Imaginary Boardrooms

[FPH 603]

Welcome to the Imaginary Boardrooms!

 

Now post as you please!

[The Johnster]

Great, a place where we can talk about imaginary locomotives!

 

Ok, here's an idea to run with a bit; what if London Transport's railways had been included in the 1948 Nationalisation?  What effect might that have had on loading gauges in terms of Riddles's standards, for instance might the 84xxx and 78xxx been built with condensers to the 'covered lines' loading gauge and cross-city routes instituted?  Perhaps with cut down versions of the mk1 non-gangwayed stock to pull?

 

Or perhaps instead Southern SUB/EPB 750v dc sets cut down for cross London work and an extension of that system from the North London termini in the 50s?

Edited November 25, 2017 by The Johnster

[runs as required]

Great, a place where we can talk about imaginary locomotives!

 

Ok, here's an idea to run with a bit; what if London Transport's railways had been included in the 1948 Nationalisation?

..,Or perhaps instead Southern SUB/EPB 750v dc sets cut down for cross London work and an extension of that system from the North London termini in the 50s?

mmm Nice and spacious up here at 55 Broadway; good view out over the Epstein statue to St James Park.

Here's my 'twopenny tube'sworth:

Bulleid's 'Waterloo and City' stock continues on from Bank onto his erstwhile LNER parish: Loughon/Epping, etc.

 

dh

Edited November 25, 2017 by runs as required

[Clearwater]

As a point of pedantry, LT was nationalised under the 1947 Act and was a subsidiary of the British Transport Commision alongside British Rail and the other sundry companies nationalised. Quite why it wasn’t integrated into British Rail, per the johnster’s scenario, is a different question. Certainly LT staff of a certain vintage qualified for BR privs.

 

David

Edited November 25, 2017 by Clearwater

[runs as required]

Now that really is pedantry - In with both feet.

Welcome to the Boardroom Sir!

 

David

[JohnR]

As a point of pedantry, LT was nationalised under the 1947 Act and was a subsidiary of the British Transport Commision alongside British Rail and the other sundry companies nationalised. Quite why it wasn’t integrated into British Rail, per the johnster’s scenario, is a different question. Certainly LT staff of a certain vintage qualified for BR privs.

 

David

Actually as a further point of pedantry, LT wasnt nationalised in 1947 - it was already "nationalised". It was created in 1933, when the existing private underground railways were nationalised...

[FPH 603]

Glad we all like the newly formed Boardroom!

[28XX]

In the GWR corner of the boardroom, we have been impressed by the popularity of the British Pullman / Orient Express operation and are considering creating a Rail Cruise Train, Paddington to all the beautiful destinations we serve on the Cornish Riviera and elsewhere.

Edited November 25, 2017 by 28XX

[jjb1970]

We don't have time to talk about trains in my boardroom as we're fully occupied thinking of new ways to oppress the lower classes and making sure that the lower echelon riff raff who do all the work don't get ideas above their station.

[Nearholmer]

Plodding pedantically along: LPTB wasn't a nationalised body in 1933, it was closer to a 'municipalised' body, but even that is a simplification, so it is correct to say that it was nationalised in 1947 ( or maybe actually on 1 January 1948). The relevant Act sets it all out, in tedious detail, and can be found here http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HMG_Act1933.pdf

 

And, Johnster, the LT railways fall into two broad classes: subsurface, which has a loading gauge similar to typical 'ordinary' railways in this country; and, tube, which have a variety of very contstricted loading gauges. The Central London Railway ('twopenny tube) did have a couple of tube gauge steamers for engineering works, and there were a few other tube gauge steamers, but, for obvious reasons of asphyxiation, they've never been common.

