1980s British Motive Power Exports

Standard

The 1980s saw some notable achievements by the U.K. rail industry, in particular, the decision to introduce two more new classes of electric locomotive, with the most advanced technology, on British Rail’s west and east coast main lines. On board microcomputers were introduced in ever increasing numbers, in the control systems of new multiple units like the class 318 and 319, and the class 87/2 (later Class 90) and 91 ‘Electra’ locomotives. With the announcement of’ the go-ahead for the Channel Tunnel, a consortium of U.K. manufacturers, including Brush, GEC Traction., Metro-Cammell and BREL, were quick to announce plans for motive power for the through trains, planned for operation between Britain and the rest of Europe.  These latter saw the beginning of the end of the d.c. motor as the standard form of power transmission to a locomotive’s wheels, extending further the use of power electronics into rail traction service, with a.c. motor drives.

Whilst the major companies like Brush and GEC Traction regularly supplied British Railways with locomotives and power equipment, with the latter winning the major contracts for1986, the U.K. industry was equally successful overseas. In the main, a substantial number of orders involved rapid transit rolling stock, taking in other household names in the British railway industry, like BREL, and Metro-Cammell, although exports of locomotives and power equipments did not lag far behind.

The major successes in that decade for the export market again involved GEC Traction and Brush, with the latter handing over the first of 22 new locomotives in 1986, for the North Island electrification project in New Zealand.  GEC’s most important export contract at that time was worth some £35 million, for 50 class 10E1 electric locomotives for South African Railways.  On the whole, the 1980s continued to witness export success for British companies, in many fields, against some very stiff competition.

Electric Traction

In 1984, Brush Electrical Machines received an order for 22, 3000kW Bo-Bo-Bo locomotives, as part of a £30 million contract placed with Hawker Siddeley Rail Projects by New Zealand Railways Corporation.  First deliveries were originally scheduled for December 1985, but the official handover of the first of the new locomotives did not take place until April 1986.

The artist’s impression of the New Zealand locos seen on the publicity brochure is a striking image.

New Zealand’s latest motive power is finished in a striking red livery, with yellow ends, black underframe, bogies and roof, and operated on the 3ft 6ins (1067 mm) gauge of the North Island’s electrified main lines.  Taking power from the 25kV a.c.,50Hz overhead contact system, these 22 locomotives from Brush incorporated some of the latest thinking in rail traction technology.  The monocoque body, with a driving cab at either end, housed the main transformer, traction converters, and all auxiliary equipment.  The overall design of the locomotives was prepared in accordance with specifications provided by New Zealand Railways Corporation, with their principal workings planned tor the Palmerston North to Hamilton sections of the North Island main line.

The solitary, single-arm, air-operated pantograph mounted in a shallow roof well collected power from the overhead catenary, feeding the main transformer through a roof mounted vacuum circuit breaker.  The transformer itself was oil cooled, and mounted in the centre of the loco., with outputs from the secondary windings feeding the two thyristor, traction converters.  From these, d.c. supplied the six, axle mounted, 500kW traction motors.  The power control electronics, in addition to providing stepless control of tractive effort, also allows for regenerative braking, with the traction motors acting as generators, and returning power back into the overhead line.

The traction motors have separately excited field coils (sep-ex), with force ventilation., and represented the then current thinking in d.c. traction motor technology; their continuous rating of 500kW was reached at a speed of 910 rpm.  Sep-ex motors enabled better use to be made of a traction unit’s available adhesion properties, along with more precise control of wheelslip, through the preferred arrangement of power control circuits.

Outline diagram of New Zealand Railways Class 30 built by Brush Traction in the late 1980s

Each of the three bogies in the N.Z. locos had a wheelbase of 2500mm (8ft 2ins approx., if you prefer) at bogie pivot centres of 5850 mm (19ft 2ins), with main and secondary suspension provided by coil springs.  The bogies sported traditional air-operated clasp type brakes, in addition to regenerative braking, with the shoes bearing directly on the wheel treads.

Basic dimensions and data are as follows;

Brush Bo-Bo-Bo locomotives for New Zealand

GEC Traction’s connection with South African Railways goes back many years, including numerous orders in a fleet of electric locomotives that constitute the largest single type in the world.  In 1985 the company won an order for 50 claas10E1(series 2) 3kVd.c. electric locomotives, worth some £35 million.  At that time, the S.A.R. class 10E1’s were the most advanced d.c. traction units in the world, incorporating state of the art technology.  The order was placed with GEC Transportation Projects of the U.K., with mechanical parts supplied by Union Carriage & Wagon Co., of South Africa.

Weighing in at 126 tonnes, these Co-Co units included microprocessor based ‘chopper’ control, and up to six could be connected in multiple, with a continuous rating of 3,000kW each – the same as the New Zealand triple Bo locomotives built by Brush. 

Basic dimensions of the SAR locomotives are given below, and are worth comparing with the Bo-Bo-Bo units for New Zealand;

GEC/SAR Class 10E locomotives

Power equipment installed in the 10E1 locomotives was designed to cover supplies from 2kV to 4kV d.c., with each of the two single arm pantographs connected to high-speed circuit breakers.  Equipment layout in the locomotive body was based on a modular and functional grouping arrangement, where the obvious advantage is in the reduction in complexity of pipework and cable runs, and easier maintenance.  The two fixed frequency choppers are air cooled, and the three thyristor arrangement was similar to installations provided by GEC on multiple unit stock for the Dublin and Seoul (Korea) metro schemes.

Again, like the Brush locos.  for New Zealand, d.c., traction motors with separate excitation of field coils was provided, with the six motors connected in two groups of three motors in series. Individual control of the two motor groups allowed compensation of wheel wear, and reduction of the effects of weight transfer.  In a similar manner to the numerous class 6E1 locomotives, the traction motors were mounted on a ‘U’ tube suspension unit and axle hung.  Regenerative braking, and when required, rheostatic braking was included, independently controlled from the air brake system operating conventional clasp type tread brakes.  Auxiliary power supplies were 3-phase a.c., supplied from a single motor alternator set.

Classic publicity shot of GEC/Union Carriage & Wagon built Class 10E Co-Co No. 10052.
Photo: RPB Collection/GEC Traction

The microprocessors that form the heart of the sophisticated control system provided rapid detection and correction of wheelslip not automatically corrected by the sepex motors, load sharing between locomotives connected in multiple, and the weight transfer compensation. One of the features of the microprocessors was enabling the new units to operate in multiple with other types, by storing the operating characteristics of the different types, and matching the performance of the 10E1 type to suite.  As with all locomotives fitted with microprocessor control, fault monitoring, diagnosis and logging, was an important feature, and eventually a standard facility.

