Great Western Coffee Shop

27th March 2013 will be the 50th anniversary of the publication of Dr Richard Beeching's "The reshaping of British Railways" report.

report: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=13
maps: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=35

Have the fifty years that followed been a disaster for the railways, or could we look back at a success where the slimmed down system is carrying a very great deal more traffic than it was in those days?  Is that extra traffic because of the Beeching report and its implementation, or in spite of it?

How should we look forward and plan for the next fifty years?

It is also well worth a look at the map drawn up by Richard Fairhurst - one of the Cotswold line members.

http://www.systemed.net/atlas/

Zoom in, it is excellent, and shows quickly how the railway network has shrunk.

Very interesting question.

I have a copy of the 100 years of the Railway Study Association which has an article speculating on this very question.

The main theme is there will be "change" it will be ineviatible.

A lot will be obvious more electrifcation, more automation leading hopefully to more reliability. The interesting though the author has is about staff. If things are going right then you will need fewer staff but more staff when things so go wrong. They suggest you will need dual trained staff who are basically customer facing and deal with passengers on a day to day basis when things are running OK but are capable of and trained to and more importantly authorised  to take decesions when things wrong.

The other thing is that the fare system has to be sorted out it's drowing under the weight of its own contridictions.

As to the effects of the Beeching system I go with Chairman Mao on the Frech Revolution "that it's too early to tell". Many of the problems with the railways started with the competitive building  manias of the mid 19 th C.

Perhaps, 50 years on, [someone] should look at "The shaping of British Railways for the future" ... considering where we want to be in 25 and 50 years, and how we should get there from where we are now - a strategy plan that swings longer than the pendulum of political government swapping from one horse to another every few years, often at great expense.

Discussion statement:

In Utopia a travel and transport system would provide "resources that let people and goods travel to where they want to go / need to be, at a time they want to travel, consistently, in comfort and at reasonable cost to the traveller, the state, and the wider economy. To be environmentally friendly, reliable and flexible. To be easy to find our about and book, straightforward, healthy and enjoyable to use, and to allow people to make best use of their time. To be safe and secure."

It is easy with hindsight to condemn Beeching, there were a number of contributory decisions made post WW2 some due to austerity, some just poor; the decision to stay with steam while the rest of Europe was electrifying or using diesels, the choices made with some of the motive power units in the 1950's modernisation plan some not even lasting 10 years.  Then there was the continued use by BR and DoT of the financial model for the viability of a line and stations which perpetuated right into the 1980's.  The were some excellent choices made though the Intercity brand this was a BR marketing tool, the adoption of containers the HSDT (125).  The decision in the 1950's to go for 25kV AC overhead electrification and not to stick with the 1500V DC.

What will we see in the next 50 to 100 years.  The opening of other new lines (standard 100mph line) not necessarily over previously abandon lines some may be principally for freight, new stations, rebuilt / relocated stations some more redoubling or quadrupling and of course HS2 will be built.

A lot more electrification at 25kV and the conversion of third rail areas to overhead 25kV

My forecast is that in 50 years, that the rail map will be very similar to todays.
There will be some new and reopened lines, and some closures, but not that many.

I predict that most of the network will be electrified, with battery powered multiple units and coal burning steam locos  for branch lines and secondary routes. Oil will be far too costly to regularly use for railway fuel.
Shunting will be done by battery locos at larger depots, with horses being used for small yards and depots.

Owing to the increased cost of electricity, speeds will be generally lower than todays with increased passenger numbers being handled by long relatively slow trains.
30 coach electric trains on the east and west coast routes,once an hour, with a maximum speed of 100MPH and a timetabled start to stop average of about 60.
Speed will be less important than is the case today since airlines and fast long distance road transport will be virtually extinct.
Fares much simplified, but broadly similar to those charged today, on average, in real terms.
More through portions of trains to destinations without a through service at present, for example from the South to Scotland.
More sleepers and more restaurants ;D, if we cant afford to go faster, lets at least make it seem quicker by eating, drinking, and sleeping !

Interesting - "coal burning" is certainly something to ponder on

rgds
Rob

I don't see a future 'clamour for coal' any more than the just-experienced 'dash for gas'.   If that were acceptable energy policy, then Broadgage's predicted elimination of long distance road transport would not be a likely scenario either (coal and oil will be eliminated).  However, I do think that not only is the end of the i.c.e. probable, but also, more significant, will be the elimination of short distance car travel, even electrically powered.

