British Rail sanity options : 1948 - 2000

[MKD]

One of the key bits of my ATL is that in 1950-1951, BR orders a proper trial dieselisation of that portion of the Great Western past Newton Abbot.

Is the technology there to provide high speed, powerful & reliable, single locomotive diesel trains at that time?

In my ATL, the 2,000hp is an all English Electric design resembling 10203 or a Class 40, and the 1,200hp Sulzer-Crompton loco is basically a Class 33

oh no. I am not a fan of either of those locos. ;-)

Build Deltic's and a 37's. Also maybe a 47.

Class 55 Deltic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_55
Class 37 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_37
Class 47 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47

East Coast electrification to Northampton (yes, that was proposed!), Cambridge, Leeds and York begins around the same time. North of York, the LNER's 1947 proposal for diesel locomotives goes ahead, with pairs of them taking trains up to Newcastle, Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

The problem with early electrification is that I doubt it will be at 25kv. I don't want to have to pay twice for electrification works so we need to agree on 25kv and crack on but ONLY if the technology is there to do that early - i am not sure it is

Oh, and the Southern had plans to electrify everything east of Weymouth and Salisbury on the third-rail system, with diesels going west from Salisbury. I say have at it.

Go for it! My only issue with third rail is that while it is good technology in 1933/53 it is a bit old fashioned by 2023.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Is the technology there to provide high speed, powerful & reliable, single locomotive diesel trains at that time?

Powerful enough - the 1951 Motive Power Report does say that the most demanding duties would require twin units, but that a large-scale trial was still worth carrying out.

Build Deltic's and a 37's. Also maybe a 47.

I like the Deltic, but it's a niche locomotive for main-line expresses rather than a general service mixed traffic locomotive. The lines it'd run on are the priorities for electrification, so it makes more sense to use something that can be cascaded elsewhere.

The 2,000hp English Electric locomotive is basically 10203, though I'd prefer the running gear and bodyshell of 10000/10001. Even if it enters service at a 1,600hp or 1,750hp rating, it's got a clear upgrade path to 2,700hp in 1961 or so. Run them in pairs (as the LMS and LNER planned to) for the top-flight expresses, rather than develop Deltics, until the

The proto-Class 33 wouldn't be too demanding; it would probably run on A1A-A1A bogies to give the weight for steam heat. It develops to 1,800hp by about 1960 as the 8LDA28 gets uprated. Ideally, I'd follow it up by a Bo-Bo with an 8LVA25 - install electric heating in the carriages, and fit the bearings correctly, and that's a Really Useful Locomotive.

If you want to swap the English Electric and the Sulzer/Crompton power classes, that's no big deal. The reasoning for using those specific combinations of diesel prime mover and electrical equipment is that - unlike most of the other weird choices - they actually worked. And having both present means you're not depending on a single supplier. The smaller loco is pretty similar in both cases; the big Sulzer/Crompton is a bit less powerful than the big English Electric, but is potentially a bit lighter. My preference is the big English Electric because it was already being proven with the LMS and Southern diesels - and in my ATL, the LNER ones as well.

The problem with early electrification is that I doubt it will be at 25kv. I don't want to have to pay twice for electrification works so we need to agree on 25kv and crack on but ONLY if the technology is there to do that early - i am not sure it is

I'd have the studies start in 1951, by which time France is rolling out 25kV main line electrification. That probably lets the construction work start in 1954-1955, giving a good 5 years head start on OTL, with a view to having all the major routes (broadly as per OTL's 1981 study) electrified at some point between 1970 and 1980.

One of the intreresting things with that proposed electrification programme is that they'd take it from the ECML to Colwick Yard in Nottingham for mineral (i.e. coal) traffic, with a possible linking up with the Manchester-Sheffield-Wath electrification. That is, there was consideration at that time of electrifying from Nottingham to Sheffield on the Great Central line.

Go for it! My only issue with third rail is that while it is good technology in 1933/53 it is a bit old fashioned by 2023.

It was old fashioned by 1963: 25kV to Bournemouth was considered, but would have caused too many problems with electrical compatibility. Unless you're prepared to rewire the whole Southern system, either stick with diesels until dual-system trains are possible in the 1990s, or commit to third rail. The rational decision at the time would be to electrify using the existing system; that way, the electrical compatibility issues are limited to a couple of exchange points.

 

[PMN1]

Would building just one big central station at Farringdon help like they originally wanted to in the 1850's but were stopped?

