Modernisation Plan Diesels

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Re-timetables; they are the railway's "shop window" for passengers.

 

Often a hope and aspiration, but that's all that most passengers had to base their journey on

[jonny777]

A better idea would have been another line, where the bulk of services could have benefited. The MML to Sheffield via Derby & Nottingham, would appear to have better prospects under nationalisation.

 

Yes, that would seem a logical choice, for the LMS and SR 1600hp twins and the later 2000hp unit.

 

Or if that route was considered too busy to disrupt, then the ex-GC out of Marylebone to Nottingham and Sheffield. I'm sure they could have found room at Neasden for a small diesel servicing depot, with another one near Victoria station in Sheffield.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

You know, I'm finding it more interseting reading about the internal (and external) politics of BR, than another picture book on the Mummerset & Borchester Railway or the Class 32s.

 

Bonavia in "The Organisation of BR" (1971, Ian Allan) states that (in reference to motive power policy) it it wasn't until the RE was abolished and railway management fell into the hands of the BTC itself, that it was possible to break through the iron curtain which the RE surrounded itself.

[jjb1970]

I think the Stationmaster makes a good point about memoirs and recollections of managers. I'm guessing that railway memoirs are no different from any other memoirs in that they are susceptible to being self serving and tendentious. Of course they are valuable but care should be exercised in being too accepting of the opinions and version of events offered in memoirs and articles written by senior managers unless verified by other sources. Especially for subjects as political as this.

[The Stationmaster]

 Leaving out all the other content (!) the internal railway 'political' aspect figures large. You became a recognised steam CME in fact, rather than by title, by getting successful locomotives designed and built under your signature. Robert Riddles was a human being, and career indoctrinated in the ways of a steam operated railway. He was never going to do anything but produce his own designs if the opportunity was afforded him. That was of the essence of a CME's position and standing, so that is what he did.

 

It's fairly obvious with hindsight that the right thing to do was perpetuate very few of the best of the existing grouping steam designs, to enable scrapping of as much of the pre-group legacy as fast as possible, as this resulted in a more standardised UK steam fleet. Brutally and unromantically, all the UK needed to operate its railway was four steam classes of capacity 8P, 8F, 5MT, and 4MT, the last a tank; for all of which selecting the four best existing designs was possible. Smaller power class steam locos not required, replace as fast as possible by what became class 08. (That's right, Panniers, small Prairies, Jinties, Mickey Mice, Radials and all the rest to the scrapper as fast as possible, all replaced either by 4MT tank or by something based on the platform that became class 08: that would have spurred on low power diesel development, where relatively quick progress was possible.)

The unfortunate fact is tho' that the 350hp diesel shunter - later Class 08 - was totally unsuitable for a lot of the work being done by the numerous small tank engines as it simply wasn't fast enough for trip working.  the Southern Region did rather better with their slightly faster (later Class 09) version but in reality no proper diesel equivalents came along until very late in the dieselisation programme by which time the work was rapidly vanishing.

I think as far as railways were concerned the set-up was counter productive. The various transport executives were responsible to the BTC, but the Railway Executive behaved as if it was in overall control which angered the BTC members who should have had overall control, but were treated by the RE as just a 'rubber stamp' for their proposals.

 

When the BTC tried to exert pressure the RE just ignored them. I read that the Hurcomb letter, which I pasted some pages back, was delivered to the RE but went unanswered for 7 months.

 

I don't know if the other executive bodies reacted in the same way, but I did read that when the government set up the CEGB, they discovered that this newly appointed board realised just how much power (no pun intended) it could wield over the country and went off on its own course, ignoring government directives, but by then it was too late to reign them back in again.

 

But in reality unless directly instructed by the BTC (under its power of delegation of authority) the Railway Executive could effectively ignore the BTC when it came to running the railway.  The Railway Executive was basically the railwaymen who had been running the Big Four before nationalisation (less certain parts of those businesses which went to the other Executives).  And looking at the legislation the BTC had no effective day-to-day control - its only lever was through itspower of delegated authority.

 

It also had a duty to consider the future (e.g the paper on electrification) but again reflectively it had no way of imposing its will on the RE except through the delegation of authority clause and most importantly it had no way of telling teh Executive, in any sort of detail, how to do its job.  It was really not very good legislation to manage a massive industry - hence the short life of the structure but then the BTC's control, once it got it, didn't last all that many years either before control of the railways was handed back to an executive level at the newly created BRB.  as ever it was a case of politicos messing around to get the flavour they wanted (just liek toady where rummour has it that an equivalent of the not very long vanished strategic rail Authority is going to be the new flavour of the politicos' month.

