Thatcher Survives-So Does British Rail

[SadSprinter]

Class 381 and Class 371 "Universal Networker"

This is where it gets complicated. The Universal Networker seemed to be a sub family within the actual Networker family and there seems to be multiple illustrations for which train is which.

According to Wikipedia, the Class 381 was to be used on "various long-distance routes across the Network SouthEast sector, including Kent Coast services from Victoria and Charing Cross, Great Northern services from King's Cross and LTS services from Fenchurch Street". This doesn't make sense, considering Kent Coast services were going to replaced by the class 471, and the LTS (London Tilbury Southend) route from Fenchurch Street is a short distance, intense commuter route, while the Kent Coast Route is much longer. Furthermore, according to a dubious 2011 article from "The Railway Magazine", this is what the train was meant to look like.

According to the picture, the train would have single leaf doors on each end of the carriage, which suggests its a long distance Intercity train. This would not be suitable on the LTS or even Great Northern routes which are both commuter routes (apart from the Kings Cross to Kings Lynn service). I am not sure if Wikipedia, the article, or indeed BR themselves were wrong-considering the train is numbered as a class 381 which is too small to view on the picture. However, the "Network South East story", a biography of Network South East written by Chris Green himself, seems to label the LTS trains as the "class 331". I have no idea really where else I can go from here apart from assume they were not the final design of the trains themselves. Anyway, the article is not to be trusted, as I'll show shortly.

The class 371 on the other hand was to be built for "Thameslink 2000", and seems to have two different designs..

The design as shown on Wikipedia. The image itself makes no sense, as it appears to be running on DC third rail but the speed limit sign shows a linespeed of 125 miles per hour.

This rather weird looking design is out of the magazine however. I would expect both designs of trains were to be built for different service patterns. It becomes more confusing as the Class 381, which was to built for Great Northern services, was to become part of Thameslink, so I don't see why Great Northern would need three kinds of train.

In this timeline we'll say this train design is used for the class 381 on LTS and Kent Link services, while the class 381 above is used on Kings Lynn and fast Peterborough and Cambridge services. And assume BR did some last minuite design work before the trains were built. The Wikipedia image of the class 371 will be used for middle distance and suburban Thameslink services.

 

[SadSprinter]

Class 341

The Class 341 was to be built for the 1990s iteration of the Crossrail project and again, this train seems to have two different designs.

The design as per Wikipedia.

A real life mock-up of the train, taken from a still of a YouTube video (see here) on Liverpool Street station in 1991.

And here is the image taken from my magazine. Strangely, something I have just noticed is the front of the train is exactly the same as the Class 371, however the train is clearly shown as having three sets of doors per carriage and leaving some sort of tunnel-denoting its a Crossrail train. However, the magazine lists the train as designed for "part of an AC route to Amersham." While Crossrail did intend to run to Amersham in the 90s, the article does not mention this. It's possible the writer got confused, or this was just an editing mistake. As for the design of train being the same as the 371, it suggests these drawings were not BR's final designs for what they would look like.

In addition, the early class 168 cab designs seem to resemble this train. See here

Class 481

Lastly (if your still here) the image below shows a "Class 481". This train is not mentioned anywhere else, including Wikipedia. Seeing its a class 4xx unit, it suggests its a Southern Region unit and like the class 381 drawing, appears to have single leaf end of carriage doors. It's possible that this was another editing mistake and is actually meant to be the Class 342-which was meant to operate high speed domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

Any other trains I mention (apart from the class 167 which was also a never-built train design) are entirely made up for the purposes of the timeline.

 

[Ogrebear]

Fantastic to see some of the ‘didnt runs’ that made it to this timeline.

Such an interesting mix of designs too.

 

[Devvy]

This is something that is looked at in OTL at the end of the 1990s/ early 2000s, which is a part of my book I need to read! But in OTL there was a plan for a Heathrow to St. Pancras service although that was dead by 1999.

