Top ten events of BR between 1948-52

[18B]

Evening, what would you say are the top ten events in BRs history during 1948-52?

 

obviously the first standards, first mki, 10000/1.... 

[jonny777]

Let's light the blue touch paper and rule out 10000, as it was in service a few weeks before BR was created. 

 

I may have to add the emergence of 60526 'Sugar Palm' as it was BR's first loco - although my inaccuracy might be due to bias. 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by jonny777
spelling

[iands]

As my railway career was on the S&T side of the house, I'll go for some non-loco/rolling stock suggestions (but realise that perhaps only one of them is "modellable");

 

•1948 -  B.R. standard “Welwyn” Block Control.

•1951 -  York OCS route relay interlocking – then the largest in the world.

•1952 – first level crossing with lifting barriers – Warthill (BR NE).

 

[Andy Kirkham]

Are you just thinking of positive developments?

If not, there's the Harrow & Wealdstone disaster.

[Big James]

The 1948 exchange trials. 
 

Big James

[Right Away]

Rise and fall of Mr Bullied’s “Leader”.

[Right Away]

The British Transport Commission coming into operation on the first day of 1948 (under the Transport Act 1947).

[jonny777]

On 17/11/2020 at 21:40, Big James said:

The 1948 exchange trials. 
 

Big James

 

 

I'm not sure about that one, as there are rumours in published articles which suggest the exchanges were just a publicity stunt, and the die was already cast. 

 

Personally, I think a golden opportunity was lost in that 10000 was not used extensively in the trials. Even though the idea of dieselisation was anathema for various well known reasons, the comparison might have thrown up some useful information when judged against steam locos with an equivalent power output. 

 

 

[DY444]

Opening of the Shenfield electrification

[LMS2968]

9 hours ago, jonny777 said:

 

 

I'm not sure about that one, as there are rumours in published articles which suggest the exchanges were just a publicity stunt, and the die was already cast. 

 

Personally, I think a golden opportunity was lost in that 10000 was not used extensively in the trials. Even though the idea of dieselisation was anathema for various well known reasons, the comparison might have thrown up some useful information when judged against steam locos with an equivalent power output. 

 

 

Agree that the Trials were for psychological reasons and in no way influenced future policy.

 

As to the diesels, there were only the two of them, completely new and requiring both a lot of testing to make them work properly, and crew / service staff training to get the most out of them. Including them, even had the Trials been properly organised, was hardly likely to show them at their best.

[The Stationmaster]

The end of 'Penetrating Lines' (although that might have been 1953 without checking the date).   Apart from the creation of the BTC that was the first really significant organisational change as far as railway operation was concerned to occur after nationalisation.

[The Johnster]

13 hours ago, jonny777 said:

 

 

I'm not sure about that one, as there are rumours in published articles which suggest the exchanges were just a publicity stunt, and the die was already cast. 

 

Personally, I think a golden opportunity was lost in that 10000 was not used extensively in the trials. Even though the idea of dieselisation was anathema for various well known reasons, the comparison might have thrown up some useful information when judged against steam locos with an equivalent power output. 

 

 

I think the Ivatt twins were still undergoing their inevitably extended trials at the time of the exchanges.  I don’t believe that the idea of dieselisation was anathametic, except to the Treasury at a time of continuing austerity, (im)balance of payments problems from imported oil, and reluctance to depend on imported fuel with the effects of German Foreign Policy between 1939 and 45 fresh in everyone’s minds.  On the railway, it was well known that steam was going to be replaced as soon as the country could afford it, and dieselisation on the American pattern was favoured by the CMEs of the Southern and LM regions. 
 

I agree that direct comparison between the Twins and comparable steam locos might have been useful; Ivatt reckoned that a single loco of 1,600hp equated to a Black 5 and the 3,200hp pair in multiple to an 8P Duchess.  In the event, the comparison was made by measuring the hp output of steam locos at Rugby Testing Station, the results of which were flawed and resulted in underpowered locos being specified by the 1955 Modernisation Plan, which followed a management re-organisation that got rid of Riddles and his team.  
 

