Jump to content

What if Woodhead hadn't closed?


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, wasabi said:

They couldn't afford to electrify from their own resources but were able to borrow cheap money from the government (or rather the taxpayer) made available from 1933 to help the country recover from the Depression.  The source is CJ Allen who worked for them so should know.  These loans also funded the London suburban electrification.  The LNER was already becoming a bit of a financial basket case and I do wonder whether getting the loans back was as much a consideration as ideology in post war nationalisation?

 

A financial history of the Big Four would make very interesting reading.

I think CJ Allen was a bit of a fantasist, his articles in RM are just crackers.

I have often thought that the LNER would have been much better off if it had modernisedits massive, and very expensive, agricultural network, replacing the Victorian 0-6-0s with modern d/e types or, better yet, with a fleet of lorries. Picking up produce from the farmers and taking it to concentration depots for onward distribution. Sometimes reduced costs are a better way of increasing profit.

Not convinced about the cost/benefits of electrifying the ECML in the forties/ fifties. It's mostly flat, unlike the Woodhead route and the modern steam engine's direct costs are much the same as electric power at an average speed of 60ish which is what the LNE locomotives were intended to do. The electric loco only really scores on schedules of 80 plus average (the steam engine starts to struggle here, needing two firemen) or low speed slogging with mineral trains on inclines.

Regards

Edited by PenrithBeacon
Grammar
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Yet another contributor with a massive bee in his bonnet, tilting at windmills.

 

 

Like to see you come up with something! Instead of knocking people who do have ideas.

Perhaps you own a fleet of lorries or work in the motor industry that makes you so negative?

Next time someone you know dies on the roads you can tell the family it was preventable, but I have got either a vested interest in the motor industry so couldn't stop it happening, or worse still I'm too apathetic to do anything or say something to change it.

Edited by Graham1960
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know anyone who has died on the road probably because there are so few, particularly so when it is compared with the number of  road casualties of fifty years ago when the railway was so predominant.

The two are not at all comparable.

Far more people die of cancer, of obesity, of heart attacks than die of RTA. Currently there are some 65,000 excess deaths due, mostly, to Covid-19; this is not because of road transport.

When I was a lot younger people were dying of diseases like bronchitis just as much an environmental disease as those we live with now. Then the environmental issues were caused by coal, now by oil.

Road transport is often, perhaps too often, the most economical way of providing a service. This isn't to say it is incapable of improvement, it is. The fuel used is causing massive problems but casualties in accidents is a very minor part of the problem of road transport as it is with every other form of transport including rail. The major problem is the burning of stuff to provide energy and this isn't going away quickly enough. It is improving with the use of wind power for example but the improvement is not, absolutely not, happening quickly enough.

I think you need a sense of proportion.

 

Edited by PenrithBeacon
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

None of what you are arguing with me about is what the Way To Live is. That's about ending the need to move people around that don't need to be moved around. Using solutions that are with us now. Do that and you can cut fuel consumption. Most people travel to work, then come home eat a meal and then go to bed. In a house that is at a distance from where they work. But what can be done is that you live in an area that you can "walk" the length of in 15 minutes and if you need to travel on a monorail, which is above the ground, so doesn't hit anyone like trams do, if you need to go anywhere and travel longer distances by rail. The fact is that having roads will increase the size of a city by a vast amount. And for example nearly two thirds of LA is for the car! And if the dam thing doesn't kill you. Then it is sat somewhere for nearly most of the day rusting away.

I suggest you follow that link and see how this can be done.

PS: And you wouldn't get covid-19 because one of the Japanese firms have air-conditioning units that can extract 99% of known germs.   

 

Now can we get back to Woodhead?  

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Early 50's

EFQ-gEZW4AAKjf0.jpg

 

2446011566_dbfbc12b06_b.jpg

 

Work progressing nicely

image.png.b5fb30dbdb5bec14a8693d51b930f217.png

 

Opening day

woodhead-tunnels-1995-7233_LIVST_ET_205.