[Arun Sharma]

Part of the antipathy towards diesels was due to their inherent inefficiency. Robert Riddles is on record [paraphrased] as saying that it was absurd that a diesel-electric loco should act as its own generating station and waste energy towing its own fuel around when its electric motors could get all the current they needed from OHLE/third rail. I would imagine that he was also aware that when idling, electric locos utilised very little energy whereas a DE would be burning fuel continuously when idling. 

[rockershovel]

Part of the antipathy towards diesels was due to their inherent inefficiency. Robert Riddles is on record [paraphrased] as saying that it was absurd that a diesel-electric loco should act as its own generating station and waste energy towing its own fuel around when its electric motors could get all the current they needed from OHLE/third rail. I would imagine that he was also aware that when idling, electric locos utilised very little energy whereas a DE would be burning fuel continuously when idling.

 

Exactly. DE locos made perfect sense for the vast, open spaces and undeveloped infrastructure of many parts of the US, but made no sense in a British context (except for the crucial one, of being able to be introduced quickly and with minimal capex, to a system configured for steam traction)

 

There is also the mechanical issue, which is highlighted in the thread about pre-Modernisation diesels. Looking at the various combinations of jackshafts and gearboxes on what are essentially steam-age chassis, the difficulties and constraints of DM transmissions are apparent, and electric transmission to bogie chassis (a type already proven in European use, on various metropolitan lines and at Woodhead tunnel) electric transmission is obviously superior. The problem is to provide power.

[rockershovel]

Part of the antipathy towards diesels was due to their inherent inefficiency. Robert Riddles is on record [paraphrased] as saying that it was absurd that a diesel-electric loco should act as its own generating station and waste energy towing its own fuel around when its electric motors could get all the current they needed from OHLE/third rail. I would imagine that he was also aware that when idling, electric locos utilised very little energy whereas a DE would be burning fuel continuously when idling.

 

Don't forget that electric traction can also recover power, in the form of regenerative braking. The efficiency is fairly low but it is a real contribution from a braking system which is required anyway.

[Zomboid]

Part of the antipathy towards diesels was due to their inherent inefficiency. Robert Riddles is on record [paraphrased] as saying that it was absurd that a diesel-electric loco should act as its own generating station and waste energy towing its own fuel around when its electric motors could get all the current they needed from OHLE/third rail. I would imagine that he was also aware that when idling, electric locos utilised very little energy whereas a DE would be burning fuel continuously when idling.

All correct, and a compelling case that electric is better than steam or diesel, but steam is subject to exactly the same inefficiencies as diesel, but is less efficient, more labour intensive and dirtier.

[PenrithBeacon]

Part of the antipathy towards diesels was due to their inherent inefficiency. Robert Riddles is on record [paraphrased] as saying that it was absurd that a diesel-electric loco should act as its own generating station and waste energy towing its own fuel around when its electric motors could get all the current they needed from OHLE/third rail. I would imagine that he was also aware that when idling, electric locos utilised very little energy whereas a DE would be burning fuel continuously when idling.

Riddles seems to me to be advocating perfection at the cost of practicality here. His view is also at adds with his advocacy of the inefficient steam engine. Now as a railway enthusiast I prefer steam but as a taxpayer it's modern traction every time.

 

Bearing in mind that many of Riddle's standards were at best un-necessary and he must have known this, I have always felt that the production of the BR Standards was an exercise in vanity, that he wanted to be the only steam engineer in history who produced an entire range of steam engines from the smallest to the largest on the UK railway system.

 

Regards

[Coryton]

All correct, and a compelling case that electric is better than steam or diesel,

 

Well of course electric propulsion suffers from transmission losses between the power station and the locomotive so it's not quite so simple as that. 

 

 but steam is subject to exactly the same inefficiencies as diesel, but is less efficient, more labour intensive and dirtier.

 

Except that a steam engine is thermodynamically a lot less efficient than a diesel, isn't it? And not only does it have to carry fuel around like a diesel engine, it's also pulling a tender full of water, which isn't exactly light.

 

A diesel engine can also - in principle - be turned off instead of idling. Not so practical to put the fire out on a steam engine for half an hour or so.

[jonny777]

Riddles seems to me to be advocating perfection at the cost of practicality here. His view is also at adds with his advocacy of the inefficient steam engine. Now as a railway enthusiast I prefer steam but as a taxpayer it's modern traction every time.

 

Bearing in mind that many of Riddle's standards were at best un-necessary and he must have known this, I have always felt that the production of the BR Standards was an exercise in vanity, that he wanted to be the only steam engineer in history who produced an entire range of steam engines from the smallest to the largest on the UK railway system.