Ivatt’s reckonings were vindicated by Deltics and 37s, and 31s upgraded to type 3 level by the installation of class 37 power plants, themselves developments of those used in the Twins, and the SR diesels.

I would say that Riddles’ decision to carry on with steam until the main lines could be electrified, he thought by about 1980, with diesels being used on secondary routes, was also vindicated by the experience of mainland European railways which did exactly that, but was thwarted in the UK by Treasury funding retractions and governmental policy changes, and the 1955 plan’s large scale adoption of diesels in order to defer the cost of main line electrification by another 5 or more decades in some cases.   
 

IMHO the biggest failure of the nationalised railway was the continuation of the Southern’s 750v third rail system, already looking obsolete in 1948 and not suitable for main line passenger or heavy freight work.  It should have been progressively replaced and extended with 25kv OHLE. 

[2251]

59 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

 

IMHO the biggest failure of the nationalised railway was the continuation of the Southern’s 750v third rail system, already looking obsolete in 1948 and not suitable for main line passenger or heavy freight work.  It should have been progressively replaced and extended with 25kv OHLE. 

 

That is easy to say in an age of compact solid-state rectifiers, but I doubt would have been a serious proposal in the early 1950s. 

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

IMHO the biggest failure of the nationalised railway was the continuation of the Southern’s 750v third rail system, already looking obsolete in 1948 and not suitable for main line passenger or heavy freight work.  It should have been progressively replaced and extended with 25kv OHLE. 

 

Perfect for suburban services though. Which is what it was mostly used for.

 

25KV was ideal for main lines, but not for densely used services which were stop and start. Also would have been next to useless on systems such as Merseyrail (probably the most important suburban service outside the capital).

 

750V obsolete? Is that why they are building new trains and considering extending it....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_777

 

 

Jason

[JohnR]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

IMHO the biggest failure of the nationalised railway was the continuation of the Southern’s 750v third rail system, already looking obsolete in 1948 and not suitable for main line passenger or heavy freight work.  It should have been progressively replaced and extended with 25kv OHLE. 

 

The Modernisation plan of 1955 (and follow up plans) envisaged the electrification of the lines from Waterloo to Weymouth and Exeter at 25kV. I dont know if similar was suggested for the Kent Coast line to Dover before that was electrified on 3rd rail.

 

[2251]

8 minutes ago, JohnR said:

 

The Modernisation plan of 1955 (and follow up plans) envisaged the electrification of the lines from Waterloo to Weymouth and Exeter at 25kV. I dont know if similar was suggested for the Kent Coast line to Dover before that was electrified on 3rd rail.

 

 

I am not sure that is what the 1955 plan says. It appears to envisage only a continuation of suburban electrification of the Southern:

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by 2251

[The Johnster]

9 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

750V obsolete? Is that why they are building new trains and considering extending it

Because a) we’re stuck with it and b) it has it’s uses in underground/metro systems where tunnel headroom is an issue.  On the Southern Region, the extension of a suburban network to Brighton and Portsmouth might be arguably appropriate pre WW2, but the Kent Coast and Bournemouth schemes were undertaken at a time when 25kv was an established standard, and not only should but could IMHO have been used for these schemes. 
 

Where are they considering extending it?

[Dagworth]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

31s upgraded to type 3 level by the installation of class 37 power plants

Class 31s never were type three, they just had the same lump as a 37 but downrated and without the intercooler. Their electrical gear would not be able to handle type 3 levels of power.

 

Andi

[D9020 Nimbus]

On 17/11/2020 at 21:06, Andy Kirkham said:

Are you just thinking of positive developments?

If not, there's the Harrow & Wealdstone disaster.

Weren't there trials of the AWS system underway at the same time? The disaster helped to lead to its adoption — although it took a long time to implement — 30 years later some main lines did not have it. The AWS trials were certainly significant.

[D9020 Nimbus]

2 minutes ago, Dagworth said:

Class 31s never were type three, they just had the same lump as a 37 but downrated and without the intercooler. Their electrical gear would not be able to handle type 3 levels of power.

 

Andi

Some Brush Type 2s had their Mirrlees engines uprated to 1600hp, one to 2000hp (although the majority were 1365hp). The failures that led to their replacement with EE (1470hp) engines started first in these, then spread to the lower-rated engines.

