Proposed GWR electrification in the 1930s/1940s?

[Wickham Green too]

28 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

...roughly the sort of this the GWR would probably have had as express motive power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_locomotive_class_WCP-1#:~:text=The Indian locomotive class WCP-1 is a class,1st generation (1). They entered service in 1930.  or the slightly earlier https://www.lner.info/locos/Electric/ee1.php  ...

A 1-C-C-1 would probably look more like 

[Nearholmer]

Yes, although I think thats a Co-Co, and a lot more modern. I couldnt find a 1-C-C-1.

 

Well, heres a single phase one of the right date and shape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Y-1#:~:text=The Great Northern Railway 's class Y-1 comprised,Washington to Skykomish%2C Washington%2C including the Cascade Tunnel.

 

I'm sure Met-Vick supplied some 1500V or 3000V dc ones to Japan, which Ive seen 0 gauge tinplate models of, but I cant find a picture.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Tom Burnham]

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Are there any pictures of the model anywhere? Also it sounds from the talk referred to that there was some confusion about whether 1500V or 3000V would be used.

I don't know what happened to the model and I've never seen any photos of it.  Any ideas, anyone?

As to why the schemes focused on west of Taunton, the stated reason was that the delivered cost of loco coal was relatively high in Devon and Cornwall.  Possibly other factors might have been the gradients (compared say with London-Bristol) and the fact that it was a relatively contained area without too much interchange with other railways.  I agree the reasons seem slightly unconvincing and one feels the report was set up to show that the Board had considered alternative ways of working, but found them no better than what they were doing already!

[Artless Bodger]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

But, that “war” wasn’t about railway electrification, and railway electrification is a special case because it involves traction motors.

 

The fact that 3-phase ac was already the proven-superior system for long distance transmission didn’t make it the best system for local distribution to trains, or for use on trains to drive motors, because, as I briefly outlined yesterday, ac motors presented one of two challenges: single phase machines needed a below-industrial-standard frequency; and, three-phase induction motors necessitated both extra complication of the OLE, and lots of complexity on-board the train to control them.

 

So, at this stage, both dc schemes and single phase ac schemes used high voltage 3-phase transmission to line side substations containing step-down transformers, and in the one case rotary converters (rectifiers), and in the    other rotary frequency-changers (a very few schemes put the FCs on the locos), so the contest then boiled down to which of ac and dc traction motors and control-gear were best/cheapest, and that tended to favour dc. 3-phase traction supply and motors had already been given up on as too expensive except for some very specialised applications.

 

M&M weren’t at all out of step with global thinking, their advice to use dc was “mainstream” at this stage, and stayed that way until the technical challenges of on-train rectification were solved. Only where there were railway-owned hydroelectric generating stations to supply the low frequency needed did single phase ac make simple economic sense at this date, and that didn’t apply in Britain.

 

As a PS: modern practice is to use direct current for very high current, very high voltage links in grid systems, things like the cross-channel interconnectors, for good reasons that I won’t go into for fear of starting another diversion.

In the USA and Canada some industrial ac supply was 25Hz, other 60Hz. the destruction of the Schoellkopf Niagara generating station in 1956 caused problems on the US side as it took out a lot of 25Hz capacity, some of which was made up from Canadian sources.

[Artless Bodger]

19 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, although I think thats a Co-Co, and a lot more modern. I couldnt find a 1-C-C-1.

 

Well, heres a single phase one of the right date and shape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Y-1#:~:text=The Great Northern Railway 's class Y-1 comprised,Washington to Skykomish%2C Washington%2C including the Cascade Tunnel.

 

I'm sure Met-Vick supplied some 1500V or 3000V dc ones to Japan, which Ive seen 0 gauge tinplate models of, but I cant find a picture.

Try the PLM. sorry can't work out how to right click copy links on this device.

[Artless Bodger]

PLM 161 DE1 of 1927. For the Maurienne line, ole and 3rd rail (protected top contact).

[Nearholmer]

I can’t find a picture of that, so I’m afraid we’ll have to make do with a Swiss one, which I’m pretty sure is single phase, from a book instead.

