Bakerloo line to Kilbirn high road

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:23:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
This cme up on my feed today. Quite an old video and frankly Kilburn HR looks
like a bomb site so I'm guessing 1980s.

Actually just noticed a class 390 in the video so can't be any earlier than
2002.

Charles Ellson

2024-11-25 19:36:28 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
This cme up on my feed today. Quite an old video and frankly Kilburn HR looks
like a bomb site so I'm guessing 1980s.
http://youtu.be/hYpQKUQYHkw
Also if you look on google maps there's a tube train in the very same station.
Curiously even though there's 4th rail on the stations westbound there appears
to be no way for a tube train to get there short of running wrong road from
the crossover to the west or all the way from queens park so I why did they
put it in? Was there a crossover further east at some point?

It wasn't put in, it was left there after the DC line was converted
from 4-rail to 3-rail. Also the current crossover is a new one which
replaced the original at the east end of KHR beside the signal cabin.
In the parts of the DC line not travelled by LU trains the fourth rail
was gradually dropped onto the sleepers to maintain the pre-existing
metalwork in the traction current path and in more recent times
removed altogether in some (maybe now most?) places.

Marland

2024-11-25 21:42:41 UTC

A drivers eye view on you tube up loaded in june 2023 showed that non
remained between Euston and Kilburn High Road ,from there to Harrow and
Wealdstone it remains in working order to serve Bakerloo trains, from H&W
to Bushey it was still mainly in place,after that quite sparse though
interesting the station area at Watford Junction still looks mainly intact.
Quite a few years ago I went there to look at the by then disused 4th rail
but still mounted on insulators, there were subtle differences in how the
LNWR laid things out compared to the Underground group and LSWR /SR
practices with different styles of conductor rail ramps and insulator
positions and the LNWR fingerprint survived through the LMS /BR eras.
Kilburn High Road to Queens Park is maintained in case problems prevent
Bakerloo trains entering the tunnel section so they can proceed to there
and return. Regular rusty rail trains run to keep the. negative rail in
order.

GH

Recliner

2024-11-25 22:02:40 UTC

Perhaps because of the small possibility of Met line trains being diverted
to Watford Junction, and using the fourth rail again. That project is
currently dead, but might come back again one day.

Meanwhile, the Met benefits from the S7+1 ordered as part of the project.

Post by Marland
Quite a few years ago I went there to look at the by then disused 4th rail
but still mounted on insulators, there were subtle differences in how the
LNWR laid things out compared to the Underground group and LSWR /SR
practices with different styles of conductor rail ramps and insulator
positions and the LNWR fingerprint survived through the LMS /BR eras.
Kilburn High Road to Queens Park is maintained in case problems prevent
Bakerloo trains entering the tunnel section so they can proceed to there
and return. Regular rusty rail trains run to keep the. negative rail in
order.

I wonder how often it needs to be used for real?

M***@DastartdlyHQ.org

2024-11-26 08:27:46 UTC

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:02:40 GMT

Post by Marland
A drivers eye view on you tube up loaded in june 2023 showed that non
remained between Euston and Kilburn High Road ,from there to Harrow and
Wealdstone it remains in working order to serve Bakerloo trains, from H&W
to Bushey it was still mainly in place,after that quite sparse though
interesting the station area at Watford Junction still looks mainly intact.

Perhaps because of the small possibility of Met line trains being diverted
to Watford Junction, and using the fourth rail again. That project is
currently dead, but might come back again one day.

I never really understood the reasoning behind that project. No sane person
would use the Met in preference to LO to get to central london from Watford
as it would probably take twice as long so that just leaves local traffic to
and from watford from north west london, which with the best will in the world
can't be that large.

Charles Ellson

2024-11-27 04:49:36 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:02:40 GMT

Perhaps because of the small possibility of Met line trains being diverted
to Watford Junction, and using the fourth rail again. That project is
currently dead, but might come back again one day.

On a normal day, if you are going to London from Watford Junction (or
even Bushey or Harrow for much of the day) then you wouldn't use LO
rather than the main line.

