• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What If.......?

Status
Not open for further replies.

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Hmm that's an interesting thought. I would say one thing that would be different is that commuter stock would have 3+3 seating and maybe even 4+3 for really high density stock. I also wonder if we might not still have more compartment based rolling stock especially in first class. The other thing that would be different is that we would have got higher line speeds sooner as broad gauge was known for giving good running characteristics at high speed. We might still be stuck at 125mph (as that's a signalling issue not a track issue) but we might have been seeing those speeds in the 50s or 60s rather than the mid 70s.

Assuming the GWR went for loading gauge enhancements instead of gauge conversion, we might be seeing double-deck stock in regular service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
An imaginary broad gauge King made using a programme called GWR Loco Sketchpad. It is a 4-8-2 built to Russian loading gauge.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Whistler40145

Established Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
5,911
Location
Lancashire
What if Classes 81-85 had been more reliable & still in traffic?

Or

What if Class 40s had been more reliable & still in traffic & hadn't been banned from Glasgow Central?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
What if DIESEL-HYDRAULIC had become the chosen motive power (Warships galore!!) :D
Perhaps we would have an extensive fleet of these today instead of class 66s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voith_Maxima

The entirety of the proposed 350 strong “Western” fleet built and in service into the 1990s, presumably in place of the 47s that were built instead, would have been quite a sight to behold!
 
Last edited:

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,753
Location
Epsom
Surely if 350 Westerns had been built and only a handful of 47s then the "What if..." here would be that enthusiasts would have been bored with 52s and wishing that more 47s had been built and that they had lasted longer...??
 

Welshman

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2010
Messages
3,017
What if the canal system had never succombed to the railways and had been futher developed.

I wouldn't have wanted to be on the Grand Union Canal towpath when one of those Virgin high-speed tilting barges came through! :D :D :D
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
We would still have a domestic train building industry as BR would never have gone more than a 1,000 days without ordering some sort of rolling stock. It might still be smaller than the same industry in the 1980s but it would certainly be larger than just Derby.

Speaking of rolling stock generally we would not have had 390s on the WCML but instead IC250s, there would be no Voyagers on XC or Meridans on the MML instead there would probably be Mk3s cascaded off of the WCML and perhaps some different new build stock. In general terms there would be new rolling stock around for sure but I suspect that the general make up of the fleet wouldn't be radically different from today (Sprinters and Pacers would still be king along with Networkers and other 31xs) but a rolling pattern of replacements would probably be underway rather than the big bang approach that privatization seems to favor (see the replacement of Slammers for an example of the big bang approach).

I also suspect that Crossrail and Thameslink would both have been either completed by now or certainly much further along than they are currently and another mainline (not necessarily the GWML) would be either electrified or in the process of being.

But generally speaking the differences probably come down to money. Would BR have gotten the extra money that the privatized railway has had thrown at it or would it still be struggling along on peanuts? A more interesting question might be "what would BR have done had it been given as much money as the private railway has over the last 20 years?".
 

Drsatan

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
1,884
Location
Land of the Sprinters
But generally speaking the differences probably come down to money. Would BR have gotten the extra money that the privatized railway has had thrown at it or would it still be struggling along on peanuts? A more interesting question might be "what would BR have done had it been given as much money as the private railway has over the last 20 years?".

If BR still existed, any money it received from the government would have been used much more efficiently instead of being wasted on the merry-go-round of franchises, whereby money is wasted on premium payments, dividends to shareholders, leasing charges for rolling stock and track access charges to NR.

Therefore, as you've said, Thameslink 2000 would probably have been completed on time, Crossrail would be at an advanced stage of construction by now, and Mk1 3rd rail EMUs would have been phased out more gradually. To save introducing lots of Networker EMUs to replace Mk1 EMUs at the same time, power supplies would be progressively upgraded while the older Mk1 EMUs (such as the 4CEPs and early 4CIGs) would have been gradually withdrawn, saving the more modern ones (such as the 4VEPs and the last of the 4CIGs, built in 1972) until last. 3rd rail 'islands' such as Hastings - Ashford, Salisbury - Southampton and Oxted - Uckfield would also have been electrified to avoid ordering replacements for the Thumpers.