Just catching up, due to holidays and my life consisting of semi-permanent childcare duties now! From memory (currently overseas so can't consult my mini library on the matter!) it was a BAA idea to run from Heathrow to St Pancras, to link in with Euston, St Pancras International and Kings Cross traffic. It was dropped when reality struck; it would have been difficult to schedule them in to the GWML lines (also wastes line capacity going further from London), whilst also being difficult for them to then interface with the Thameslink/MML lines to get in to St Pancras (or Moorgate via the Thameslink route, which I think was also briefly considered).

The class 371 on the other hand was to be built for "Thameslink 2000", and seems to have two different designs..

The design as shown on Wikipedia. The image itself makes no sense, as it appears to be running on DC third rail but the speed limit sign shows a linespeed of 125 miles per hour.

This is actually more common then you'd think (even now from personal experience); concept artists for marketing often miss technical details. The fact it's a Class 371 indicates it is designated primarily for AC electric traction (or dual AC/DC), which is capable of supporting 125mph operation. However, if it's a dual AC/DC traction train, then it would also be on the third rail network, so likely the train supported 125mph operation, and third rail power, just not simultaneously which was overlooked in concept drawings.

The Class 341 was to be built for the 1990s iteration of the Crossrail project and again, this train seems to have two different designs.

The design as per Wikipedia.

A real life mock-up of the train, taken from a still of a YouTube video (see here) on Liverpool Street station in 1991.

View attachment 398208 And here is the image taken from my magazine. Strangely, something I have just noticed is the front of the train is exactly the same as the Class 371, however the train is clearly shown as having three sets of doors per carriage and leaving some sort of tunnel-denoting its a Crossrail train. However, the magazine lists the train as designed for "part of an AC route to Amersham." While Crossrail did intend to run to Amersham in the 90s, the article does not mention this. It's possible the writer got confused, or this was just an editing mistake. As for the design of train being the same as the 371, it suggests these drawings were not BR's final designs for what they would look like.

BR 1990s plans for Crossrail often featured taking over the route to Aylesbury via Amersham. The route would need electrification, and as per the rest of the Crossrail route would be almost certainly be done at 25kV OHLE, hence the suggestions.

Overall, enjoying reading (especially the political parts as that's something I usually struggle with), keep it up

 

[baldipaul]

I knew Thameslink 2000 was ten years + late (I was signalling Lead Tester in Charge for the scheme) but I didn't realise that Crossrail had mock ups of rolling stock as early as 1991. How long has it been a concept?

 

[Devvy]

I knew Thameslink 2000 was ten years + late (I was signalling Lead Tester in Charge for the scheme) but I didn't realise that Crossrail had mock ups of rolling stock as early as 1991. How long has it been a concept?

Conceptually; since the 1940s when someone floated having main line train tunnels across London. In its current rough Paddington to Liverpool Street form, since the early 1980s I’ve seen it in archived documents.

 

[SadSprinter]

Fantastic to see some of the ‘didnt runs’ that made it to this timeline.

Such an interesting mix of designs too.

They are, I just wish they were all built. My favourite design are the class 371 and 381s from the magazine.

Just catching up, due to holidays and my life consisting of semi-permanent childcare duties now! From memory (currently overseas so can't consult my mini library on the matter!) it was a BAA idea to run from Heathrow to St Pancras, to link in with Euston, St Pancras International and Kings Cross traffic. It was dropped when reality struck; it would have been difficult to schedule them in to the GWML lines (also wastes line capacity going further from London), whilst also being difficult for them to then interface with the Thameslink/MML lines to get in to St Pancras (or Moorgate via the Thameslink route, which I think was also briefly considered).



This is actually more common then you'd think (even now from personal experience); concept artists for marketing often miss technical details. The fact it's a Class 371 indicates it is designated primarily for AC electric traction (or dual AC/DC), which is capable of supporting 125mph operation. However, if it's a dual AC/DC traction train, then it would also be on the third rail network, so likely the train supported 125mph operation, and third rail power, just not simultaneously which was overlooked in concept drawings.