 

Last train out

woodhead(norman_daley4.5.1986)old4.jpg

 

 Just after closure

C_71_article_1031833_image_list_image_li

 

National Grid cabling up

Woodhead01.jpg

 

Again, job done.

28994841885_487d636c02_b.jpg

 

R.I.P Woodhead.

 

Brit15

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Graham1960 said:

That's about ending the need to move people around that don't need to be moved around

But goods need to be moved around, that's how all my model railway kit gets delivered, DPD, Hermes, et al. Very efficient as it saves motoring miles but from where I live, rural East Lancashire - but retired now, work would be a 30 minute plus drive and public transport is cr*p, cos all the money is spent supporting public transport in the South East...

 

Not sure you have a grasp on reality and real world issues.

 

Best stick to Woodhead..

Edited by MR Chuffer
Grammar
  • Agree 5
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Graham1960 said:

At the end of they day even now you could remove all the cars and lorries from the roads and you wouldn't need to revert back to to horses etc.

If people like to drive in cars then you can build specific and safe places for them do so, such as motor racing circuits.  But most people do not need to drive or travel in any form of road transport.

We have the technology to eliminate the car and truck. We just have to have the guts to do it.

 

I, and my wife, have the benefit of staff free passes for National Rail, and now we are over 60 and live in Scotland bus passes too. But would we give up our car ? No, not ever; The convenience is just too great. So, sorry but the chance of persuading, or forcing, people to stop using cars is zero.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not actually 'accidents' but the deaths caused by spreading poison gas along the streets, which some sources say kills up to 80,000 a year (lowest estimate I've seen is 50,000).

 

That's why the Nazis started mass killings by packing people into lorries then running the engine with the exhaust directed to the inside.

 

I live in a quiet side street but if I walk along a main road I can often smell the pollution.  We certainly need to come up with solutions but successive governments have not tackled the issue.

 

[IPW]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

I, and my wife, have the benefit of staff free passes for National Rail, and now we are over 60 and live in Scotland bus passes too. But would we give up our car ? No, not ever; The convenience is just too great. So, sorry but the chance of persuading, or forcing, people to stop using cars is zero.

 

 

Convenience of what? Moving around for what?  You are paying for all the travel. Your food is more expensive, the house you live in costs more than need be. Heating and fuel are extra. Pollution, waste, water and all the services you need all cost more all because you need to drive a car. The fact of the matter also is that you could have a heart attack at your age. Kill yourself and others driving. And when the regulations stop you from driving. You live in a home where you are isolated and alone.  

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

But goods need to be moved around, that's how all my model railway kit gets delivered, DPD, Hermes, et al. Very efficient as it saves motoring miles but from where I live, rural East Lancashire - but retired now, work would be a 30 minute plus drive and public transport is cr*p, cos all the money is spent supporting public transport in the South East...

 

Not sure you have a grasp on reality and real world issues.

 

Best stick to Woodhead..

All goods can be easily moved around without using road transport. If you look at the Way To Live it explains in depth all things needed to get rid of the car and it's counterparts. And nothing is far-fetched. You have seen a shopping mall? That's not far fetched. All the shops in a small place. You walk around it. You don't drive inside one. Well just build the houses into one. I reckon even a City the size of Sheffield would only need 3 of these complexes. Which you could walk from end to end in 15 minutes. Linked by fast monorails moving people and the goods needed to the complex.  You're model railway kit would come to the complex on a monorail and then be carted to your door by a DPD/Hermes man with either an electric trolley or one he pulls along on wheels. No petrol, no accidents, no pollution. Depending on what your salary is now. Your house would be three times bigger than your current home is too.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
22 minutes ago, Graham1960 said:

All goods can be easily moved around without using road transport. If you look at the Way To Live it explains in depth all things needed to get rid of the car and it's counterparts. And nothing is far-fetched. You have seen a shopping mall? That's not far fetched. All the shops in a small place. You walk around it. You don't drive inside one. Well just build the houses into one. I reckon even a City the size of Sheffield would only need 3 of these complexes. Which you could walk from end to end in 15 minutes. Linked by fast monorails moving people and the goods needed to the complex.  You're model railway kit would come to the complex on a monorail and then be carted to your door by a DPD/Hermes man with either an electric trolley or one he pulls along on wheels. No petrol, no accidents, no pollution. Depending on what your salary is now. Your house would be three times bigger than your current home is too.