It will be the pattern of living, working and shopping that decides it.  In major urban centres, light mass transit is already taking over.  In the South West, we will see one of the last bastions of private car transport.  Bristol may lead the way with trams and the like, but it has to overcome its topographical challenges more inventively than it has until now (it will do), and the third city, Plymouth (Bournemouth is the second, may I remind colleagues) has similar challenges.

I don't see people charging up and down to London every day, unless people have a psychological need to escape their families.  Technology will render such strange practices redundant (has done already, truth be told).  None of such people make anything with their hands, in a workshop in London; they just send emails and design things, often to people sat yards away.

 

I certainly dont see a general "clamour for coal" and did say that I expect most routes to be electrified.
I can however see a return to coal burning steam engines for secondary routes, especialy for freight and long heavy passenger trains.
Battery multiple units would probably be a better bet for short, local trains.

There is growing evidence that oil production has reached a peak and is now declining, those who do not support this view tend to accept that the peak is relatively near though not yet reached.

It has been suggested that if it were not for the economic situation, that oil prices would be twice the present figure. Others hold that the present economic situation has been CAUSED by the sudden increase in oil prices of a few years ago.

At any rate, it seems most unlikely that oil derived fuels will be affordable for large scale transport, whether public transport or private cars.
I have no doubt that some cars and aircraft will be used in 50 years time, but only a few and at a price far out of reach of most people.
There are a number of alternatives to crude oil, but it seems most unlikely that these will be available in sufficient volumes and at low enough prices to replace the crude oil used at present.

The future is IMHO electric, and expensive electricity at that which will have to be used more prudently at present. Mainly from renewable sources.
I do not see a large scale return to steam, but for lightly used routes that cant be electrified, and with diesel fuel no longer affordable, it may be the best option.

Some interesting inputs and thoughts there.  I too wouldn't be shocked to see us turn a corner with the speed (and sophistication, pehaps) of trains.  In the airline industry, supersonic planes are no longer flying in scheduled passenger service, and perhaps we'll end up with a 90 m.p.h. top speed electric train network (however the electricity is generated, in most cases it's going to be better to feed it through wires than carry your own generators).  Longer trains, yes - for that's how you get good throughput, but also signalling systems which allow inter-train distance to be less than the current (stopping distance + 1 signal section?).

Clock face services - almost undoubtedly (but will time have gone metric, with 10 hours in the day, and 100 minutes in the hour?).  Ticketing and information services much improved - the current uneasy mixture of what's still an early-use technology (electronics) on top of an archaic fare structure will - surely - be swept away.

Some redoubling, perhaps some extra loops, but the signalling and train length stuff above, and a consistent train speed, will allow far more seats to pass through each track than at present.  Hopefully 4 track now won't have to wait until 2063 to get the extra tracks.

People will still take time to load / unload.  So we may well see station widening, where alternate trains use alternate platforms; there are elements of that at Clapham Junction, and I can see stations like Chippenham and Westbury both going up to 4 platforms.   Hopefully 2 islands, with "regional" arriving (from Sailsbury and Bristol alternately), express pulling in across the platform for a 2 way swap of passengers, and then the two proceeding - to Norwich via the East / West link for the regional train, and London (central station, via Crossrail?) for the express.

I'm not going to predict / advocate huge re-openings (but some) ... nor closures, although I do question the reversal and intermediate station near the junction on the Looe branch.

Actually the lower the maximum speed and the more the trains are similar in construction means greater throughput.  Signalling headways on most main lines are already braking distance plus less than one signal section.  This why jumping from 125mph to 140mph+ does wonders for journey time but competely blows capacity out of the water :(

I also expect to see the return of mixed trains, those conveying both passengers and freight.
Cant see it being feasible to add passenger vehicles to long heavy goods trains, but I can certainly forsee branch line trains that consist of a few passenger vehicles and a few vans for light or perishable freight.

My forecast increase in oil prices will increase the need for local goods trains for mail, milk, newspapers and parcels. Onward transport from the NEAREST station, not a "hub" many miles away could be by horse, by electric vehicle, and by bike. Exceptionly bulky or heavy articles would require either a large team of horses, or steam traction engine.

I very much doubt the coal burning steam locos.  They are very inefficient in energy terms as they are always on whether or not they are moving. Coal will also be expensive as it will be being used to produce gas.

As for horses - when they were last used wagons were much smaller and the 4 wheel wagons are limited to 45 mph. 

