Can anyone ID this tunnel?

[rodent279]

My dad worked on the electrification of the WCML, from the late 1950's through to its completion in 1965/6. His patch was Roade-Euston. Although he was a prolific photographer in other areas of life, he didn't take many that were work related, which is a pity, as it was a fascinating time to be working on the railway.

One that I have come across is this one, of a tunnel with wiring work in progress. I'm not sure what is going on here, it looks like some cable is being run through the tunnel, in parallel with some measuring of the installed catenary.

On his patch, there are tunnels at Linslade, Northchurch, Watford, Kensal Rise & Primrose Hill (I'm discounting the couple of short tunnels on Camden Bank, as this is obviously not a City scene). Of the above, I can rule out Kensal Rise, Watford FL, Northchurch & Linslade. I can also rule out Watford SL north portal, as I've seen a photo of it, and it's in a deep, near vertical cutting. I haven't seen a decent photo of the south portal of Watford SL, but looking at satellite views in Google, again, I think I can rule it out due to the steepness of the cutting? There is another neg, taken from the parapet looking down, but it's not possible to tell whether there are more lines on either side of the tunnel.

I'm assuming it is LM region, though I don't know that for sure. From other negs in the same batch, I'd estimate it dates from between about 1963-5.

Cheers N

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by rodent279

[Trog]

South portal of Hunsbury Hill on the HNR?

 

[Pete the Elaner]

It illustrates how tall & thin LMR tunnels typically are; nothing like anything available RTR.

[Bomag]

It could be any of the three tunnels on the Northampton loop (the others being Watford Lodge and Crick) which seem have the same design of buttress and wing wall. Also the track has wooden sleepers - while they may be in use due to lack of formation depth, I recall all the fast/direct lines on the south end of WCML were on concrete by then. I have no idea of what was on the Northampton loop but it would not surprise me if most of it was on wood.

[Trog]

There were still long lengths of hardwood Pan11 timber sleepers on the south end of the WCML mainly on the fast lines into the late 1980's. There are still shorter sections over shallow under bridges and through several  of the tunnels including both lines at Crick to this day.

[Bomag]

1 hour ago, Trog said:

There were still long lengths of hardwood Pan11 timber sleepers on the south end of the WCML mainly on the fast lines into the late 1980's. There are still shorter sections over shallow under bridges and through several  of the tunnels including both lines at Crick to this day.

 

Which is why I mentioned formation depth, I was told that there were a number of areas on the WCML which needed a proper blanket renewal to get a decent depth and full concrete sleepers. Obviously the LMR were constantly firefighting the P-way damage from the Class 86 in the 80's to the point of offloading a load of them to us on the GEML. Still it kept us with a nice load of Saturday night jobs in 89/90 to try and fixed the damage - not that I got that many. Do you need both a MS1 and a PTO on a simple stressing job? We tried to have concrete on the few tunnels without slab track just minimise movement.

[Trog]

The track lengths I was referring to were out in the open plain line, mostly of mid sixties vintage, it seemed that relaying in hardwood sleepers must have come back into fashion for a couple of years then. As apart from tunnels and bridges with shallow ballast, both the younger and older CWR track was all on concrete sleepers. There were a few of sections of softwood jointed left in the 1980's mainly in the slow speed areas around the stations at Rugby and Northampton, and a length in the Down Slow near Denbigh Hall South Junction.

I nearly gave the Bletchley North PWSS a heart attack by showing him what the joints in that looked like through the level, while I was surveying it ready for relaying. The foreshortening effect of the telescope making the rail ends look like conductor rail ramps.

 

The Euston Station throat area was also kept mainly in bull head jointed for many years to avoid having to move everything to make the different geometry of the newer flat bottom designs fit.

 

As for staffing the Watford DCE/ACE office was so busy that a full relay and reballast job might get an STO or TO working with the Relaying Supervisors timekeeper as ES, with the STO / TO  working right through from start to finish. We had to be multi skilled as on smaller jobs you could also end up being the Engineering Supervisor as well once the supply of timekeepers, gangers, supervisors drivers and other such trusty's had run out. So most of the technical staff were qualified as PIC's and load examiners as well as the usual technical skills. 

[rodent279]

Thanks all. Since posting the question, I'd come to the conclusion that it was Hunsbury Hill, as I think this photo (from Anthony Guppy) shows.