M***@DastartdlyHQ.org

2024-11-27 08:15:29 UTC

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 04:49:36 +0000

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:02:40 GMT

Perhaps because of the small possibility of Met line trains being diverted
to Watford Junction, and using the fourth rail again. That project is
currently dead, but might come back again one day.

On a normal day, if you are going to London from Watford Junction (or
even Bushey or Harrow for much of the day) then you wouldn't use LO
rather than the main line.

Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the met
going via rickmansworth.

Recliner

2024-11-27 09:29:43 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 04:49:36 +0000

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:02:40 GMT

Perhaps because of the small possibility of Met line trains being diverted
to Watford Junction, and using the fourth rail again. That project is
currently dead, but might come back again one day.

On a normal day, if you are going to London from Watford Junction (or
even Bushey or Harrow for much of the day) then you wouldn't use LO
rather than the main line.

Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the met
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

M***@DastartdlyHQ.org

2024-11-27 10:37:14 UTC

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

Recliner

2024-11-27 11:03:13 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

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

M***@DastardlyHQ.org

2024-11-27 13:59:36 UTC

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 11:03:13 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

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

I'm still no more enlightened. Lots of text about what it would be, nothing
about what it would actually be for especially given in its original form
there wouldn't even be through services from Amersham!

Marland

2024-11-27 11:08:17 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

Isn’t that why the project was never proceeded with? It proved too costly
to justify the link for moving a few locals between different parts of the
area around Watford, even selling Watford station and associated land for
redevelopment wouldn’t make much of a dent in the overall cost.

GH

Recliner

2024-11-27 11:41:38 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

I don’t think they planned to sell the existing station, which was going to
be used for stabling.

Fundamentally, it was the inexplicably rising costs that killed it. It just
about made sense at the original cost, but not with the greatly swollen
costs. The main political problem was that most of the benefits were for
Hertfordshire, but TfL was ending up having to pay more for it. Very few
London voters were likely to benefit from it, so it was never of great
interest to the London mayor (whoever it might be).

Marland

2024-11-27 14:43:25 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

I don’t think they planned to sell the existing station, which was going to
be used for stabling.

Would they need the station building and the car park for that?
Terminating trains where the existing sidings are short of the
platforms would release the station and car park , it must be potentially
a very valuable plot in that expensive part of Britain though not enough to
pay for much of the link.

Even if they need the existing four tracks in the station area
reconfiguring them closely spaced to one side of the platforms would make
the land occupied by the platform,building and car park available.

GH

M***@DastardlyHQ.org

2024-11-27 14:47:38 UTC

On 27 Nov 2024 14:43:25 GMT

Post by Marland
Even if they need the existing four tracks in the station area
reconfiguring them closely spaced to one side of the platforms would make
the land occupied by the platform,building and car park available.

Whats the point? Any money they made from selling off the right side would be
used up buying new land on the left. Which looking on Maps looks like
allotments so that would go down like the proverbial bucket of sick.

Marland

2024-11-27 15:32:14 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On 27 Nov 2024 14:43:25 GMT

Why would they need to buy new? The platform looks reasonably wide,
removing that gives
quite a large space that could have tracks laid on it so realising land
occupied by one pair of tracks at the moment to be built on. The industrial
estate side would be easier but allotments are not usually an impediment
when developers money gets involved , incidentally this list of
allotments from Watford Council doesn’t list any around there
<https://watford.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s25156/Appendix%201%20for%20An%20Allotment%20Strategy%202020-2025.pdf>
so that may not be problem anyway.
But even if they retained things as they are without passengers you don’t
need the station building ,forecourt and car park. A developer could get a
lot of flats on that land alone.

GH

M***@DastardlyHQ.org

2024-11-27 16:17:04 UTC

On 27 Nov 2024 15:32:14 GMT

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On 27 Nov 2024 14:43:25 GMT

Why would they need to buy new? The platform looks reasonably wide,
removing that gives
quite a large space that could have tracks laid on it so realising land

Doesn't look wide enough for more than 1 track to me plus demolishing it
would be a big job and cost a lot.