Designed for operation in some very arduous environmental conditions to exacting technical specifications, the first of the new SAR locomotives entered service in late 1986.

Diesel Traction

Again, both Brush and GEC Traction figured prominently in diesel traction equipment for the export market, joined by others, such as Thomas Hill and Hunslet, with specialist diesel shunting locomotives, primarily for industrial use.  Brush, who are most familiarly associated with numerous class 47 and HST, and later the class 56 units for British Rail, saw success in 1980 with a £1 million order from Japan for diesel-electric shunters.

This view is of one of the then new diesel shunting locos built for Ghana, with examples built for Turkey and Sri Lanka.
Photo Source: Railway Industry Association (RIA)

And, in the early 1980s, following completion of a new purpose-built locomotive assembly shop at Loughborough, the Company concentrated efforts on building up sales of a range of shunting and trip working locomotives.  For Turkey, Sri Lanka and Ghana, Bo-Bo type locomotives were built between 1981, 1982 and 1983, of a relatively similar basic layout, but some variations in detail design.  Also in 1983, Brush’s links with India were reinforced with an agreement covering the development and construction of shunting locomotives with Suri & Nayar of Bangalore.

The Bo-Bo locomotives which Brush were building for Sri Lanka in 1982 were a hood type, housing a 1000hp General Motors diesel engine coupled to the main alternator, with four conventional series-wound traction motors.  The general-purpose locomotives were essentially an orthodox hood type, with a major feature of the designs being the elimination/reduction of maintenance, through the provision of simple mechanical drives for all auxiliary machinery. 

Photo Source: Railway Industry Association (RIA)
Another example of Brush Traction’s directional change in the 1980s – at least for export – was a focus on what might be described as shunting, mixed traffic or trip freight workings. The two images above illustrate the 1,000hp locos supplied to Sri Lanka in the early 80s.
Photo Source: Railway Industry Association (RIA)

Whether the locomotives were intended for Sri Lanka, Ghana, or in the later examples delivered to Gabon, the body was divided into three groups, carried on a conventional steel underframe. At the rear, a. short hood housed the batteries, followed by the cab, and a long hood over the power equipment, which itself was divided into three compartments. The compartment nearest the cab housing the electrical equipment, including the rectifiers, the next in line included the engine and generator/alternator assembly. Both of these compartments had a filtered air supply, whilst the third, at the front of the loco., housing the cooling group, radiator fan drives, etc., had no such luxury. The two two-axle bogies beneath the locomotive carried the d.c., series wound traction motors, hung from the axles, and with a spur gear final drive, in a fabricated steel frame, and main suspension of coil springs and hydraulic dampers. The fuel tank, as convention dictated was carried between the bogies.

The six metre gauge locomotives ordered for Ghana in 1983, had a 645 hp Rolls Royce engine, paired with the Brush generator, of the same basic design, but weighing 54 tonnes. The hood shape was slightly different too, being lower, and the cab roof had a much flatter profile. Turned out in a colourful red and gold livery, these six locomotives were worth some £2.5 million, and intended for trip freight working on the main lines.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is brush-diesel-for-gabon.png
Another Brush Electrical Machines success were the 1,100 hp Bo-Bo design, powered by a Cummins diesel engine – which was a departure for the company at the time. The locos were supplied to Gabon State Railways (OCTRA) and helped to grow and develop the country’s rail network.
Photo: RPB Collection/Brush Traction

Amongst the last major orders for diesel locomotives for main line service beyond the U.K., and for Brush, were 1100hp Bo-Bo’s for Gabon Railways (0CTRA) , constructed in 1985. These 90 tonne units were powered by Cummins diesel engines, coupled to a Brush alternator, for mixed traffic duties on the standard gauge. The three-phase output from the alternator was rectified to feed the four axle hung, nose suspended d.c. traction motors. Mechanically, the layout of the locomotives for Gabon was the same as previous orders .

GEC Traction’s involvement in new locomotive construction for overseas railways was largely limited to power equipment, or as subcontractors to others. Later examples of this in the 1980s was an order for 45 sets of electric transmission equipment for Krauss-Maffei built diesels for Turkey, with a Bo-Bo wheel arrangement a continuous rating of 940hp and weighing in at 68 tonnes.  Another 5 locomotives for TCDD were to be supplied with 3-phase drives provided by Brown Boveri. The majority of locomotives were to be built, or rather put together in Turkey, as they were shipped out in completely knocked down. Most of these latter – 30 in all – had been shipped by mid-1986, although local assembly had not started until later that year and into 1987.  Initially, after official handover, the Krauss-Maffei/GEC Traction locomotives were set to work on the Istanbul to Kapikule (On the Bulgarian border) line, and operated between Ismir and Ankara.

A set of 5 of the GEC Traction equipped diesel freight types for Turkey in 1983. Most of these were supplied as a kit of parts for assembly from Krauss Maffei (main contractor) and GEC as subcontractor for the electrical equipment. Photo: RPB Collection/GEC Traction

Refurbishing the electrical equipment of English Electric built diesel locomotives for East Africa and the Sudan and supplying engine spares also occupied the expertise of GEC Traction. The class 87 of Kenya railways is the equivalent of British Rail’s class 37, and extending its working life was a priority for its owners.

The Sudan became another overseas market for U.K. motive power when, in 1982, the Hunslet Engine Co., received an order for 11 0-8-0 locomotives for a 600mm rail line hauling cotton and cotton seeds from plantations to processing factories. Hunslet had been supplying locos. to the Sudan Gezira Board – the operators of this line – for almost 30 years, and the repeat order took the total supplied to the Sudan by Hunslet to 67 locomotives.

In the 1980s, the U.K. rail industry has undoubtedly been particularly successful in supplying main line electric locomotives, the winning of these contracts influenced by the wealth of experience and expertise of the contractors. Provision of power equipment, including alternators, generators, traction motors and control equipment also saw many more successes for the railway industry during this period, from Australia’s XPT to AMAX mine locomotives for the USA.

Multiple unit rolling stock for suburban and rapid transit systema around the world was another area where U.K. builders, again particularly GEC Traction and Brush, gained many valuable orders. A number of’ these contracts were secured in the far east, in locations like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia, where competition from the Japanese is especially fierce. Motive power orders though were predominantly concentrated in the field of electric traction, and the design and construction of locomotives for South Africa and New Zealand, were by some margin the stars of the 1980s.