BR 1990s plans for Crossrail often featured taking over the route to Aylesbury via Amersham. The route would need electrification, and as per the rest of the Crossrail route would be almost certainly be done at 25kV OHLE, hence the suggestions.

Overall, enjoying reading (especially the political parts as that's something I usually struggle with), keep it up

The political parts were easy at first because I was reading about Margret Thatcher at the time so knew what she was like on a more personal level. However trying to decide the fate of a completely made up premiership as in the case of Portillo is not easy at all and I’ve completely changed my opinion of him about twice now.

I knew Thameslink 2000 was ten years + late (I was signalling Lead Tester in Charge for the scheme) but I didn't realise that Crossrail had mock ups of rolling stock as early as 1991. How long has it been a concept?

As Devvy said, the concept has been around since the 40s, but what we know as Crossrail came from 1974 and involved knocking down Covent Garden to build a station there to mirror a similar station on Paris’s RER where a massive interchange was built below an old market.

 

[SadSprinter]

Just catching up, due to holidays and my life consisting of semi-permanent childcare duties now! From memory (currently overseas so can't consult my mini library on the matter!) it was a BAA idea to run from Heathrow to St Pancras, to link in with Euston, St Pancras International and Kings Cross traffic. It was dropped when reality struck; it would have been difficult to schedule them in to the GWML lines (also wastes line capacity going further from London), whilst also being difficult for them to then interface with the Thameslink/MML lines to get in to St Pancras (or Moorgate via the Thameslink route, which I think was also briefly considered).



This is actually more common then you'd think (even now from personal experience); concept artists for marketing often miss technical details. The fact it's a Class 371 indicates it is designated primarily for AC electric traction (or dual AC/DC), which is capable of supporting 125mph operation. However, if it's a dual AC/DC traction train, then it would also be on the third rail network, so likely the train supported 125mph operation, and third rail power, just not simultaneously which was overlooked in concept drawings.



BR 1990s plans for Crossrail often featured taking over the route to Aylesbury via Amersham. The route would need electrification, and as per the rest of the Crossrail route would be almost certainly be done at 25kV OHLE, hence the suggestions.

Overall, enjoying reading (especially the political parts as that's something I usually struggle with), keep it up

Any idea why the proposed train for the LTS lines appears to be a high speed Intercity train?

 

[Devvy]

Any idea why the proposed train for the LTS lines appears to be a high speed Intercity train?

I'm at a complete loss for it too. It kinda looks like it tapers in towards the top, implying some kind of tilt function as well, and it reminds me of the APT design (even without the Jacobs bogie). The LTS was slated for full modernisation in the 1990s due to the absolute hodgepodge of technologies and infrastructure the line was in, but I can't see any reason why it would use trains such as those; completely inadequate. My only guess is the same as yours; magazine article error, or mis-file by BR for it's design location.

 

[SadSprinter]

Was there any information on what would replace slam door main line stock on the Brighton and South Western lines in OTL? BR only seemed to design replacements for the Eastern division.

Unfortunately, the National Archives has a lot of documents dating from 1990 about never built Networkers, but they can’t be digitally downloaded.

 

[Devvy]

In the 1990s, the Kent stock was the stuff in need of replacement, also pressed on by the likely CTRL and associated high speed Kent services on the horizon. My feeling is that existing stock would have been passed over to SWML services at most, and replacement stock for SWML would have been a later thought for 2000s onwards had NSE still been in operation at the time. The Class 442 units had only just come in to service on the SWML expresses, and Thameslink 2000 would have replaced a lot of the BML trains.

Ps: which documents are you referring to in the NArchives? I potter in there now and then so might take a look if you can share the doc references?

 

[SadSprinter]

There's a few documents archived about the class 371, reference- AN 188/214

Some articles for the Class 341s can't be opened until 2025, but one document about the trains are open AN 188/223

Otherwise, nothing for any of the other classes.