I was thinking of building an entirely new station at Farringdon post 1950's and replacing all the other terminus stations Euston, Piccadilly, Kings Cross etc (although they'd still be a stations at these sites with two up and down lines), possibly called London Central or even London Elizabeth.

Would that be possible?
Would it work?

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

 

[MKD]

thinking about standard locos a bit further:

Tranche 1

• Shunting: Class 08 ( they are going to fade away as British industry changes but will be required early in our time period)
• Light freight: Class 20 ( they are going to fade away as British industry changes but will be required early in our time period )
• Mixed traffic: Class 37 /47 ( almost go anywhere locos)
• High speed Intercity: Class 55
• Electric: Standard class 8X loco
• Standard first gen EMU: ( something like a class 308)
• Standard 1st Gen DMU: class 101 ( insert your favourite - doesn't really matter as long as we have 1 type!)

Tranche 2 ( Mid 1970's)

• HST - Replace class 55 on intercity work - devolve those to sleeper/parcels/secondary routes and move 47 to more freight work. I would also build more than we actually did. We built something like 200. Let’s double that. Could we build an electric HST?
• Run down of class 55 numbers as HST come on stream and electrification expands.
• Build more mkiii carriages to improve service quality on all major routes ( remove remaining mki and mkii vehicles by 1980’s)
• Introduce DVT and fixed coaching stock sets on electrified intercity trains to improve efficiency.
• 37/47 still used on mixed traffic work but slanting more towards freight
• most class 20 removed and numbers of 08 reduced ( remaining used on shunting and short distance bulk freight work. Thinking pit to local power station/steel works to local docks)

Tranche 3 (mid 1980's)

• heavy freight loco: Class 56 ( pairs of 37's used where these locos may be unsuitable/localised light freight work. Last class 20’s removed.)
• HST life extension 1
• Generation 2 electric locomotive (Class 90?) to support a wider electrified network used in a mixed traffic style
• Second Generation DMU: Sprinter ( I WANT to say keep loco hauled but it is cheaper to use DMU on rural lines and while Pacers saved many lines imo they aren’t very nice)
• Second Generation EMU ( class 319/321)
• Class 47/37 on secondary routes/parcels/sleepers but many withdrawn (Remaining class 55 removed from traffic by this time and remaining 37/47 overhauled and modernised with a run down on numbers as electrification expands)
• Channel tunnel and HS link approved. Complete by end of this period

Tranche 3 (late 90's/early 2000)

• General use freight loco: Class 60 like but perhaps running at a higher speed to cover freight of all types and replace class 56 and any remaining 37’s/47’s)
• Class 90/1 ( an improved/updated class 90 able to run at a higher speed) to support mixed traffic operations on an expanded electric network
• Mixed traffic loco to replace remaining class 37/47 IF required ( will depend on extent of electrified network and retention of parcels/sleeper traffic etc)
• Generation 3 EMU - class 350 like (second gen units tarted up and cascaded to electrified branch lines with numbers reduced as required)
• Generation 3 DMU - Turbostar like unit ( hopefully reduced numbers compared to the pacers they replace as electrification has become much wider)
• HST reduced on front line intercity services. Build mkiv stock to run with the class 90/1 and cascade mkiii to secondary electrified routes. HST given a second life extension and cascaded onto secondary routes such as cross country, Scotland, Transpennine and any remaining niche non electrified intercity routes . Numbers run down as electrification expands. Replaced with mkiii and class 90/1. NO VOYAGERS!
• Beginnings of a new high speed network based on success of Eurostar

Tranche 4 ( mid to late 2020’s)

• all the mkiii /iv trains, HST and class 90/1 hauled trains replaced with a modern high speed unit such as a better specified class 800. This would need to be a hybrid unit to offer maximum service coverage as even with an expanded electrified network many locations will miss out.
• We would also need to start looking at a 4th generation EMU
• Hybrid/battery 4th gen DMU for non-electrified lines
• Reduction in diesel freight locos but those remaining life extended to support non electrified freight work
• Introduction of “last mile power” for electric locos off wires
• Continued roll out of high speed network!

Publish and be dammed! Waiting for comments: @Devvy @BlueTrousers @Giant Man Eating Rabbits

 

[Devvy]

How much earlier could we potentially drag the introduction of the InterCity 125? As I understand things it was the in-house design favoured by the 'traditionalists', largely packaging together already existing technology. The main question seems to be the engine.