 

Sounds like hell. You might like the idea of living in a sanitised world where you're every movement is planned out for you but I certainly don't.

I doubt the planet has the resources to move everyone on it into this 'Shangri las'  remember that we're 60 million people here and China, India and the USA are nearly 3 Billion people. Where are these infinite resources to come from to create this ? 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2020 at 12:38, charliepetty said:

The LNER ordered 27 EM2 95mph Express locomotives & 80 EM1 Bo+Bo Electrics from Metro Vic, these were for the proposed Kings X-Leeds/York 1500V dc & the Great Eastern Shenfield-Norwich.

I have plans here for the extension of Reddish depot car sheds and the transfer from the Great Eastern of the DC  version of the 3 Car EMUs (506) for the proposed Guide Bridge-Manchester Central (Fallowfield Loop) suburban and Manchester to Liverpool Central.

 

It dos'nt take a genius to work out why 27 Co-Co & 80 Bo+Bo locos were ordered, the connection of the Rotherwood - Retford OR Wath to Doncaster could & should have happened.

 

If the Great Central had remained we would have had a HS2 Route, with Woodhead being the Link to Manchester.  Even today they are talking of HS3 (Birmingham - Leeds/Manchester) with the Leeds section possibly having a loop to Sheffield Victoria.  The route from there to Manchester is 'Shovel Ready' NOW.

 

Sadly the UK due to WW2 and goverment incompetence (Labour & Conservative) we could have High Speed trainf running today, not is 20 years time.

i'm sure I've heard as well that the Penistone Control Centre, opened in BR days with the electrification, had panels in place for carrying on along the former GC to Nottingham.

 

Even after the decision was taken in the mid '50's to standardise on A.C. in the context of Woodhead as part of a National Plan the conversion costs would not presumably have been that significant. As Mike Edge said earlier, the Overhead infrastructure west of Hadfield remains in use to this day despite being labelled "life expired" 39 years ago - something that makes me cringe every time I drive along the M67 (which goes nowhere!).

 

The other thing that the route could have been adopted for is an East - West lorries on rail route as employed in Austria and Switzerland to get under the Alps. It's pretty well a straight line from Immingham - Doncaster (A1) - Wentworth (M1) - Woodhead - Stockport (M60) - Warrington (M6) - Liverpool, with the correct financial structures in place how much congestion could that have taken off the M62? Not to mention making HS3 at a cost of gazillions possibly redundant.

 

John.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

Sounds like hell. You might like the idea of living in a sanitised world where you're every movement is planned out for you but I certainly don't.

I doubt the planet has the resources to move everyone on it into this 'Shangri las'  remember that we're 60 million people here and China, India and the USA are nearly 3 Billion people. Where are these infinite resources to come from to create this ? 

What we are living in now is hell.

Homeless, food shortages.

Nothing is planned out in the Way To Live. I have looked into the way it could be done, but it wouldn't be my vision. It would be much more democratic than that. The complexes are not utopian. There are some rules. If you work in one you live in it. But the resources save money. There's no gas to them. Food is cooked in what I called food courts. There are no kitchens in peoples homes, apart from a very simple thing. Most people can work from home. But you can go out at any time to eat, drink and entertain all within walking distance. As all education can be done in one area in each complex. All the money and staff that goes into education is much more concentrated. It's the same with medical. All the doctors, dentists nurses that are currently scattered for miles around a major city as in Sheffield, would now be in three medical units, open 24/7. One in each centre. Each centre would be democratically controlled. No need for a central government. 

The centre would only be three stories high. Inbetween each level a seven foot (approx) gap that allows all maintenance work to be done without anyone above being affected. No holes in the ground!  Some other buildings in the centre, not for living in, would have more levels.  All water and waste would be recycled. And it would be much safer, with police force that is now concentrated into a few mile areas rather than covering the whole area that Sheffield now occupies.     