 

Regards

 

 

Maybe we should have a new thread just to discuss argue about Riddles?

[pete_mcfarlane]

The LNER trial scheme wasn't about dieselisation "to Grantham", it was about dieselisation of the main London-Edinburgh expresses - the proposed purchase was of 25 1600HP units to replace 32 Pacifics, which covered 8 London-Edinburgh runs in each direction plus three fill-in return trips per day.

Indeed. I think people are confusing the dieselisation plan with the subsequent scheme for electrifying to Grantham at 1500V. This would have needed engine changes at Grantham, which is no different to what happened with most steam hauled ECML expresses.

 

The unfortunate fact is tho' that the 350hp diesel shunter - later Class 08 - was totally unsuitable for a lot of the work being done by the numerous small tank engines as it simply wasn't fast enough for trip working.  the Southern Region did rather better with their slightly faster (later Class 09) version but in reality no proper diesel equivalents came along until very late in the dieselisation programme by which time the work was rapidly vanishing.

 

Interestingly Bulleid did seem to appreciate this quite early on, and ordered a 500HP diesel for the Southern for evaluation. It doesn't seem to have been much of a success though. 

 

[jjb1970]

The electric vs. diesel efficiency comparison is a bit disingenuous. Yes, electric traction is more efficient and a lot cleaner at the point of use (we do need to remember that the electricity has to be generated and that there are transmission losses) but the pertinent comparison is steam vs. diesel. The thermal efficiency of a steam locomotive might be fairly described using words like dire and dreadful. Add to that the maintenance intensive nature of steam locomotives, manpower requirements, pollution issues and it is just not credible to argue that steam should have been retained because diesels are less efficient than electric locomotives.

Where I would have sympathy with the diesels not being ideal argument is that they should have been a bridging technology between steam and electrification with their long term application being limited to those routes which would not be able to justify electrification (at least not for a very long time).

[Northroader]

Whilst banging on about poor managerial decisions on dieselisation, I think it's well worth mentioning the team that went about it the right way, the LMS looking at diesel shunters in the 1930s. First off was a trial of dieselising a steam shunter chassis, lessons learnt, moving on to a batch of new diesel locos. from different suppliers, more lessons learnt, including power ratings and mech. versus electric transmission, and eventually E.E. producing numbers of a reliable product which would do the job. The other companies looking over the fence saying "l'll have some of that" but by then it was getting to 1939, and things were never the same after the war. Decisions made that were questionable to me, more of the jack shaft drive could have been made, one motor is cheaper than two, the only reason for two was short wheelbase in very limited curvature applications in mainly docks use, alright but poor ride qualities, then the gear ratio, which gave extremely low speeds and very high tractive effort. Ideal in big yards, but away from chugging and lugging it was terribly limiting on the maximum speed. The speedometer was of a pattern (moving iron?) which gave very low deflection at the top range, and the poor old crew could very easily over speed the loco running light on the main line, resulting in burst traction motors. So, jack shaft drive and high gearing, or two motors and low gearing? You can't keep everyone happy.

[PenrithBeacon]

...

 

The unfortunate fact is tho' that the 350hp diesel shunter - later Class 08 - was totally unsuitable for a lot of the work being done by the numerous small tank engines as it simply wasn't fast enough for trip working. the Southern Region did rather better with their slightly faster (later Class 09) version but in reality no proper diesel equivalents came along until very late in the dieselisation programme by which time the work was rapidly vanishing.

 

...

 

 

There seems to have been design 'driver' of having as much tractive effort as possible at the expense of top speed. I have wondered often enough about the effect of having a standard diesel shunter with the tractive effort of say a 3F Jinty which and was perfectly acceptable for most shunting duties and could, if required, get up to 50mph on mixed traffic duties, and a smaller class of dedicated hump shunters which were simply re-geared variants of the 'Jinty' standard.

 

Having said that, what dbhp could be expected of a 3F shunter? Was 350HP enough for a small mixed traffic design, and was there an 500HP diesel engine that could offer the same degree of reliability?

 

Regards

[Zomboid]

There are losses in electrical transmission, particularly when rectifiers are also involved, but even so they are much less than the inefficiencies of diesel, let alone steam traction.

Of course, almost all electric traction has a rectifier somewhere in the chain...

[Edwin_m]

There seems to have been design 'driver' of having as much tractive effort as possible at the expense of top speed. I have wondered often enough about the effect of having a standard diesel shunter with the tractive effort of say a 3F Jinty which and was perfectly acceptable for most shunting duties and could, if required, get up to 50mph on mixed traffic duties, and a smaller class of dedicated hump shunters which were simply re-geared variants of the 'Jinty' standard.