The IC125 did use a lot of pre-existing technology, tried and trusted technology, but it did also encompass some of the understandings and lessons from the APT-E (Experimental) train and it’s predecessors such as the high speed freight wagon if I remember right. Things like hunting and oscillation, high speed comfort and vibration, etc etc. Until the IC125, 100mph was the top speed on BR, and I'm not sure how early you could move the 125mph speeds whilst retaining the high speed knowledge as well as having the infrastructure (tracks, signalling etc) to support those speeds.

That's part of my comment about electrification though, I'm not saying that the APT has to be as "revolutionary" as it was - the ECML is nice and straight for a lot of it, and to be fair, south of Preston, the WCML isn't *too* bad; if the WCML and ECML are both electrified, you can make the economic case for the APT without any tilting potentially which massively simplifies *everything*, and if you move the electric engines out to either end as I commented earlier, it resembles a "normal" train just with articulated bogies. If you somehow manage to get even just London-Bristol electrified as well, then you have another route you don't need tilting on which further improves the case.

Go for it! My only issue with third rail is that while it is good technology in 1933/53 it is a bit old fashioned by 2023.

It was old fashioned by 1963: 25kV to Bournemouth was considered, but would have caused too many problems with electrical compatibility. Unless you're prepared to rewire the whole Southern system, either stick with diesels until dual-system trains are possible in the 1990s, or commit to third rail. The rational decision at the time would be to electrify using the existing system; that way, the electrical compatibility issues are limited to a couple of exchange points.

My sole comment about third rail is that it's cheap, simple and get's the job done. It's not high-tech, and it doesn't really allow speeds of over 90-95mph, but it works. Equally, 1.5kv DC overhead works and gets the job done, and allows speeds of roughly up to 110mph - and those two systems are reasonably interoperable (you can just split the 1.5kvDC in to two 750vDC feeds for compatibility). 25kV AC doesn't sit nicely with 750vDC (see also: failed trains at Farringdon switchover!), but it depends what your aim is. If you want lots of high power, high speed trains, you need 25kv AC. If you want lots medium speed trains, cheap electrification, easy regeneration, 750v DC third rail will suffice even if it's not perfect. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good

thinking about standard locos a bit further:

Tranche 1

• Shunting: Class 08 ( they are going to fade away as British industry changes but will be required early in our time period)
• Light freight: Class 20 ( they are going to fade away as British industry changes but will be required early in our time period )
• Mixed traffic: Class 37 /47 ( almost go anywhere locos)
• High speed Intercity: Class 55
• Electric: Standard class 8X loco
• Standard first gen EMU: ( something like a class 308)
• Standard 1st Gen DMU: class 101 ( insert your favourite - doesn't really matter as long as we have 1 type!)

Tranche 2 ( Mid 1970's)

• HST - Replace class 55 on intercity work - devolve those to sleeper/parcels/secondary routes and move 47 to more freight work. I would also build more than we actually did. We built something like 200. Let’s double that. Could we build an electric HST?
• Run down of class 55 numbers as HST come on stream and electrification expands.
• Build more mkiii carriages to improve service quality on all major routes ( remove remaining mki and mkii vehicles by 1980’s)
• Introduce DVT and fixed coaching stock sets on electrified intercity trains to improve efficiency.
• 37/47 still used on mixed traffic work but slanting more towards freight
• most class 20 removed and numbers of 08 reduced ( remaining used on shunting and short distance bulk freight work. Thinking pit to local power station/steel works to local docks)

Tranche 3 (mid 1980's)

• heavy freight loco: Class 56 ( pairs of 37's used where these locos may be unsuitable/localised light freight work. Last class 20’s removed.)
• HST life extension 1
• Generation 2 electric locomotive (Class 90?) to support a wider electrified network used in a mixed traffic style
• Second Generation DMU: Sprinter ( I WANT to say keep loco hauled but it is cheaper to use DMU on rural lines and while Pacers saved many lines imo they aren’t very nice)
• Second Generation EMU ( class 319/321)
• Class 47/37 on secondary routes/parcels/sleepers but many withdrawn (Remaining class 55 removed from traffic by this time and remaining 37/47 overhauled and modernised with a run down on numbers as electrification expands)
• Channel tunnel and HS link approved. Complete by end of this period

Tranche 3 (late 90's/early 2000)

