If The Pilot Scheme Hadn't Been Botched..........

[Junctionmad]

I don't know much about the diesel pilot scheme so could be barking up the wrong tree but was there perhaps an overall problem from Britain's larger railway companies, including BR, having been accustomed to building most of their own steam locos in house? Did that mean that their managers simply weren't used to and therefore weren't very skilled at motive power procurement? .

 

By and large the in-house loco works such as Swindon and Doncaster may have lacked the skills-set to build diesels so BR had to turn to outside companies who were in turn unused to building for Britain's domestic railways.

 

Across thw world steam loco builders don't generally seem to have made a successful transition from steam to diesel (though there are exceptions) so we lost North British and Beyer Peacock while in the USA General Motors (EMD)  and General Electric essentially wiped the floor with the previously dominant Baldwin, AlCo and Lima. In a way though  that was the builders' problem not the railways.

The situation with BR does seem to have different from other railways in the developed world. They'e long been used to ordering most of their locos to agreed designs from private manufacturers so perhaps far more used to working with the manufacturers to develop the locos that would meet their needs.  I suspect that in many countries this was also tacit government policy to give their developing locomotive industries a strong home market from which to develop as exporters.

 

Other European state railways seem to have had far fewer lemons in their diesel fleets. For example, the first diesel loco built on a large scale (250) for SNCF the 040 DE (later the BB 63000)  was first built in 1954 and though no longer used by SNCF is still in commercial service in industry. The more powerful BB 66000 (originally 040 DG) developed from it ran to  318 locos buit for SNCF between 1960-1968 by five different manufacturers and 25 of them are still in commercial service. Both classes were also built for export as were most of the standard diesels used by SNCF.

 

well the experience of the then newly formed CIE, in ireland is interesting as the issue of sterling  markets at the time (  sterling to US dollar restrictions) presented them buying American ( on the advice of Bulleid) and instead they placed of the largest single orders at the time with Metrovick ( in 1955) which were supplied with Crossley engines  ( aka class 28 ) , the resulting  debacle with that engine in time forced virtually the whole of the "A" class , 60 in total to be re-engined with EMD engines and CIE moved entirely to american power, which largely , with the exception of the  canadian built 201 class, proved remarkably reliable . Other CIE models from Birmingham RCW with Sulzer engines were " better " but none came anywhere near the reliability of the American engines . This was well before steam ended  in the UK.

 

So , one might conclude at the time , that very few manufactures in the UK, at that time, neither the original company works or many of the private companies had the technology or skill base of EMD or GE.   When you look at it , the EMD FT was outperforming steam by the 2nd world war and in reality the only reason steam hung on , was it was cheaper to build  with less skilled work practices . So its not surprising that there were so many false starts and hiccups in the UK as the change over occurred. The expertise of the company shops was in essence redundant and largely didnt transfer and the private manufactures seemed to be in " experiment " mode trying to work out what actually worked.   EMD etc had by this time amassed decades of expertise and had acquired the remarkable Winton engine technology and that formed the basis for its legendary 567 engine that in essence finished steam in the USA

 

 

 

Also remember that the standard steam loco fleet could have remained in place until the mid 1980s, particularly for freight using 9Fs

not a chance , changes in operating patterns , labour costs and labour availability , meant that while its a romantic notion , in practice it would have been impossible 

 

 

But, whats clear in any nationalised railway , was the sudden availability of public capital , seems to have caused railway management to move from a sweat the assets approach , typical of past railway operation , to a kind of magpie, whats next shiny object I can acquire, without any real ramifications of retribution. 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Hesperus]

Did the railways really waste that much money by not following the pilot scheme or did they waste far more by failing to predict future trends chiefly the demise of wagonload traffic?

 

There were some obvious lemons like the D6100's (21s) and Claytons (17) which were ordered untried and barely outlasted steam but they only make up 175 locos ten of which were ordered under the pilot scheme.  15's,16's, 23's and 28's were ordered in pilot scheme quantitys and not repeated.  20's did well due to the demise of wagonload traffic as a pair of them made a sturdy and reliable alternative to a type 4 as the chances of both locos failing was minimal and working as a pair visibility was as good as anything else.

 

A bit of forward thinking about ETH could have stopped Swindon from ordering 365 diesel hydraulics although I will admit that most of them were good locos that should have lasted longer in service and probably would have done if BR hadn't ordered far too many small locos.  Hymeks could have quite happily been hauling the remaining wagonload freight trains well into the 80's or 90's if less 25's and 27's had been built.  Imagine Freightliner being privatised with a fleet of refurbuished Westerns,  nothing to stop it happening other than BR's decision to standardise caused by them building too many locos to start with.