Since I think rail usage would have increased in the 1990s regardless of privatisation anyway due to an improving economy, it would be a lot simpler for BR to redouble single line railways, install passing loops and remodel junctions because fewer stakeholders would be involved. So today, BR might have built an extra Welwyn viaduct, reopened the relief lines from Bristol oto Filton Abbey Wood, four-tracked the Trent Valley Line and possibly built a flyover at Woking Junction so Portsmouth line services wouldn't have to cross Basingstoke services on the level.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
If BR still existed, any money it received from the government would have been used much more efficiently instead of being wasted on the merry-go-round of franchises, whereby money is wasted on premium payments, dividends to shareholders, leasing charges for rolling stock and track access charges to NR.
There would still have to be track access charges though due to the EU Directive.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
There would still have to be track access charges though due to the EU Directive.

Urgh can't we just tell the EU to stick their directive where the sun don't shine!

;)

But seriously that's certainly true but I suspect we would end up with a situation similar to that in France where we would have BR responsible for rolling stock, track maintenance, signalling and station ownership whilst Railtrack (I like the name) would own the track itself whilst contracting maintenance to BR.
 

Masboroughlad

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2011
Messages
1,560
Location
Midlands
We would probably have First GWR, London Midland Scotland Trains (Stagecoach), Virgin London North Eastern Trains and Go-via Southern :) Or some other combination of the above!
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
It's all gone quiet again on the thread, so:-

What if the 1923 sectorizations still applied with LMS, LNER, WR and SR still having their autonomy.

Hmm...

The LNER was pioneering main-line electrification, and had EM1s and EM2s under construction. They also had two EMD diesels on order (I think it was EMD). Therefore, the Woodhead electrification might well have spread to the northern ECML, which the North Eastern wanted to do in the 1920s. King's Cross is most likely where the wires would have gone next. Probably most of the LNER main lines would have been wired by the 1960s, with diesels operating freight away from the wires and some form of DMU (presumably) on local branch workings. Steam might have hung around into the 70s, with Thompson's standardisation programme basically complete, so the remaining B17s would have become B2s, the O4s would have become O1s and so on. Quite a few closures might have happened, but the Great Central would be open to this day.

The LMS had diesel-electrics under construction, 10000 and 10001. These were built by English Electric, so we can assume that a large-scale order for a similar design might well happen. As a result, we might have ended up with something resembling the Class 40, and possibly various smaller designs as well. I honestly have no idea whether we would have seen 25kV electrification. They might even have ordered Deltics for the WCML. I don't know whether Riddles or Ivatt (whoever was in charge) would have designed something resembling the 9F.

The GWR had gas turbine locos on order. It's quite possible we would have seen a mass order, but if they had not lived up to expectations, perhaps we would have seen diesel-hydraulics begin to appear. There were already plenty of diesel railcars, so I imagine that DMUs would not be that far a step. There's also a possibility that we would have seen the Hawksworth Pacific, probably the Cathedral class, as the GWR's last major steam design.

The Southern had steam, diesel and electric options. Bulleid's first five Leader-class engines were under construction, and 25 more were on order. They might not have done very well, but I reckon that there's a chance that they might have been made to work. They also had three diesel-electric locos on order, plus the electrification programme, which had produced three electric locomotives and loads of EMUs. I imagine that the Kent Coast and Bournemouth electrification schemes would have gone ahead much as they did, and that the third rail would eventually reach Weymouth and Plymouth. Competition with the GWR would help keep at least the Plymouth route open.

Would we have seen all four companies co-operate in the 1970s to build the APT and HST? That's a complete unknown. It's quite possible that we might today see 125 mph "EM11" electrics operating out of King's Cross and Marylebone, with "EM10s" out of Liverpool Street. Perhaps there would be tilting EMUs out of St Pancras and Euston, 125 mph gas turbine sets out of Paddington and several classes of EMU out of Waterloo and Victoria. Freight might be in the hands of various things, with EMD locomotives ordered from America being likely. Also, the various types of local multiple unit would be widespread, the Leyland "Pacer" having been abandoned in favour of the Metro-Cammell "Sprinter". These would be on the wane by now, in favour of the Bombardier "Turbostar". Off-the-shelf orders from private trainbuilders would result in something similar to today's reality.

Presumably, all four would be dependent on subsidy for passenger services, otherwise we would see something line the Serpall Option A network, plus a few freight lines. Heaven knows whether we would have got a Channel Tunnel, but I imagine that we would, and it would have 1,500V d.c. electrification, to match that pioneered by the LNER.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top