• General use freight loco: Class 60 like but perhaps running at a higher speed to cover freight of all types and replace class 56 and any remaining 37’s/47’s)
• Class 90/1 ( an improved/updated class 90 able to run at a higher speed) to support mixed traffic operations on an expanded electric network
• Mixed traffic loco to replace remaining class 37/47 IF required ( will depend on extent of electrified network and retention of parcels/sleeper traffic etc)
• Generation 3 EMU - class 350 like (second gen units tarted up and cascaded to electrified branch lines with numbers reduced as required)
• Generation 3 DMU - Turbostar like unit ( hopefully reduced numbers compared to the pacers they replace as electrification has become much wider)
• HST reduced on front line intercity services. Build mkiv stock to run with the class 90/1 and cascade mkiii to secondary electrified routes. HST given a second life extension and cascaded onto secondary routes such as cross country, Scotland, Transpennine and any remaining niche non electrified intercity routes . Numbers run down as electrification expands. Replaced with mkiii and class 90/1. NO VOYAGERS!
• Beginnings of a new high speed network based on success of Eurostar

Tranche 4 ( mid to late 2020’s)

• all the mkiii /iv trains, HST and class 90/1 hauled trains replaced with a modern high speed unit such as a better specified class 800. This would need to be a hybrid unit to offer maximum service coverage as even with an expanded electrified network many locations will miss out.
• We would also need to start looking at a 4th generation EMU
• Hybrid/battery 4th gen DMU for non-electrified lines
• Reduction in diesel freight locos but those remaining life extended to support non electrified freight work
• Introduction of “last mile power” for electric locos off wires
• Continued roll out of high speed network!

Publish and be dammed! Waiting for comments: @Devvy @BlueTrousers @Giant Man Eating Rabbits

I like it.

Only thing I would say is that you need flexibility for the interiors; a standard EMU will have very different internal requirements on seating depending if it's running London-Brighton, London-Milton Keynes or London-Cambridge, but otherwise I agree with you.

Other points:
- The BR Class 800 I think is a good idea (although I wish they'd just standardised on 9-coach variants due to the amount of times I see 2x5 units coupled together!) - the major issues I see are passenger comfort (the seats are so thin for a long distance journey and they could do with being lined up with windows) and the fact the coaches are 26m long instead of the previous 23m standard which has caused clearance work to be needed. Otherwise I don't really see the issues with them.
- I don't really see the point in all these "battery" technology efforts (or in OTL); I'd rather they just spent the money on even slowly deploying electrification on the shorter branches (like Windermere, or Leeds-ECML direct, or Twyford-Henley etc. Every little effort removes a diesel train which can be cascaded and reduces operational costs. Where you need traction off-wires, just stick a diesel engine in there; tried and trusted technology, whilst large batteries are heavy, have shorter life-spans, and can be unreliable under the large temperature swings we get in the UK. In a personal car that's fine, on a railway it's more difficult.

 

[Simon]

Considering privatisation Thatcher never touched the railways and IIRC Major seemed to be thinking back to memories of the Big Four when he started it, but we ended up instead with Railtrack, the ROSCOs and the franchises. Large directly state-owned businesses weren't exactly in vogue during the time period, even New Labour were a bit wish-washy, so something probably happens.

What do people think about conversion to a commercial business with all the shares owned by the government/NDPB type set-up? The infrastructure side gets a settlement every set number of years from the Treasury, the operational side being required to cover its own running costs. Has the advantages of keeping things together and organised plus guaranteed funding rather than year to year.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Get the Selhurst Triangle sorted out first time. Now waiting for the 3rd iteration, which will not happen due to the after-effects of Covid (smaller number of passengers and lower fare income) as the whole Norwood Junction / Windmill Bridge Junction / East Croydon project, due to be completed sometime around 2033, is postponed.

As a result the combination of lines from London Victoria & London Bridge to East and West Croydon will still require some line crossing instead of flyovers.

(Note - written in a snit following signal failure between EC & Windmill Bridge).

 

[El Pip]

Considering privatisation Thatcher never touched the railways and IIRC Major seemed to be thinking back to memories of the Big Four when he started it, but we ended up instead with Railtrack, the ROSCOs and the franchises.

