Bangor in busier years.
Out of interest, OTL, how many stations have a track layout like Bangor where the line for the platform comes off the through line so allows continued through line use when there is a train at the station?
12:08 - Redux
- Thread starter Devvy
- Start date
Out of interest, OTL, how many stations have a track layout like Bangor where the line for the platform comes off the through line so allows continued through line use when there is a train at the station?
Devvy
Donor
It's reasonably common, mostly on routes which are now secondary but were more important trunk routes in previous decades/centuries (so are double track, but need passing loops due to busy train traffic). You either had the station with platforms on loops from the main line like Bangor (which had 2 platform loops in each direction), or you had loops but with platforms on both the main and loop - which still allowed fast trains to overtake slow trains. If the former type, where the straight main lines did not serve platforms, they were often removed to make pure double track; simplifying pointwork, signalling, maintenance.
Bangor, Harrogate, Bicester, Bury St Edmunds, High Wycombe, Andover, Yeovil Junction, Lancaster all had through running tracks, some of them retaining one or two of them (or showing a massive gap between the platform tracks which is the dead give away). And that's just the 2 minute think & check results, probably dozens and dozens more considering the amount of trunk routes which are no longer as busy.
2006-Pullman-II
Devvy
Donor
2006 - Pullman II: A Brief History, by Kit Trackman
Train design is a precise engineering game.
The planned routes north to Scotland, were far from the somewhat straight and gentle southern section of the line which was inherited from the "London Extension" of the Great Central Railway. There were major bends, especially in Northumbria and southern Scotland, and this severely limited the top speed of the train - and thus the business case for ever higher speeds. However, the existence of the route, even if bendy, meant that it would at least be built; the new Labour Government was more willing to spend then the previous Conservative Government - but it was hardly taps fully on. The southern half of the route had some scope for faster speeds, but not huge amounts, and whilst the northern half would receive investment to straighten bends out and some stretches of new track, it was hardly going to be a racetrack, with several sections limiting speeds to circa 160km/h. This combination of factors, as well as a booming customer base for the Pullman existing services, meant a slight change in priorities for British Rail with Pullman development.
The introduction of Pullman services by British Rail had brought Manchester just over 2 hours from London, and Leeds just under 2 hours from London - extraordinary timings considering previous iterations of service. The new trains - fast, regular and comfortable had proved a boon for ticket sales, and most trains around rush hour were usually sold out (with seat reservations mandatory as standard anyhow), and most trains also fairly busy for the rest of the day. Leeds especially seemed to have been a case of connected "at the right time"; deindustrialisation in the north had proved painful, but Leeds was rapidly evolving in to a second financial centre for the UK, with several medium sized banking corporations headquartered there. Manchester was also being transformed; although it had not won the bid for the 2000 Summer Olympics, it had come a semi-respectable third (above close rivals in Europe; Berlin and Istanbul), and the Commonwealth Games in 2002 had been a boon for regeneration in Manchester. The 1996 UEFA European Championship, held in England, also saw 6 of the 8 venues in Pullman connected cities, and large contingents of fans traversed England between venues via the system - foreign visitors especially. 2004 had seen the Pullman stations assigned IATA airport codes, and Pullman services airline identifiers, so that British Airways (and potentially other airlines) could book seats on the Pullman trains to act as domestic feeder services in to Britannia Airport, especially from the north of the country.
Earlier test trains, most notably the P300, had achieved significantly faster speeds, but only on short sections of the route. It had however pushed forward the development of new lightweight structures, aerodynamics, and electrical technologies - things which would be highly useful no matter which way the new Pullman train would eventually evolve. The first design studies began in 2000, with the northern extension getting well underway, and it was clear that new rolling stock would be needed - the existing design being over 25 years old now, and this being an opportunity to renew the entire fleet, and cascade the existing trains downwards.
Some key design requirements quickly evolved during discussions:
Early conceptual model of the train. Note the smaller cab window to avoid drivers becoming mesmerised inside the Channel Tunnel.
By 2004, the design had been completed sufficiently to be locked down, and a tender process begun in the market to procure the stock. Despite the close partnership between British Rail and GMEC (the "e" added to avoid legal issues with GMC in North America where GMEC were attempting to procure export orders to), the regulators allowed the award of the tender to GMEC, and the manufacture could begin. In truth, the European Union and other EU member states could hardly complain; SNCF and Alstom, and DB with Siemens conducted their business in an almost identical fashion.
The train design principles were very closely followed by GMEC. Rather than the locomotive/coach principle used on the Pullman-1 trains, the Pullman-2 would use a multiple-unit design. This was now possible following the amendment of legislation prohibiting passengers in the first carriage of a train travelling over 100mph; this would now be possible if the train was using the safer balise in-cab signalling. First class seats would be positioned towards the southern end of the train as it passed through London (creating the opposite condition in Liverpool and Glasgow where first class would be at the northern end of the train), whilst the ability to use the end carriages for passenger seating would increase the overall capacity of the train. Taking advantage of the longer platforms built when the Pullman stations were initially designed (at 350 metres), the train length would be just over at 352m - but just within track limitations (mostly due to platform ramps!). This would swell capacity of each train to just short of 1,000 passengers each (and 4 wheelchair spaces) - 684 standard passengers accommodated in 10 coaches, and 264 first class passengers in 6 coaches, resulting in total capacity of 948 passengers - with a full length shop / catering car in between - an almost 50% increase of capacity. This was specifically designed to fit requirements for the next 25 years of use, during which Pullman usage was predicted to soar due to airline security requirements, road congestion, ticket price decreases (due to more passengers on each train) and increased business mobility. All this further required virtually no infrastructure changes to accommodate such a train.
This longer train would continue to use articulated bogies, but this time would make no pretense at tilting, with no tapering of sides leading to increased space within the carriages. All this would require new traction systems, to propel the heavier train and hit the target speeds required by Intercity. New permanent magnet synchronous motors had hit maturity a few years prior, and the new motor design using them was much lighter and more efficient, easing the installation of them within the articulated bogies, and mounting them inside the bogie instead of from the coach body; this slightly increased unsprung mass, but the high quality Pullman track, reduction of curve, and simplicity of engineering in mounting them outweighed the negatives. The new alternating current, three phase, motor yielded 450kW of power each, and copying the Japanese Shinkansen (Bullet Train) style, put the motor on each axle, except those supporting the catering car for weight reasons. This yielded a power rating of 14.4MW; traction power supplies along the line would need upgrading to supply enough power under heavy load conditions, whilst new energy storage systems trackside helped absorb more regenerative braking energy, but these were the only infrastructure change required to support the train. The high level of power actually allowed the train to manage 280km/h, although 250km/h would be the fastest in service speed. The high power rating and amount of motors meant less load per motor, but also meant that an increased level of regenerative braking could be managed, saving on brake wear.
Alstom in France were also working on their own powered and articulated bogie at the time.
The electrical systems would need to be spread along the train to maintain axle-load requirements; the pantographs (two for redundancy) were over carriages 2 and 14, whilst the transformers under carriages 1 and 15 where the weight of the heavy equipment could be supported on 3 instead of 2 axles. The only carriage to not have under-floor equipment was the catering carriage, due to the heavy kitchen equipment inside; the adjacent carriages also features less under-floor equipment although still carried some in order to reduce the load on the shared bogies. Much of the equipment was in pull-out modules under the carriage, which aided in fast swap out and repairs for the trains, and helping GMEC to offer a very high level of reliability which was built in to the train leasing agreement. Although tilting had also been considered during the design phase - it would have increased speeds through the twisting curves of the Anglo-Scottish border hills, the technical and engineering challenges of trying to build a powered and tilting bogie was thought far too difficult, especially when also combined with articulated bogies. Even so, many engineers likened the Pullman-2 train to an airplane more than a train, such was the level of precision engineering. New in-cab computer systems aided with speed calculations and driving the train, with constant supervision of the driver, whilst the signalling system supported not only the balise system used in Great Britain, but also the broadly compatible system used in France, Belgium and the Netherlands which transmitted the same signals to the train via the rail rather than via balise. This was necessary as after the cross-London link, and Boudicca station, opened, the trains would be operating through London, with several stretching all the way to Paris for which BR had co-funded SNCF to "extend" the LGV Nord further in to the Gare du Nord, allowing 25kV all the way in to the Pullman platforms there. This allowed British Rail to continue with only a single electrical set of systems on board supporting 25kV electrification (and improving acceleration), rather than the SNCF style of 1.5kV in stations for legacy reasons.
