Great Central Dieselisation - What if?

[bécasse]

25 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Fair point, however, I offer as evidence:-

 

3) the various SR EPB derived EMU's, some of which lasted the thick end of 50 years.

 

With, in most cases, underframes that were even older, having been built originally a couple of decades earlier to run under reconstructed wooden-bodied stock. The reason that so much of the BR-built Southern Region emu "suburban" stock was built to Bulleid-inspired designs was that bodies constructed to those designs fitted those available standard Southern Railway underframes whereas bodies constructed to BR Mk1 designs didn't (and consequently needed newly-built under frames).

[Northmoor]

Also the 72TS Bakerloo line stock, 50 years old now and very likely to be running for at least another 10 years.  If we're talking tube stock, the 483s survived their two careers with LU and on the IoW, for 80 years.

[Wickham Green too]

25 minutes ago, bécasse said:

... The reason that so much of the BR-built Southern Region emu "suburban" stock was built to Bulleid-inspired designs was that bodies constructed to those designs fitted those available standard Southern Railway underframes whereas bodies constructed to BR Mk1 designs didn't (and consequently needed newly-built under frames).

I'm sure the 'Bulleid-style' body could have been tweaked to C1 profile and re-styled more like a Mk1 .... IF anyone had thought it necessary ............................ they probably looked close enough to most people's eyes !

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Another (shorter) scenario:

Watkin comes to an arrangement with the MR and the London Extension never gets built...

[pH]

1 minute ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Another (shorter) scenario:

Watkin comes to an arrangement with the MR and the London Extension never gets built...

Spoilsport!

[john new]

On 07/04/2023 at 18:05, Dava said:

It’s a bit irrelevant as all the LMR wanted to do was run down the GCR and close it so there was no incentive to invest in dieselisation. Thus the use of end of life Royal Scots and Black Fives.. 
 

Dava

The two big casualties of regional boundaries crossing a through route were the GC London extension and Waterloo Exeter Plymouth. You can also argue the Somerset and Dorset into that category but I suspect that would have closed anyway through lost traffic, albeit a fair bit later than it did.

 

For the GC I think you also have to factor in retention of Eastern region control for the whole route then assess what traction the ER would have used on it.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by john new
Wrong tense (were not are).

[adb968008]

8 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Hey I know it's your Rule One and all - there's a huge amount of what you've described is completely plausible - but I'm detecting a few personal likes and dislikes.....

 

I would have thought that Westerns would have been more likely to transfer to the GC than the 50s, because as a less-than-top-link route, through services would have used the non-air conditioned Mk2s, at least during the summer.  But in the winter.....?  ETH was not an option in the Westerns; there was absolutely no space for a generator.  Probably more likely, considering some were already being sidelined by the early 80s recession, would be more 45/0s given ETH and hence converted to 45/1s.  Likewise, sorry but although I love Westerns too, they couldn't touch what 59s and 66s could do (they demonstrated less power at the rail than the 47s and of course had a nasty habit of going onto one engine....).

 

66s would still be needed early this century as coal traffic was still abundant and you can't easily load coal hoppers or ISO containers with an overhead wire in the way (yes, I know the Norwegians or someone does do it).  

 

I love 86s and 87s too but by the early 2020s (now), the 87s are 50 years old and the 86s nearly 60.  Operating them on front-line high speed traffic for that many years is stretching credulity.  Unless of course these locos are completely rebuilt into something barely recognisable like the Class 69, but that's a whole new can of What-iffery.

my only rationale on Westerns was as a Hydraulic their support structure and knowledge would need to be moved, not sure how portable that was, hence the 50.

 

But also, perhaps its the 55’s that might have gone straight to GC, and more HSTs sooner to ECML… but that would still leave the westerns around longer.

 

Re 87s… they are still running in 2023, just not in this country. In 2000 they had plenty of years left in them, the 86’s only retired here two years ago, indeed in 2003 86’s were frontline on Greater Anglia still, at 10 years older than 87’s… they too went East, with little wromg with them, and they too are still running in 2023 out there.

AC traction out lives diesels by quite a milestone.

 

(Flickr url / not mine)

 

Though I did consider more than 50 class 90’s, so its inevitable the 90’s may have overtaken the 87’s, and moved the 87’s onto freight… my whatiffery brain has reached the bottom of the pint glass by that point.

Edited April 20, 2023 by adb968008

[rodent279]

My favourite GC neverwazza is supposing the GC had been built to a larger loading gauge (choosing my words very carefully here, and yes, I know it wasn't,  but we don't need to tread in that pile of do-do again), connected to the Channel Tunnel via the SECR, and then electrified at 1500v DC throughout.

Overnight trains from Paris, the low countries & Germany,  formed of SNCF/ DB/NS stock, hauled by SNCF 4 current CC40xxx locos running up the GC to Manchester.

(No, I'm not sure how they'll get across the SECR either, but hey let's not let facts get in the way of a nice daydream!)

Edited April 20, 2023 by rodent279

[43110andyb]

The Newcastle - Poole service originally used the GC to its final destination. This continued into the 80’s and 47407 is Captured on this very service during July 1987 -heading south from Catesby tunnel towards Charwelton.