 

PS: One country even one city could do it. And I reckon the rest would follow. Remember at the end of the day it's just a shopping mall with homes built into it. From the way the building shopping centres these days one of these complexers would be chicken feed.

Japan is already running the monorail systems made by Hitachi. They run under the track on tires. Which means that the sound is vastly reduced, unlike a tram system. They even use the same supply as the tram in Sheffield. Plus they can't knock anyone down, don't have issues with snow, leaves, or rail replacements.  Very easy to build, you just have to stick the supporting columns in the ground. It's then assembled in sections.

At the end of the day continuing to use road as the means of transport, means we would have to make more roads, more houses and expanding cities. London itself needs 200 billion investing in transport just to keep things moving.   

Edited by Graham1960
PS added
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Without dragging this too far off topic, I am currently living in a town of 13,000 people and am in the process of moving 200+ miles to a village with 137 people.  What you propose as an idyllic lifetstyle where everything is communal would be mental torture for me.

 

I would add that the former USSR tried this type of living in various guises for several decades, and none of it worked.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2020 at 10:36, Suzie said:

 

With long term stability (no threat of government interfering to spoil the long term prospects) there would have been the possibility of investing for the long term to reap the eventual benefits. Doing nothing was not going to reap any short term benefits!

"The government" has, almost from their beginnings, interfered with the railways; in 1844, the then President of the Board of Trade, one W.E. Gladstone, had Railways Act passed through Parliament, which had clauses in it which allowed for nationalisation of railway companies under certain conditions. There was the 1889 act which made interlocking of signals, block working and continuous brakes on passenger trains compulsory. I believe there was an act in the 1890s which fixed minimum freight rates. The grouping of the railways was due to an act of Parliament; nationalisation was talked about then.

 

Edited by 62613
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Graham1960 said:

All goods can be easily moved around without using road transport.

 

Utter nonsense; Not in the world we live in today.

 

3 hours ago, Graham1960 said:

What we are living in now is hell.

 

Utter nonsense. For by far the majority of people in the UK, and probably the world, living conditions now are better than they have ever been, Coronavirus notwithstanding.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2020 at 13:55, PenrithBeacon said:

I think CJ Allen was a bit of a fantasist, his articles in RM are just crackers.

I have often thought that the LNER would have been much better off if it had modernisedits massive, and very expensive, agricultural network, replacing the Victorian 0-6-0s with modern d/e types or, better yet, with a fleet of lorries. Picking up produce from the farmers and taking it to concentration depots for onward distribution. Sometimes reduced costs are a better way of increasing profit.

Not convinced about the cost/benefits of electrifying the ECML in the forties/ fifties. It's mostly flat, unlike the Woodhead route and the modern steam engine's direct costs are much the same as electric power at an average speed of 60ish which is what the LNE locomotives were intended to do. The electric loco only really scores on schedules of 80 plus average (the steam engine starts to struggle here, needing two firemen) or low speed slogging with mineral trains on inclines.

Regards

I thought the Woodhead electrification was partly a tunnel scheme, i.e., to eliminate the horrific working conditions in working steam through the summit tunnels. Weren't they on a gradient, which meant you had to keep steam on in one direction at least.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

i'm sure I've heard as well that the Penistone Control Centre, opened in BR days with the electrification, had panels in place for carrying on along the former GC to Nottingham.

 

Even after the decision was taken in the mid '50's to standardise on A.C. in the context of Woodhead as part of a National Plan the conversion costs would not presumably have been that significant. As Mike Edge said earlier, the Overhead infrastructure west of Hadfield remains in use to this day despite being labelled "life expired" 39 years ago - something that makes me cringe every time I drive along the M67 (which goes nowhere!).

 

The other thing that the route could have been adopted for is an East - West lorries on rail route as employed in Austria and Switzerland to get under the Alps. It's pretty well a straight line from Immingham - Doncaster (A1) - Wentworth (M1) - Woodhead - Stockport (M60) - Warrington (M6) - Liverpool, with the correct financial structures in place how much congestion could that have taken off the M62? Not to mention making HS3 at a cost of gazillions possibly redundant.