As Niels Bohr said, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."  This was the Railway Magazine's reaction to the Beeching Report in their May 1963 editorial:


With hindsight it's an astonishingly defeatist attitude from the railway's friends but it reflects the powerful intellectual currents of the time - continuing deference to authority, disdain for the "old ways" and an enthusiasm for radical experiments.  We will probably seem equally foolish in 50 years time.  In fairness it must be pointed out that not everyone swam with the tide.  For example, from the Letters page of the June 1963 issue:

 

The clearest vision is 20/20 hindsight. Beeching was asked to do a job on the basis of the state of play in 1963, not consider the future in any deep and meaningful way. So he had in mind a population of 53 million, with car ownership on the rise and railway use in decline. The Modernisation Plan of 1955 had proposed the phasing out of steam as a motive power, and Beeching took into account that there still a few thousand in use. We didn't really start going with diesel until around 1956, presumably as a result of the war. To keep all the existing lines and modernise would have required thousands of new units (bit like now!) with no guarantee they would be used in a big way.

Freight was changing too. A lot of coal was used by trains and needed carrying around to where it was needed. Get rid of steam trains, and you lose that traffic. Householders too were eschewing coal in favour of cheaper and cleaner electricity and gas. Most of our gas then came from coal, but the North Sea gas fields were being developed, and plans were already being made for the mass conversion of the later 1960s. Britain was at the cutting edge of nuclear power, with fusion power just around the corner, so cheap that it would not be economic to charge for it. Dr Beeching wrote his report against a mixed background of declining rail use, inefficient infrastructure and rolling stock, and rising affluence and optimism. He did not do a bad job.

Fast forward 50 years, with a population 20% higher than in 1963 and still growing, falling North Sea gas and oil, most of the nuclear power stations nearing closer with nothing much likely to fill the gap within a decade, and chronic traffic congestion in our cities, the trains are filling again despite the cost, and Dr Beeching is being blamed for the mess by almost everybody except me and probably a number of other posters here. There were hard decisions taken, maybe some wrong ones, but at least it focused the resources in the busiest areas, and created better and faster mainlines. One wrong decision that I am glad was overturned was the closure of the Severn Beach line, proposed by Beeching but saved by public outcry, and expected to carry a million passengers this year.

What will the future look like? Sorry broadgage, it won't be steamy, at least not on the railways. The dirtiest coal-burning power station fuelling the least efficient electric loco is still a more energy efficient way of transporting passengers. In time, all transport, public and private, will be electrically driven. Eventually, the whole rail network will be electrified, with main lines at 25Kv, possibly shorter branch lines at 750 volt DC. The real game-changer could be tram-train, if the Yorkshire trials go well. As steel wheel on steel rail, powered by electricity, is highly efficient and non-polluting at the point of use, we could yet see a network of light rail in every city. It will also be worth looking at closed lines, to see how much effort would be needed to reinstate them, compared to the benefits. Any planning application involving building on a dismantled railway should be looked at from a transport view at the same time.

The power will come from a mix of sources, underpinned by new nuclear plants. Before you shout "Fukushima!", these may be smaller Thorium-fired plants, incapable of blowing their tops. We were once involved in this technology, but as an article in The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9784044/China-blazes-trail-for-clean-nuclear-power-from-thorium.html) shows, the race is now between the Chinese and the Japanese to crack the problems. We will also progressively turn more of our burgeoning waste into electricity, in ways similar the new facility in Avonmeath, operated by New Earth Solutions (http://www.newearthsolutions.co.uk/press-releases/landmark-waste-treatement/), and soon to incorporate a 13Mw power station. We may use wave power, if the government can be persuaded to divert money that way from wind power. We will see only one, maybe two, generations of wind turbines before the problems of reliability, inefficiency, and lack of storage, become so obvious that not even the government can ignore them any more.

Battery-powered trains have been considered by the Transport Research Laboratory in a published  Report (http://www.trl.co.uk/downloads/bc/20110302_Battery_Powered_Trains_Report_PPR551.pdf) which finds that they probably are feasible, albeit with a bit of wishful thinking.

What we don't do well in this country is continuous forward planning. We built the first commercial power supply from a nuclear power station in 1959, then carried on building until 1995. Then we stopped because we had enough, since when the percentage of power produced by nuclear has dropped from 26% to 16%. We stop when have a train fleet with a 25-year design life, then panic 27 years later.  Similarly, the GWR electrification was announced and cancelled twice previously, with the HSTs being refurbed to extend their lives (thankfully) as a consequence. The project was called in again after the 2010 election, although faced with the prospect of having to replace the HSTs, it looks very definite that the work will be completed this time. As the first IEPs enter service, we need to have somebody in government planning their replacement. If not - well, we know what will happen.