 

Initially I'd discounted it, because from satellite images it doesn't look the same, due to the steel pilings on the left. There are no roads nearby, so no Streetview, and I didn't think to try Flickr.

 

On the subject of track, I'm pretty sure some substantial sections of WCML slow lines were still wooden sleepers well into the 1980's. This photo of 85012 at Leighton Buzzard in 1984 shows wooden sleepers, through the station at least. The FL's were largely concrete, except through junctions such as Ledburn, iirc. I think Kilsby tunnel was wooden sleepers, and I have in my head that part of it was still jointed track into the 80's (or maybe it was just rough!)

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by rodent279

[TheSignalEngineer]

Up to the 1980s there were still large amounts of speed restricted wagons about on BR. It wasn't until the demise of these and slower classes of  EMUs and DMUs that there was any drive to completely relay track and increase Slow line speeds above 75mph on most of the WCML.  Even the fast lines were in such a state that train times were increased by 10-15 minutes and the morning business train was about 5 minutes slower in 1990 than 1967.

[Trog]

There were a couple of cycles where the amount of relaying on the south end of the WCML was reduced to save money and our overtime reduced to sane levels. But the CoT boards would then start popping up like mushrooms more money would be found, and we would start virtually living on the track again.

 

The first increase from 75MPH to 90MPH on the slows was a typical BR job where it was only realised that we did not have any 90MPH cutout speed signs about two or three days before the speeds were due to be raised. A certain STO then spent two days cutting up other speed signs and bolting the bits back together to produce the required number of 90MPH stencils.

 

Strangely the increase to 100MPH for parts of the slows came at the end of a period where West Coast Route Muddle had concentrated almost exclusively on relaying the newer sections of the fasts for the previous two years. So the timeline was neglect track for two years then raise speed.  In both cases there remained sections where the speed could not be raised, mostly where as has been mentioned the slows swerved round island platforms. 

 

In BR days the fast lines were reballasted with a depth of 15" of stone, the slows with 12". More recently the fasts have been relaid with 30 sleepers to the length, rather than the 28 specified by the standards. As the track on the WCML takes a lot of punishment.

[rodent279]

10 minutes ago, Trog said:

There were a couple of cycles where the amount of relaying on the south end of the WCML was reduced to save money and our overtime reduced to sane levels. But the CoT boards would then start popping up like mushrooms more money would be found, and we would start virtually living on the track again.

 

The first increase from 75MPH to 90MPH on the slows was a typical BR job where it was only realised that we did not have any 90MPH cutout speed signs about two or three days before the speeds were due to be raised. A certain STO then spent two days cutting up other speed signs and bolting the bits back together to produce the required number of 90MPH stencils.

 

Strangely the increase to 100MPH for parts of the slows came at the end of a period where West Coast Route Muddle had concentrated almost exclusively on relaying the newer sections of the fasts for the previous two years. So the timeline was neglect track for two years then raise speed.  In both cases there remained sections where the speed could not be raised, mostly where as has been mentioned the slows swerved round island platforms. 

 

In BR days the fast lines were reballasted with a depth of 15" of stone, the slows with 12". More recently the fasts have been relaid with 30 sleepers to the length, rather than the 28 specified by the standards. As the track on the WCML takes a lot of punishment.

Interesting. I always understood that the disc brakes on class 310's were a bit smaller than the almost identical class 312's, hence less braking capacity, hence the lower max speed (75mph v 90mph). But looked at from the track point of view, since 310's spent most of their time on the SL, the higher speed would have been wasted anyway.

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Interesting. I always understood that the disc brakes on class 310's were a bit smaller than the almost identical class 312's, hence less braking capacity, hence the lower max speed (75mph v 90mph). But looked at from the track point of view, since 310's spent most of their time on the SL, the higher speed would have been wasted anyway.

The Class 310  or AM10 as they were at the time were allowed 85mph when first built. IIRC the 75mph came in when somebody coupled an AM4 to an AM10. The driver was in  the AM10 and either nobody told him he had a 75mph unit on the back or he forgot. I don't  think it did the AM4 much good, certainly it would have bounved the passengers about a bit.

 

[rodent279]

52 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

The Class 310  or AM10 as they were at the time were allowed 85mph when first built. IIRC the 75mph came in when somebody coupled an AM4 to an AM10. The driver was in  the AM10 and either nobody told him he had a 75mph unit on the back or he forgot. I don't  think it did the AM4 much good, certainly it would have bounved the passengers about a bit.