 

Having said that, what dbhp could be expected of a 3F shunter? Was 350HP enough for a small mixed traffic design, and was there an 500HP diesel engine that could offer the same degree of reliability?

 

Regards

There was of course the 09, a re-geared 08 with a maximum speed of 29mph and presumably tractive effort reduced accordingly. 

[jjb1970]

The real point on electric traction efficiency is not so much about the efficiency of the locomotive itself but the efficiency of whatever method is used to generate the electricity. That can vary hugely from very high efficiency CCGT CHP plants through pretty poor coal plants, mediocre biomass, nuclear which is different altogether.

On the other hand power plants can utilise low end fuels, be easily fitted with emissions abatement and generally can be operated more consistently at their design point than a typical diesel locomotive.

[Fat Controller]

There was of course the 09, a re-geared 08 with a maximum speed of 29mph and presumably tractive effort reduced accordingly. 

There are at least two classes of SNCF shunter which are fitted with final drives which allow a choice of low speed (30 kph) or 'main-line' (60 kph). These are the Y8000 and Y8400 series, which have a hydraulic transmission. A similar system of medium/high speed final drives have been used on other, mainline,  locos. The switch between ratios can only be done when the loco is standing.

[cheesysmith]

The EE power unit used in the 08/09 was a low revving 6cylinder non turbo unit. EE also had higher revving 4cylinder turbocharged units with 500bhp (used in the SR DEMUs) and with inter cooling 600bhp. If requested, I'm sure EE could have provided a version of the 08s engine with raised rpm and a turbo for higher power. The problem came that when the railways got round to designing a proper shunter with trip working potential ( as opposed to the 08/09, which was a heavy shunter first), most of the work they were built for was disappearing fast ( look how long the teddy bears lasted in BR service).

[Northroader]

The "teddy bears" were a damn nuisance. The drivers never called them that, they were either "iron lungs" (from the appearance), or "tampaxes" (you used them once, and threw them away)

[Urthra]

Here is some interesting reading, although perhaps slightly one sided...

From transportmyths.co.uk, modernisation page

 

Steam engines

BR was criticised for not introducing diesels earlier than 1955. In Fire & Steam, Wolmar wrote (pp 273-6): ‘Railway Executive made error in not recognising steam was on way out’. ‘There was a reluctance of managers to embark on electrification. Henshaw said there “was little excuse for slow progress in introducing diesels.’

Government would not permit modernisation before 1955. Until then, they directed BR – but not road transport - to replace like for like, & only then, if essential on safety grounds, (see Economic Survey Reports, Britain’s Railways – the Reality, pp 52-55). Without new steam locos, which were permitted within these rules, railways would have ground to a halt, as locos were under-maintained & subject to excessive loads in the war. Not many were built. On national­i­sa­tion, BR had 20,211 steam locos, mostly in poor condition after wartime use & by 1955 had replaced about 10%. By 1955, the loco fleet was 11% less, to handle virtually the same traffic vol­ume. New diesel & electric locos, cost­ing three times as much as steam, were treated as capital, like-for-like replacement, steam locos were maintenance. In his autobiography: Off the Rails, BR Chairman, Richard Marsh, explained that civil servants called for replacement of jointed track by jointed track instead of cheaper-to-maintain long welded, because the latter was investment! Few steam locos were built after 1955, and these were required because UK-made diesels did not have the power nor braking capability to handle big freight trains.

AJ Pearson wrote (Railways & the Nation, p.112): ‘Riddles (CMEE) had grave doubts about diesel reliability’. Sir John Elliot (On & off the rails p.84): ‘BR engineers said UK diesels were unreliable, without new steam locos, BR would have been in real trouble’. American diesels were too big for UK’s gauge. There was no prospect, as hindsight critics claim, that BR would have been allowed to buy American - given pre­carious cur­rency balances, espe­cially when, to protect industry they denied airlines American air­craft. (Barnett, The Lost Victory, p.338). If Minis­ters would not admit that our infant aircraft indus­try could not meet UK needs, the prospect of admitting that an older loco industry could not do so was nil.

The Dept of Transport noted that the cost of steam locos was £20-25,000; compared to £80,000 for a diesel.

[mow]

Re early diesels is there much evidence of the corridor front doors being used on any of the Type 2 or 3 diesels?

[Coryton]

Re early diesels is there much evidence of the corridor front doors being used on any of the Type 2 or 3 diesels?

 

No!