 

Anyway, ...... can I put before the board a proposal that our, apparently mobile, boardroom should commence a year-long world tour of scenic railways, starting with ones in places where the weather isn't so chilly as it is here at the moment? For the purposes of the minutes, I suggest that we record this item under the heading: "Benchmarking Field Trip", rather than anything contentious like "Extended Jolly", which the shareholders might take objection to.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Nearholmer

[The Johnster]

Plodding pedantically along: LPTB wasn't a nationalised body in 1933, it was closer to a 'municipalised' body, but even that is a simplification, so it is correct to say that it was nationalised in 1947 ( or maybe actually on 1 January 1948). The relevant Act sets it all out, in tedious detail, and can be found here http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HMG_Act1933.pdf

 

And, Johnster, the LT railways fall into two broad classes: subsurface, which has a loading gauge similar to typical 'ordinary' railways in this country; and, tube, which have a variety of very contstricted loading gauges. The Central London Railway ('twopenny tube) did have a couple of tube gauge steamers for engineering works, and there were a few other tube gauge steamers, but, for obvious reasons of asphyxiation, they've never been common.

 

Anyway, ...... can I put before the board a proposal that our, apparently mobile, boardroom should commence a year-long world tour of scenic railways, starting with ones in places where the weather isn't so chilly as it is here at the moment? For the purposes of the minutes, I suggest that we record this item under the heading: "Benchmarking Field Trip", rather than anything contentious like "Extended Jolly", which the shareholders might take objection to.

 

Shareholders won't object so long as we take them with...

 

We don't have time to talk about trains in my boardroom as we're fully occupied thinking of new ways to oppress the lower classes and making sure that the lower echelon riff raff who do all the work don't get ideas above their station.

Quite right too, sir.  Standards must be kept up, eh, what...

 

Oh, hang on, I've just realised who the riff raff is; it's me, isn't it!

[Pacific231G]

We don't have time to talk about trains in my boardroom as we're fully occupied thinking of new ways to oppress the lower classes and making sure that the lower echelon riff raff who do all the work don't get ideas above their station.

So that would be the boardroom at Paddington then.  

 

The GWR didn't think it worth providing footplate crews with much protection in their cabs but it WAS important to provide Station Masters at principal stations with top hats to receive the principal trains from London likely to be carrying important people. I know this because my grandfather was one (a GWR Stationmaster not an important person) . Any Northerners or other provincial persons who can read this should take note that trains not arriving from London would be very unlikely to be carrying anyone important so there was no need to wear a top hat to greet them.    

Edited November 26, 2017 by Pacific231G

[corneliuslundie]

Well, gentlemen, the priority must be to get into service that nice double decky thing our chairman wafts around. So all future rebuilding, major maintenance, new works etc must to be Berne Gauge. I am sure that one of our honourable directors can head off the Chancellor if he starts to get difficult. I note that our electrical engineers have pre-empted us on this one by accepting European clearance for electrification.

And we need some proper railways under London, none of this rabbit hole stuff. We need to take the Moscow underground as our standard.

Jonathan

[The Johnster]

So that would be the boardroom at Paddington then.  

 

The GWR didn't think it worth providing footplate crews with much protection in their cabs but it WAS important to provide Station Masters at principal stations with top hats to receive the principal trains from London likely to be carrying important people. I know this because my grandfather was one (a GWR Stationmaster not an important person) . Any Northerners or other provincial persons who can read this should take note that trains not arriving from London would be unlikely to be carrying anyone important enough to warrant a top hat.    

 

 

I knew station masters (although they weren't actually called that in those days) back in the 70s on the WR who were most definitely of the view that they were important persons , and although the days of top hats and frock coats were past, buttonholes were still favoured for meeting London trains in case they had The Right Sort Of Person aboard.

[Ravenser]

Well, gentlemen, the priority must be to get into service that nice double decky thing our chairman wafts around. So all future rebuilding, major maintenance, new works etc must to be Berne Gauge. I am sure that one of our honourable directors can head off the Chancellor if he starts to get difficult. I note that our electrical engineers have pre-empted us on this one by accepting European clearance for electrification.

And we need some proper railways under London, none of this rabbit hole stuff. We need to take the Moscow underground as our standard.