 

Didn't know that, thanks. Explains the number of 75mph+ runs that have been recorded on these excellent units over the years!

Edited February 26, 2021 by rodent279

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Didn't know that, thanks. Explains the number of 75mph+ runs that have been recorded on these excellent units over the years!

Sadly, my memory of 312s & 310s were on the Clacton line in their latter years. After accelerating away from the station they seemed to be forever trying to find the next gear without success (you could hear a strange clattering beneath you). Then when finally up to speed, they were as draughty as hell.

Maybe my memory was colours because they outlived the lovely 309s on the line.

 

But coming back to sleepers, I remember changing trains at Crewe in 2019 & noticing the fast lines through the station were on wooden sleepers; the stopping lines being concrete sleepered.

[rodent279]

7 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Sadly, my memory of 312s & 310s were on the Clacton line in their latter years. After accelerating away from the station they seemed to be forever trying to find the next gear without success (you could hear a strange clattering beneath you). Then when finally up to speed, they were as draughty as hell.

Maybe my memory was colours because they outlived the lovely 309s on the line.

 

But coming back to sleepers, I remember changing trains at Crewe in 2019 & noticing the fast lines through the station were on wooden sleepers; the stopping lines being concrete sleepered.

I can picture (if that's the right word) the exact sound you describe!

I think that would be the transformer tapchanger running up-someone in the know please correct me.

I guess compared to 309's, they had more doors and windows to provide natural ventilation, so yes, they could be draughty. The motor coaches could be lively, but the trailers, especially the driving trailers, could ride beautifully.

Edited February 27, 2021 by rodent279

[TheSignalEngineer]

10 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Didn't know that, thanks. Explains the number of 75mph+ runs that have been recorded on these excellent units over the years!

When the Euston -Rugby Outer Suburbans were extended to Birmingham in 1967 the only stopped at Coventry. Before the 75mph limit was imposed the 310s were capable of doing 85mph from Adderley to Canley Gates or beyond and covering New Street to Coventry in no more than 16 minutes.

[rodent279]

If a 310 left Euston at the same time as a loco hauled train, the unit usually would easily beat the loco up Camden Bank and through Primrose Hill Tunnel. Depending on the size of the loco hauled train, and the power up front, it was often Wembley Central or further north before the emu was slowly overhauled by the other train.

Best units BR ever built-but then I'm biased, home was Leighton Buzzard, every* train journey began with a 310!

 

 

 

*(Not true, we also had the legendary Euston-Northampton cobblers, I just wanted to say it )

[TheSignalEngineer]

7 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

But coming back to sleepers, I remember changing trains at Crewe in 2019 & noticing the fast lines through the station were on wooden sleepers; the stopping lines being concrete sleepered.

A relative of mine was a BR Research specialist in vibration and accoustics . He actually recommended using hardwood sleepers in some circumstances to reduce vibration propagation through buildings close to and particularly over track.

[rodent279]

Just now, TheSignalEngineer said:

A relative of mine was a BR Research specialist in vibration and accoustics . He actually recommended using hardwood sleepers in some circumstances to reduce vibration propagation through buildings close to and particularly over track.

I wonder if that explains the wooden sleepers through LB on the SL? In common with a few others, LB had a subway under the lines.

 

(Though the FL had concrete sleepers, so maybe that blows that theory out of the water.)

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

I wonder if that explains the wooden sleepers through LB on the SL? In common with a few others, LB had a subway under the lines.

 

(Though the FL had concrete sleepers, so maybe that blows that theory out of the water.)

IIRC some places retained a few wooden sleepers because the depth of formation over subways etc was not enough to get standard concrete types in.

[Trog]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

I wonder if that explains the wooden sleepers through LB on the SL? In common with a few others, LB had a subway under the lines.

 

(Though the FL had concrete sleepers, so maybe that blows that theory out of the water.)

 

No if the timber sleepers were required for the subway there would only be in older track a sixty foot panels worth of them (makes loading the Salmons in the PAD easier if all the sleepers on a panel are the same depth) or more recently with loose sleeper relaying just enough to cover the subway or bridge with a few over on each side so that you do not change the sleeper type on the abutment.

 

As the wooden sleepers ran further than that they were probably just some of the last softwood sleepers installed before the change over to concrete, and hence late survivors.