The version I heard was it was a UK civil service goldplating of the EU Rail Regs. There is a requirement in the first railway package that the train operating company and the infrastructure owning companies have to be separate, which the civil service and lawyers insisted mean a Big Four approach was impossible. They were of course wrong, because there is nothing in the EU Rail Regs that says a single company cannot own the train operating company and the infra company, or indeed that they cannot be split into chunks. You just need that separation in terms of accounts, operationally you can still run it as one company or indeed one region. So LNER track and LNER trains are 'seprate' companies but both owned by LNER holdings, same for the other three. You could throw in a UK govt golden share of the holding co to stop them being split up or cover off other risks.

This approach does utterly defeat the entire spirit and intent of the EU Rail Regs, which is why the UK civil service objected because they cared about that sort of thing. Everyone else in Europe just went for the fudge - see Deutsche Bahn or Italian State railways, 100% state owned enterprises that have a track divsion and train divisions, meeting the strict word of the regs, but in practice behaving as one company just like they did before.

What do people think about conversion to a commercial business with all the shares owned by the government/NDPB type set-up? The infrastructure side gets a settlement every set number of years from the Treasury, the operational side being required to cover its own running costs. Has the advantages of keeping things together and organised plus guaranteed funding rather than year to year.

I think you have to tweak it so the infrastructure side covers it's own costs and you subsidise the services you want, again EU Rail package was 'open access' and requires the possibility of other services running on tracks if they paid a fair access charge. In practice this is an operational nightmare to timetable so doesn't really happen outside high profile inter-city runs, but you have to make provision for it so the general approach is subsidise the services and keep the track access charges high so the infra co covers it's costs (and keeps out open access firms, to minimise the operation/timetable head aches). This is the Deutsche Bahn/ Italian Railways approach.

I think it would work in the UK, but it would require a completely different UK civil service that was prepared to do bare minimum on EU regs not gold plating. Which to be clear would be a very positive change, but it would have huge butterflies elsewhere.

 

[BlueTrousers]

The version I heard was it was a UK civil service goldplating of the EU Rail Regs. There is a requirement in the first railway package that the train operating company and the infrastructure owning companies have to be separate, which the civil service and lawyers insisted mean a Big Four approach was impossible. They were of course wrong, because there is nothing in the EU Rail Regs that says a single company cannot own the train operating company and the infra company, or indeed that they cannot be split into chunks. You just need that separation in terms of accounts, operationally you can still run it as one company or indeed one region. So LNER track and LNER trains are 'seprate' companies but both owned by LNER holdings, same for the other three. You could throw in a UK govt golden share of the holding co to stop them being split up or cover off other risks.

This approach does utterly defeat the entire spirit and intent of the EU Rail Regs, which is why the UK civil service objected because they cared about that sort of thing. Everyone else in Europe just went for the fudge - see Deutsche Bahn or Italian State railways, 100% state owned enterprises that have a track divsion and train divisions, meeting the strict word of the regs, but in practice behaving as one company just like they did before.

AFAIK, the UK civil service was never going to fudge the First Railway Package, because it was their idea to try and force 'market forces' onto railways across Europe. It wasn't so much that they gold plated it, as nobody else was silly enough to agree to what they wanted to do, and writing it in a way that allows for the fudge was the best that could get accepted.

 

[MKD]

Only thing I would say is that you need flexibility for the interiors; a standard EMU will have very different internal requirements on seating depending if it's running London-Brighton, London-Milton Keynes or London-Cambridge, but otherwise I agree with you.

Quite right - I should have said that. A standard base unit with an interior customised to the route being worked and the tastes/demands of the passengers. I would also try to make the cab ends in both corridor and non corridor versions as required as not all routes need 12 car trains!

The BR Class 800 I think is a good idea (although I wish they'd just standardised on 9-coach variants due to the amount of times I see 2x5 units coupled together!) - the major issues I see are passenger comfort (the seats are so thin for a long distance journey and they could do with being lined up with windows) and the fact the coaches are 26m long instead of the previous 23m standard which has caused clearance work to be needed. Otherwise I don't really see the issues with them.

Agreed - my view is "better specified" in that seats that are comfortable are installed. They need to be mkiii/iv standard PLUS!

I think you are right about 9 car trains but that means a lot of extra infrastructure spend. Pass the cheque book!

I don't really see the point in all these "battery" technology efforts (or in OTL); I'd rather they just spent the money on even slowly deploying electrification on the shorter branches (like Windermere, or Leeds-ECML direct, or Twyford-Henley etc. Every little effort removes a diesel train which can be cascaded and reduces operational costs. Where you need traction off-wires, just stick a diesel engine in there; tried and trusted technology, whilst large batteries are heavy, have shorter life-spans, and can be unreliable under the large temperature swings we get in the UK. In a personal car that's fine, on a railway it's more difficult.