There is something of a rose-tinted view of the railways before Beeching.

Yes, the axe fell in places where it should not have, the collection of data was flawed, but it must also be remembered that Beeching gave us freight containerisation, Inter-City and merry-go-round coal trains.

The first Beeching report was a product of the thinking from government at the time. The real villians of the piece were Ernest Marples and Harold Macmillan.

It also needs to be remembered that there were many further closures, not identified in the original report that were signed off by subsequent Secretaries of State for Transport, Tom Fraser and Barbara Castle, in Harold Wilson's Labour administration. Many of these closures are today wrongly attributed to Richard Beeching and his 'axe'. 

Atkins?

Found this gem on youtube:

Reshaping Britain's Railways: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvdOjNU_srg

Mr Beeching confidently, if somewhat dryly, making his case, direct to camera. An excellent summary of the report, no matter its flaws. Fascinating.

Beeching was OK.  It was the loss of formations and grubby land grabbing sold off by the BRPB that was so damaging.

It doesn't matter now though.  It's all downhill from here and no turning back.  Great times.   :D

When I read broadgage's suggestion that coal-burning steam engines may have a future role, I was tempted to dismiss it as wishful thinking.

Now I'm not so sure: We currently have about 300 route-miles of preserved railway in the UK, much of which is operated at least some of the time by kettle-based forms of locomotion. Some of these routes (part of the Torbay & Dartmouth is, I believe, already on the cards) could find themselves re-incorporated into the national network in future. Given that (particularly rural) branch lines draw deeply on the leisure market, it is not that fanciful to imagine a long-term role for steam traction.

Preserved railways which connect to the 'big railway' seem an obvious avenue for extending the national network. I can imagine a future where preserved mileage in less touristic areas is reclaimed by the national network, with heritage operations being transferred to reopened branches in areas where these assets would be better-used and make a better return.

Many thanks for your thought-provoking comments, redsquirrel - and a very warm welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!  :)

Personally, I'd love to see the West Somerset Railway reconnected to the main line at Taunton for connecting services, rather than faffing about having to travel by road to Bishops Lydeard ...  ::)

Excellent first post, redsquirrel, and welcome from me also. I agree with Chris re the West Somerset. There has been an awful lot of talking about them running as far as Taunton, it's about time there was some doing, too.

Thanks; happy to be here!

Yes, I'd like to see the West Somerset running through to Taunton, but I was talking about fully re-incorporating heritage lines into the national network.

Potentially this could be a legal and organisational minefield, but perhaps it need only be a variation on the sort of operation that Northern Rail and the North Yorkshire Moors Railway have between Grosmont and Whitby. I am sure there are huge holes in this theory, but here's an example based on the WSR:

1. NR takes ownership of the track and (heritage) signalling between Norton Fitzwarren and Minehead and upgrades it to allow (say) 50mph running of modern trains;
2. WSR continue to maintain other heritage assets (stations, signal boxes, vintage rolling stock etc);
3. Most trains operated by FGW (or successor) DMUs, with WSR 'heritage' trains working special turns (with potential for 'plandampf' events and galas).

I do wonder what other future there is for these lines - the average age of volunteers is trending northwards.

Maybe you could call it a 'conservation railway'...

All I can advise RS is - don't suggest this to most members on the WSR.  You'll get a flea in the ear and if I describe the debate there as a 'can of worms' you will get some idea of what to expect.  It's much the same on many other preservation lines.

Some members do see an opening as you describe but not the vast majority.  There are many problems anyway, Light Railway Order, use of volunteers, railway safety,   --- no I'll stop now.  (Phew).

See also http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2688.msg131182#msg131182  ;)

Welcome, RedSquirrel - there seems a logic in running daily services on some of the preserved lines - especially those which would be included in a list of lines that really should not have been closed in the 1960s / 1970s. But ... there are issues.

If you're going to look at year-round commuter services, you'll need national rail / franchise style reliability figures to encourage your users - and that's probably a paid staff rather than volunteers.  And you'll need a certain size of town / line catchment to bring in the people.  Also note that a commuter-only service, if it provides one "up" in the morning and "down" in the evening will provide for just 50% of possible commuter traffic even if optimally timed, and that such timings will require different crews at each end of the day, which when you add holiday cover too probably brings you up to 3 drivers and 3 train managers.  Most if not all of the preserved lines in our area have a predominant directionallity - one way in the a.m., back in the p.m., with connectionallity at one end only, and so even if you see a full private train, it's likely to be for a tiny part of the day and not matched by the corresponding reverse working half an hour earlier / later, as there's no-one actually on that train to see it almost empty.   Then you have the 25 mph speed limit; there's no need to run an HST at full speed, but 25 mph is wy too slow IMHO.