Internally however, the new Pullman-2 trains looked extremely similar to the Pullman-1 trains, although thoroughly modernised and carrying the new Pullman coat of arms featuring Anglo-Scottish heraldry - inspired by it's route. 2 doors at one end of each carriage, with toilets at the other end, continued to be the norm, whilst the doorways would align with existing platforms for an almost seamless train-to-platform transition - making those in wheelchairs or with suitcases able to (de)board the train far easier. Standard class seating was 2 x 2, with most clustered around tables again - Intercity were determined to keep Pullman as a "premium" brand, and able to command increased pricing for the product, whilst 1st class continued with 2 x 1 seating across, and a choice of time-appropriate meals from the kitchen (standard class would have access to a cafe/shop in the catering carriage. A later update in 2013 would see Firewire connections provided in first class seats for charging devices and allowing internet access; Firewire connections would be extended to all standard class seats in 2019.
-------------------------
Notes: Apologies, this chapter came out way longer than I expected! 🙂 When I first started on this, I wondered if this train was well over specified, or whether it did really suit the business requirements of Pullman. So here's the background calculations which led to the specification as above:
OTL Routes from London (in 2007, after introduction of Virgin high frequency timetable, and second hourly service to Leeds). This is easier to calculate as almost all of these (except Newcastle) have London express services which terminate at the city:
Liverpool: 1 train per hour: Roughly 600 seats per hour (1 x C390)
Manchester: 3 trains per hour: Roughly 1800 seats per hour (3 x C390)
Sheffield: 1 train per hour: Roughly 450 seats per hour (1 x long C222)
Nottingham: 2 trains per hour: Roughly 600 seats per hour (2 x shorter C222)
Rotherham "Parkway": No comparable OTL services.
Leeds: 2 trains per hour: Roughly 1100 seats per hour (1 x IC225, 1 x regional C373)
Newcastle: 1 train per hour: Roughly 550 seats per hour (1 x IC225 - I'm not counting the other service as it continued to Scotland)
Edinburgh: 1.5 train per hour: Roughly 850 seats per hour (1 x IC225, 0.5 x C390)
Glasgow: 1.5 trains per hour: Roughly 900 seats per hour (1.5 x C390)
And then divided in to the Pullman services:
1/3Nottingham:Sheffield:Manchester:Liverpool: Roughly 3050 seats per hour
1/3Nottingham:Leeds: Roughly 1300 seats per hour
1/3Nottingham:Newcastle:Edinburgh:Glasgow: Roughly 2500 seats per hour
And in this TL, we have an every 30 minutes service (half-hourly), which with the new trains will provide:
Nottingham:Sheffield:Manchester:Liverpool: Roughly 1900 seats per hour
Nottingham:Leeds: Roughly 1900 seats per hour
Nottingham:Newcastle:Edinburgh:Glasgow: Roughly 1900 seats per hour
So if anything, they are actually still slightly below the OTL seat provision currently pending timetable upgrades possible when the cross-London link opens; I can see a fair amount of South Yorkshire passengers transferring to Rotherham for cheaper seats and more available trains (especially if they aren't living in central Sheffield!), and Nottingham passengers choosing the Leeds trains likewise. Given that the train is roughly 350m long, hence the high power rating to move such a train, which I modelled as an evolution of the Pullman-1/APT with the SNCF AGV (distirbuted traction and articulated bogies). Externally, they'd look similar to Eurostar/Class 373, but without the locomotive at the front given the distributed traction!
Train design is a precise engineering game.
The planned routes north to Scotland, were far from the somewhat straight and gentle southern section of the line which was inherited from the "London Extension" of the Great Central Railway. There were major bends, especially in Northumbria and southern Scotland, and this severely limited the top speed of the train - and thus the business case for ever higher speeds. However, the existence of the route, even if bendy, meant that it would at least be built; the new Labour Government was more willing to spend then the previous Conservative Government - but it was hardly taps fully on. The southern half of the route had some scope for faster speeds, but not huge amounts, and whilst the northern half would receive investment to straighten bends out and some stretches of new track, it was hardly going to be a racetrack, with several sections limiting speeds to circa 160km/h. This combination of factors, as well as a booming customer base for the Pullman existing services, meant a slight change in priorities for British Rail with Pullman development.
The introduction of Pullman services by British Rail had brought Manchester just over 2 hours from London, and Leeds just under 2 hours from London - extraordinary timings considering previous iterations of service. The new trains - fast, regular and comfortable had proved a boon for ticket sales, and most trains around rush hour were usually sold out (with seat reservations mandatory as standard anyhow), and most trains also fairly busy for the rest of the day. Leeds especially seemed to have been a case of connected "at the right time"; deindustrialisation in the north had proved painful, but Leeds was rapidly evolving in to a second financial centre for the UK, with several medium sized banking corporations headquartered there. Manchester was also being transformed; although it had not won the bid for the 2000 Summer Olympics, it had come a semi-respectable third (above close rivals in Europe; Berlin and Istanbul), and the Commonwealth Games in 2002 had been a boon for regeneration in Manchester. The 1996 UEFA European Championship, held in England, also saw 6 of the 8 venues in Pullman connected cities, and large contingents of fans traversed England between venues via the system - foreign visitors especially. 2004 had seen the Pullman stations assigned IATA airport codes, and Pullman services airline identifiers, so that British Airways (and potentially other airlines) could book seats on the Pullman trains to act as domestic feeder services in to Britannia Airport, especially from the north of the country.
Earlier test trains, most notably the P300, had achieved significantly faster speeds, but only on short sections of the route. It had however pushed forward the development of new lightweight structures, aerodynamics, and electrical technologies - things which would be highly useful no matter which way the new Pullman train would eventually evolve. The first design studies began in 2000, with the northern extension getting well underway, and it was clear that new rolling stock would be needed - the existing design being over 25 years old now, and this being an opportunity to renew the entire fleet, and cascade the existing trains downwards.
Some key design requirements quickly evolved during discussions:
- "An increased capacity" over existing stock. The restricted British loading gauge seemingly precluded the possibility of double deck trains, as were being introduced in France. The only other possibility here was either train lengthening (which would require costly platform extensions), or removing the power cars and opting for distributed traction - effectively a high speed electric multiple unit. All the Pullman platforms had been built for 350m originally, so the new trains could take full advantage of this length, although the new London station had 400m platforms to cater for the slightly longer European trains.
- "A higher overall speed" over existing services. If a higher top speed could not be achieved, this would have to be obtained via higher acceleration rates, and possibly tilting in curves as the original Pullman train had been supposed to do. This would have a huge effect on the northern stretches of the line, with curves forcing trains to decelerate, curve, and reaccelerate several times.
- "A higher efficiency level" over existing trains. The requirement was for the new trains to operate more efficiently then previous trains; less wear and tear - both on train and on track, more efficient motors and power usage, better regenerative electrical systems. The large amount of technical research in the P300 trains promised far better efficiencies in the electrical equipment, whilst the overall train weight would also be reduced.
Early conceptual model of the train. Note the smaller cab window to avoid drivers becoming mesmerised inside the Channel Tunnel.