[Junctionmad]

 

 

 did they waste far more by failing to predict future trends chiefly the demise of wagonload traffic?

very very few industries have the foresight to predict their own demise, this is true of modern companies just as much as it was of the post war railways 

 

" Institutions " tend to predict their survival , even in the midst of increasing evidence that the contrary is the case, its largely a " human " condition . Usually the situation is terminal before something is done 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Fenman]

very very few industries have the foresight to predict their own demise, this is true of modern companies just as much as it was of the post war railways

 

" Institutions " tend to predict their survival , even in the midst of increasing evidence that the contrary is the case, its largely a " human " condition . Usually the situation is terminal before something is done

 

Ironically, the most successful companies find this particularly difficult: hugely profitable Kodak had all the technology and skills in place to be world-leaders in digital photography, but could not make themselves cannibalise (as they saw it) their film business. Where is that company today?

 

Similarly the world’s leading digital camera manufacturers are not the same companies that were the world’s leading manufacturers of film cameras (though it’s interesting to see profitable niche players survive, like Leica). I wonder if the same will be true of the companies who manufacture cars with internal combustion engines v. electric ones?

 

It is striking how rapidly most steam loco manufacturers disappeared.

 

If we’re into alternative histories, I wonder who would have done well if we’d skipped dieselisation and gone straight to rapid electrification? Woodhead seemed (technologically-speaking) to work fairly well - though I guess with the benefit of its own mini-pilot scheme for the 76.

 

Back OT, I wonder about the 20s. It happened that they could later be adapted to new traffic by working double-headed but, clearly, they were initially regarded as sufficiently disappointing to be replaced as the standard Type 1 by the new Clayton design. If the latter had been launched with the Beyer Peacock innards (used in the final batch, apparently successfully) rather than the unhappy reality, would they have been considered a success? It keeps niggling at me that the sole survivor went into private industry where a couple of modifications particularly to the fuel feed system led to an apparently reliable and long-lived machine. When in BR service their occasional use on light passenger services might have shown what they could have done more of, after pick-up freight disappeared? And we know they were effective double-headers, since their initial poor reliability meant they were often used that way.

 

Paul

Edited February 13, 2018 by Fenman

[cheesysmith]

The claytons are a special case. The design of these was as much to try and get single manning of freight trains as anything else, a goal of railways since the introduction of diesels (and electrics, the SR hornbys). Paxman knew the engines in the Clayton were not upto the job, having previously been used only under a experimental DEMU, and they wanted to provide BR with a different version with a stronger block that would have avoided the problems that occurred, but BR would not let them do it. They would only accept the version that had been through the type test, and at the end of the day Paxman providedwhat the customer wanted, even though they knew it would break.

 

Another example of BR not knowing what it wanted was the use of pneumatic engine speed control (blue star) instead of electromagnetic notched control (red diamond). The blue star gave the driver infinite control over engine power, but in reality was not needed such fine control, and also was less reliable than the all electric MU control system, which if the red star system had been used would have allowed the easy conversion to push pull train working.

 

Then you have the standard EMU designs, based on the SR door to each compartment. Both the LMS and LNER had sliding door EMUs that were ignored.

 

Then there is the DMUs, with how many of the shorter 57' versions built because of the better route availability of the shorter coaches. Almost every route the DMUs worked on could use the longer standard coaches, and the few that they couldn't closed anyway, but the suburban coaches they replaced were 57ft or shorter, so the DMUs were as well.

 

Or BRs fixation on mixed traffic locos. The idea is fine on paper of having a single class of loco that could do both passenger and freight trains, but was let down by BR having so many different loco classes. BR was hampered by not having a proper high powered freight diesel loco that could put down maximum power at low speeds. They were also hampered in the passenger locos were too heavy for sustained high speed running (the best passenger designs were probably the deltics, followed by the WR hydraulics, both were high powered light weight low axle load designs, pity the hydraulics had poor bogie designs and crap German engines that required too much TLC).

[rodent279]

Post deleted

Edited February 16, 2018 by rodent279

[JohnR]

I've said before elsewhere in this forum, I suspect BR was leaned on by government to spread the diesel program amongst private builders as far as possible, and that in reality a fleet of class 20/37/40, would have sufficed for all but the heaviest freights and fastest passenger trains.

 

 

Not just that, but of course, had to provide work for the existing BR workshops at Derby, Swindon, Crewe etc. So you had a BR design and a private design for each role.

[JohnR]

I think a lot depends on what the intention is in reducing the number of Pilot classes. Is it to reduce costs? If so, then a much sooner introduction of diesel (and electric) motive power is needed. We were still building Steam locos as late as 1960! Swindon built 200 Pannier tanks for shunting long after the Class 08 was introduced!