 

John.

I have access to the Penistone Control Centre Panel, there is not enough room on there for that, but it was designed for 5Ft bolt on sections, and the centre had the space for that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 62613 said:

I thought the Woodhead electrification was partly a tunnel scheme, i.e., to eliminate the horrific working conditions in working steam through the summit tunnels. Weren't they on a gradient, which meant you had to keep steam on in one direction at least.

 

Down hill to Manchester on all three tunnels, the LNER started putting overhead equipment in the old tunnels but gave up due to water and their condition.

Edited by charliepetty
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

Utter nonsense; Not in the world we live in today.

 

 

Utter nonsense. For by far the majority of people in the UK, and probably the world, living conditions now are better than they have ever been, Coronavirus notwithstanding.

 

I don't think one person has actual been and read my blog site that shows how it is all possible. It's not communal living and no the USSR never did anything like this before. You are simply going on gut reactions or have have a false sense of history that was taught to you at school. Which is still being shown in futuristic movies like Star Trek. That's caused by people think wheel, horse, trian, car, spacecraft as the development of the human race and it's technology.

But history doesn't work like that.

 

What I'm doing is suggesting how people can move about on two feet, not drive down the shops to get a paper! Especially when you are really subsidising people to do that. How much more gravel and stuff can we dig up to build a bypass that avoids that village with 137 people in it. And the village itself. That's not self sufficient. It has gas, electric, water, sewage. And who pays for the roads they get to and fro on? The people all need to eat. They are not producing their own food. Some farmer produces it. But it's expensive to farm. And nobody wants to the pay the proper cost of a pint of milk. Yet even the farmer is supported to do what they do. From either central government or the former EU. Paying the full cost of a pint of milk could make that Milk anything up to £10 a bottle, perhaps more. Instead it's 50p or £1.    

And what are the people eating? Probably something like chicken nuggets and chips. Chances are many of us will be eating the same thing at the same time of day. Nonsense you say. Well tell that to the people who advertise on TV. A recent TV advert pointed this out. 

Greenhouse gas, global warming, plastic pollution, billions spent on moving people often at speeds that you can walk at. The electric car that bursts into flames if you hit something, yes that's what people think of cutting down the oil problem. As a solution. Unless you are rich b***** then everyone knows that the planet Earth can't take much of the stuff we throw at it. Had fish for dinner recently. Well you just took in some man made chemicals that are universally banned. And the fat you cooked your chips in. Well that clogs up your local sewer and some poor sod has to dig it out. And what's in that stuff would make Covid look like a bad cold. 

And what's flowing down you local river is all the drugs people take that they get from the doctor or chemist. All of it coming out of your body when you go to the loo. 

Mind you it's good for some animals on the planet. The largest population of birds on the planet is chickens. But then again we know what happens to them! 

Edited by Graham1960
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Graham1960 said:

I don't think one person has actual been and read my blog site that shows how it is all possible. It's not communal living and no the USSR never did anything like this before. You are simply going on gut reactions or have have a false sense of history that was taught to you at school. Which is still being shown in futuristic movies like Star Trek. That's caused by people think wheel, horse, trian, car, spacecraft as the development of the human race and it's technology.

But history doesn't work like that.

 

What I'm doing is suggesting how people can move about on two feet, not drive down the shops to get a paper! Especially when you are really subsidising people to do that. How much more gravel and stuff can we dig up to build a bypass that avoids that village with 137 people in it. And the village itself. That's not self sufficient. It has gas, electric, water, sewage. And who pays for the roads they get to and fro on? The people all need to eat. They are not producing their own food. Some farmer produces it. But it's expensive to farm. And nobody wants to the pay the proper cost of a pint of milk. Yet even the farmer is supported to do what they do. From either central government or the former EU. Paying the full cost of a pint of milk could make that Milk anything up to £10 a bottle, perhaps more. Instead it's 50p or £1.    

And what are the people eating? Probably something like chicken nuggets and chips. Chances are many of us will be eating the same thing at the same time of day. Nonsense you say. Well tell that to the people who advertise on TV. A recent TV advert pointed this out. 