Post by Marland
But even if they retained things as they are without passengers you donât
need the station building ,forecourt and car park. A developer could get a
lot of flats on that land alone.

Not that many. There'll be local restrictions on height plus LU would only
get the price of the land which won't be a fortune even in Watford. A few
hundred 100K maybe. Diverting the line would cost well into 9 figures.

Recliner

2024-11-27 16:12:23 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

I don’t think they planned to sell the existing station, which was going to
be used for stabling.

Would they need the station building and the car park for that?
Terminating trains where the existing sidings are short of the
platforms would release the station and car park , it must be potentially
a very valuable plot in that expensive part of Britain though not enough to
pay for much of the link.
Even if they need the existing four tracks in the station area
reconfiguring them closely spaced to one side of the platforms would make
the land occupied by the platform,building and car park available.

There was pressure from locals not to close the existing Watford station,
retaining either a shuttle service and/or peak time through trains, as used
to happen with Chesham. It could also have been used for diversions if
Watford Junction couldn’t be used. Apart from anything else, losing all
their convenient local services would reduce their property values.

Charles Ellson

2024-11-29 22:13:44 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

Isnt that why the project was never proceeded with? It proved too costly
to justify the link for moving a few locals between different parts of the
area around Watford, even selling Watford station and associated land for
redevelopment wouldnt make much of a dent in the overall cost.

I dont think they planned to sell the existing station, which was going to
be used for stabling.

Would they need the station building and the car park for that?
Terminating trains where the existing sidings are short of the
platforms would release the station and car park , it must be potentially
a very valuable plot in that expensive part of Britain though not enough to
pay for much of the link.
Even if they need the existing four tracks in the station area
reconfiguring them closely spaced to one side of the platforms would make
the land occupied by the platform,building and car park available.

There was pressure from locals not to close the existing Watford station,
retaining either a shuttle service and/or peak time through trains, as used
to happen with Chesham. It could also have been used for diversions if
Watford Junction couldnt be used. Apart from anything else, losing all
their convenient local services would reduce their property values.

The two stations are far enough apart to be regarded as serving
different areas (Watford High Street is closer to WFJ than Watford
Met. and Bushey is not much further away than the Met station).
Closing Watford Met would put a lot of people further away from their
nearest station while putting nobody closer to any existing stations.
The cunning plan has the appearance of solving a problem that doesn't
really exist while creating a new one.

Recliner

2024-11-29 23:05:34 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

I dont think they planned to sell the existing station, which was going to
be used for stabling.

Would they need the station building and the car park for that?
Terminating trains where the existing sidings are short of the
platforms would release the station and car park , it must be potentially
a very valuable plot in that expensive part of Britain though not enough to
pay for much of the link.
Even if they need the existing four tracks in the station area
reconfiguring them closely spaced to one side of the platforms would make
the land occupied by the platform,building and car park available.

There was pressure from locals not to close the existing Watford station,
retaining either a shuttle service and/or peak time through trains, as used
to happen with Chesham. It could also have been used for diversions if
Watford Junction couldnt be used. Apart from anything else, losing all
their convenient local services would reduce their property values.

Not so. Cassiobridge would be about 3⁄4 mile (1.2 km) away from Watford
station, and would have its own new catchment area, and Watford Vicarage
Road would serve the hospital and football ground. It would provide a much
better service in that busy area.

Post by Charles Ellson
The cunning plan has the appearance of solving a problem that doesn't
really exist while creating a new one.

Not really. There would be genuine benefits, but they’re outweighed by the
swollen costs.

Charles Ellson

2024-11-29 23:34:28 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

Isn?t that why the project was never proceeded with? It proved too costly
to justify the link for moving a few locals between different parts of the
area around Watford, even selling Watford station and associated land for
redevelopment wouldn?t make much of a dent in the overall cost.