 

 

And a gratuitous 2-C-C-2, this is English Electric for Japan 1925, 1500V dc.

 

[Nearholmer]

Ah, found the PLM one now:

 

 

That looks like it might be a 1-Co-Co-1 though; hard to tell.

[rogerzilla]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

But, that “war” wasn’t about railway electrification, and railway electrification is a special case because it involves traction motors.

 

The fact that 3-phase ac was already the proven-superior system for long distance transmission didn’t make it the best system for local distribution to trains, or for use on trains to drive motors, because, as I briefly outlined yesterday, ac motors presented one of two challenges: single phase machines needed a below-industrial-standard frequency; and, three-phase induction motors necessitated both extra complication of the OLE, and lots of complexity on-board the train to control them.

 

So, at this stage, both dc schemes and single phase ac schemes used high voltage 3-phase transmission to line side substations containing step-down transformers, and in the one case rotary converters (rectifiers), and in the    other rotary frequency-changers (a very few schemes put the FCs on the locos), so the contest then boiled down to which of ac and dc traction motors and control-gear were best/cheapest, and that tended to favour dc. 3-phase traction supply and motors had already been given up on as too expensive except for some very specialised applications.

 

M&M weren’t at all out of step with global thinking, their advice to use dc was “mainstream” at this stage, and stayed that way until the technical challenges of on-train rectification were solved. Only where there were railway-owned hydroelectric generating stations to supply the low frequency needed did single phase ac make simple economic sense at this date, and that didn’t apply in Britain.

 

As a PS: modern practice is to use direct current for very high current, very high voltage links in grid systems, things like the cross-channel interconnectors, for good reasons that I won’t go into for fear of starting another diversion.

Same situation with diesels: the first few generations used DC machines (with brushes, massive currents, and the constant risk of flashovers) as the technology to make suitable AC generators and motors work didn't exist. Power electronics are much better now.

[Wickham Green too]

7 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 ... looks like it might be a 1-Co-Co-1 though; hard to tell.

Maybe a 1-Co+Co-1 ........ I get confused with these articulated thingies !

[Ramblin Rich]

33 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

......

And a gratuitous 2-C-C-2, this is English Electric for Japan 1925, 1500V dc.

 

Does that articulate at all? It looks like a rigid frame and a very long wheelbase.

 

It does seem that UK firms had the ability to build electric locos in this era, but sadly had very little domestic market for their technology.

[Nearholmer]

2 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

Does that articulate at all?

 

I think that the centre two driven axles move about somehow.

 

British industry was in a really difficult position because of lack of a home market, and wasn't really able to innovate. If you look at what was built, a huge amount was borrowed from European and US developments. They were in the same cleft stick with diesel locos bigger than shunters.

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, Tom Burnham said:

As to why the schemes focused on west of Taunton, the stated reason was that the delivered cost of loco coal was relatively high in Devon and Cornwall. 

Even with supply from Somerset or South Wales? Besides which, presumably at least part of the supply chain for coal was the same as it was for the rest of the GWR? Was it anything to do with the difficulties in working steeply graded lines with steam, as I’d previously seen suggested elsewhere?

 

Besides which, I’m not really disputing the operational reasons for electrifying west of Taunton, just that from the point of view of traffic, population centres and the sort of electrified networks that other railway companies were creating at the time, it would seemingly have made sense to also electrify in the London area, and in South Wales. It does seem that this wasn’t quite what they were going for though - among other things the suggestion that they would not attempt to use stock more intensively does imply a railway with electric locos, but otherwise run the same way as it was before electrification.

 

On the subject of British designs overseas there’s also this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NZR_EO_class_(1923)

 

As they worked in New Zealand they were 3’ 6” gauge rather than standard, but were a mainline design.

[Miss Prism]

Here's a Great Northern 1-C-C-1 Y-1:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Great_Northern_electric_locomotive_Y-1_1927.JPG

 

[Tom Burnham]

The Taff Vale Railway obtained powers to work all its lines by electricity in its Act of 1903 but I'm not aware of any serious move to put that into effect.  I came across a comment at a shareholders' meeting later in 1903 that they'd decided that steam railmotors would be more economical than light electric trains.  A bit odd, as I'd have thought the main justification for electrification would be for heavy coal trains down from (say) Pontypridd to the various docks (or at least the holding sidings) rather along the lines of the Newport-Shildon.

