (InterCity 155) be used at the same time?

 

[Dan1988]

Ehh, what was British Leyland woes actually, is it just only money problem, or is there something else (like perhaps lots of finished bus bodies need to be disposed of)that I wasn't aware of...?

From what I can tell, it was both. BL's trucks and buses division was struggling with falling demand for its main bus model, and this was compounded with the wider issues surrounding British Leyland at the time in terms of money woes, industrial relations disputes, and appalling build quality for its passenger models. Hence why the main bus model in British Leyland's portfolio was used as the body, although in reality it could have been any busbuilder and their main models (for example, GM and the RTS series of buses). Now, a railbus model itself using an actual bus body in and of itself is not a bad idea - it's what happened once it was mated to a freight wagon chassis when the Pacer got some of its reputation. Had it used an actual passenger rail body chassis, the Pacer could have turned out differently, although that's probably me salvaging the unsalvageable. All of this, of course, was coupled with Government pressure on the remaining rural and branch lines which the Pacer was supposed to serve and which - as we all now know in hindsight - even a one-car Sprinter would have been a better alternative.

One would argue a better performing British Rail could potentially already butterfly BL's woes by the 1980s, either by persuading the British government that investment into public transport works, and order more buses as well to complement BR services ITTL,

Which could be the better option here, although to do that would basically require that BL as such doesn't exist. Meaning: a) no Austin-Nuffield merger creating BMC in 1952, thereby forcing both companies to shape up, and b) Leyland continuing to specialize in buses and trucks, because that's what it does best - even if it still acquires Standard-Triumph as IOTL, the heart of the company was still buses and trucks.

or by making their car sales lower as a result of less demand for private transport and bankrupting British Leyland faster, which perhaps....eventually...persuade Thatcher to breakup & privatize BL earlier (during her first term).

Hmm, turning BL into Honda UK would have been something that would have considerably expanded on OTL - all the more so since Honda never had a presence in the bus market (that was usually the work of other Japanese automakers, like Toyota). In any case, the demand for passenger cars is still going to be there, if only because of it becoming (on both sides of the Atlantic, I should add) a middle-class status symbol that was highly desirable. So there's that tension where BR could serve as a complementary parallel/alternative. At the same time, knowing what we know of Donald Stokes and later Michael Edwardes, I'm surprised that BL didn't shut down (most of) the BL marques faster than OTL, even with the union issues, but that's just me.

Besides, if British Leyland somehow end up similar ITTL and therefore Leyland really need to get a work contract... couldn't BR partner with Leyland to develop or at the very least eventually build the Sprinter, since IIRC BL eventually did partner with BREL to build the class 155 and 153s IOTL?

That would be a great idea!