I've added a list of the standard gauge preserved / relaid lines that I'm aware of in our wider area, and their connectional status.  Very few of them would provide complete commuter journeys without ongoing national rail connections or through running.    There ain't much work at Bodmin Road, Cholsey or Smallbrook. 

Group 1 - Own Platform at interchange
Bodmin
Kingswear
Wallingford
Parkhead
Newport IOW
Alresford
Buckfastleigh

Group 2 - Running on NR tracks
Swanage
Minehead
Okehampton

Group 3 - No rail connection
Helston
Cricklade
Bitton
Plym Valley

Not sure about some other's current connection status
Chinnor
Shepton Mallet

I'm able to provide background / some guestimate figures / referenced to the above; they make fairly depressing thoughts.  Some of the issues could be overcome, but with the heavy importance and cost of blame attribution for delays, the need for access for all, and safety issues which require rail to be much safer than other transport systems mile for mile, costs are likely to be so high.  And with any new service along these lines, users need to be certain they can rely on it for the foreseen length of their job, and to be persuaded to move across to the service.   That's why seed funding or guarantee is needed, and why the inclusion within a mainframe franchise or equivalent - at least of a minimum spec service that fulfills travel needs - is paramount.

I wouldn't dream of floating this suggestion anywhere near Bishop's Lydeard, swrural; to be honest I think it's pretty amazing that the various bodies that make up or contribute to the WSR (WSR Co, WSRA, WSSRT, D&EG, S&DRT, Somerset CC etc) manage to pull together and put on such a good show.

But isn't the operating model of these railways going to have to change, as the supply of volunteers dries up and the kit gets older?

I'm just playing with ideas here, trying to imagine what a 'conservation railway' (akin to a 'conservation area' in planning terms) might look like and how it might be organised and run.

I think redsquirrel raises a very good point and one which I have often thought about.  At present, many preserved railways (and indeed other 'heritage' projects like mining museums) are heavily dependent on retired volunteers and their grandchildren and workers skilled in crafts no longer taught outside a a small specialist workshops.  Income is dependent on nostalgia and novelty, which naturally dies out with age and familiarity, and can only be replaced by something else equally financially lucrative.  When the 'die-hard' enthusiasts fall away either paid staff will need to be increased or the assets will again fade away.

RS suggests another way of maintaining these assets on a permanent basis and Graham has pointed out why full reintegration under NR rules has serious obstacles even where there are physical/adjacent connections.  A visionary group of Trustees will be looking forward to the day when their faithful band are no longer there and those who remember the days recreated have gone and can no longer make a rheumy-eyed visit with the family.

One model might be that of the Ffestiniog Railway which has actually created something entirely new on both its lines, while giving the impression it is preservation and, like the best of the 'big railways', is commercially successful.  If the Heritage railways wish to remain a part of the tourist trail or become commercially useful, some new model may need to be thought through within the next few years.

Yes, I agree with all that and as redsquirrel pointed out, there are precedents in North Yorkshire and Swanage.  I think it is the 365 day per year commuting service that would be ruled out (at present).  Although I indicated I had knowledge that many of the enthusiast members of these societies don't wish to embrace the resurrection of these lines as commuter lines, we can be sure that if the Swanage branch and Minehead branch had not been closed, they would not now be closed.  They would be part of the network just like the Portishead branch is to become shortly (we hope).  If you think about it, it is a good job, in that respect, the latter line never became a preserved one.  What an irony!

I believe that Trainer is correct and it is just a matter of a few decades (or less) before the preserved lines will need to face this issue.  Meanwhile, the formations have been protected and that at least is the service the preservationists have performed magnificently, as well as giving much pleasure to many.

Of course ideas will change as to what counts as "heritage" HSTs are now bordering on heritage ! and there is a preservation group for these.
It may seem unlikely that in decades to come, that people would pay good money to travel in a preserved HST, but look at the interest now in first generation DMUs.

I wonder which will be the first heritage line to be electrified ? there is growing interest in early electric units and many would no doubt like to see them running under their own power.

I certainly expect that the divide between network rail lines and heritage lines will become less rigid in future years.