[Helmdon]

On 19/04/2023 at 22:52, john new said:

The two big casualties of regional boundaries crossing a through route were the GC London extension and Waterloo Exeter Plymouth. You can also argue the Somerset and Dorset into that category but I suspect that would have closed anyway through lost traffic, albeit a fair bit later than it did.

 

For the GC I think you also have to factor in retention of Eastern region control for the whole route then assess what traction the ER would have used on it.

 

Ish. I think Gerry Fiennes would (did) argue that he was responsible for Waterloo-Exeter surviving *at all* rather than just being lifted. But given the maths it was always the one to be at least rationalised of the two London-SW routes.

[Helmdon]

On 07/04/2023 at 19:51, Peter Kazmierczak said:

There were plans for a diesel depot at Annesley, though that fell by the wayside.

Woodford Halse got a bit further than that IIRC.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Helmdon

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Going back to a bit of history...

 

The GN and LNW were working on a joint line proposal in the early 1870s, from Mkt Harboro via Melton M to Nottm and Newark (plus a GN-only branch to L'ter Belgrave Rd). This all came to be eventually built.

 

HOWEVER, the MR and the MSL (forerunner of the GC) were not happy with this stitch-up of what they saw as an incursion into their territory. In autumn 1872, Price (then chairman of the MR) wrote to Watkin (his MSL counterpart). This proposed a line from the MR at Rushton (near Kettering) along a similar route via Melton M (where they'd been a jn with the MR line to Nottm. The joint route would continue up through Bingham, Lowdham, Ollerton, Checker House (jn with the MSL between Worksop/Retford), Tickhill, the east side of Doncaster, to eventually join the NER at Askern.

The GN/LNW Bill passed, the MR/MSL one didn't.

 

[Flying Pig]

Clearly a retained GC London Extension would have needed additional traction to be built, but I doubt that would be much more interesting than extra batches of Type 4s (Derby and then Brush) and Type 2s (depending on which region had control).  And WR power running into the East Midlands regularly.  I don't expect the timings would have justified anything more powerful.

 

Or perhaps you could imagine more use being made of intercity type DMUs, which would cause something of a crisis as they wore out - perhaps enough to see exotic power turning up briefly until HSTs allowed more Type 4s to be cascaded.  Westerns on cascaded steam-heated stock maybe, or Deltics a few years later with air-con Mk2s released by HSTs.  In neither case for very long before sanity prevailed.

 

Really though, the situation would have to be markedly different for retention of both the Midland and GC lines to be a possibility, in which case Britain would obviously have got its finger out much earlier with electrification, so we might see 1500V DC and scope for some imaginary classes.  Or if it had survived as a steam hauled route quite late, you could imagine it being a guinea big for 25kV AC electrification.

[Northmoor]

3 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Clearly a retained GC London Extension would have needed additional traction to be built, but I doubt that would be much more interesting than extra batches of Type 4s (Derby and then Brush) and Type 2s (depending on which region had control).  And WR power running into the East Midlands regularly.  I don't expect the timings would have justified anything more powerful.

 

Or perhaps you could imagine more use being made of intercity type DMUs, which would cause something of a crisis as they wore out - perhaps enough to see exotic power turning up briefly until HSTs allowed more Type 4s to be cascaded.  Westerns on cascaded steam-heated stock maybe, or Deltics a few years later with air-con Mk2s released by HSTs.  In neither case for very long before sanity prevailed.

 

Really though, the situation would have to be markedly different for retention of both the Midland and GC lines to be a possibility, in which case Britain would obviously have got its finger out much earlier with electrification, so we might see 1500V DC and scope for some imaginary classes.  Or if it had survived as a steam hauled route quite late, you could imagine it being a guinea big for 25kV AC electrification.

When you consider the number of classes withdrawn through the late 1960s/70s - because they were considered small fleets/non-standard - it's quite possible there would have been no need for additional batches of anything; it wouldn't actually require many locomotives to maintain an hourly service on the GC South of Sheffield.  In fact I've long thought building a flying junction with the Nuneaton-Leicester line would have allowed the more obviously duplicated routes and stations North of there, to be closed.

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

When you consider the number of classes withdrawn through the late 1960s/70s - because they were considered small fleets/non-standard - it's quite possible there would have been no need for additional batches of anything; it wouldn't actually require many locomotives to maintain an hourly service on the GC South of Sheffield.  In fact I've long thought building a flying junction with the Nuneaton-Leicester line would have allowed the more obviously duplicated routes and stations North of there, to be closed.

 

The National Traction Plan wasn't published until about 1967 which would have been very late to start thinking about dieselising a main line out of London.  And many of the classes withdrawn were type 1s and type 2s of dubious reliability, so wouldn't have been much use anyway.

[MidlandRed]

5 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The National Traction Plan wasn't published until about 1967 which would have been very late to start thinking about dieselising a main line out of London.  And many of the classes withdrawn were type 1s and type 2s of dubious reliability, so wouldn't have been much use anyway.