Found some interesting documents the other day on what transport developments BR and London Transport had in mind for the early 21st Century:

The Central London Route Study from 1989 has a variety of interesting maps at the end of the document, including an early version of Crossrail 2 which would have linked the Brighton Mainline from Victoria to the West Coast Mainline at Euston. Also looks like they were planning at some stage to build a second route for the Victoria Line through the West End, creating an Oxford Circus Branch and a Tottenham Court Road Branch. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_CentralLondonRailStudy1989.pdf

This document I found "Future Rail-Planning for the next decade" gives a small glimpse on the praticality and ambition BR had towards the end of its life. I think if privatisation never happened Britain would of had the best railway in Europe and possibly the entire world. Even in the early 1990s, page six demonstrates BR had already begun contemplating replacing the 125s on the Western and Midland routes-possibly with Intercity 250 trains.

Page 9 is quite interesting, showing a basic map of future Network South East developments and naming Thameslink as "Thameslink Express" with services from Folkstone to Kings Lynn. Its possible these were the routes that dubious class 381 high speed train was designed for. Interesting that Thameslink in 2018 would have the same basic train for any route, while BR planned a mix of long distance and metro routes with multiple kinds of stock.

Also on page 9, note the grainy picture of the original proposed station for the CTRL between Kings Cross and St. Pancras. The "kite" design by Norman Foster was to be built on the site of the Great Northern Hotel, which was to be demolished and would reflect daylight onto the station platforms in the cavern below. This Flickr page shows a better image of what the station would have looked like: https://www.flickr.com/photos/iqbalaalam/8314959169/in/photostream/

I think they look about like the tripods from War of the Worlds.

 

[Devvy]

There's a few documents archived about the class 371, reference- AN 188/214

Some articles for the Class 341s can't be opened until 2025, but one document about the trains are open AN 188/223

Otherwise, nothing for any of the other classes.

Cheers - might poke my nose in them next time I'm at the NA.

The Central London Route Study from 1989 has a variety of interesting maps at the end of the document, including an early version of Crossrail 2 which would have linked the Brighton Mainline from Victoria to the West Coast Mainline at Euston. Also looks like they were planning at some stage to build a second route for the Victoria Line through the West End, creating an Oxford Circus Branch and a Tottenham Court Road Branch. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_CentralLondonRailStudy1989.pdf

My read of them has always been that the Victoria "loop" (separating it in to a North Victoria line and a South Victoria line) was to try and ram home the message that something needed to be done, but this was the baseline "expensive and little benefit" solution. Likewise with the Central/Bakerloo tinkering.

The Victoria Crossrail route is interesting, but is unlikely; the report's own conclusions say that Paddington-Liverpool Street is far cheaper and thus likely, and after that Wimbledon-Liverpool Street has the best benefit over it. The City Crossrail option always peaks my interest on that map!

This document I found "Future Rail-Planning for the next decade" gives a small glimpse on the praticality and ambition BR had towards the end of its life. I think if privatisation never happened Britain would of had the best railway in Europe and possibly the entire world. Even in the early 1990s, page six demonstrates BR had already begun contemplating replacing the 125s on the Western and Midland routes-possibly with Intercity 250 trains.

OTL, the Tories denied BR the finance to add extra trains to the IC225 order to operate on the WCML. So on a cinderella route like the MML, IC125 replacement is unlikely. But the GWML; maybe you could get some earlier electrification and a duplicate of your WCML IC250 trains, for operation there (with IC125 trains cascaded to CrossCountry services I guess).

Also on page 9, note the grainy picture of the original proposed station for the CTRL between Kings Cross and St. Pancras. The "kite" design by Norman Foster was to be built on the site of the Great Northern Hotel, which was to be demolished and would reflect daylight onto the station platforms in the cavern below. This Flickr page shows a better image of what the station would have looked like: https://www.flickr.com/photos/iqbalaalam/8314959169/in/photostream/

I think they look about like the tripods from War of the Worlds.

Interesting, hadn't seen that one before!

 

[RobinCarmody]

This document I found "Future Rail-Planning for the next decade" gives a small glimpse on the praticality and ambition BR had towards the end of its life. I think if privatisation never happened Britain would of had the best railway in Europe and possibly the entire world.