Jonathan

 

Actually the NSWGR loading gauge is intermediate between Berne and British. It may have more in common with Irish loading gauge (certainly the biggest difference is the width - which makes quite a difference to 2+3 seating)

[FPH 603]

Actually the NSWGR loading gauge is intermediate between Berne and British. It may have more in common with Irish loading gauge (certainly the biggest difference is the width - which makes quite a difference to 2+3 seating)

The NSWGR has two main types of loading gauge (in the Sydney Area), each being different in width depending on the line:

 

Interurban Narrow Electric: The Interurban lines have a more narrow loading gauge, the current V sets are 2.928 metres wide, with only 2 rows of 2 seats in the main saloon areas. However there have been reports of the loading gauge being modified for new 3 metre wide Outer Suburban Knock Off Trains, which I find pointless, JUST MAKE THE TRAINS NARROWER!

 

Suburban/Outer Suburban Loading Gauge: The Suburban Gauge formerly was a more wider one allowing Single Deck Trains of 3.15 metre length, but after their withdrawal the platforms were moved closer to cater for 3 metre wide Double Deck Trains. The Single Deck trains (in the form of preserved set F1) nowadays can only just operate on the network, sometimes having to slow RIGHT down at some stations.

[runs as required]

Just a quick suggestion:

What about linking LT, BR(S) & BR (E) via Marc Brunel's (EL tunnel from New Cross - and so also appealing to the Western IKB Boardroom contingent ).

That way we might have had standard gauge profile Cross Rail 50 years ago capable of running 4DD units - and eventually NSWGR double deckers (on interlaced track?) Southend - Sheerness and all other S Coast termini.

 

dh

 

erm... a  Lekky question - why did LT insist on 4 rail earth return when BR was happy with just 3 rail?  LT installations always look a lot more expensive, is it to do with dangers of falling off UndergrounD platforms and being electrocuted?

[Zomboid]

Keeping the current where you want it in 4 rail systems is much easier than with 3 rail systems. Which is of particular benefit when you're in damp tunnels which are made of metal, because it pretty much eliminates electrolytic corrosion. The tube achieves that even more effectively by having a 660V system where one conductor rail is at 440V to the running rails, and the other is at -220V.

 

Whether that was the reason when it was introduced, I don't know, but it's a very good reason to keep it.

[Mike Storey]

Just a quick suggestion:

What about linking LT, BR(S) & BR (E) via Marc Brunel's (EL tunnel from New Cross - and so also appealing to the Western IKB Boardroom contingent ).

That way we might have had standard gauge profile Cross Rail 50 years ago capable of running 4DD units - and eventually NSWGR double deckers (on interlaced track?) Southend - Sheerness and all other S Coast termini.

 

dh

 

erm... a  Lekky question - why did LT insist on 4 rail earth return when BR was happy with just 3 rail?  LT installations always look a lot more expensive, is it to do with dangers of falling off UndergrounD platforms and being electrocuted?

 

As Zomboid says, the problem of earthing the return current through a running rail, which was not insulated from the ground, would have caused all sorts of problems, both with the metal tunnel linings, as described, but also with stray currents to the mainly iron water and gas pipes in use in those days, which were not electrically bonded or insulated, and were much closer to the running tunnels than was the case on surface lines. The large size of insulator needed to insulate a rail were not suitable for a running rail, although these days, the use of rubber pads to the chairs would greatly reduce, but not totally eliminate the problem.

[Nearholmer]

Early tube railways used three-rail electrification, but the BoT then introduced a limit on the potential between running rails and earth (6V, IIRC), in order to control currents running in earth which interfered with ground-return telegraph circuits. This very tight limit was very hard to comply with, even using very good return-circuit bonding, because of the high currents involved and longitudinal voltage drop.

 

Come c1900, the Met and District electrified at just the same time they were beginning to make extensive use of (DC I think) track circuiting, and they adopted four-rail, partly, from what I can work out, to counter interference with track circuits, and partly to counter interference with telegraphy, although nowadays this wouldn't be considered sufficient for 'signalling immunity'.

 

As the tube lines were completed and/or upgraded, they were set to the same standard.