I don?t think they planned to sell the existing station, which was going to
be used for stabling.

Would they need the station building and the car park for that?
Terminating trains where the existing sidings are short of the
platforms would release the station and car park , it must be potentially
a very valuable plot in that expensive part of Britain though not enough to
pay for much of the link.
Even if they need the existing four tracks in the station area
reconfiguring them closely spaced to one side of the platforms would make
the land occupied by the platform,building and car park available.

There was pressure from locals not to close the existing Watford station,
retaining either a shuttle service and/or peak time through trains, as used
to happen with Chesham. It could also have been used for diversions if
Watford Junction couldn?t be used. Apart from anything else, losing all
their convenient local services would reduce their property values.

Not so. Cassiobridge would be about 3?4 mile (1.2 km) away from Watford
station, and would have its own new catchment area, and Watford Vicarage
Road would serve the hospital and football ground. It would provide a much
better service in that busy area.

Post by Charles Ellson
The cunning plan has the appearance of solving a problem that doesn't
really exist while creating a new one.

Not really. There would be genuine benefits, but theyre outweighed by the
swollen costs.

So still not worth it anyway ?

Recliner

2024-11-30 00:51:39 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:29:43 GMT

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
Well ok, but you certainly wouldn't use a circuitous stopping route on the

met

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
going via rickmansworth.

The purpose of the project was never to provide another route between
Watford Junction and central London.

So what was the purpose? Local traffic on its own would never have made it
financially viable.

I don?t think they planned to sell the existing station, which was going to
be used for stabling.

Would they need the station building and the car park for that?
Terminating trains where the existing sidings are short of the
platforms would release the station and car park , it must be potentially
a very valuable plot in that expensive part of Britain though not enough to
pay for much of the link.
Even if they need the existing four tracks in the station area
reconfiguring them closely spaced to one side of the platforms would make
the land occupied by the platform,building and car park available.

There was pressure from locals not to close the existing Watford station,
retaining either a shuttle service and/or peak time through trains, as used
to happen with Chesham. It could also have been used for diversions if
Watford Junction couldn?t be used. Apart from anything else, losing all
their convenient local services would reduce their property values.

Post by Charles Ellson
The cunning plan has the appearance of solving a problem that doesn't
really exist while creating a new one.

Not really. There would be genuine benefits, but theyre outweighed by the
swollen costs.

So still not worth it anyway ?

As always, it’s benefits vs costs. But, additionally, in this case, the
benefits are almost entirely in Herts, so TfL isn’t prepared to pick up
additional costs.

M***@dastardlyhq.com

2024-11-30 10:26:57 UTC

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 00:51:39 GMT

Post by Charles Ellson
So still not worth it anyway ?

As always, it’s benefits vs costs. But, additionally, in this case, the
benefits are almost entirely in Herts, so TfL isn’t prepared to pick up
additional costs.

Which is odd because TfL is more than happy to collect the fare revenue from
its stations outside London so if they don't want to invest in lines not
technically in london perhaps they should cut back the met, district and
central so they're not in herts, bucks and essex any longer. They can't have it
both ways.

Recliner

2024-11-30 10:37:00 UTC

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 00:51:39 GMT

Post by Charles Ellson
So still not worth it anyway ?

As always, it’s benefits vs costs. But, additionally, in this case, the
benefits are almost entirely in Herts, so TfL isn’t prepared to pick up
additional costs.

You seem not to understand the difference between construction and
operation.

TfL is happy to operate trains out of London in return for fare revenue,
and to get commuters into London. However, it’s not prepared to build new
lines outside London, for the benefit of local residents in those areas.
But if the county is prepared to pay for the construction of new
infrastructure, TfL will operate it.

Those lines outside London were mostly built by the Victorian predecessor
companies, long before LT even existed.

M***@dastardlyhq.com

2024-11-30 11:51:44 UTC

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 10:37:00 GMT

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 00:51:39 GMT

Post by Charles Ellson
So still not worth it anyway ?