By 2004, the design had been completed sufficiently to be locked down, and a tender process begun in the market to procure the stock. Despite the close partnership between British Rail and GMEC (the "e" added to avoid legal issues with GMC in North America where GMEC were attempting to procure export orders to), the regulators allowed the award of the tender to GMEC, and the manufacture could begin. In truth, the European Union and other EU member states could hardly complain; SNCF and Alstom, and DB with Siemens conducted their business in an almost identical fashion.
The train design principles were very closely followed by GMEC. Rather than the locomotive/coach principle used on the Pullman-1 trains, the Pullman-2 would use a multiple-unit design. This was now possible following the amendment of legislation prohibiting passengers in the first carriage of a train travelling over 100mph; this would now be possible if the train was using the safer balise in-cab signalling. First class seats would be positioned towards the southern end of the train as it passed through London (creating the opposite condition in Liverpool and Glasgow where first class would be at the northern end of the train), whilst the ability to use the end carriages for passenger seating would increase the overall capacity of the train. Taking advantage of the longer platforms built when the Pullman stations were initially designed (at 350 metres), the train length would be just over at 352m - but just within track limitations (mostly due to platform ramps!). This would swell capacity of each train to just short of 1,000 passengers each (and 4 wheelchair spaces) - 684 standard passengers accommodated in 10 coaches, and 264 first class passengers in 6 coaches, resulting in total capacity of 948 passengers - with a full length shop / catering car in between - an almost 50% increase of capacity. This was specifically designed to fit requirements for the next 25 years of use, during which Pullman usage was predicted to soar due to airline security requirements, road congestion, ticket price decreases (due to more passengers on each train) and increased business mobility. All this further required virtually no infrastructure changes to accommodate such a train.
This longer train would continue to use articulated bogies, but this time would make no pretense at tilting, with no tapering of sides leading to increased space within the carriages. All this would require new traction systems, to propel the heavier train and hit the target speeds required by Intercity. New permanent magnet synchronous motors had hit maturity a few years prior, and the new motor design using them was much lighter and more efficient, easing the installation of them within the articulated bogies, and mounting them inside the bogie instead of from the coach body; this slightly increased unsprung mass, but the high quality Pullman track, reduction of curve, and simplicity of engineering in mounting them outweighed the negatives. The new alternating current, three phase, motor yielded 450kW of power each, and copying the Japanese Shinkansen (Bullet Train) style, put the motor on each axle, except those supporting the catering car for weight reasons. This yielded a power rating of 14.4MW; traction power supplies along the line would need upgrading to supply enough power under heavy load conditions, whilst new energy storage systems trackside helped absorb more regenerative braking energy, but these were the only infrastructure change required to support the train. The high level of power actually allowed the train to manage 280km/h, although 250km/h would be the fastest in service speed. The high power rating and amount of motors meant less load per motor, but also meant that an increased level of regenerative braking could be managed, saving on brake wear.
Alstom in France were also working on their own powered and articulated bogie at the time.
The electrical systems would need to be spread along the train to maintain axle-load requirements; the pantographs (two for redundancy) were over carriages 2 and 14, whilst the transformers under carriages 1 and 15 where the weight of the heavy equipment could be supported on 3 instead of 2 axles. The only carriage to not have under-floor equipment was the catering carriage, due to the heavy kitchen equipment inside; the adjacent carriages also features less under-floor equipment although still carried some in order to reduce the load on the shared bogies. Much of the equipment was in pull-out modules under the carriage, which aided in fast swap out and repairs for the trains, and helping GMEC to offer a very high level of reliability which was built in to the train leasing agreement. Although tilting had also been considered during the design phase - it would have increased speeds through the twisting curves of the Anglo-Scottish border hills, the technical and engineering challenges of trying to build a powered and tilting bogie was thought far too difficult, especially when also combined with articulated bogies. Even so, many engineers likened the Pullman-2 train to an airplane more than a train, such was the level of precision engineering. New in-cab computer systems aided with speed calculations and driving the train, with constant supervision of the driver, whilst the signalling system supported not only the balise system used in Great Britain, but also the broadly compatible system used in France, Belgium and the Netherlands which transmitted the same signals to the train via the rail rather than via balise. This was necessary as after the cross-London link, and Boudicca station, opened, the trains would be operating through London, with several stretching all the way to Paris for which BR had co-funded SNCF to "extend" the LGV Nord further in to the Gare du Nord, allowing 25kV all the way in to the Pullman platforms there. This allowed British Rail to continue with only a single electrical set of systems on board supporting 25kV electrification (and improving acceleration), rather than the SNCF style of 1.5kV in stations for legacy reasons.
Internally however, the new Pullman-2 trains looked extremely similar to the Pullman-1 trains, although thoroughly modernised and carrying the new Pullman coat of arms featuring Anglo-Scottish heraldry - inspired by it's route. 2 doors at one end of each carriage, with toilets at the other end, continued to be the norm, whilst the doorways would align with existing platforms for an almost seamless train-to-platform transition - making those in wheelchairs or with suitcases able to (de)board the train far easier. Standard class seating was 2 x 2, with most clustered around tables again - Intercity were determined to keep Pullman as a "premium" brand, and able to command increased pricing for the product, whilst 1st class continued with 2 x 1 seating across, and a choice of time-appropriate meals from the kitchen (standard class would have access to a cafe/shop in the catering carriage. A later update in 2013 would see Firewire connections provided in first class seats for charging devices and allowing internet access; Firewire connections would be extended to all standard class seats in 2019.
-------------------------
Notes: Apologies, this chapter came out way longer than I expected! 🙂 When I first started on this, I wondered if this train was well over specified, or whether it did really suit the business requirements of Pullman. So here's the background calculations which led to the specification as above:
OTL Routes from London (in 2007, after introduction of Virgin high frequency timetable, and second hourly service to Leeds). This is easier to calculate as almost all of these (except Newcastle) have London express services which terminate at the city:
Liverpool: 1 train per hour: Roughly 600 seats per hour (1 x C390)
Manchester: 3 trains per hour: Roughly 1800 seats per hour (3 x C390)
Sheffield: 1 train per hour: Roughly 450 seats per hour (1 x long C222)
Nottingham: 2 trains per hour: Roughly 600 seats per hour (2 x shorter C222)
Rotherham "Parkway": No comparable OTL services.
Leeds: 2 trains per hour: Roughly 1100 seats per hour (1 x IC225, 1 x regional C373)
Newcastle: 1 train per hour: Roughly 550 seats per hour (1 x IC225 - I'm not counting the other service as it continued to Scotland)
Edinburgh: 1.5 train per hour: Roughly 850 seats per hour (1 x IC225, 0.5 x C390)
Glasgow: 1.5 trains per hour: Roughly 900 seats per hour (1.5 x C390)
And then divided in to the Pullman services:
1/3Nottingham:Sheffield:Manchester:Liverpool: Roughly 3050 seats per hour
1/3Nottingham:Leeds: Roughly 1300 seats per hour
1/3Nottingham:Newcastle:Edinburgh:Glasgow: Roughly 2500 seats per hour
And in this TL, we have an every 30 minutes service (half-hourly), which with the new trains will provide:
Nottingham:Sheffield:Manchester:Liverpool: Roughly 1900 seats per hour
Nottingham:Leeds: Roughly 1900 seats per hour
Nottingham:Newcastle:Edinburgh:Glasgow: Roughly 1900 seats per hour
So if anything, they are actually still slightly below the OTL seat provision currently pending timetable upgrades possible when the cross-London link opens; I can see a fair amount of South Yorkshire passengers transferring to Rotherham for cheaper seats and more available trains (especially if they aren't living in central Sheffield!), and Nottingham passengers choosing the Leeds trains likewise. Given that the train is roughly 350m long, hence the high power rating to move such a train, which I modelled as an evolution of the Pullman-1/APT with the SNCF AGV (distirbuted traction and articulated bogies). Externally, they'd look similar to Eurostar/Class 373, but without the locomotive at the front given the distributed traction!