You have major safety issues with electricity and volunteers, etc ... there's heritage electric stock in Coventry and East Kent, but I don't think the stock runs in either place.   I suspect that little of it is actually runnable in Coventry anyway.

There's open (ex railway yard) land to the South West of Brockenhurst station, and perhaps that would make an ideal spot for a preserved electric train depot.  The  Brockenhust to Lymington line would make an excellent stamping ground, bringing tourist to the area, and providing a service which could be run isolated from the main network when running heritage units, with commercial units (there are some class 508s in store at Eastleigh) running the rest of the service.   There's a bit of a precendent here as heritage electric units used to run on - err - the Lymington branch!

I'd put my ten bob on the Ardingly branch being the first electrified line in preservation - but we'll let the Bluebell have a bit of a rest before we start nagging them to get on with it!

Of course, there are already electrified heritage railways. Just no heavy rail ones yet.

Volk's Electric Railway, Brighton
Seaton Tramway
Crich Tramway Museum

One or two more whose names escape me.

The CPPR have plans indeed want to extend from Tame Junction into Princes Risborough.  It means running parrallel to an operational siding (a long siding infact) I understand they have had some talks with NR and Chiltern Railways but the progress is slow



For a heritage railway to operate a "new" third rail they would have a difficult job convincing the ORR, NR have a difficult job with its legacy system.  Finding the qualified electrical engineer that is experienced enough and willing to act as the professional head could be a challenge.  Then there is the cost of the substation equipment and the electricity bill the smallest rectifier is 2,000,000 watts.   Likewise with a 25kV OLE system convincing the ORR and having the qualified electrical engineer that is experienced enough and willing to act as the professional head.

Electric railways are not something a normal BS7671 Part P electrician would be competent to operate

The onus to achieve this rests with the heritage railways, the likes of the Seven Valley and the West Somerset etc are in a stronger position as they have full time staff, NR has to be certain that another system operator will not compromise NR's safety case

There are indeed risks in electrifying a preserved line, but these could be substantialy reduced by only energising the conductor rail when an electric train is to be run, rather than it being live 24/7 as on network rail.
Volunteers should of course be instructed to regard the conductor rail as live at all times unless confirmed IN WRITING as being de-energised. Turning it off when not needed would however reduce the risks of any mistake.

I would expect that many of the volunteers on an electric heritage line would have experience and training on electrified main lines.

I'm sure that's true. Then again, you have to be standing fairly close to an electric conductor for it to kill you. Now imagine a loco boiler failing at full pressure in a crowded station... I suppose it's all about putting in place the right safety system.

i think we will see more of what beeching closed reopening especially where major towns do not have rail access. My Wish list would be in the GW Zone:

1. Didcot - Newbury and Newbury Winchester obviously wired
2. Fareham - Gosport
3. Kingham- Cheltenham
4. Andover - Marlborough - Swindon- cirencester and cheltenham
5. Somerset and Dorset
6. Patney to Holt via Devizes
7. Sharpness line

more to follow and hello group i am new

hugo

Hi, Hugo and welcome to the forum .. it will indeed  be interesting to see where we are in 50 years.  I fear that some of the lines you mention are going to work out to be more from the heart than the head (and I have a heart too);  some are well blocked and would be very hard to re-open and others my have alternatives that would be more practical - for example Cirencester from Kemble, giving a much more frequent service than a re-opened Midland and South West Junction.

I notice "FGW Huge" as your user name. To clarify it for us, do you work for FGW [and post representing their views (I think I can work the answer to that one out from your post  ;) ) ] or did you make that choice of name because you're an admirer?

Heaton Park Tramway, Manchester, is one of them, BNM. I take on board the general point of this discussion about electric trains, though. My 18-month old grandson may yet have the chance to drive a restored and preserved IEP on a volunteer-led heritage railway. Also possible within 50 years would be the arrival of a sensible idea on public transport from that unelected and frankly dangerous oligarchy, the West of England Partnership.

Seaton tramway is a case in point about safety. From the top deck of the tram, it would be perfectly possible for anyone over 5 feet tall to grab the conductor cable. It is, IIRC, "only" 110V DC, but would still do a fair amount of damage if grabbed. Safety is maintained by warning signs, and I am unaware of any accidents.

750V DC third rail has led to some bizarre incidents, not least this one (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1037177/Polish-tourist-killed-urinating-750-volt-electric-railway-line.html) suffered by an unfortunate Polish visitor. I can think of little worse, and I feel for him and his family.