GEC Traction supplied these AMAX mining locomotives to the USA, in what might be described as the UK’s last successful decade of the 20th century for exports by the railway industry. RPB Collection/GEC Traction

-oOo-

30 Years of IC225 on the West Coast??

Standard

20 years ago, and 2 years after the East Coast Main Line (ECML) was electrified from London to Edinburgh – only 10 years late – BR’s flagship locomotive “Electra”; also known as Class 91, saw service for the first time on the West Coast Main Line (WCML).  To be fair it didn’t last long on the WCML, but in 1992, it set a fastest service record, with a train from London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly in 2hrs 8mins.  At the time this loco was being developed, British Rail – and the InterCity Sector especially was making significant operating profits – and the completion, finally of the electrification work on the ECML was perhaps the icing on the cake.

The profitability of British Rail continued into the early 1990s, and in 1992/3, this press release was issued alongside the annual report:

In  1991, they put out this publicity brochure, to advertise what was coming:

Please click on the image opposite to read on >>

The “Electra” Project – the Class 91 – was one of the most innovative locomotives then developed for use on British Rail.  In its Bo-Bo wheel arrangement it was able to generate some 4.54MW of power and haul 11-coach rakes of the new Mark IV coach when it became available.  On the WCML it was planned to haul 750 tonne sleeper trains single handed, and the West Coast route, with the arduous ascents of Shap and Beattock between London and Glasgow, was much more demanding than the East Coast.

Thirty one Class 91 ‘Electra’ locomotives were ordered by BR, along with 50 of the Class 90 (formerly known as 87/2), and 86 sets of power equipment for the Class 319 multiple units. The locomotives featured the latest thyristor control systems, with more extensive use of microprocessors, and in a radical departure the separately excited (sep-ex), d.c. traction motors were included in the bogie space, but carried in the locomotive body. 

The electrical equipment included oil cooled traction converters – featuring GTO thyristor components – and the main transformer was located below the body, between the bogies, lowering the centre of gravity, and assisting in the reduction of body roll, and relative pantograph movement. 

The traction motors, as mentioned above, are body mounted, but slung below the floor, in the bogie space, which in turn, has enabled a more or less conventional layout of equipment on board.  The transmission features a coupling arrangement patented by GEC Traction, with the motors driving the wheelsets through a right-angle gearbox, and bevel gears.  The hollow output shaft of the gearbox drives the wheels through a rubber bushed link coupling, isolating the drive from relative radial and lateral movement of the wheelsets imparted by the primary suspension.  Each traction motor was fitted with a ventilated disc brake at the inboard end.

The major characteristics of the Class 91 are detailed below;

  
Wheel arrangement Bo-Bo
Track gaugestandard
Overall length 19400 mm
Overall height3757 mm
Overall width 2740 mm
Max service speed240 km/hr
Weight in working order 80 tonnes
Unsprung mass per axle1.7 tonnes
Line voltage 25kV a.c.
Bogie wheelbase3350 mm
Bogie pivot centres 10500 mm
Wheel diameter (new)1220 mm
Max tractive effort 55440 kg
Cont tractive effort39040 kg
Max power at rail 4700 kW
Continuous power4530 kW
Brakes    – locomotives air
                – trainair

The class 91 order included an option for a further 25, and featured a double ended design, but with only the No.1 end having any degree of aerodynamic styling.  In normal service, during the day, the streamlined end would normally be at the end of the train, pulling when running in one direction, and pushing, when running in the opposite direction.  When pushing, control signals are transmitted to the Driving Van Trailer (DVT) attached to the opposite end of the train, by means of Time Division Multiplex (TDM) signals, sent along train wires, on board.  The No.2 end cab is flat faced, and a profile that matched the profile of the adjoining coaches was adopted.  The non-streamlined end would be used normally when the locomotives were running semi-fast, sleeper services, or other non high speed duties.

Early days on the ECML – “Electra” about to leave Kings Cross on a media special..

Interestingly, the class 91 was designed for a 35-year working life, averaging 420,000 km per year, which meant that in a couple of years’ time – 2023 – we would be saying goodbye to this impressive locomotive.  But of course, events have turned out rather differently, and privatisation has created a much more complex operating environment, for both the technology of the train, and the management of the railway. 

In its standard livery 91005 seen passing Carstairs in 1993

Sadly – although this year marks the 30th anniversary of its use on the WCML – they were never used in anger there, and by the turn of the century, the ‘Pendolino’ had arrived – by way of Fiat, Alstom and Metro-Cammell.   There too, the technology developed at BR’s Derby Research Centre played its part in the late 1970s and into 1980, with the APT – but that’s a story for another day.

A northbound service passing through Oxenholme on a wet and windy March morning …

-oOo-

Useful links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_91

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brecknell_Willis_high_speed_pantograph

Merseyrail Trains’ Messy Graffiti

Standard

Fascinating and sad story – the new Merseyrail electrics have not even entered service, but stored at Tonbridge in Kent, they’ve already received a repaint, courtesy of local vandals.  The trains from Stadler’s Wildenrath test track in Germany had been sent to Tonbridge on their way to Merseyside, and are now having the graffiti removed at the Merseyrail Kirkdale depot.

These are the new Class 777 units, and 52 of the 4-car articulated sets were ordered back in 2017 from the Swiss manufacturer, with an option to buy another 60. The present Class 507 and 508 will all of course ultimately disappear. The first of the new trains was delivered in January, but this latest arrival has resulted in the need to spend a significant amount of money making the new trains look new.

This video shows some shots, courtesy of the Railmen of Kent Twitter feed –  https://twitter.com/RailinKent

 

Merseyrail’s network features one of the oldest sections of electrified rail network in Britain, opened in May 1903, it was known as the Mersey Railway, running from Liverpool Central to Rock Ferry.  It was in fact the first steam railway to be converted to electric traction.  This was a complete electrification contract, awarded to the British Westinghouse Co. (later Metropolitan-Vickers Ltd) – although all of the electrical equipment was imported from Westinghouse USA.  British Westinghouse was set up in 1899 on the Trafford Park estate in Manchester by George Westinghouse, hopin g to continue to expand the electric railway and tramway markets in the UK.

 

 

The other early component of Merseyrail was the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Co.’s line from Liverpool Exchange to Southport, with the section from Exchange to Crossens (just north of Southport) opened in 1904, and on to Aintree in 1906, and then Ormskirk in 1913.  As with the Mersey Railway, 600V d.c. was the preferred supply, via the conductor rail, and the same supplier.  Also, as with the Wirral line, the railway had its own power station, based at Formby, and the generating equipment was also supplied by British Westinghouse.