Last edited:
@Devvy we discussed electrification of the Forth Bridge a while back. This Twitter exchange might be of interest. Looks like it might be easier than a lot of us thought.
Last edited:
Devvy
Donor
Thanks for the comments. I'm still a bit unsure whether the diagonal supports will breach the OHLE loading gauge - the majority of the bridge is fine, The other thing I thought of is the risk of DC overhead electrification on a massive metal bridge - I'm not an electrician; is their any chance of the leak current from the return rails degrading the metal? No idea...
This is still 2006; solar power is still in it's infancy, and the space available means you'd generate a tiny amount of power; probably not even enough to power the carriage internal requirements. Solar power on stations in the south is realistic, but not on trains themselves.
Believe it or not, the first iPhone was released in November 2007 (in UK). Before this, I know it seems bizarre to the younger members on the board, there was no concept of smartphone functions, and the lack of 2G/3G/4G meant phone batteries lasted days (not hours). There was little need for power outlets pre-2007, and also data was horrendously expensive - I remember it being £1/mb at some point around the mid-2000s.
So the point of that was that there's absolutely no market requirement for Firewire at the moment; it's still predominately a home based technology for linking devices together. Hence why it turns up later in the 2010s onboard.
Got a chapter on that upcoming, but safe to say this is BR; no good asset goes to waste now!
You're unlikely to use cables for something that exposed - bar conductors are likely to be more appropriate and have the additional benefit of needing a reduced amount of clearance.
That's part of what is meant by "Just need to sort a low impedance path to mother earth" - easiest way to do this is just run a big steel bar under the tracks to large earth spikes at either end, electrically connected to the rails. Once you do that then the bridge essentially doesn't notice the current.
This is going to sound even weirder to the young 'uns on here. Before smartphones we basically just used our phones to...well...phone people! Bizarre I know! And we had to use a seperate device to listen to music, or take a photo.
Of course, some of us are old enough to remember a time before mobile phones.
Some of us can remember putting rolls of film in cameras, youngsterThis is going to sound even weirder to the young 'uns on here. Before smartphones we basically just used our phones to...well...phone people! Bizarre I know! And we had to use a seperate device to listen to music, or take a photo.
Of course, some of us are old enough to remember a time before mobile phones.
I can also remember steam engines actually pulling British Railways trains.
I'll stop now before derailing the thread. (excellent work @Devvy )
And the film roll always ran out in the middle of you taking pictures of something! Oh the fun of winding film on and then having to wind it back. I remember the days of power wind on being the greatest thing!
2006-Caledonian
Devvy
Donor
2006 - The Caledonian Railway
Third rail track in southern England.
In contrast to Glasgow's newest station; "Glasgow Caledonian", the Caledonian Railway is nowhere near the central belt. It is the last major policy decision relating to rail transport in Scotland, before the transfer of transport powers related to the railways to the devolved Scottish Government. It owes it history to the focus of Scotrail upon the Central Belt network, and passengers services connecting in to these areas; the rural routes along the northern side of Scotland continued to use old first generation unpowered multiple unit coaching stock, and old Class 73 locomotives dating back to the 1960s. Some of the routes had avoided being closed down in the 1960s by the skin of their teeth; the branch to Peterhead and Fraserburgh avoided closure on social grounds considering the remote locations as well as some residue freight, and was helped by local campaigning to "save the railway". Likewise, the routes from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh, Wick and Thurso had been saved on social grounds given the remoteness of the communities served; the line to Wick and Thurso had even been upgraded since, with the opening of the Dornoch Bridge in the early 1990s, which shaved off over a half-hour from the travel time. 1994 saw the creation of the Caledonian as a "shadow sector" of Scotrail - largely an accounting mechanism and branch of management within Scotrail, but 2003 saw the creation of the Caledonian as an autonomous sub-sector of Scotrail.
So, although technically still a sub-sector of Scotrail for governance reasons, the Caledonian would be reasonably autonomous within the Scotrail structure. It had it's own livery, rolling stock, and it's own standards. It operated routes across the north of Scotland, including Inverness-Kyle of Lochalsh, Inverness-Wick/Thurso, Inverness-Aberdeen, Aberdeen-Banchory and Aberdeen-Peterhead/Fraserburgh. Scotrail would continue to link in and serve Aberdeen, Inverness and Elgin with routes from Glasgow & Edinburgh. Intercity would continue operating the Sleeper service to Inverness and Aberdeen on the same rails, but apart from this Caledonian largely had it's own dedicated tracks and stations.
The name of the game had been "stabilisation" in the late 1990s, as finances continued to be razor thin for Scotrail, and northern Scotland being far from lucrative revenue wise. Electrification across the Central Belt and to the south had sapped finances, and the announcement of the Pullman extension to Scotland in the late 1990s looked to continue sapping up the large proportion of rail investment. The old Class 73 electro-diesel locomotives were used solely on diesel power, with their electric capabilities wasted, but purely diesel locomotives were by the late 1990s a dying breed; the gently rolling electrification programme under British Rail was on average stringing up wires on roughly a major route every decade along with a few shorter secondary routes. With the cost of electric traction being cheaper, British Rail and even the freight operators were eager to adopt electric traction wherever possible. It seemed unlikely that the Scottish North would see any of it, until a chance meeting between the shadow sector managers of what was about the become Southeastern and the Caledonian in London. Southeastern had managed to switch the entire South Western Route to overhead electric traction - not cheap, but it allowed Southeastern to now adopt new overhead-power only trains for the route, and cascade the dual-capable (overhead and third rail capable) units to the other London-based networks which were still largely third-rail based, and avoid procuring new non-standard third rail multiple units. Southeastern were unsure what to do with the third-rail supplies; they were unsuitable for use as running rails, and the ceremic rail holders were no good for the overhead system. The Caledonian, in partnership with Scotrail, also procured the former Network South East "SnowTrain"; it would find far more use in Scotland during winter on the Caledonian routes and also the Highland Route to Inverness and Elgin.
The Snowtrain was seeing declining usage in southern England due to falling snow levels and rising temperatures.
Sensing an opportunity, the Caledonian offered to take them at a bargain price, given that the stock wasn't particularly useful to Network South East / Southeastern. Transferred to the north of Scotland, the third rail would avoid any issue with the sensitive issue of visibility given that much of the route runs along the shorelines of picturesque regions, whilst also removing any issues from high winds on overhead lines. In reverse however, the deep snow would potentially be a serious issue for a third rail system, but this is where the use of the electro-diesels would be invaluable. To start with, the stretch between Inverness and Dingwall (where the line branches for Kyle of Lochalsh or Wick/Thurso) was laid out with third rail; a stretch of approximately 20 miles. There were few level crossings to deal with, and the scheme could then be evaluated.
The Class 73 locomotives allocated to the Caledonian were re-engineered with newer (and smaller) dual 600hp diesel engines and electrical systems converted from overhead 1.5kV DC to third rail 750v DC; this reduced the power somewhat, but they would only be hauling 5 coach multiple units anyhow - far from the heaviest of loads. The diesel engines were fitted with the capability to run continuously at low load - important during the winter months especially when snow and ice could provide difficulties in maintaining a continous contact with the third rail for electric power, so having the diesel engine running continuously as a backup was an important option. The trial was successful; the scheme offered fuel savings on the 40-mile round trip in to and out of Inverness, although clearly rolling out third rail across the entire network was infeasible - if for nothing else the difficulty of providing electricity to incredibly remote locations to supply the third rail.