Agreed - I think I will use hybrid and leave it vague - even with a roll out of a proper electrification plan no one is going to electrify the Marston Vale line, or the Esk Valley or the far north line so we will need some non electric stock. If we could have one unit type that covers all sins so much the better!

 

[PMN1]

Quite right - I should have said that. A standard base unit with an interior customised to the route being worked and the tastes/demands of the passengers. I would also try to make the cab ends in both corridor and non corridor versions as required as not all routes need 12 car trains!

That has resulted in cramped cabs on one end in the Class 153's, though admitedly these were conversions.

 

[MKD]

That has resulted in cramped cabs on one end in the Class 153's, though admitedly these were conversions.

if you build it into your design from the start you must be able to avoid that - surely? What is the 350 cab like?

 

[PMN1]

if you build it into your design from the start you must be able to avoid that - surely? What is the 350 cab like?

At slightly reduced passenger load yes...probably overdoing it having a cab at each end in all coaches.

 

[BlueTrousers]

At slightly reduced passenger load yes...probably overdoing it having a cab at each end in all coaches.

If you have a flexible basic platform, putting a gangwayed or non-gangwayed cab at either or both ends isn't a big ask. Then you can tailor your vehicles to the number of cars required.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Steam operation of passenger services to end by 1975-76 and freight services by 1980. Worth noting for comparison that West Germany did not replace steam until 1977.

The National Union of Mineworkers thanks you for the extending their power to hold the nation to ransom

 

[focus9912]

- The BR Class 800 I think is a good idea (although I wish they'd just standardised on 9-coach variants due to the amount of times I see 2x5 units coupled together!) - the major issues I see are passenger comfort (the seats are so thin for a long distance journey and they could do with being lined up with windows) and the fact the coaches are 26m long instead of the previous 23m standard which has caused clearance work to be needed. Otherwise I don't really see the issues with them.

I do wonder if the APT is successfully deployed with its tilting technology and thus perhaps create a new standard, when it is time to finally replace the APTs, does the ITTL IEP/AT300 trains would perhaps also implement tilting technology (was there was a plans for the IEP to be capable of tilting or is it just a game maker dream?) to to increase the mainline speed of all the mainlines to 250km/h.....

thinking about standard locos a bit further:

Tranche 1

• Shunting: Class 08 ( they are going to fade away as British industry changes but will be required early in our time period)
• Light freight: Class 20 ( they are going to fade away as British industry changes but will be required early in our time period )
• Mixed traffic: Class 37 /47 ( almost go anywhere locos)
• High speed Intercity: Class 55
• Electric: Standard class 8X loco
• Standard first gen EMU: ( something like a class 308)
• Standard 1st Gen DMU: class 101 ( insert your favourite - doesn't really matter as long as we have 1 type!)

Tranche 2 ( Mid 1970's)

• HST - Replace class 55 on intercity work - devolve those to sleeper/parcels/secondary routes and move 47 to more freight work. I would also build more than we actually did. We built something like 200. Let’s double that. Could we build an electric HST?
• Run down of class 55 numbers as HST come on stream and electrification expands.
• Build more mkiii carriages to improve service quality on all major routes ( remove remaining mki and mkii vehicles by 1980’s)
• Introduce DVT and fixed coaching stock sets on electrified intercity trains to improve efficiency.
• 37/47 still used on mixed traffic work but slanting more towards freight
• most class 20 removed and numbers of 08 reduced ( remaining used on shunting and short distance bulk freight work. Thinking pit to local power station/steel works to local docks)

Tranche 3 (mid 1980's)

• heavy freight loco: Class 56 ( pairs of 37's used where these locos may be unsuitable/localised light freight work. Last class 20’s removed.)
• HST life extension 1
• Generation 2 electric locomotive (Class 90?) to support a wider electrified network used in a mixed traffic style
• Second Generation DMU: Sprinter ( I WANT to say keep loco hauled but it is cheaper to use DMU on rural lines and while Pacers saved many lines imo they aren’t very nice)
• Second Generation EMU ( class 319/321)
• Class 47/37 on secondary routes/parcels/sleepers but many withdrawn (Remaining class 55 removed from traffic by this time and remaining 37/47 overhauled and modernised with a run down on numbers as electrification expands)
• Channel tunnel and HS link approved. Complete by end of this period