I have said before that the English way, where we solve a problem for 25 years then leave it to the next generation but four to make the next move, is unsustainable. It is difficult to see how this could be done, but national public transport planning must be removed from political interference, and given some form of autonomy from government. I say it is difficult to see how it could be achieved, because Government holds the purse strings, and governments of different colours hold differing views of how we should all get around those parts of the country that lie outside London. But the English Way of prevarication and procrastination is wasteful. The electrification of the GWR has been planned, announced, and cancelled at least twice before this current (no pun intended) phase, which seems, fortunately, inevitable. I think it foundered in the 1980s for want of a fully joined up plan - unlike now, there was no concurrent plan for new rolling stock. But it would have worked, even if it was mainly loco hauled trains. The cost of this process has been huge. We have had to refurb the HSTs and bring in other new diesel stock. We have burned an awful lot more oil than we would have done had the original plan gone ahead, and the price of copper has soared.

The point I make is that new graduates entering DafT should have a clear vision of what transport in 2063 should look like. They will not themselves see the project through, but their decisions and recommendations should be made with that goal in mind, so that the next generation can simply carry on. Look at the time, effort, expectation and money put into building a Greater Bristol tramway, only for it to be replaced by a rubbish bus scheme costing a lot more, and you will see what I mean.

The current system of "Cost-Benefit Ratio" for deciding projects is flawed, as a look at the documents supporting that same bus system over light rail can be seen. It is too often used as an excuse to do nothing, as the Portishead Railway saga also demonstrates. The rules cannot be relaxed completely, or any Tom, Dick, or Isambard would have freedom to build whatever he wants, but there must be greater recognition of the growth factor associated with any high-quality people moving system.

Worth saying, IMHO, that it is likely that said unfortunate visitor was probably electrocuted in a fairly conventional way (as it were): according to the very wonderful Mythbusters (Discovery Channel, repeated endlessly) it is as close to impossible as makes no odds for a stream of urine to pass an electric current - the flow is non-laminar, and is essentially a series of droplets.

Being next to impossible only reduces the likelihood of mishap slightly. Non-laminar or not, I recall an edition of that Chris Tarrant on TV show, where an Englishman decided, for no particular reason other than to get his todger on video IMHO, to see what would happen were he to do pee-pee on one of those electric cattle fences, powered by a mere 12V battery. I am happy to say that it caused him considerable pain, all south of the equator, despite the non-laminar nature of his urine. I'll see if I can find it on Youtube, so you can stream it.

I'm using scientific understatement. I'll rephrase: It is not possible for a stream of urine to sustain an electric current.

See this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDY-0ijiOEQ)

I'll spare you the effort: it's here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu_Plte-PbU).  ::)

It wasn't that one CfN, but I shall follow the advice, and will not try it at home.

Electric fences use pulsed DC of 2-3kV, and are at just below waist height - I am guessing yer man was pretty close to it where the urine stream is close to laminar. The Mythbusters piece concedes that if you get within 3" of a third rail and pee on it, you may well get a belt; from a standing position you won't.

Not that I'd want to put it to the test!

hi graham

no i dont work for First but i have applied for a job ! .... it will be my third time trying. trying to follow my grandads footsteps as he built steam engines in derby!

Urinating onto a conductor rail, except from an improbably short distance, is most unlikely to result in a serious shock, since as others post the urine is likely to consist of a series of droplets and not a continous stream.
I would however advise against trying it ! an unusualy forceful effort MIGHT JUST result in a continous stream and a dangerous electric shock.

The situation is somwhat similar to overhead lines whether part of the national grid or railway electrification.
To direct a solid jet of water at these from fire fighting or irrigation equipment is most unwise and firefighters and farmers are warned of the dangers. To stand under such equipment in a rainstorm is safe.

Very glad to see that Mythbusters confirming you can't pee onto a conductor rail and get a shock, which is good because i once peed out the cab of a 33 in Chrystal Palace tunnel.

Presumably one of the things in 50 years time will be no concductor rails except perhaps on the Tube.

I'm not so convinced about that, certainly there will be re-electrification.  It will be a gradual process a very gradual process, a 100 years may be

How long will the power supply equipment last? Surely less than 100 years. If the conversion goes ahead I think that will determine the rate. 

Conrail can last 60 plus years, power supply equipment well there is some that is 60 years old and has just had a 5 to 10 year life extension.

Its down to affordability of the physical route mods to bridges, tunnels and other structures. 