In 2018, a unique trial within British Rail saw some of the locomotives re-engineered again; one of the 600hp diesel engines was removed, and the space used to fit new lithium-ion batteries, with 250kW of storage power to drive the almost 1mW motors (thus being able to power the locomotive purely from battery for approx 15 minutes before the diesel engine kicked in). This approach mirrored the market switch to electric and hybrid vehicles on UK roads. With the diesel engines keeping the battery topped up, and the battery driving the motors, this would also allow the motors to regeneratively decelerate the train, with energy fed back in to the battery. This allowed the train to glide easily over the third rail network with no issues for "gapping" (for instance on level crossings, where the locomotive might not be quite able to maintain third rail contact) or during heavy snow/ice times of the year, whilst the automatic contact of the third rail would allow the battery to be topped up at other places when fitted; the Alness-Invergordon stretch, Dornoch station, Thurso-Georgemas-Wick segment and Kyle of Lochalsh station were all to receive third rail supplies. At the same time as this, newer unpowered multiple units formerly with Intercity, were made available to the Caledonian and duly refurbished to offer more comfortable seating and food options.
The trial is to be reviewed in 2020, when enough annual data will be available to review the complete costs and effectiveness of the system, and when a decision will be made to either eliminate the battery usage and return to pure diesel/electric operation (as the locomotives are more complex and costly to maintain), or if the energy and environmental savings have been worth it, for which the system could be rolled our further to the east towards Aberdeen.
Other than rolling stock, improving passenger facilities has also been a target for the Caledonian, given that many of it's stations are rural and unmanned, or busier town stations. Renewal of Forres station was important, whilst a joint rebuilt of Elgin station to bring Scotrail services from Glasgow & Edinburgh in to the main town station occurred in the 2010s; the service to Lossiemouth is now a shorter shuttle service only to Elgin, for which discussions over the Caledonian operating this branch continues. A better interchange at Aberdeen airport (at Dyce station) was also introduced, with a Connect bus offering express connection between the airport and station which continues to be popular with oil workers. Lastly, restoration of the older stations at Fraserburgh and Peterhead occurred, to provide new station facilities from the crumbling buildings.
------------------------
Notes:
Battery units are not actually new; there was a fully battery powered train operating between Aberdeen and Ballater in the 1950s, as well as smaller battery units for driving EMU trains in to non-electrified sidings (predominately at Dover). A lot of this chapter also builds upon what you've seen a long time ago about the Class 73 loco, and also the Far North Line.
So here, some of the Class 73 locomotives (the ones serving Lochalsh and Thurso routes) have had one of the diesel engines removed, and batteries installed instead. I'd guess when the battery drops below 20%, the diesel engine will kick in, and run continuously at a medium level; the battery will take the hit during heavy acceleration, but obviously will be topped up by the engine when not accelerating (and also by the braking systems when decelerating). Adding in sections of third rail in some station areas (which are close to larger settlements in the area, and therefore electricity readily available). I'd guess that the trial will show some reasonable fuel savings, and also environmental benefits. Acceleration should also be a bit better as well.
Provides an interesting example for the rest of British Rail of a different form of electro-diesel propulsion, but also provides the warning of the complexity of such situations; a purely electric locomotive/multiple unit is far simpler and cheaper to maintain and operate, whilst also reducing maintenance on the track itself.
Third rail track in southern England.
In contrast to Glasgow's newest station; "Glasgow Caledonian", the Caledonian Railway is nowhere near the central belt. It is the last major policy decision relating to rail transport in Scotland, before the transfer of transport powers related to the railways to the devolved Scottish Government. It owes it history to the focus of Scotrail upon the Central Belt network, and passengers services connecting in to these areas; the rural routes along the northern side of Scotland continued to use old first generation unpowered multiple unit coaching stock, and old Class 73 locomotives dating back to the 1960s. Some of the routes had avoided being closed down in the 1960s by the skin of their teeth; the branch to Peterhead and Fraserburgh avoided closure on social grounds considering the remote locations as well as some residue freight, and was helped by local campaigning to "save the railway". Likewise, the routes from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh, Wick and Thurso had been saved on social grounds given the remoteness of the communities served; the line to Wick and Thurso had even been upgraded since, with the opening of the Dornoch Bridge in the early 1990s, which shaved off over a half-hour from the travel time. 1994 saw the creation of the Caledonian as a "shadow sector" of Scotrail - largely an accounting mechanism and branch of management within Scotrail, but 2003 saw the creation of the Caledonian as an autonomous sub-sector of Scotrail.
So, although technically still a sub-sector of Scotrail for governance reasons, the Caledonian would be reasonably autonomous within the Scotrail structure. It had it's own livery, rolling stock, and it's own standards. It operated routes across the north of Scotland, including Inverness-Kyle of Lochalsh, Inverness-Wick/Thurso, Inverness-Aberdeen, Aberdeen-Banchory and Aberdeen-Peterhead/Fraserburgh. Scotrail would continue to link in and serve Aberdeen, Inverness and Elgin with routes from Glasgow & Edinburgh. Intercity would continue operating the Sleeper service to Inverness and Aberdeen on the same rails, but apart from this Caledonian largely had it's own dedicated tracks and stations.
The name of the game had been "stabilisation" in the late 1990s, as finances continued to be razor thin for Scotrail, and northern Scotland being far from lucrative revenue wise. Electrification across the Central Belt and to the south had sapped finances, and the announcement of the Pullman extension to Scotland in the late 1990s looked to continue sapping up the large proportion of rail investment. The old Class 73 electro-diesel locomotives were used solely on diesel power, with their electric capabilities wasted, but purely diesel locomotives were by the late 1990s a dying breed; the gently rolling electrification programme under British Rail was on average stringing up wires on roughly a major route every decade along with a few shorter secondary routes. With the cost of electric traction being cheaper, British Rail and even the freight operators were eager to adopt electric traction wherever possible. It seemed unlikely that the Scottish North would see any of it, until a chance meeting between the shadow sector managers of what was about the become Southeastern and the Caledonian in London. Southeastern had managed to switch the entire South Western Route to overhead electric traction - not cheap, but it allowed Southeastern to now adopt new overhead-power only trains for the route, and cascade the dual-capable (overhead and third rail capable) units to the other London-based networks which were still largely third-rail based, and avoid procuring new non-standard third rail multiple units. Southeastern were unsure what to do with the third-rail supplies; they were unsuitable for use as running rails, and the ceremic rail holders were no good for the overhead system. The Caledonian, in partnership with Scotrail, also procured the former Network South East "SnowTrain"; it would find far more use in Scotland during winter on the Caledonian routes and also the Highland Route to Inverness and Elgin.
The Snowtrain was seeing declining usage in southern England due to falling snow levels and rising temperatures.
Sensing an opportunity, the Caledonian offered to take them at a bargain price, given that the stock wasn't particularly useful to Network South East / Southeastern. Transferred to the north of Scotland, the third rail would avoid any issue with the sensitive issue of visibility given that much of the route runs along the shorelines of picturesque regions, whilst also removing any issues from high winds on overhead lines. In reverse however, the deep snow would potentially be a serious issue for a third rail system, but this is where the use of the electro-diesels would be invaluable. To start with, the stretch between Inverness and Dingwall (where the line branches for Kyle of Lochalsh or Wick/Thurso) was laid out with third rail; a stretch of approximately 20 miles. There were few level crossings to deal with, and the scheme could then be evaluated.
The Class 73 locomotives allocated to the Caledonian were re-engineered with newer (and smaller) dual 600hp diesel engines and electrical systems converted from overhead 1.5kV DC to third rail 750v DC; this reduced the power somewhat, but they would only be hauling 5 coach multiple units anyhow - far from the heaviest of loads. The diesel engines were fitted with the capability to run continuously at low load - important during the winter months especially when snow and ice could provide difficulties in maintaining a continous contact with the third rail for electric power, so having the diesel engine running continuously as a backup was an important option. The trial was successful; the scheme offered fuel savings on the 40-mile round trip in to and out of Inverness, although clearly rolling out third rail across the entire network was infeasible - if for nothing else the difficulty of providing electricity to incredibly remote locations to supply the third rail.