[2251]

5 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Weren't there trials of the AWS system underway at the same time? The disaster helped to lead to its adoption — although it took a long time to implement — 30 years later some main lines did not have it. The AWS trials were certainly significant.

 

There is a long and detailed discussion on pages 25-30 of the accident report:

 

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Harrow001.pdf

 

 

[LMS2968]

4 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Weren't there trials of the AWS system underway at the same time? The disaster helped to lead to its adoption — although it took a long time to implement — 30 years later some main lines did not have it. The AWS trials were certainly significant.

That's one of those myths with little if any basis in fact. It's true that the report spent many pages advocating what was still at the time referred to as ATC, same as the GWR system, but main line trials began on the Eastern Region the week after Harrow as scheduled. It was 1959 when the equipment began widespread adoption but, as said, over thirty years later many lines still didn't have. It's lack was cited as a contributory factor in the Eccles (actually Weaste) collision of 4 December 1984.

[D9020 Nimbus]

I think the point was that the disaster generated a lot of press interest in the trials. Whether that hastened it’s adoption is hard to say.

[Steamport Southport]

9 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Because a) we’re stuck with it and b) it has it’s uses in underground/metro systems where tunnel headroom is an issue.  On the Southern Region, the extension of a suburban network to Brighton and Portsmouth might be arguably appropriate pre WW2, but the Kent Coast and Bournemouth schemes were undertaken at a time when 25kv was an established standard, and not only should but could IMHO have been used for these schemes. 
 

Where are they considering extending it?

 

Around Merseyside and area to places like Warrington, possibly Preston and including North Wales. All depends on funding.

 

It's a fantastic system. Great for acceleration. I doubt you could really call any of the Merseyrail system a Metro. It's all ex mainlines apart from a tiny bit in the city centre and to Birkenhead. Your talking about the Birkenhead to London route, CLC Liverpool to Manchester and ex L&YR mainlines to Southport and Preston.

 

It's certainly not obsolete.

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

AWS was a major advance and is still at the core of operations today; the isolation of it in the cab of the HST invovled in the 1997 Southall collision.  It's lack was certainly highlighted by the BoT report and the press at the time of the Harrow and Wealdstone crash, which had been caused primarily by a train not responding to a searchlight distant signal showing yellow (it is possible that strong hazy sunlight glare played a part in this).  The media don't let go on something like this when they've got the bit between their teeth and the rate of installation of AWS became a feature of their reporting of more accidents in the 50s, notably Lewisham.  It was coincidental that the planned trials of the system began within a very short time of the Harrow accusation, but the reporting made it look like a response, which it wasn't. 

 

Press reporting of the Harrow and Wealdstone accident also highlighted the action of the signalman who had pathed a local commuter train on to the up main to pass another similar train in the up slow platform, as if he'd taken a terrible and unauthorised risk in placing it in the path of an oncoming express and was thus partially to blame for the carnage, but he had acted within the rules, local instructions, and correctly according to an instruction to give morning commuter traffic priority over late running up expresses; the local train was adequately protected by the searchlight distant and the home signals at danger, but the driver sighted them far too late to slow the train sufficiently to lessen the appalling impact of the initial rear end collision.  In fact he may not have braked until he saw the local occupying the up main platform ahead of him, by which time he'd probably already spotted the approaching down train.

 

AWS, had it existed, might well have alerted the driver of the up Perth train to the yellow aspect of the distant and the train would have pulled up normally at the home signal, but this is conjecture.  AWS works most effectively in conjunction with MAS signalling where it gives a visual and audible signal confirming the aspect of each and every signal, not just the distants (or signals acting as distants showing yellow aspects, there are no distants, homes, or starters in MAS signalling).  GW type ATS, which can be regarded as a predecessor to AWS but worked in a different way, only ever worked in conjunction with semaphore or searchlight distant signals, and never applied to stop signals. 

 

A similar situation with press/media reporting of accidents arose in the late 90s with the media seizing on the lack of cab signalling and automatic train stops, with the same discussion of how the introduction of such is constrained by costs, which it is, but ignoring the technical difficulties.