It will be a ripple effect for instance, Basingstoke to Southampton should lead to Southampton to Weymouth also the move east to Woking , things like the North Downs line could lead to Reading to Staines.  In Kent extension out of Ashford and Ebbs Fleet especially is Crossrail ere to be extended from Abbey Wood

There's a lot of DC power equipment that was added to strengthen the existing supplies within the last ten years, with a probable life remaining in the order of 40 or 50 years.  On a trip from Basingstoke to Southampton you pass a number of almost new power supply points - and of course they are all in relocatable buildings and can be resited relatively easily.

I don't know offhand what the proportion of new to old gear is, but let's assume it's going to be providing about 25% of current capacity.  That's a lot of spare technology crying out to be re-used...

This was all done across the SWT and SN networks in a bit of an emergency, to allow for the higher load of the new generation EMUs such as Desiros and Electrostars - and the additions are still being done now for various train lengthening projects; I reckon brand new equipment is going to be added to the network for at least the next few years until all possible train lengthening is complete; in reaction to stuff like Thameslink for example.  Closer to home there's power strengthening planned for the Reading line (also for longer trains).

I often read online discussions suggesting that new DC equipment will no longer be fitted, but I believe that's a bit of an over-simplification.

Paul

In Network Rail's 2003 Technical Plan, we read that about 40% of the railway is electrified. I'm not aware of much new electrics since then. Of that 40%, around 60% is 25KV OLE, 40% by other systems, predominantly third rail, but with the Tyne and Wear Metro still 1500V DC OLE. Though only 40% is electrified, about 60% of passengers journeys are by electric traction. Being 25KV doesn't guarantee youth - some of it dates back to the late 1950s following the 1955 BR Modernisation Plan, although much will presumably have been renewed since then.

I agree that we are likely to see geographical spread from existing AC and that it is unlikely that there will be no new Dc equipment fitted.

So the SWT network is likely to be first.  

I recall that the Brighton line was originally electrified using DC overhead lines. Does this mean that the clearances are there for re-electrification?

The recent relocatable equipment could be used to replace life expired equipment elsewhere on the DC network or for infill electrification.

The practicalities of conversion from third rail to overheads are very considerable (and expensive). I understand that it is not really possible to have both systems on the same line (except presumably where changeovers are to be made) as the currents will interfere with each other.

So, if the line from Basingstoke to Southampton (freight spine) is re-electrified on overheads, SWT will require either new stock or changes to existing stock to enable them to continue to operate! Third Rail Waterloo-Basingstoke, Overheads Basingstoke-Southampton and Third Rail onwards. I also suspect that to make the changeover every train would have to stop at Basingstoke & Southampton (that would annoy passengers). I read that SWT have already raised concerns.

The disruption and costs of replacing Third Rail round Waterloo are beyond my imagination so I think this discussion has a very long way to run as to the best way forward.

I'm fairly sure that the Eurostars, before HS1 opened, were able to make the switch "on the fly". The momentum must be towards 25KV AC in the long term, but it will be a long, slow process. It would make sense to do it piecemeal, route by route, until the rolling stock remaining at third rail is so old and in such a minority that it makes sense to finish the conversion rather than build two types of train. Of course, there are plenty of trains into London that are already 25KV - are any of these lines also third rail?

Trains such as Electrostars (377s) & Capitalstars (LO 378) can already switch over on the move, but it relies on the changeover section being long enough to make it safe to do so at speed, and I don't think they all are.   SWT's Desiro fleet comes into the 'easily converted to AC supply' category, they already have the pantograph well and all the fixed wiring for the equipment that needs to be added.  I believe this was a standard requirement for any EMU by the time they were ordered.

All SWT services that pass through stop at Southampton, and it may be that Basingstoke is the only place changeover at speed will be needed for mainline services - then again they might just bite the bullet and introduce calls on the non-stop trains...

Paul

The Brighton Line was not fully ac electrified it only covered a small area in and around London as was the much lower voltage 6600V


Its not so much the currents interfere with each other, the cores of transformers used for ac distribution can get saturated by the dc which makes the inefficient although there are expensive solutions, also vacuum interrupters used in ac have problems breaking dc currents (they produce X-rays  :o ).
Earthing and bonding posses a problem  ac electrification tends to have all extraneous conductive metalwork bonded to traction return whereas dc the last thing that wants to be done is bond extraneous metalwork to traction return, although there are ways around all this ............. at a price

As for changeover from third rail to OLE on the move while it is not something we chose to do (much of) in the UK it is used in Europe all over the place so we could see some changes to how we operate our electrified railways