 

For clarity, even in a third rail system, the running rails are not earthed in a DC traction supply system (they become 'earthy' by zillions of parallel paths through rail fixings, of course).

 

Should the Board wish to be bored, I could give a brief outline of how 220/440V came about on the Underground, and the special problems created by the four rail system.

 

The corrosion-protection benefits of four-rail were, from what I can discover, more a happy byproduct than main intent, but it isn't easy to be sure what exactly was in the minds of the engineers in c1900, even when reading old journals etc.

 

Kevin

 

PS: bonding is hugely important on a third rail railway - it is a far more guaranteed way of containing current in the running rails than is insulation, because it is such a bngger to keep the insulation in good order.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Nearholmer

[The Stationmaster]

I knew station masters (although they weren't actually called that in those days) back in the 70s on the WR who were most definitely of the view that they were important persons , and although the days of top hats and frock coats were past, buttonholes were still favoured for meeting London trains in case they had The Right Sort Of Person aboard.

 

Top hats had gone on the Western (although at least one Stationmaster on the ER still wore one) and we all had bowler hats which we were supposed to wear on various occasions when we couldn't get out of such a requirement.

[Compound2632]

Anyway, ...... can I put before the board a proposal that our, apparently mobile, boardroom should commence a year-long world tour of scenic railways, starting with ones in places where the weather isn't so chilly as it is here at the moment? For the purposes of the minutes, I suggest that we record this item under the heading: "Benchmarking Field Trip", rather than anything contentious like "Extended Jolly", which the shareholders might take objection to.

 

Delving into the minutes of the Midland Railway Board's Carriage & Wagon Committee (in the National Archives at Kew) I was amused by the c. 1898 activities of the "carriage warming committee", including a report from one of their members who had been investigating the cosiness of PLM carriages whilst wintering in Nice - not at the company's expense, I presume!

[corneliuslundie]

The proposal for a benchmarking field trip, minuted after an earlier meeting, seems to have been forgotten.

May I propose a working group to plan the trip. It will, of course need a budget. I suggest that initially the trip should last three months, starting in April, and should look forest at railway practice in the Mediterranean regions, especially those where it appears that they can make rural railways operate cost effectively such as Southern Italy, Greece and the Balkans. Later in the summer it may be appropriate to arrange a second trip to visit northern Europe, in particular looking at experience with extensive electrification systems and inter-modal co-ordination, especially between steamers and trains 

From November on I suggest an excursion to the Antipodes where they seem to have a great deal of experience with different gauges and loading gauges.

Jonathan

Please form an orderly queue!

[Nearholmer]

Seconded, but with one amendment: that we go to the antipodes forthwith.

 

Ideal opportunity to gain understanding of how best to manage CWR in high ambient temperatures, which can only be properly researched in high summer.

[kevinlms]

Seconded, but with one amendment: that we go to the antipodes forthwith.

 

Ideal opportunity to gain understanding of how best to manage CWR in high ambient temperatures, which can only be properly researched in high summer.

Funny you should say that!

 

Years ago I went on a tour organised by the Australian Railway Enthusiasts, which more or less covered all your suggestions & Corneliuslundie's as well!

 

It was a day trip up to Oaklands (then a break of gauge station), which turned out to be rather hot.

 

So much so that half way back to Victoria, the train came over a slight crest and the track had buckled in the heat. This caused the T Class loco to spread the track & derail, along with some passenger cars. Fortunately, it was at low speed so no injuries (I heard that the driver had been put under a little pressure to speed - but didn't).

 

Any way, what to do with a train load of passengers? Well fortunately the nearest township was only about 1km away and some locals came out and offered a lift into town and to you guessed it - the only pub within about 20 km... Nothing like a true Aussie tradition - retire to the pub...

 

http://www.gdaypubs.com.au/NSW/rennie.html  Now sadly closed.

 

Buses were organised and we were taken to Benalla Station, where a special stop was made of the (now extinct) Intercapital Daylight was made at the short platforms. So we ended up getting back to Melbourne way ahead of schedule.

Edited December 9, 2017 by kevinlms