New Merseyrail with original

The leading coach is one of the 1920s build from Metro-Vick, but still coupled to three of the original 1903 cars of Westinghouse USA design

Over the years, the network has been expanded, and with some of the most extensive work taking place long after World War 2, in the 1970s, and in effect creating “Merseyrail”, which used variants of the British Rail designs of 3rd rail trains. The Class 507s and 508s, which provide services today were refurbished by Alstom between 2002 and 2005, but the new Class 777s provide and implement some of the latest thinking for suburban and commuter train designs.

Such a shame that delivery of these latest sets have been marred by such mindless vandalism. I know, all trains – condemned or just stabled at the end of the working day – have been subject to the works of amateur Banksy’s, but this incident even made it to the BBC’s news services:

BBC News story image

Still, once they have been cleaned up and restored to new at Kirkdale, Merseyside will have some superb new trains to travel on – from Ormskirk and Southport, to Birkenhead and Rock Ferry. Still electric after 117 years.

This video shows the new trains arriving on Merseyside, and on Merseyrail lines for the first time in January 2020:

-oOo-

Wellington to Paekakariki

Standard

The Wellington Suburban Electrification

Well, not strictly suburban, but the second major electrification on New Zealand’s railway lines that involved English Electric; this time on the main line linking the capital, Wellington, with Auckland, 400 miles away to the north. This was the first stage in electrifying the North Island Main Trunk (NIMT), across some of the world’s most spectacular, and challenging terrain.

ED102 nlnzimage copy

This is an image of the first of the class built in New Zealand – No. 102 is seen here in 1938 ex-works, without the skirt applied to the very first of the class, built in Preston.                               Photo Courtesy: Ref: APG-0320-1/2-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22545501

 

English Electric were pioneers of electric traction, and were especially successful around the world, notably of course in former British colonies, whether India, Australia, and of course, New Zealand.  In the 1930s, increasing traffic around Wellington, and the success of the Arthur’s Pass project almost a decade earlier, the North Island electrification work led to an order for tnew main line electric locomotives.  These were the first heavyweight (my italics) locos in service on the route from Wellington to Paekakariki, which later became the North Island Main Trunk (NIMT).

At the same time, the fortmer Dick, Kerr Works of English Electric received an order for multiple units to provide faster, more efficient suburban passenger services.

EE Railcar nlnzimage copy 2

One of the “DM” series of multiple units, supplied by English Electric, here seen at Khandallah Station, on the opening day of the service – 4th July 1938.                                   Photo Courtesy: Ref: APG-1483-1/4-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23252719

The locomotives introduced a number of new, novel features, even by the emerging ‘new technology’ of the day, and yet oddly, their wheel arrangement was initially described as that of a steam loco – i.e. a 2-8-4 – but later a 1-Do-2.  It’s hard to know which sounds more compex.

The locos had a long life, and although only two survived to be preserved as static exhibits, they marked at least the start of electric traction progress in New Zealand.  The Preston company received further orders from ‘down under’ after the Second World War too, with a Bo-Bo-Bo design in the 1950s, as the “Ew” class, and as late as the 1980s English Electric – as GEC Traction – were still supplying electrical equipment.

Hopefully the overview of this design will whet your appetite further.

Please click on the image below:

Wellington Cover

 

The earlier project is described here: “Over The Southern Alps via Arthur’s Pass”

Useful Links:

 

 

Britain’s Train Hell

Standard

Fascinating story emerging over the past 24 hours or so – about the storage of unused emu’s in places like Crewe, Worksop, Ely and Long Marston, all being covered by the national press, and Channel 4 are broadcasting  a “Dispatches” documentary on the TV today – 16th March.

The “Guardian”‘s take is here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/16/investigation-reveals-number-of-ghost-trains-lying-idle-in-britain 

I love the idea they are described as “Ghost Trains” – I’ve seen the Arnold Ridley classic film “The Ghost Train” with Arthur Askey.

No – I know if what the media are reporting isn’t funny, but whilst the idea that these old Class 319 units, and former London Undergound cars are being held in storage, and maybe could be used on ‘commuter routes’, these reports need context.  So, if we only have 40% of the network electrified, and major electrification projects have been cancelled, would refurbishing this stock be an important option towards solving the UK’s capacity problem.

Probably not – and in the current Coronavirus crisis this is perhaps less of an issue, but it should further identify problems that underfunding on rail infrastructure has created, and the disastrous approach to rail privatisation the UK has taken.

The storage of these trains and the waste created has been an inevitable outcome of the lack of a co-ordinated transport strategy – or “joined up thinking” as you might say, and the train operating ‘short termism’ of the industry’s approach.

Still looking forward to the Channel 4 documentary to see what Marcus Mayers from Manchester Metropolitan University has uncovered in his investigation.

-oOo-

 

HS2 – The Wait Goes On

Standard

The leaking of the draft report to the Financial Times newspaper about the recommendation for a “pause” after HS2 reaches Birmingham, is cold comfort to the businesses and passengers who depend on rail services from Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle.  Of course it was bound to stir up controversy – but really, where is the demand for 1,000s of passengers from London to Bimingham to arrive 29 minutes earlier?

It is suggested that the trains will provide over 1,000 seats, and operate at 14 per hour in both Birmingham and London Bound directions.  Imagine that, and assume a 50% occupancy, then you have 7,000 passengers per hour across the peak to peak periods, in either direction.  Or – let’s be generous and say over a 6-hour day – that’s 42,000 passengers between London and Birmingham, who then either go home, or travel on, northwards.  Really??

What then?  A 2-hour wait for an onward service to Crewe, then change trains again, and wait another hour for a service to Liverpool or Leeds.

In Phase 2b, Leeds is set to be reached from Birmingham – is there more dmand for passenger services between Bimingham and Leeds than say Manchester and Leeds.

HS2 is, and always has been an idea with no economic or strategic objective.  Compared with the electrification of the 1960s and 1990s, when the West and East Coast Main lines were electrified, or even HS1 – completed long after the Channel Tunnel opened.

HS2 is the rail to nowhere.  The people of Birmingham deserve better, as do the travellers and businesses of the North of England – invest in improvements to the existing routes.

Has anyone involved in HS2 ever asked the question – “do you get from London to Glasgow by travelling through Birmingham?”.  Probably not.

Newspapers today are full of coverage on costs spiralling – as t hey should be – but has anyone looked at the logic, or strategy of the plan overall?

Screenshot 2020-01-20 at 11.45.18

Screenshot 2020-01-20 at 19.12.52

If this is all about populations, in 2011, the population of the North West (Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester), added to that of West and North Yorkshire was over 8 million people.