In 2018, a unique trial within British Rail saw some of the locomotives re-engineered again; one of the 600hp diesel engines was removed, and the space used to fit new lithium-ion batteries, with 250kW of storage power to drive the almost 1mW motors (thus being able to power the locomotive purely from battery for approx 15 minutes before the diesel engine kicked in). This approach mirrored the market switch to electric and hybrid vehicles on UK roads. With the diesel engines keeping the battery topped up, and the battery driving the motors, this would also allow the motors to regeneratively decelerate the train, with energy fed back in to the battery. This allowed the train to glide easily over the third rail network with no issues for "gapping" (for instance on level crossings, where the locomotive might not be quite able to maintain third rail contact) or during heavy snow/ice times of the year, whilst the automatic contact of the third rail would allow the battery to be topped up at other places when fitted; the Alness-Invergordon stretch, Dornoch station, Thurso-Georgemas-Wick segment and Kyle of Lochalsh station were all to receive third rail supplies. At the same time as this, newer unpowered multiple units formerly with Intercity, were made available to the Caledonian and duly refurbished to offer more comfortable seating and food options.
The trial is to be reviewed in 2020, when enough annual data will be available to review the complete costs and effectiveness of the system, and when a decision will be made to either eliminate the battery usage and return to pure diesel/electric operation (as the locomotives are more complex and costly to maintain), or if the energy and environmental savings have been worth it, for which the system could be rolled our further to the east towards Aberdeen.
Other than rolling stock, improving passenger facilities has also been a target for the Caledonian, given that many of it's stations are rural and unmanned, or busier town stations. Renewal of Forres station was important, whilst a joint rebuilt of Elgin station to bring Scotrail services from Glasgow & Edinburgh in to the main town station occurred in the 2010s; the service to Lossiemouth is now a shorter shuttle service only to Elgin, for which discussions over the Caledonian operating this branch continues. A better interchange at Aberdeen airport (at Dyce station) was also introduced, with a Connect bus offering express connection between the airport and station which continues to be popular with oil workers. Lastly, restoration of the older stations at Fraserburgh and Peterhead occurred, to provide new station facilities from the crumbling buildings.
------------------------
Notes:
Battery units are not actually new; there was a fully battery powered train operating between Aberdeen and Ballater in the 1950s, as well as smaller battery units for driving EMU trains in to non-electrified sidings (predominately at Dover). A lot of this chapter also builds upon what you've seen a long time ago about the Class 73 loco, and also the Far North Line.
So here, some of the Class 73 locomotives (the ones serving Lochalsh and Thurso routes) have had one of the diesel engines removed, and batteries installed instead. I'd guess when the battery drops below 20%, the diesel engine will kick in, and run continuously at a medium level; the battery will take the hit during heavy acceleration, but obviously will be topped up by the engine when not accelerating (and also by the braking systems when decelerating). Adding in sections of third rail in some station areas (which are close to larger settlements in the area, and therefore electricity readily available). I'd guess that the trial will show some reasonable fuel savings, and also environmental benefits. Acceleration should also be a bit better as well.
Provides an interesting example for the rest of British Rail of a different form of electro-diesel propulsion, but also provides the warning of the complexity of such situations; a purely electric locomotive/multiple unit is far simpler and cheaper to maintain and operate, whilst also reducing maintenance on the track itself.
Very interesting update. Like the reuse of old kit- that's what a nationalised service can give you- would have just been scrapped these days.
Does the whole of the Inverness - Aberdeen and Inverness - Kyle of Lochalsh routes get Third Rail in the end?
Any Third rail possibilities for the route up to Mallaig or is Rannoch Moor too much of an challenge here? How about the Oban branch?
Does the whole of the Inverness - Aberdeen and Inverness - Kyle of Lochalsh routes get Third Rail in the end?
Any Third rail possibilities for the route up to Mallaig or is Rannoch Moor too much of an challenge here? How about the Oban branch?
Devvy
Donor
Yep, a financially constrained organisation has to make the best of any and all assets!
So by the time the TL closes out in 2020, just the 4 sections of third rail I mentioned above is installed. Longer term, I think there will be savings, and I think in 2020s you'd probably see third rail stretches for a few miles around Nairn, Forres, Elgin, Keith, Inverurie, and from Dyce through Aberdeen to Peterculter'ish (maybe all the way to Banchory considering it's not particularly far, where the line terminates). Likewise at Ellon and Maud on the way to Peterhead/Fraserburgh. Same hybrid diesel/battery/electric locomotives running the routes, and you'd probably get the vast majority of mileage under electric/battery traction, with much less third rail build required.
Using 750v DC, you'd need feeder stations approx every 3-4 miles to maintain voltage. So for any station, you'd have one feeder supply at the station, and approx 1.5 miles of third rail to either side. Obviously at Inverness (to Dingwall, any maybe to a new station at Inverness Airport) or in Aberdeen (Dyce to Banchory?), you'd need several supplies every 3-4 miles along. Considering the remoteness of terrain between the stations, you'd have to lay down high voltage power supplies to reach the intermediate power supply nodes; it's just not economically feasible, hence the hybrid design of the locomotives with batteries to make the most of the third rail around stations to charge the train when decelerating and sat at the station, the third rail to accelerate the train from station stop, and then diesel/battery to coast to the next station.
Unlikely; Caledonian is autonomous and given the remoteness of their network, they managed to get a derogation from the British standard of 1.5kV DC overhead; any train will have to use diesel to get to the Caledonian area, at which point they can continue using diesel. For Scotrail "itself", no such derogation exists - it's a 1.5kV DC overhead system (no ifs, no buts) as it forms a core part of the British network (needs compatibility for Anglo-Scottish trains - both passenger and freight), for which the wires are slowly expanding. No third rail elsewhere. I guess in the future, Scotrail might look at converting some of their locomotives to hybrid design, but with overhead power collection instead of third rail, and maybe some overhead wires strung up just around Fort William and Oban, and extending wires from Dunblane to maybe Callander.
-----
Edit PS: FYI, for reference, the distance between feeder substations on 1.5kV DC system are approx double that of 750v DC (predictably, given the doubling of voltage), so the gap between feeder substations on the overhead network i approx 8-9 miles. That's a lot of substations granted, but then we built a hell of a lot of substations in OTL to expand the 750v DC third rail network much wider than in this TL.
Last edited:
In @, the Class 230 has shown that a battery-diesel-hybrid is quite possible. So a battery-diesel-DC hybrid is equally possible.
The mention of removal of one engines makes me wonder, the Class 73 is different from @ in TTL? Isn't it? I can't remember.
EDIT: You might find this video about an ATL where the APT enters service of interest.
The mention of removal of one engines makes me wonder, the Class 73 is different from @ in TTL? Isn't it? I can't remember.
EDIT: You might find this video about an ATL where the APT enters service of interest.
Last edited:
Devvy
Donor
Ta; quite interesting, although I guess he's done a lot of his research/picture acquisition from the same books I have here!
I don't quite agree with a few of his points, but I like the extra level of detail he could afford to go in to as he's just focussed on the APT itself, and agree with several of the his other assertions (more tiny stations closing to accommodate expresses), although I think a little bit extra electrification in the 1980s would push more electrification later. His postulations leading to the ECML/WCML/GWML/MML all being electrified by 2000, would probably lead to the CrossCountry Route being quite reasonable to electrify (given that the northern end of it is shared with the MML, and the southern end with the GWML) for example.Have subscribed to him and might keep an eye out for future ones. Once I finish writing this TL, that's the kind of thing I'll probably end up doing; but maybe in blog format instead so you don't have to listen to my voice!