Greenhouse gas, global warming, plastic pollution, billions spent on moving people often at speeds that you can walk at. The electric car that bursts into flames if you hit something, yes that's what people think of cutting down the oil problem. As a solution. Unless you are rich b***** then everyone knows that the planet Earth can't take much of the stuff we throw at it. Had fish for dinner recently. Well you just took in some man made chemicals that are universally banned. And the fat you cooked your chips in. Well that clogs up your local sewer and some poor sod has to dig it out. And what's in that stuff would make Covid look like a bad cold. 

And what's flowing down you local river is all the drugs people take that they get from the doctor or chemist. All of it coming out of your body when you go to the loo. 

Mind you it's good for some animals on the planet. The largest population of birds on the planet is chickens. But then again we know what happens to them! 

I started this thread to ask what would've happened if Woodhead hadn't closed when it did as I am interested in real railways and their histories together with the imaginary world of model railways.

 

I've had a look at your website and you make some interesting points. I like your monorails models.

 

It seems to have gone massively off topic! As you said above can we get back to Woodhead please?!  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
16 hours ago, Graham1960 said:

What we are living in now is hell.

Homeless, food shortages.

Nothing is planned out in the Way To Live. I have looked into the way it could be done, but it wouldn't be my vision. It would be much more democratic than that. The complexes are not utopian. There are some rules. If you work in one you live in it. But the resources save money. There's no gas to them. Food is cooked in what I called food courts. There are no kitchens in peoples homes, apart from a very simple thing. Most people can work from home. But you can go out at any time to eat, drink and entertain all within walking distance. As all education can be done in one area in each complex. All the money and staff that goes into education is much more concentrated. It's the same with medical. All the doctors, dentists nurses that are currently scattered for miles around a major city as in Sheffield, would now be in three medical units, open 24/7. One in each centre. Each centre would be democratically controlled. No need for a central government. 

The centre would only be three stories high. Inbetween each level a seven foot (approx) gap that allows all maintenance work to be done without anyone above being affected. No holes in the ground!  Some other buildings in the centre, not for living in, would have more levels.  All water and waste would be recycled. And it would be much safer, with police force that is now concentrated into a few mile areas rather than covering the whole area that Sheffield now occupies.     

 

PS: One country even one city could do it. And I reckon the rest would follow. Remember at the end of the day it's just a shopping mall with homes built into it. From the way the building shopping centres these days one of these complexers would be chicken feed.

Japan is already running the monorail systems made by Hitachi. They run under the track on tires. Which means that the sound is vastly reduced, unlike a tram system. They even use the same supply as the tram in Sheffield. Plus they can't knock anyone down, don't have issues with snow, leaves, or rail replacements.  Very easy to build, you just have to stick the supporting columns in the ground. It's then assembled in sections.

At the end of the day continuing to use road as the means of transport, means we would have to make more roads, more houses and expanding cities. London itself needs 200 billion investing in transport just to keep things moving.   

 

4 hours ago, Jim76 said:

I started this thread to ask what would've happened if Woodhead hadn't closed when it did as I am interested in real railways and their histories together with the imaginary world of model railways.

 

I've had a look at your website and you make some interesting points. I like your monorails models.

 

It seems to have gone massively off topic! As you said above can we get back to Woodhead please?!  

 

You are George Orwell and I claim my £10.

 

Mike.

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2020 at 13:55, PenrithBeacon said:

I think CJ Allen was a bit of a fantasist, his articles in RM are just crackers.

I have often thought that the LNER would have been much better off if it had modernisedits massive, and very expensive, agricultural network, replacing the Victorian 0-6-0s with modern d/e types or, better yet, with a fleet of lorries. Picking up produce from the farmers and taking it to concentration depots for onward distribution. Sometimes reduced costs are a better way of increasing profit.

Not convinced about the cost/benefits of electrifying the ECML in the forties/ fifties. It's mostly flat, unlike the Woodhead route and the modern steam engine's direct costs are much the same as electric power at an average speed of 60ish which is what the LNE locomotives were intended to do. The electric loco only really scores on schedules of 80 plus average (the steam engine starts to struggle here, needing two firemen) or low speed slogging with mineral trains on inclines.