In contrast, the West Midlands Region boasts a population of 5 3/4 million

Today, HS2’s own website claims:

“HS2 trains will serve over 25 stations connecting around 30 million people. That’s almost half the population.”

So if there is a need to meet the needs of millions of people – surely the North is the place to start – a) because of the massive rail network problems, and b) the sheer size of the regional population.  The North is where the investment in rail is needed as the highest priority – surely??!!

It seems then we either get a high-speed rail link from London Euston to Birmingham, or we may get later extensions to Crewe (Phase 2a), and Manchester (Plhase 2b), at some time in the future – or nothing.  The initial line into Birmingham is to a terminus, where the trains will ‘turn round’ to restart a journey northwards to Crewe and Manchester, and in each case will bypass centres of population.

Overall this project has successfully conflated the need for additional rail capacity, with the wish to have a high-speed line on the UK’s main rail network.   Whilst I have no argument at all about separation of traffic types (slow versus fast trains) on broadly the same route – ignoring alignment for the moment – since in a perfect world this would improve capacity.  These graphs show that really well.

But does that mean you just move the bottleneck further along, at an ever increasing price.

There is clearly no doubt that extra capacity is needed, but HS2, Phase 1 does nothing much to deliver that at these costs.

-oOo-

60 Years of AC Electrics

Standard

60 years ago on the 27th Nov
ember 1959, Britain’s pioneer 25Kv A.C. electric locomotive was officially handed over to British Railways. Then numbered E3001, it 
was to be the first of a long series of successful 
locomotive designs for the West Coast Main
Line (WCML). Within this series there have
 come to be seven basic designs, and a number of sub-divisions of the classes ALl to AL7. Although the last of these was never actually
 introduced under the old title of AL7, but
 designated Class 87 with the new “TOPS”
 locomotive codes, the family likeness remains
 very strong despite the detail alterations to the appearance of the latest type.

AEI_4Under the Modernisation Plan proposals it was decided that two types of locomotive – ‘A’ and ‘B’ – would be required. These were for mixed traffic, and freight service, respectively, with an equal number of both types needed, with their different haulage characteristics. This was not how things turned out, with the slower progress in the adoption of continuous brakes on freight trains, only five of the first 100 locomotives were type ‘B’, freight types. Metropolitan Vickers and BTH (as AEI), and English Electric were the builders of this entirely new breed of motive power, with mechanical portions of some constructed at BR’s Doncaster Works, and the North British Loco Co., in Glasgow.

86433 and 87034 at Carlisle 1980sIn 30 years, the UK railway industry, together with British Rail’s workshops had provided innovation, specialist technical, design and manufacturing skills that delivered the high-speed rail network, with the East and West Coast Main Line routes as their backbone.

91005 passing Carstairs 1995“Electra” was in effect the final gestation of the first, second and third-generation a.c. locomotive designs to be operated by British Rail, and whilst the ultimate high-speed passenger train, the APT never materialised, it did give rise to the “Pendolino” tilting trains.

Click on the image below for a longer read ….

60 Year cover image

Useful Links

Wikipedia Pages:

Class 80 Class 81 Class 82
Class 83 Class 84 Class 85
Class 86 Class 87 Class 89
Class 90 Class 91

General Information

The AC Electric Locomotive Group English Electric Co. – Grace’s Guide
Class 90 Electric Loco Group Metro-Cammell Ltd
Associated Electrical Industries (AEI) – Grace’s Guide British Rail Engineering Ltd – Science Museum

-oOo-

 

 

Hong Kong Metro – 40 Years On

Standard

It was once described as the largest building project in Asia, and it carried its first fare paying passengers on 1 October 1979 when the 8.5km section of the Metro between Kwun Tong and Shek Kip Mei was opened to the public.

Mtrc79It is also 40 years ago this month that another order was placed with Metro-Cammell for the growing Hong Kong MRT, just three years after they were awarded a £35 million order for 140 trains in November 1976. GEC traction and Metro-Cammell’s combined success with the first orders, was followed in November 1979 by another £40 million order for a further 135 multiple unit vehicles for the Kowloon-Canton railway.   This came hard on the heels – just five weeks later – of the order for a further 150
 metro cars worth £50 million for the MTR routes.

Original MRT train - from Railpower 39

Almost straight out of the box. An original Metro-Cammell built MRT train for Hong Kong. Though much changed in appearance, passenger facilities and traction control systems, they are still at work today.

By that time, contracts worth over £100 million for electrical, mechanical and civil engineering work had already been placed with UK engineering firms. The initial multi-contract E11 awarded by the MRTC involved GEC Traction and Metro-Cammell, requiring close co-operation between the three organisations for the supply and installation of the electrical and mechanical equipment.

The first contracts on the Modified Initial System were placed almost ten years after a report on the problems of road traffic congestion was published by the Hong Kong Government. This was aimed at resolving the territory’s transport question further.

Hong Kong MTR MapThe mechanical and electrical contracts placed by the Hong Kong Government for the Modified Initial System (MIS), were awarded against an extremely tight schedule. The first train set was scheduled for delivery in 1979 and the whole 15.6 route km system was planned to open early in 1980.  The MIS for Hong Kong was swiftly followed by the Tsuen Wan extension, with the obvious demand for more rolling stock, and by 1982, GEC Traction had supplied more than 400 sets to the MRT Corporation.

Alongside this, the 34km route of the Kowloon to Lo Wu line was being doubled and electrified at 25kV a.c. using a simple, overhead catenary construction, similar to that used by British Rail in the UK.

In the export market, the Hong Kong MRT was considered the first major project success for GEC Transportation Projects, established as a subsidiary of GEC Traction and based in Manchester, to design and manage such turnkey projects. The Mass Transit system was entirely new, with two lines providing links between the Central District of Hong Kong Island and the business and residential areas of Kowloon. The mass transit railway used an overhead contact system, electrified at 1500Vd.c. It was intended at one time that this line would be
 electrified using a shrouded conductor
 rail, but it was decided that safety
 margins would be improved using 1500Vd.c. catenary. At the same time, two extensions to the MRT were planned 10.6km to Tuen Wan, and the 12.5km Island Line, with completion in 1986.

Kowloon to Canton (Lo Wu)

Work began on the modernisation of the 34km Kowloon-Canton Railway, in early 1980, with the design, installation, supply and commissioning of the overhead equipment awarded to Balfour Beatty Power Construction.