Great updates, as usual. I kinda like that the Pullman services actually aren't at the same capacity as the OTL services to the same cities. Makes sense that the premium express service wouldn't fill all transportation needs.
14.4 MW, surely? mW wouldn't be enough for a H0 train
2007-Leeds-East-Side
Devvy
Donor
2007 - The Leeds East Side Project
The former Skelton Grange power station, now demolished.
Leeds Central is the main British Rail station in Leeds (as opposed to the Leeds Piccadilly station used by the "Northern Spirit" railway company. It serves a combination of predominately Transpennine services across the legacy network, as well as Intercity Crosscountry services and Pullman services. Following East Yorkshire's electrification, high speed Transpennine commuter services now operate from Liverpool and Manchester, via Leeds, to York and the eastern coast at Middlesbrough, Whitby, Scarborough and Hull. However, the removal of several west facing platforms (to the northern side of the station) to allow for a large multi-storey car park serving the station, has provided congestion in the station despite the loss of Wharfedale services (to Ilkley and Skipton) to the Northern Spirit operator. The introduction of Pullman services, reducing the turn-around-time in platform at Leeds for high speed trains to London also reduced congestion slightly. The introduction of more cross-Leeds services, as opposed to trains terminating at Leeds, by joining up services also helped reduce congestion at the station - however this merely moved the congestion eastwards to the solely double track from Leeds to as far as Micklefield (*1).
2000 saw the rebuilding of the viaduct to the east of Leeds to accommodate quadruple track - and the extension of the Pullman tracks, with 25kV AC power, further east to link up with the core route northwards (*2). This allowed the first stage of more services running through Leeds, along with new platforms at a reopened "Marsh Lane" station to the east of the city centre, but difficulties still arose due to the heavy weight of routes from the west of Leeds station, and the sparse amount of routes from the east. To assist this (and provide an alternative non-Pullman route), legacy East Coast services from Kings Cross now accessed Leeds from the east, and usually ran through Leeds to Bradford, maintaining a London connection for Bradford (*3). Additionally, in 2003, Transpennine high speed commuter services started (*4), which absorbed further commuter services from the classic network on to the higher speed Pullman tracks, further freeing up some train slots. However, a far more significant move would be the "Leeds East Side Access" project, which began in 2003 (*5).
The LESA project would see the redirection of the tracks from Normanton and Castleford area (via which several commuter and semi-express services operate). Just west of Woodlesford station, the railway would bend north, crossing the River Aire, and past the sewage and power stations in the area, before rejoining the existing British Rail tracks just west of Neville Hill depot in eastern Leeds. This roughly 5km diversion would cause trains from this direction to access Leeds from the east rather than west, and allow a better balance of routes from either side of the station, reducing train congestion at Leeds and increasing connectivity - all whilst not requiring further changes in central Leeds itself. The old route via Hunslet was also maintained with much reduced requirements as a freight branch due the amount of freight depots on this stretch of line through industrial Leeds.
Outline map, showing the new link (red), new stations (green), and Pullman tracks (grey). The old route, retained for freight, is the thin brown line. (*6)
The closure of the Skelton Grange power station in the 1990s had provided the opportunity for this diversion. Thanks to the close liaison between Transpennine and the West Yorkshire Transport Authority (*7), the route on the ground was earmarked during the early stages of the planning process for regeneration of the area, and was safeguarded when the M1 motoway was extended to the east of Leeds to link to the A1(M), requiring the motorway to build in the bridge necessary for the future rail link. A station in the area was later included in the plan, as Leeds United sold their Elland Road stadium to address financial woes (*8), and received planning permission to build a new 50,000 seat stadium at Skelton Grange. The new Transpennine station, named the same as the stadium, is simply known as "Skelton Grange", and is extremely busy during matchdays (or when other events are held at the stadium), when extra shuttle services are laid on between Leeds Central and Knottingley or Wakefield, via Skelton Grange station. The rest of the time (often on weekdays) the station serves as a park & ride station, located a short distance from the M1.
With the opening of the route diversion in 2007, much of the train congestion was eliminated at Leeds, although peak hours still cause issues. Most of the remaining terminating platforms to the north-west side of the station were removed, and the station car park slightly expanded. The land formerly used for the approach trackwork was sold to land developers, who after land banking the land until much of the 2007 recession had passed, built new offices in combination in combination with developers on the north side of the river. The site was sandwiched between Leeds Central (including Pullman services) and Leeds Piccadilly stations, and in a central city position; the excellent position meant that many of the office buildings are now occupied by financial institutions based in Yorkshire, and was initially known informally as the "Groat Quarter" before the name became officially adopted.
-----------------
(*1) Much of this chapter has been covered in previous chapters. The only point I'd make is the switch to Pullman services to London means no need to switch locomotives around compared to previous loco-hauled trains, and also no need to refuel it. So turnaround time is much quicker. The line to the east of Leeds is a mostly double track alignment for a long way until it gets to the York/Selby&Hull junction at Micklefield, with small stations making local trains block the route.
(*2) This is required, not just because of the different Pullman electrical systems, but also Pullman trains need a way to overtake the slower local/semi-express trains.
(*3) Likely via Pudsey; remember a long time ago, Bradford had it's stations connected during the reconstruction in Bradford city centre.
(*4) Probably one of the simpler parts of the project; stringing up 25kV AC wires from Ashton across the Pennines via Huddersfield towards Leeds. Much of this route is quadrupled; at the Manchester end, the Manchester Metro services use the other pair. In the middle area, the double tracks are slewed across the entire formation to widen the curves slightly and provide plenty of space for the overhead works. And towards the Leeds end, the 25kV will run via Dewsbury, with the classic lines via Heckmondwike.
(*5) This has been hinted at and mentioned a few times before.
(*6) I made a mistake in this map; the Pullman tracks are actually on the southern pair of the quadruple track part, running alongside the classic tracks until the Skelton Grange area where they head eastwards towards the Pullman Scottish branch.
(*7) As they are still public bodies, not going through a long privatisation process.
(*8) I'm sure some Leeds fans will be sorry to say goodbye to Elland Road, but Leeds was in severe financial turmoil at this stage, and the widespread regeneration in Skelton Grange area (along with the provision of a station for access) would likely be quite attractive, especially as they considered the site in OTL anyway.
I would also point out, that over the years Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool have created urban metro networks of their own in some form. West Yorkshire hasn't done this (no, there's still no Leeds Supertram), but has continued to invest in BR rail as it did in OTL. This extension would have been a continuing of the quadruple track (2 x legacy, 2 x Pullman) through Skelton Grange area, with the line via Cross Gates branching off via a flat junction via the train depot.
---------------
Kinda agree with you. These are the premium point-to-point, with few intermediate stations as you say, but then on the other hand, the wider availability of public transport will increase ridership itself as it's easier to get to the city centres.
Sodding units. Obviously we've mentioned kW several times, and I just used the same notation of mW with milliwatts completely skipping my mind. I think I've made that mistake in dozens of chapters so far. We'll just keep quiet and pretend it didn't happen (although I corrected that last one you mentioned)!
The former Skelton Grange power station, now demolished.
Leeds Central is the main British Rail station in Leeds (as opposed to the Leeds Piccadilly station used by the "Northern Spirit" railway company. It serves a combination of predominately Transpennine services across the legacy network, as well as Intercity Crosscountry services and Pullman services. Following East Yorkshire's electrification, high speed Transpennine commuter services now operate from Liverpool and Manchester, via Leeds, to York and the eastern coast at Middlesbrough, Whitby, Scarborough and Hull. However, the removal of several west facing platforms (to the northern side of the station) to allow for a large multi-storey car park serving the station, has provided congestion in the station despite the loss of Wharfedale services (to Ilkley and Skipton) to the Northern Spirit operator. The introduction of Pullman services, reducing the turn-around-time in platform at Leeds for high speed trains to London also reduced congestion slightly. The introduction of more cross-Leeds services, as opposed to trains terminating at Leeds, by joining up services also helped reduce congestion at the station - however this merely moved the congestion eastwards to the solely double track from Leeds to as far as Micklefield (*1).