As always, it’s benefits vs costs. But, additionally, in this case, the
benefits are almost entirely in Herts, so TfL isn’t prepared to pick up
additional costs.

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
both ways.

You seem not to understand the difference between construction and
operation.
TfL is happy to operate trains out of London in return for fare revenue,
and to get commuters into London. However, it’s not prepared to build new
lines outside London, for the benefit of local residents in those areas.
But if the county is prepared to pay for the construction of new
infrastructure, TfL will operate it.

I fail to see what difference an arbitrary line on a map makes. Its not as
if any of the london boroughs pay towards the tube.

Recliner

2024-11-30 12:05:05 UTC

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 10:37:00 GMT

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 00:51:39 GMT

Post by Charles Ellson
So still not worth it anyway ?

As always, it’s benefits vs costs. But, additionally, in this case, the
benefits are almost entirely in Herts, so TfL isn’t prepared to pick up
additional costs.

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
both ways.

You seem not to understand the difference between construction and
operation.
TfL is happy to operate trains out of London in return for fare revenue,
and to get commuters into London. However, it’s not prepared to build new
lines outside London, for the benefit of local residents in those areas.
But if the county is prepared to pay for the construction of new
infrastructure, TfL will operate it.

I fail to see what difference an arbitrary line on a map makes. Its not as
if any of the london boroughs pay towards the tube.

Who do you think elects the mayor? And haven’t you noticed that TfL is
subsidised? Who do you think pays that subsidy?

M***@dastardlyhq.com

2024-11-30 16:27:48 UTC

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:05:05 GMT

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
I fail to see what difference an arbitrary line on a map makes. Its not as
if any of the london boroughs pay towards the tube.

Who do you think elects the mayor? And haven’t you noticed that TfL is
subsidised? Who do you think pays that subsidy?

The UK government. Last time I looked Hertfordshire was in the UK.

Recliner

2024-11-30 16:42:12 UTC

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:05:05 GMT

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
I fail to see what difference an arbitrary line on a map makes. Its not as
if any of the london boroughs pay towards the tube.

Who do you think elects the mayor? And haven’t you noticed that TfL is
subsidised? Who do you think pays that subsidy?

The UK government. Last time I looked Hertfordshire was in the UK.

You’re obviously too wealthy to check your council tax statement.

Charles Ellson

2024-12-02 19:41:41 UTC

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:05:05 GMT

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
I fail to see what difference an arbitrary line on a map makes. Its not as
if any of the london boroughs pay towards the tube.

Who do you think elects the mayor? And havent you noticed that TfL is
subsidised? Who do you think pays that subsidy?

The UK government. Last time I looked Hertfordshire was in the UK.

Don't they have Council Tax in your town/village?

M***@DastartdlyHQ.org

2024-11-26 08:32:31 UTC

On 25 Nov 2024 21:42:41 GMT

On the Moorgate line the 4th rail is still lying dropped inbetween the
running rails. I guess extracting it in the confined tunnel space would
cost way more money than they'd get for recycling it.

Marland

2024-11-26 17:47:34 UTC

Post by M***@DastartdlyHQ.org
On 25 Nov 2024 21:42:41 GMT

On the Moorgate line the 4th rail is still lying dropped inbetween the
running rails. I guess extracting it in the confined tunnel space would
cost way more money than they'd get for recycling it.

Isn’t left for the same reason as the dropped one on the DC line ? To make
an easier lower resistance return path than just the running rails would
provide and on the Moorgate route to prevent stray current attempting to
go via the tunnels and other buried services.
Though third rail routes were engineered from the start to use just the
running rails some needed a similar arrangement with a fourth rail bonded
to them to help the return.
The Lancashire and Yorkshires Merseyside electrification looked for all the
world like a “ real” fourth rail installation but trains did not actually
make contact with it. The same applied to Manchester Bury route and some
remained on that till it was closed.

Some pics on here <https://lyrs.org.uk/electrification/>

GH

Charles Ellson

2024-11-27 04:56:36 UTC