I think this is conceivable too. The number of electrification projects they could have *completed*, *on time and on budget*, had they been given the amount of money the private companies have had to be given just to keep going ...

But when I first saw the title of this thread I assumed it had Labour winning in 1992 against Thatcher and, tbh, I find that easier to believe than some aspects of this timeline, and potentially at least as good for BR.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

'Being given the amount of money the private companies have had' is the operative sentence. BR was never funded consistently and always had to compete with other government priorities.

While I think in many ways BR was and would have been better I don't think that it would have received a similar level of funding as we see in @. However I do remember John Prescott stating around 1994 that Labour wanted to give BR greater powers to borrow money commercially. That might have been a way for them to make up shortfalls in public money.

 

[RobinCarmody]

apropos John Major's original ideas for privatisation, as mentioned in this thread - basically recreating the Big Four as brought about by grouping in 1923 (and which were in fact broadly under government control from the outbreak of WW2 onwards) and how he was talked out of them by those of the more fanatical, ideological Right - I think they pretty much sum up the differences between him and the hardline Thatcherites: his bad ideas were much more romantic and nostalgic, but probably just as bad in a different way really.

 

[SadSprinter]

I think this is conceivable too. The number of electrification projects they could have *completed*, *on time and on budget*, had they been given the amount of money the private companies have had to be given just to keep going ...

But when I first saw the title of this thread I assumed it had Labour winning in 1992 against Thatcher and, tbh, I find that easier to believe than some aspects of this timeline, and potentially at least as good for BR.

Yeah, thatcher winning in 1992 seems a bit inconceivable, but I know that if she was kept on past 1990 her supporters would want her to fight another election and for her to loose that way instead of being forced out. The only reason why I reckon she would have won it was because fighting Maastricht and the Euro would have really put her in her element at the time which could of resurrected the old “strong leader, strong stage” Thatcher from the early 80s that ITTL Portillo is seeking to emulate.

Then there’s her handling of the economy, steering it away from deep recession and thus helping BR’s investment prospects. She would have certainly made a big deal about the 1991 Soviet coup attempt if she were PM at the time and would have relived some of the 1987 glory days on her Kremlin visit. But I think she would have done a John Major and had her popularity collapse immediately after the election.

apropos John Major's original ideas for privatisation, as mentioned in this thread - basically recreating the Big Four as brought about by grouping in 1923 (and which were in fact broadly under government control from the outbreak of WW2 onwards) and how he was talked out of them by those of the more fanatical, ideological Right - I think they pretty much sum up the differences between him and the hardline Thatcherites: his bad ideas were much more romantic and nostalgic, but probably just as bad in a different way really.

From what I read it was a civil servant in the Treasury and the Adam Smith Institute. Even John Redwood backed the Reigonal privatisation model, and another politician wanted a British Rail plc.

 

[SadSprinter]

'Being given the amount of money the private companies have had' is the operative sentence. BR was never funded consistently and always had to compete with other government priorities.

While I think in many ways BR was and would have been better I don't think that it would have received a similar level of funding as we see in @. However I do remember John Prescott stating around 1994 that Labour wanted to give BR greater powers to borrow money commercially. That might have been a way for them to make up shortfalls in public money.

Yes that’s what the French system does. Also I think the rail freight sector at least would be privatised and then charged by BR for use of its tracks which would have helped matters. Besides once the 90s ends and a fleet of new trains is running up and down the country passenger numbers could rise earlier.

 

[SadSprinter]

By late 1994, Intercity had begun designing the covers for the new Intercity 250 timetables ready for revenue earning service in1995. This particular cover was intended not be the final product, considering the "high speed" services i.e, above 125 mph will not be implemented until 1998 or 1999. In the event, this cover was so well recieved it was published for public use in 1995.

The timetable coincided with a series of artworks at the time, commissioned by Intercity, romanticising the new trains in an attempt to relive the luxury of the LMS era.

 

[Ogrebear]

Like that art.

It’s a good look.