The NTP process started before this (first version 1965) this led to classes 14 and 43 (Warship) being offered to other regions as redundant.

 

I suspect if it had stayed open it could have functioned as a route for MGR trains say to Didcot (dependent on where the coal was originating) but loco hauled would likely have been classes 47 with some 45, maybe 44 ( freight or passenger for the first two) but very likely DMUs. Possibly class 37s from the WR or ER. 

 

NB the NTP did result in quite a number of DMU migrations (WR to ScR), and class 37 (WR to ScR) at the end of summer 1966 - as a region which had generally eliminated steam by the end of 1965, and combined with the effect of Beeching especially on freight, the over provision of modern traction was becoming apparent and would also extend elsewhere, resulting in withdrawal of other classes, especially as steam fizzled out area by area. 
 

It’s almost inconceivable any extra traction would be required (or even permitted - a ceiling of around 3000 units had been placed by the mid 60s and even requests from the WR for more Brush type 4 and type 1s were met with offers of the temporary loan of LMR bound new build Brush 4s and EE type 1s until traffic flows had become clearer following Beeching - WR did not take up that offer). 

Edited April 23, 2023 by MidlandRed

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, MidlandRed said:

It’s almost inconceivable any extra traction would be required

 

This assumes the knowledge of 1965 half a decade or more earlier when planning for the GC would have had to take place.  I think it is pretty certain that if the route had been deemed worthy of retention there would have been traction ordered for it.

 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

The GC had a large batch of new 9Fs allocated to it. Maybe it would've ended up as a key freight artery (as once envisaged), but with steam power continuing into the 1970s? We can dream...

[Peter Kazmierczak]

On 20/04/2023 at 23:09, 43110andyb said:

The Newcastle - Poole service originally used the GC to its final destination. This continued into the 80’s and 47407 is Captured on this very service during July 1987 -heading south from Catesby tunnel towards Charwelton.

 

Had me going with this image at first! Superb. As they say, "Just like the real thing". The only giveaway is that solder on the rail and the nearby track joint. Otherwise faultless. The cutting sides are spot-on.

[woodenhead]

35 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

 

Had me going with this image at first! Superb. As they say, "Just like the real thing". The only giveaway is that solder on the rail and the nearby track joint. Otherwise faultless. The cutting sides are spot-on.

If you cut the image a bit...

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

This assumes the knowledge of 1965 half a decade or more earlier when planning for the GC would have had to take place.  I think it is pretty certain that if the route had been deemed worthy of retention there would have been traction ordered for it.

 

But they were.  Don't forget that as part of Sg heffoeld area dieselisation plans part of the GC passenger work was dieselised using Darnall EE Type 3.  So obviously somebody's orders for diesels had made allowance for that (but probably nothing else).

 

However equallty don't overlook the fact that it was part of WCML electrification planning frm quite an early stage that some services would be temporarily diverted to the GC (as well as to the MML)  and that through working between London and Manchester would end once the WCML electrification was complete.  Thus there was little point in ordering anything else for GC long distance passenger work and - more importantly - building depots and training staff for trains that would only be there for a few more years.

[woodenhead]

40 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

But they were.  Don't forget that as part of Sg heffoeld area dieselisation plans part of the GC passenger work was dieselised using Darnall EE Type 3.  So obviously somebody's orders for diesels had made allowance for that (but probably nothing else).

 

However equallty don't overlook the fact that it was part of WCML electrification planning frm quite an early stage that some services would be temporarily diverted to the GC (as well as to the MML)  and that through working between London and Manchester would end once the WCML electrification was complete.  Thus there was little point in ordering anything else for GC long distance passenger work and - more importantly - building depots and training staff for trains that would only be there for a few more years.

So basically turning the London extension over to the LMR was to facilitate control of services diverted by the WCML route electrification which along with the MML gave those in charge of the LMR absolute surety that at the end of the electrification the primary services would all be on the WCML, the GCR would close and the MML would become a backwater.

[The Stationmaster]

32 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

So basically turning the London extension over to the LMR was to facilitate control of services diverted by the WCML route electrification which along with the MML gave those in charge of the LMR absolute surety that at the end of the electrification the primary services would all be on the WCML, the GCR would close and the MML would become a backwater.

Not exactly as it happened some years previously.  In fact the boundary change history of the GC was a story in itself with Marylebine and the southern end passing through four Regional boundary changes.  Going over the years from (LNER) ER to the WR, then to the LMR and finally, in the mid 1980s, back to the WR.

[rodent279]

With 3 London-Manchester routes, 2 duplicated north of Rugby, the GC was always doomed from the moment of nationalisation.

Even if nationalisation hadn't happened, I think rationalisation would have happened anyway. The LNER & LMS would have come to some accommodation.

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, rodent279 said:

With 3 London-Manchester routes, 2 duplicated north of Rugby, the GC was always doomed from the moment of nationalisation.

Even if nationalisation hadn't happened, I think rationalisation would have happened anyway. The LNER & LMS would have come to some accommodation.

LIFO - it is the way