 

 

So, in 1948 there is a decision not to build any more 0-6-0Ts - the Class 11 EE shunter is to be standardised. 1200 are built by 1958.

 

The experience of the LMS twins/Bulleid twins means an order for batches of EE 2000hp diesels, delivery from 1954. Batches of 20, to dieselise express services in turn. 

 

No Steam locos to be built for branch and cross country passenger traffic - "Lightweight Diesel Trains" aka DMUs to be built for these services instead. NO technical reason why these couldnt be introduced at least 2 years earlier than our timeline - say 1952 at the latest. Designs to be standardised early on.

[Pete the Elaner]

I've not seen the class 31/30 mentioned. Was this not part of the pilot scheme? The first were built in 1957.

[Zomboid]

The 30 was a failure though, and as such would probably not have been selected as the standard type 2.

The later success of the 31 is academic if you're picking the successful pilot scheme locos to build lots of. There was no pilot scheme type 3 either, as I understand it. And the type 4s were a bit on the heavy side and fairly quickly superseded.

 

In fact, IMO the big lesson of the pilot scheme is that the types of loco which were ordered really weren't what BR needed.

[Pete the Elaner]

WCML electrification was an integral part of the Modernisation Plan, and it's well known that we only have Deltics because a stop gap was needed prior to ECML electrification.

I'd challenge the need for multiple type 2's, there can't have been much that wasn't within the capacity of a single 20, and what there was could have been handled by a 37. If you really did need a type 2, then maybe a twin cab variant of the 20 could have been built, with an updated engine.

ETH would have been a consideration because electrification of the WCML was part of the plan.

With this in mind, some locos would need extra power for their generators. How ,ucu this would consume may well have been a little unknown back then, but they may have expected 500bhp to be a rough figure. Removing this from he engine's output of a type 1 (1000bhp) & a type 2 (1300bhp) gives the latter a significant advantage.

[Edwin_m]

ETH would have been a consideration because electrification of the WCML was part of the plan.

With this in mind, some locos would need extra power for their generators. How ,ucu this would consume may well have been a little unknown back then, but they may have expected 500bhp to be a rough figure. Removing this from he engine's output of a type 1 (1000bhp) & a type 2 (1300bhp) gives the latter a significant advantage.

I think the Mk1s built for the WCML were dual-heated, so at the time of ordering the the diesels to haul that stock on non-electrified routes there would have been no need for them to have ETH. 

 

However the question of train heating strikes me as another area where BR looked narrowly at the problem of traction rather than considering what the railway as a whole would look like within a decade of the Modernisation Plan.  It could probably have been foreseen that air-conditioning would be required to meet customer demands for increasing comfort levels and to eliminate the increasing problem of noise through open windows as trains got faster. 

 

While the Americans used steam-powered air conditioning it would obviously have been a technological dead end and wouldn't have been compatible with electric locos.  So I think a bit of foresight would have led to the decision to standardise on ETH only for new stock and specify it on the diesels that needed to haul that stock.  This didn't happen until the mid-60s, at the cost of various retrofits of older locos and being a big factor in the demise of the hydraulics. 

[Titan]

The 30 was a failure though, and as such would probably not have been selected as the standard type 2.

 

It wasn't at the time the decision was taken to build more of them. They had actually provided relatively good service, and experiments were in hand showing the potential to uprate them to 1,600bhp and even 2,000bhp. What caused their demise was not so much reliability, but when the engines became due overhaul it was discovered that they would be much more expensive to overhaul than anticipated, mostly due to bad cracks being discovered in the blocks. The engineers did some sums and calculated that what we nowadays refer to as the 'whole life cost' would be less for re-engining them with a new EE unit. So when the hours were used up on the Mirlees units they were sent to works for the re-engining.

 

Strangely though a number of the Mirlees units were refurbished and put in to trawlers - I presume the duty cycle in Marine use was not likely to cause the blocks to crack.

[jonny777]

 

So, in 1948 there is a decision not to build any more 0-6-0Ts - the Class 11 EE shunter is to be standardised. 1200 are built by 1958.

 

The experience of the LMS twins/Bulleid twins means an order for batches of EE 2000hp diesels, delivery from 1954. Batches of 20, to dieselise express services in turn. 

 

 

 

I have said this before, but I think that would have been a great idea - and not beyond the limits of thinking at the time. 

 

Marylebone to Manchester was an ideal test bed for an all diesel passenger service, with electric over the Pennines. Valuable lessons (both operational and mechanical) could have been learned, followed by careful planning and a systematic roll-out of one route at a time later in the 1950s and into the 1960s. 