KCR Car as new

The original emu’s for the Kowloon-Canton Railway, built by Metro-Cammell, with GEC Traction power equipment. Initial tests were carried out on the Tyne & Wear Metro in the UK, before being shipped out to Hong Kong.                    Photo: RPB/GEC Traction Collection

Metro-Cammell
 had also signed a contract with the Hong Kong
 Government to supply 135 electric
 multiple unit vehicles, to operate 
inner and outer suburban services on the
 Kowloon Canton Railway, which was being
 modernised and electrified. The fleet of rail
cars, worth £40million, were designed to be operated as
 three-car sets with up to four sets running in 
multiple.

The electrical equipment and traction power infrastructure was again being supplied by GEC Traction, from Preston and Stafford, with the MRT and extension lines electrified at 1500V d.c overhead, and the Kowloon to Canton route at the standard 25kV a.c., overhead.

Rolling stock

The trains for both the
 Mass Transit and Kowloon-Canton 
Railways, were built by Metro-Cammell. The original mass transit cars
 had a very high capacity, with seats 
for 48 passengers, and standing room
 for more than 300, in a length of 22m
and overall width of 3m. At the time, the MRT cars were believed to have the highest capacity of any metro car in the world. With such high density, getting passengers on and off required the provision of five pairs of sliding doors on each side of the car.

GEC Traction Hong Kong BrochureThe cars for
 the Modified Initial System, and Tsuen
Wan Extension were arranged in six-car formations, and due to the demanding operating requirements, all axles were motored, to give a nominal acceleration of 1.3m/s 2. Though this was increased in practice, because many of the stations along the route were constructed on ‘humps’. The MRT cars, ultimately in eight-car formations were required to operate at 90 seconds headway between trains, and a two minute intervals with ATO (Automatic Train Operation) in use.

The body shell was common for the three types of car on the KCR, and similar to that for the Hong Kong Mass Transit cars. They differed largely only because the KCR sets had fewer side doors, and narrower gangways between cars than the MRT vehicles. Electrically the KCR propulsion equipment was almost entirely derived from that supplied to British Rail.

GEC Traction supplied the propulsion equipment, which included conventional, camshaft control systems,· although consideration had been given in the early stages to using more advanced, thyristor chopper control. An important advantage of using chopper control is the system’s ability to regenerate during braking, but the hump layout ofmany ofthe mass transit stations rendered its application less useful. By 1982, Metro-Cammell had received orders for 558 vehicles for the mass transit system, with the final contract covering 22 power and 106 trailer cars for the Island Line extension. A total of 18 powered cars were ordered with thyristor control equipment in later years, in orders worth some £l0m.

In the UK, during the 1970s, the Tyneside Metro was constructed, which proved beneficial for both Metro-Cammell and GEC Traction, since te first Hong Kong MRT cars were sent for trials on the Tyneside Metro’s test track, prior to dispatch to the Far East.

MTR-train

Still recognisable as a Metro-Cammell MTR train, despite the modifications to the front end, as the train enters one of the elevated stations on this hugely busy system.                 Photo: ThomasWu726 – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6005011

The orders for Metro-Cammell and GEC Traction continued to come in during the 1980s, with additional MTR trains for the Island Line extension, and more three-car trains for the KCR. The last order for what was later classed as M-Class trains, were delivered from Metro-Cammell in Birmingham in 1988/89. However, it was not the last order, as in 1992, and order was placed with GEC Althom (who had by then acquired Metro-Cammell), for another 64 cars, for the MRT.
The MIS trains built by Metro-Cammell were – indeed are – classified as “M-Stock” by the MRT in Hong Kong, and they have undergone various improvements and changes. The initial modifications included altering the front end, to “modernise” its appearance, and the fitting of passenger information systems. All of the original builds were fitted with GTO Chopper control between 1992 and 1995.

This final order included an option for 24 further vehicles, and all 88 were supplied to Hong Kong as a set of parts, which were assembled at the Kowloon Bay Depot. Some of these – by now classed as H-Stock – were refurbished for use on Hong Kong’s Disneyland Line.

The original Kowloon-Canton units were designed for longer journeys, and included slightly different layouts or inner and outer suburban trains, but the general construction is similar to the mass transit trains, with main structural profiles common to both designs. In three-car sets – up to four sets could be coupled in multiple to give a 12-car train), the outer suburban sets have a capacity for 884 passengers and 961 for the inner suburban sets. With full width driving cabs at each end, every three-car set is a self-contained unit.

We see climate as a 21st century issue, but of course in tropical, and sub-tropical climates, there has always been the ever present problem of torrential downpours, from storms – be they hurricanes or typhoons, along with dramatic temperature variations. The climate is such in Hong Kong, that the vehicles, and their passengers were expected to withstand extremes of temperature, from 0 to 40 degrees, up to 100% humidity, and even required to run through flood water in some sections, as a result of the impact of Typhoons.

hong_kong_metro

The original Metro-Cammell built KCR trains were refurbished in the late 1990s by Alstom. This view taken in the Hong Kong Kowloon Bay Depot workshops shows work being carried out.      Photo: Alstom/RPB Collection

These trains are still in service today, but have undergone a number of changes, and the original Hong Kong MTR and Kowloon-Canton Railways have seen considerable changes and modifications since the 1980s.  The original KCR trains were converted by Alstom to 12-car sets, and the original 3 sliding doors were increased by the adition of a further 2 doors per side, and an emergency door in each cab front. The cab fronts were also modified, and entirely new passenger information systems were installed – all of this work was carried out between 1996 and 1999, to extend the life of these trains. Further changes included the fitting of ATO/ATC control systems, and today, 20 years later, they are still in use – now classed as Mid-Life Refurbishment Train (MLR).

A196 葵芳南咽喉

A196 entering Kwai Fong Station – March 2019    Photo: N509FZ – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76984682

So much has changed over the years in Hong Kong, what with the new airport at Chek Lap Kok, and the suspension bridge carrying the metro to the airport, along with further new lines, and a link to the Disney resort. On the railway, several refurbishments of the original M-Trains – which are still running, and the fitting of automatic train Control (ATC), the now almost universal Platform Screen Doors on metros around the world – but the trains from Washwood Heath are still running – for now.

MTR_first_Q-train_in_Qingdao_Sifang_factory_test_track

First of the latest Q-trains that will replace the old Metro-Cammell stock for Hong Kong’s MTR. Here seen at the Qingdao Sifang factory test rack. Photo: Zhongqi Qingdao Sifang Locomotive & Rolling Stock Co., Ltd. – http://www.crrcgc.cc/Portals/36/BatchImagesThumb/2018/0129/636528335151471991.jpg, CC BY-SA 4.0  https://commons.wikimedia.org /w/index.php?curid=81272688

According to reports announced in 2015, the MTR Corporation is to spend HK$6 billion on its largest- ever order of trains from a mainland manufacturer. 93 eight-car trains will replace all of the Metro-Cammell currently operating on the Kwun Tong, Tsuen Wan, Island and Tseung Kwan O lines.