Tranche 3 (late 90's/early 2000)

• General use freight loco: Class 60 like but perhaps running at a higher speed to cover freight of all types and replace class 56 and any remaining 37’s/47’s)
• Class 90/1 ( an improved/updated class 90 able to run at a higher speed) to support mixed traffic operations on an expanded electric network
• Mixed traffic loco to replace remaining class 37/47 IF required ( will depend on extent of electrified network and retention of parcels/sleeper traffic etc)
• Generation 3 EMU - class 350 like (second gen units tarted up and cascaded to electrified branch lines with numbers reduced as required)
• Generation 3 DMU - Turbostar like unit ( hopefully reduced numbers compared to the pacers they replace as electrification has become much wider)
• HST reduced on front line intercity services. Build mkiv stock to run with the class 90/1 and cascade mkiii to secondary electrified routes. HST given a second life extension and cascaded onto secondary routes such as cross country, Scotland, Transpennine and any remaining niche non electrified intercity routes . Numbers run down as electrification expands. Replaced with mkiii and class 90/1. NO VOYAGERS!
• Beginnings of a new high speed network based on success of Eurostar

Tranche 4 ( mid to late 2020’s)

• all the mkiii /iv trains, HST and class 90/1 hauled trains replaced with a modern high speed unit such as a better specified class 800. This would need to be a hybrid unit to offer maximum service coverage as even with an expanded electrified network many locations will miss out.
• We would also need to start looking at a 4th generation EMU
• Hybrid/battery 4th gen DMU for non-electrified lines
• Reduction in diesel freight locos but those remaining life extended to support non electrified freight work
• Introduction of “last mile power” for electric locos off wires
• Continued roll out of high speed network!

Publish and be dammed! Waiting for comments: @Devvy @BlueTrousers @Giant Man Eating Rabbits

Perhaps a successful implementation of the Modernisation Plan of 1955 would in turn persuaded the government to embark continual set on upgrades, with a Modernisation Plan that has a set of defined goal with a 10 year period, (so the first one covering 1955-1965, the second one covering 1965-1975 and so on so forth).....

AFAIK, the UK civil service was never going to fudge the First Railway Package, because it was their idea to try and force 'market forces' onto railways across Europe. It wasn't so much that they gold plated it, as nobody else was silly enough to agree to what they wanted to do, and writing it in a way that allows for the fudge was the best that could get accepted.

...and when the (seem to be inevitable apparently...huh) need to separate the infrastructure company from the operators, the ITTL Railtrack/Network Rail could seamlessly incorporate the (5-years) Control Periods into the post-1995 Modernisation Plans (the fifth Modernisation Plan encompassing the first & second Control Periods, the sixth MP encompassing CP3 & CP4. etc....)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth I discovered this looking for something else.

BRDatabase, locomotive allocations, withdrawals and scrapping details in the UK

Locomotive history, railway statistics, steam, diesel and electric locomotives UK

www.brdatabase.info

 

[The History Man]

The National Union of Mineworkers thanks you for the extending their power to hold the nation to ransom

Agreed that the continuation of steam into the 1970s would have made British Rail vulnerable in the event of a miners strike. However, in IOTL, BR took a big hit after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 when oil producing nations in the Middle East quadrupled the price of oil as most of the rail network was diesel powered. Even an earlier drive towards electrification would not have guaranteed safety from "black swan" events as much of the power grid was then coal powered.

 

[focus9912]

Agreed that the continuation of steam into the 1970s would have made British Rail vulnerable in the event of a miners strike. However, in IOTL, BR took a big hit after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 when oil producing nations in the Middle East quadrupled the price of oil as most of the rail network was diesel powered. Even an earlier drive towards electrification would not have guaranteed safety from "black swan" events as much of the power grid was then coal powered.

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

 

[BlueTrousers]

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

Almost certainly. Possibly nuclear or oil, depending on the time period, but coal would be the expectation. Although the total amount of additional power needed with a maximum extent of electrification would be surprisingly small - AFAIK it's on the order of one 2,000W power station of the type built in fairly large numbers through the 1960s and 1970s.

...and when the (seem to be inevitable apparently...huh) need to separate the infrastructure company from the operators, the ITTL Railtrack/Network Rail could seamlessly incorporate the (5-years) Control Periods into the post-1995 Modernisation Plans (the fifth Modernisation Plan encompassing the first & second Control Periods, the sixth MP encompassing CP3 & CP4. etc....)

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