 

Personally, I cannot see class 20s being ordered in any number; because by that time they would have been of little use. Who is going to be faced with a freight geared version of (say) Lion, Falcon, DP2, but say "no - what we actually want is to double-head these trains with two low powered single cab locos operating nose to nose"?

 

I also agree that a slower transition from steam hauled loose fitted trains would have probably seen Kestrel given a repeat order, at least for a freight version. 

[cheesysmith]

ETH from a loco is a thing to consider. The HST and CE/IR has proven is providing ETH at 3 phase, probably from a separate generator car, is a better idea than using the loco. It avoids all the problems with the motor/generator sets n coaches, and doesn`t required reducing the HP   for traction.

[rodent279]

ETH from a loco is a thing to consider. The HST and CE/IR has proven is providing ETH at 3 phase, probably from a separate generator car, is a better idea than using the loco. It avoids all the problems with the motor/generator sets n coaches, and doesn`t required reducing the HP for traction.

Post deleted

Edited February 16, 2018 by rodent279

[Zomboid]

Don't CIE only use generator vans because the HEP (they're American engines, after all...) on the 201s is highly unreliable?

[eastwestdivide]

Only slightly on-topic, but what would it take to retrofit a diesel-hydraulic loco to supply electric heat?

[rodent279]

Post deleted

Edited February 16, 2018 by rodent279

[rodent279]

Only slightly on-topic, but what would it take to retrofit a diesel-hydraulic loco to supply electric heat?

Post deleted

Edited February 16, 2018 by rodent279

[cheesysmith]

Here`s a link to the paxman history-

 

http://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxrailt.htm

 

This gives me a idea, paxman engines under a DMU for a 100mph intercity DMU?

[cheesysmith]

Not directly it doesn't, but you're dragging an extra 30 ish tons of weight everywhere with you. Every time you restart from a stop, you have to accelerate that weight from rest to line speed. How much power does that use up?

 

But how much extra mass are you carrying with all the motor/generator sets under each coach, never mind the extra maintenance these require. Ask how much effort BR put into the mk2D when first introduced on the ECML. Also, how much did the availability of BR diesels suffer from faults in the heating equipment fitted? How many times would a loco be a failure because of such? The extra mass of a generator coach offset against these figures? Also, until the HST came along, every train had a guards compartment or coach, which would have been a useful place to put such (and if you had electromagnetic MU loco controls, would also make a good DVT).

[Titan]

 

Personally, I cannot see class 20s being ordered in any number; because by that time they would have been of little use. Who is going to be faced with a freight geared version of (say) Lion, Falcon, DP2, but say "no - what we actually want is to double-head these trains with two low powered single cab locos operating nose to nose"?

 

 

Anyone running an unfitted or partly fitted freight. 70 tonnes of brake force compared to 59 from a Class 50. Don't recall any Class 20 double headed freights requiring a brake tender. More driven axles mean less likely to slip. Not only that, but the maintenance costs of a Class 20 must have been the lowest of any mainline diesel.  Compared to a class 50, a pair of 20's has same number of cylinders, same number of cabs, one extra generator and two extra traction motors.

 

Compared to a class 40 they have the same number of axles and are not much heavier!

 

The 20's are also RA5. There were a number of jobs where a larger loco was too heavy. Even in their later lives there were some MGR trains where only class 20's could be used as the colliery/power station tracks could not take a heavier/bigger loco. This coupled with their reliability and low running costs is most likely why they have lasted so long.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I've not seen the class 31/30 mentioned. Was this not part of the pilot scheme? The first were built in 1957.

Class 30 was too heavy. Class 33 was slightly higher power at rail IIRC, over 30 tons lighter and ETH as built so would have been a better bet long term.

[Titan]

But how much extra mass are you carrying with all the motor/generator sets under each coach, never mind the extra maintenance these require. Ask how much effort BR put into the mk2D when first introduced on the ECML. Also, how much did the availability of BR diesels suffer from faults in the heating equipment fitted? How many times would a loco be a failure because of such? The extra mass of a generator coach offset against these figures? Also, until the HST came along, every train had a guards compartment or coach, which would have been a useful place to put such (and if you had electromagnetic MU loco controls, would also make a good DVT).

 

At the time of the modernisation plan aircon - and motor generator sets - weren't even thought of. All the ETH comprised of at the time was a set of resistive heating elements and some switches which not only weighed hardly anything, weren't fussed about whether the voltage was AC or DC as long as the RMS value was somewhere between 700-1000V. The coach lighting batteries of course still being charged by an axle driven dynamo.