2000 saw the rebuilding of the viaduct to the east of Leeds to accommodate quadruple track - and the extension of the Pullman tracks, with 25kV AC power, further east to link up with the core route northwards (*2). This allowed the first stage of more services running through Leeds, along with new platforms at a reopened "Marsh Lane" station to the east of the city centre, but difficulties still arose due to the heavy weight of routes from the west of Leeds station, and the sparse amount of routes from the east. To assist this (and provide an alternative non-Pullman route), legacy East Coast services from Kings Cross now accessed Leeds from the east, and usually ran through Leeds to Bradford, maintaining a London connection for Bradford (*3). Additionally, in 2003, Transpennine high speed commuter services started (*4), which absorbed further commuter services from the classic network on to the higher speed Pullman tracks, further freeing up some train slots. However, a far more significant move would be the "Leeds East Side Access" project, which began in 2003 (*5).
The LESA project would see the redirection of the tracks from Normanton and Castleford area (via which several commuter and semi-express services operate). Just west of Woodlesford station, the railway would bend north, crossing the River Aire, and past the sewage and power stations in the area, before rejoining the existing British Rail tracks just west of Neville Hill depot in eastern Leeds. This roughly 5km diversion would cause trains from this direction to access Leeds from the east rather than west, and allow a better balance of routes from either side of the station, reducing train congestion at Leeds and increasing connectivity - all whilst not requiring further changes in central Leeds itself. The old route via Hunslet was also maintained with much reduced requirements as a freight branch due the amount of freight depots on this stretch of line through industrial Leeds.
Outline map, showing the new link (red), new stations (green), and Pullman tracks (grey). The old route, retained for freight, is the thin brown line. (*6)
The closure of the Skelton Grange power station in the 1990s had provided the opportunity for this diversion. Thanks to the close liaison between Transpennine and the West Yorkshire Transport Authority (*7), the route on the ground was earmarked during the early stages of the planning process for regeneration of the area, and was safeguarded when the M1 motoway was extended to the east of Leeds to link to the A1(M), requiring the motorway to build in the bridge necessary for the future rail link. A station in the area was later included in the plan, as Leeds United sold their Elland Road stadium to address financial woes (*8), and received planning permission to build a new 50,000 seat stadium at Skelton Grange. The new Transpennine station, named the same as the stadium, is simply known as "Skelton Grange", and is extremely busy during matchdays (or when other events are held at the stadium), when extra shuttle services are laid on between Leeds Central and Knottingley or Wakefield, via Skelton Grange station. The rest of the time (often on weekdays) the station serves as a park & ride station, located a short distance from the M1.
With the opening of the route diversion in 2007, much of the train congestion was eliminated at Leeds, although peak hours still cause issues. Most of the remaining terminating platforms to the north-west side of the station were removed, and the station car park slightly expanded. The land formerly used for the approach trackwork was sold to land developers, who after land banking the land until much of the 2007 recession had passed, built new offices in combination in combination with developers on the north side of the river. The site was sandwiched between Leeds Central (including Pullman services) and Leeds Piccadilly stations, and in a central city position; the excellent position meant that many of the office buildings are now occupied by financial institutions based in Yorkshire, and was initially known informally as the "Groat Quarter" before the name became officially adopted.
-----------------
(*1) Much of this chapter has been covered in previous chapters. The only point I'd make is the switch to Pullman services to London means no need to switch locomotives around compared to previous loco-hauled trains, and also no need to refuel it. So turnaround time is much quicker. The line to the east of Leeds is a mostly double track alignment for a long way until it gets to the York/Selby&Hull junction at Micklefield, with small stations making local trains block the route.
(*2) This is required, not just because of the different Pullman electrical systems, but also Pullman trains need a way to overtake the slower local/semi-express trains.
(*3) Likely via Pudsey; remember a long time ago, Bradford had it's stations connected during the reconstruction in Bradford city centre.
(*4) Probably one of the simpler parts of the project; stringing up 25kV AC wires from Ashton across the Pennines via Huddersfield towards Leeds. Much of this route is quadrupled; at the Manchester end, the Manchester Metro services use the other pair. In the middle area, the double tracks are slewed across the entire formation to widen the curves slightly and provide plenty of space for the overhead works. And towards the Leeds end, the 25kV will run via Dewsbury, with the classic lines via Heckmondwike.
(*5) This has been hinted at and mentioned a few times before.
(*6) I made a mistake in this map; the Pullman tracks are actually on the southern pair of the quadruple track part, running alongside the classic tracks until the Skelton Grange area where they head eastwards towards the Pullman Scottish branch.
(*7) As they are still public bodies, not going through a long privatisation process.
(*8) I'm sure some Leeds fans will be sorry to say goodbye to Elland Road, but Leeds was in severe financial turmoil at this stage, and the widespread regeneration in Skelton Grange area (along with the provision of a station for access) would likely be quite attractive, especially as they considered the site in OTL anyway.
I would also point out, that over the years Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool have created urban metro networks of their own in some form. West Yorkshire hasn't done this (no, there's still no Leeds Supertram), but has continued to invest in BR rail as it did in OTL. This extension would have been a continuing of the quadruple track (2 x legacy, 2 x Pullman) through Skelton Grange area, with the line via Cross Gates branching off via a flat junction via the train depot.
---------------
Great updates, as usual. I kinda like that the Pullman services actually aren't at the same capacity as the OTL services to the same cities. Makes sense that the premium express service wouldn't fill all transportation needs.
14.4 MW, surely? mW wouldn't be enough for a H0 train
Kinda agree with you. These are the premium point-to-point, with few intermediate stations as you say, but then on the other hand, the wider availability of public transport will increase ridership itself as it's easier to get to the city centres.
Sodding units. Obviously we've mentioned kW several times, and I just used the same notation of mW with milliwatts completely skipping my mind. I think I've made that mistake in dozens of chapters so far. We'll just keep quiet and pretend it didn't happen (although I corrected that last one you mentioned)!
Last edited:
Sorry didn't reply to the last update, but interesting to see that third rail is in Scotland now, plus I wonder if Aberdeen is a far busier station here with not only connections to Edinburgh and Inverness, but also Banchory, Peterhead and Fraserbrough. Maybe Ferryhill shed has become the Carnforth for Scotland as in holding rail charters?
With the oil boom that happened and with these rail connections in place, likely see Aberdeen being expanded as a city overtime with half of the existing Royal Deeside Railway such as Cult becoming part of Aberdeen and maybe part of Aberdeen Crossrail?
Truly we can assume Aberdeen has well and truly made it's mark as Scotland's third city and speaking of which about Leeds selling Elland Road, wonder if Aberdeen got their new stadium earlier in TTL with development going on.
Either or, think Aberdeen should get it's own update as there could be much to talk about.
With the oil boom that happened and with these rail connections in place, likely see Aberdeen being expanded as a city overtime with half of the existing Royal Deeside Railway such as Cult becoming part of Aberdeen and maybe part of Aberdeen Crossrail?
Truly we can assume Aberdeen has well and truly made it's mark as Scotland's third city and speaking of which about Leeds selling Elland Road, wonder if Aberdeen got their new stadium earlier in TTL with development going on.
Either or, think Aberdeen should get it's own update as there could be much to talk about.
Outline map, showing the new link (red), new stations (green), and Pullman tracks (grey). The old route, retained for freight, is the thin brown line. (*6)
How many holes is the golf course now......