[Nearholmer]

26 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Was it anything to do with the difficulties in working steeply graded lines with steam,

It seems mostly to have been to do with talking down coal prices, perhaps more so than serious intent, but presumably they chose a notoriously hilly and twisty section of line as the case example.

[jamie92208]

There is an outline drawing of a proposed loco for thecCrewe to Carlisle scheme that the LNWR developed. I'll try and dig it out.

 

Jamie

Edited November 17, 2022 by jamie92208

[Johann Marsbar]

1924-26 English Electric built 2400/3000 V DC locos for Montreal Harbours Board, later used by CN on their electrified Deux Montagnes line that remained in service until 1995.....

 

 

[rogerzilla]

Why are electric locos like the 86 and 87 retired?  Are they:

 

1 inefficient?

2. worn out?

3. unsafe by modern standards?

4. not powerful enough?

 

I would have thought they could go on more or less indefinitely compared to steam or diesel.

 

Edit: or is it just a lack of work, passenger trains having moved to MUs?

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by rogerzilla

[rodent279]

6 minutes ago, rogerzilla said:

Why are electric locos like the 86 and 87 retired?  Are they:

 

1 inefficient?

2. worn out?

3. unsafe by modern standards?

4. not powerful enough?

 

I would have thought they could go on more or less indefinitely compared to steam or diesel.

 

I suspect a combination of age, obtainability of parts, and higher maintenance requirements for things like transformer tapchangers. They've had a good life, no one can complain about that, they've been worked very hard. Possibly one of BR's best buys, if not the most glamorous or well loved. They're 86's are not very kind to the track though, with those big, axle mounted traction motors.

Edited November 17, 2022 by rodent279

[Edwin_m]

Probably mostly a case of Pendolinos taking over their passenger work, and their freight work diminishing to a very small amount for which a few of them remain.  86 and 87 had electromechanical control via a tap changer, and couldn't do regenerative braking, but could possibly have been re-engineered with a solid state traction package had there been a need for them.  

[rodent279]

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

I think that the centre two driven axles move about somehow.

 

British industry was in a really difficult position because of lack of a home market, and wasn't really able to innovate. If you look at what was built, a huge amount was borrowed from European and US developments. They were in the same cleft stick with diesel locos bigger than shunters.

And there's the nub of the problem.  Although British manufacturers such as EE & Metro-Vick were quite experienced at building electric trains for export, the big 4 and most of the pre-grouping companies had their own workshops,  & built their own stock. Combined with the relatively small isolated electrification schemes outside of London & the SE, the home market was small.

Compare with the situation in Italy & Hungary, to name two- both had quite extensive mainline electrification schemes either in hand or operational by the 1920's, so had much more home grown experience of building & operating electric trains.

The GW being different,  I like to think it would have gone for 3-phase ohl, on the Italian model.

[JohnR]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It seems mostly to have been to do with talking down coal prices, perhaps more so than serious intent, but presumably they chose a notoriously hilly and twisty section of line as the case example.

 

I think theres an element of operational necessity too - remember virtually every express to Plymouth had to be double headed over the South Devon banks. Replacing two steam locos with a single electric loco would have resulted in a lot of savings. 

[Nearholmer]

That makes sense. Where did they tack the extra loco on, and how far through did it go?

 

 

[Nearholmer]

32 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

The GW being different,  I like to think it would have gone for 3-phase ohl, on the Italian model.

Given their reputation for individuality, maybe, but ……..
 

It was a dead technology through the period under discussion, only being used where it had already become entrenched pre-WW1 so far as I understand.

 

The few really, really clever electrical engineers who properly understood it, notably Kalman Kando, could see all its disadvantages and were already working on “the real answer”, single-phase OLE supplying trains fitted with three-phase drives, always hampered by the fact that power electronics were yet to be invented. It wasn’t until the 1960s that technology could achieve nearly what the clever guys knew was the right answer.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Nearholmer