Mainland maker CSR Qingdao Sifang is delivering the trains between 2018 and 2023.

Links:

 

-oOo-

Electric Traction Revolution?

Standard

60 years ago on the 27th Nov
ember this year, Britain’s pioneer 25Kv a.c. electric locomotive was officially handed over to British Railways. Then numbered E3001, it
was to be the first of a long series of successful 
locomotive designs for the West Coast Main
Line (WCML). Within this series there have
 come to be seven basic designs, and a number of sub-divisions of the classes ALl to AL7. Although the last of these was never actually
 introduced under the old title of AL7, but
 designated Class 87 with the new “TOPS”
 locomotive codes, the family likeness remains
 very strong despite the detail alterations to the appearance of the latest type.

gec092

87005 – the final design of the 1st generation electric traction for British Rail, provided the motive power for the completion of the 400+ miles of route from London to Glasgow in 1974.

The choice of 25kV a.c. electrification to be used on B.R. was the subject of exhaustive investigation and comparative examination with other arrangements. Indeed, as there was no a.c. overhead
 main line contact system in regular operation, B.R. decided in 1951
 to convert the Lancaster-Morecambe-
Heysham section to 50 cycle, 6,600 volt, to
 evaluate the potential. The only alternative to 
an untried a.c. system was the l500v d.c. arrangements favoured by the former LNER for its Manchester-Sheffield-Wath and Liverpool St.-Shenfield lines.

However, by the time of the announcement in 1955 of B.R.’s multi-million pound modernisation and re-equipment programme, a not inconsiderable degree of experience of operation of an a.c. system had been acquired. It was perhaps the potential of the system, using 25,000V from the National Grid, rendering it economically superior to the d.c. system that finally won the day.

The decision was announced on 6th March 1956, that 25Kv a.c. would be the system of electrification used by British Railways on the WCML between London (Euston), Manchester and Liverpool, and additionally on the East Coast Main Line (ECML), between London (King’s Cross) and York and Leeds. The optimism generated through the Modernisation Plan for the electrification of two main routes was relatively short lived however. By 1959, it was seen that this would not be possible within the time limits proposed in the 1956 White Paper, and consequently a re-appraisal of the Modernisation Plan provided for the introduction of diesel
 traction “without prejudice to eventual electrification” on the main line where this was to be deferred. Another factor in this re-evaluation was the enthusiasm with which the private car, road building, and the removal of some restrictions on licensing of road haulage, and goods transport.

Another interesting statistic is the total route mileage electrified in Britain. There is a Wikipedia entry that states: “In 2006, 40%—3,062 miles (4,928 km) of the British rail network was electrified, ….”   But, in a BR publication (“Railway Electrification – A Discussion Paper”), dated May 1978, the route mileage electrified was 2,341 miles, or 21% of the total network.

So, does that mean that between 1978 and 2006, the increase in the electrified network was only 721 miles, and the 2006 total route mileage was just over 7,600 miles, but 38 years earlier the route mileage was 11,100 miles. A reduction in the size of the network of 3,500 miles, and at the same time adding just under 400 miles to the electrified main lines with the East Coast Main Line project – delayed from 1956.

There was of course a Department of Transport / BRB report on the subject of main line electrification in 1981, which offered a number of options to expand the network. From the perspective of the 25kV a.c. schemes, the final report’s “Option II’ – the ECML, Midland Main Line, Glasgow to Edinburgh, and Edinburgh to Carstairs was the option followed.   This was described in the report’s accompanying table as a “modest” expansion of the network. Ironically the recently completed electrification from Preston to Blackpool was included in the “Base Case”, and for completion in 1984 – a mere 35-year delay for that particular line. Slightly less of a delay was incurred by the Western Region (now GWR) main line out of Paddington. That scheme was included in the more advanced “Option III” ‘Medium Case’ for completion by 1996 to Bristol, and by 2002 to Plymouth – ah well, some of it got completed, but all has been hampered by the tragedy of privatisation.

87034 - William Shakespeare at Carlisle

Penultimate days of British Rail operations, with the classic motive power for the West Coast Main Line, here seen at Carlisle in the late 1980s.

 

 

Today we are still waiting on the possibilities of the HS2 / HS3 developments, and have pressed ahead in the last 10 years or so with the Paddington to South Wales, Midland Main Line, Glasgow to Edinburgh central belt, and a number of smaller connecting lines. These latter have mainly been around big cities; Manchester, Leeds, etc., with additional links to Blackpool, and specialist lines such as that connecting London with Heathrow Airport, or the Crossrail projects.

Looking back at the 1978 BR discussion paper, the current routes and electrified network was covered then by Options B and C for the Inter City Routes strategy. Had the strategy been implemented back then as Option C – the electrified network would have reached 5,300 miles, some 2,200 more than was achieved by 2006. However, the real issues that delayed the strategy was the lack of will to invest, and the mounting subsidies paid to BR during the later 1970s and 1980s.

So this was Richard Marsh’s plan in 1978:

InterCity Route Miles Strategy


In the nearly 40 years since, some work has been done, but the UK’s once extensive railway industry – both private and BR’s own workshops – has largely disappeared, and any achievements have been wholly dependent on the success of imported technology. One of the most telling observations in the 1978 discussion paper was in the concluding paragraphs, where the BRB stated:

“A railway system needs to be provided which enables our successors to run an economic transport system in the year 2000 and beyond If railway electrification is to be part of that, as now seems probable, a start needs to be made now. If the country has available the capital for regeneration of industry and preparation for the energy conditions of the next century, it would require only a very small proportion of this investment to convert the main public bulk transportation system to electric power.”

In that same booklet, it was pointed out that the UK was well behind in the proportion of its network that was electrified, coming 17th out of 21 countries, from Norway to Belgium and Japan.

Table A1

Today we are still waiting on the possibilities of the HS2 / HS3 developments, and have pressed ahead in the last 10 years or so with the Paddington to South Wales, Midland Main Line, Glasgow to Edinburgh central belt, and a number of smaller connecting lines. These latter have mainly been around big cities; Manchester, Leeds, etc., with additional links to Blackpool, and specialist lines such as that connecting London with Heathrow Airport, or the Crossrail projects.

By 2016/17 that position had changed, and the UK had slipped 3 places to 20th, or second from bottom, and yet the % of the network now electrified had risen to 33%.