Regards

 

As a matter of practical reality the "cheap money" came from repeal of Passenger Duty (a tax on rail fares) and I believe soft loans. That was where the money for the MSW and Shenfield electrification schemes came from, along with a certain amount of power signalling.

 

While the LNER had aspirations to electrify the ECML to Doncaster/Leeds/York , and had had them since the late 20s it's not clear that they would ever have had the cash to proceed

 

However the claim that the LNER was at any point effectively bankrupt or under threat of nationalisation is ill-founded. The company was making an operating profit until the end - and although BR rapidly went into the red after nationalisation, Gerry Fiennes suggests that the operating ratios on the ER were consistently the best on BR and in the black up to the late 1960s

 

It's also clear, reading between the lines of "I Tried To Run A Railway", that the LNER and its management were consistently the most rigorous cost-cutters and rationalisers in the industry - in one later chapter Fiennes refers to the WR as needing the ex LNER touch in that respect . Not surprising when they were operating under the tightest margins in the industry 

 

I doubt if the LNER would have benefitted from blowing investment capital on new kit for rural railways. The LMS approach resulted in large amounts of capital investment under "scrap and build" for locos which had a 15-25 year life at a modest benefit from the existing loco fleet. By contrast the LNER saved its investment capital for total renewal of the GE and GN suburban coaching fleets in the Twenties, power signalling, MSW and Shenfield electrifications, modern marshalling yards like March and Mottram, and ECML express services with a comprehensive high speed business express service in place in 1939.

 

Throwing money at rural railways in Norfolk and Lincolnshire seems pretty questionable - the ER ran those railways with existing stock until dieselisation in the late 1950s and it's not clear they had worse operating results than the LMR (they may even have had better) . The big savings came with DMUS and dieselisation

 

The LNER may well have had ambitions to link Sheffield with Nottingham under the wires (I suspect more accurately, Tinsley with Colwick yards) and the logical step beyond would have been Colwick/Grantham under the wires - a lot of ECML coal traffic came from Colwick. But once you move away from a country powered by coal, the logic underpinning all this falls away

 

It may be very relevant to recall that the LNER's Chief General Manager , Sir Ralph Wedgewood , came from the NER, which had electrified Tyneside suburban services, Shildon-Newport for export coal and was toying with ECML electrification. He may well have come to the conclusion that the best place to put those ideas into practice were in the LNER Southern Area - London suburban, ECML, and Woodhead electrification at 1500V DC

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, electrification of suburban commuter services, from their very beginning around London, Liverpool and Tyneside, were due to efforts by the railway companies to offset losses due to competition from electric tramways and, later, motor buses, no?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, wasabi said:

It's not actually 'accidents' but the deaths caused by spreading poison gas along the streets, which some sources say kills up to 80,000 a year (lowest estimate I've seen is 50,000).

 

That's why the Nazis started mass killings by packing people into lorries then running the engine with the exhaust directed to the inside.

 

I live in a quiet side street but if I walk along a main road I can often smell the pollution.  We certainly need to come up with solutions but successive governments have not tackled the issue.

 

[IPW]

 


The solutions are already available - but they require the majority of the UK population to be willing to sacrifice their current way of life. The majority don’t want to do this and will punish any Government at the ballot box if they try and push the electorate too far.

 

Similarly cracking down on road transport means being willing to take on business and overcome vested interests who favour the status quo. Again any Government who influenced antagonises business is going to suffer if it results in higher consumer costs, unemployment or lower cooperate tax revenues (meaning cuts or higher taxes on citizens to balance the books)

 

Even with the first past the post electoral system we use its telling that the Green Party only have one MP and influence on a small number of councils where as elsewhere in Europe they have a far greater level of representation politically speaking.

 

Thus the first challenge of those wishing to curtail road transport is NOT to focus on radical Government measures - instead they FIRST need to soften up public opinion so that radical political change will be tolerated when elections take place.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.