Country Network Length Electrified length % Electrified
 Switzerland 5,196 5,196 100%
 Luxembourg 275 275 100%
Sweden 10,874 8,976 83%
 Belgium 3,602 2,960 82%
Italy 16,788 13,106 78%
 Netherlands 3,055 2,314 76%
Japan 27,311 20,534 75%
 Bulgaria 4,030 2,880 71%
 Austria 5,527 3,826 69%
 Norway 3,895 2,622 67%
 Portugal 2,546 1,633 64%
Poland 19,209 11,874 62%
Spain 15,949 9,699 61%
France 29,273 15,687 54%
Germany 38,594 20,500 53%
Russia 85,500 43,700 51%
 Slovakia 3,626 1,587 44%
 Hungary 7,945 2,889 36%
 Czech Republic 9,567 3,237 34%
United Kingdom 16,320 5,357 33%
Romania 10,774 3,292 31%

Source of table: (Wikipedia) List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size

So according to this latest table, another 5,120 miles of route have been electrified in the UK since 1978. By far the longest route to receive its 25kV a.c. overhead contact system was the East Coast Main Line, from London (Kings Cross) to Edinburgh, which was completed in 1991 – so that was another 400 miles. After that, there was a plan to electrify the route from London (St Pancras) to Sheffield – although that’s only reached as far north as Leicestershire, before being controversially abandoned. The completion of the Channel Tunnel was the driver to construct a high-speed link between the tunnel and London (Waterloo), and with minor extensions added a further 100 miles by the time HS1 was opened in 2003.

The Western Region main line, or after privatisation, the GWR main line from London (Paddington) to Bristol and South Wales has only been completed in the last couple of years – but only as far as Bristol Parkway. The piecemeal, stop-start nature of progress on electrification of main lines since the mid 1990s has spectacularly affected interoperability across the whole network. The latest trains on the old Western Region main line to Bristol are hybrids, and have to operate as diesel trains in the non-electrified sections, obviously at lower speeds. The plan to electrify the main line to South Devon, Plymouth and possibly Penzance is not even on the horizon in the 21st Century.

The additional 4,000+ miles that have been electrified since 1978 includes the completion of the Edinburgh to Glasgow corridor, and the link to the West Coast Main Line at Carstairs, together with numerous other ad-hoc changes and extensions. This activity included work to extend the overhead out of London (Liverpool Street) into East Anglia; Cambridge and Kings Lynn.

In 1981, the Government published a final report advocating the case for main line electrification, and in a couple of key points made a recommendation that more, and not less electrification at a faster rate would offer best value for money. These are two of the key paragraphs that make those points:

Para 13 - 1981 DoT ReviewPara 14 - 1981 DoT Review

So how did we do? Well, not so good really.

Currently, in 2019, Crossrail – which links in to the GWR main line west of London – is still not complete, and the plans for a route between Oxford and Cambridge, and a north-south Crossrail2 are still only on the drawing board. The very latest activity on the London (Euston) to Birmingham – HS2 – is looking more likely to be cancelled than progressed, whilst the demand for increased electrification between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and beyond is growing by the day. The so-called Northern Powerhouse Rail is clearly an essential need, to link the economic centres in the North of England, which, between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds/Bradford, and Tyneside/Wearside has a population of well over 7 million.

In February 2019, “The Engineer” carried out a poll of its readers to see what form of motive power would be 1st choice to replace the diesel trains – all of which will be gone by 2040. In the poll some 43% of respondents advocated full electrification.

Another 29% were in favour of batteries+hydrogen power, with another 12% advocating pure hydrogen powered trains.

If the recent progress of electrification is anything to go by, I doubt if any of these will progress very far, and we will, as usual be subject to the same uncertain, start-stop process that we have seen for the past 20 years. But, electrification is, and remains the only sustainable option – both in energy cost, and environmental impact.

So, 60 years on from the handover at Sandbach in Cheshire, in November 1959, we have come so far, but there is still a long way to go. The ‘Northern Powerhouse Rail’ proposals include some aspects of planned 25kV electrification from the 1950s, 1960s, and late 1970s, and the line from Manchester to Leeds is more than 40 years late. There has been very limited activity on rail, and especially electrification work over the past 20 years, and today’s ‘Northern Powerhouse Rail’ ideas are not a fitting reflection of the work completed in 1959.

Northern Powerhouse Rail Map

The lines shown on this map in light green are for new electrified routes, and the connection from Manchester to Leeds was identified as needing electrification almost 40 years ago – and it is still pending!

Useful Links:

 

Azuma_and_HST_at_Leeds_station_(geograph_6187255)

One of the new generation Azuma high-speed trains alongside one of the remaining IC125 (HST) sets at Leeds Station. By Stephen Craven, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79978602 

-oOo-

 

 

 

Electro-Diesels & Hybrids

Standard

There has been much talk, and quite a few examples in recent years of what are described as “Bi-mode” trains – in the UK, these are the 800 Class multiple units on the GWR, together with the 10 DRS Class 88 locomotives.  Across Europe these are becoming more common too, and Bombardier’s “Mitrac” is another recent hybrid offering, with power from overhead contact systems, and a diesel engine.

But, these are not a new idea, just the latest incarnation of an idea more than a century old, with the first claim being made in 1889.  This was the “Patton Motor Car”, which was followed in what was known as a “gas-electric hybrid system” applied to a tramcar at Pullman, Illinois.   Also quick on the take up was Belgium, where in the 1890s, a petrol-electric vehicle was taking to the rails, also fitted with a generator and traction motors.  British Westinghouse built a similar example, with a 100hp diesel engine, for the Great Central Railways in the early years of the 20th century.  After the First World War, the hybrid approach took a step further forward in Belgium, with batteries – a collection of accumulators – an equally important step in hybrid developments.

Electro Diesel in Rail Blue liveryIt was not until the 1950s that a class of main line locomotives able to operate on electrified and non-electrified lines.   During the early British Railways era, there was no example of main line ‘hybrid’ or electro-diesel locomotive, although the former private companies had begun experiments in non-steam traction, but with little significant growth.

Many of British Railways’ electro-diesel locomotives for the Southern Region are, amazingly perhaps, are still in regular operation.  It was a unique solution to implement in the early 1960s, to provide go anywhere motive power, for a wide range of mixed traffic and shunting duties.  The BR Modernisation Programme was in full swing, and diesels were replacing steam, but future electrification was on the overhead system, and the Southern’s 3rd rail network had limited potential.

This is a brief look at what BR developed, and its operations over many years:

Electro-diesels cover

 

Useful Links:

 

-oOo-