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

[E3109]

Interesting thread, just got in from nights so I'll have a proper look later.

 

My own preference would've been something with an Alco 251 in it... purely for audible reasons....

Obviously politics prevented US-built engines making an appearance, but not entirely sure why as Sulzer is also a foreign company, and these were built here under licence in their hundreds/thousands (as well as the WR hydraulic stuff). 

[Zomboid]

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.

 

And 700 fewer horses

[Zomboid]

Interesting thread, just got in from nights so I'll have a proper look later.

 

My own preference would've been something with an Alco 251 in it... purely for audible reasons....

Obviously politics prevented US-built engines making an appearance, but not entirely sure why as Sulzer is also a foreign company, and these were built here under licence in their hundreds/thousands (as well as the WR hydraulic stuff).

Depends whether Alco or EMD would have permitted any license builds in the way that Sulzer and MAN did, amongst other things. Given that we license built German engines, I suspect that there would have been no political problem in the UK with license building American designs.

[JohnR]

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. 

 

 

I think the plan should have been for a progressive extension of the 1500v DC from Sheffield down to Marylebone - but also extension to Liverpool (westwards) and to Scunthorpe and Grimsby (eastwards). 

[rodent279]

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).

Post deleted

Edited February 16, 2018 by rodent279

[Pete the Elaner]

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.

Surely it is easier to use a single, larger power unit for all systems rather than build separate ones for traction & electrical supplies?

[rodent279]

I think the plan should have been for a progressive extension of the 1500v DC from Sheffield down to Marylebone - but also extension to Liverpool (westwards) and to Scunthorpe and Grimsby (eastwards).

Post deleted

Edited February 16, 2018 by rodent279

[jonny777]

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.

 

 

 

Yes, but that is answering the question with the benefit of hindsight, and starting from the position of 130-odd class 20s already constructed by mid-62. 

 

However, this thread is about the pilot scheme being used to test locos for a number of years and ironing out problems before placing orders. Even in 1961/2 BR did not want to continue building class 20s, which is why they plumped for Claytons. 

 

Given that most of the 20s would never have been built in the years 1958-61 given this scenario, it is highly unlikely that BR would have gone backwards in the fast moving technology of the time. What is more likely, is that some form of centre cab loco with more reliable engines would have been developed, but not in silly numbers as their potential duties were shrinking all the time. 

[Nearholmer]

We’ve definitely had effectively the same discussion before, prompted by a slightly different ‘exam question’, so i’ll add only one point:

 

When setting out to buy a lot of stuff (diesel locos in this instance), one normally tries to ensure effective competition between suppliers, which tends to cut against ‘total standardisation’.

 

The ‘panic buying’ of diesel locos by BR clearly went waaay too far in the direction of multiple suppliers, but a sensible programme would probably still have wanted three suppliers in the ring, both for competition and capacity, and in the mid-to-late 1950s that meant EE and Sulzer and ....... goodness knows.

 

The LMSR seems to have spotted this market weakness and begun working with Paxman on a “best of the rest” basis in the late-1940s, and my gut feel is that a continuing relationship could have borne fruit.

 

So, my “procurement policy influenced” fleet list has:

 

- Small shunters from Ruston with Paxman engines (develop relationship in a ‘safe’ place, and Ruston were very good indeed at small shunters, and at this juncture actually owned Paxman)

 

- big shunters from EE

 

- a c1000hp loco from each of EE and Sulzer

 

- a c1500hp loco from each of EE and Sulzer

 

- a c2000hp loco from each of EE and Sulzer

 

Then, when technology has progressed far enough, in about 1970, we seek bids for a c2500hp loco, and it so happens that Paxman are up to the game by now, and produce a Valenta-powered wonder-machine.

 

All of my fantasy fleet have electric transmissions, not because there is anything wrong with hydraulic, but because it has been decided that it is better to focus effort tightly.

 

Steam-heating is a really silly idea, so that is got rid of as fast as possible, after an interim period with boiler vans, as in France and Ireland.

 

The high-speed challenge is met not by building mega-expensive-to-maintain thoroughbreds, but by double-heading, transferring to ‘one at each end’ as confidence in the dynamics is built-up. The Sulzer 1500hp loco turns out to be very good for this, light and fast, and the first stage of the high speed revolution (100mph schedules) is achieved by Cromptons, sandwiching pairs of 4-TC with a wired RMB in the middle. The second stage (125mph schedules) is the Paxman locos and a new fleet of coaches, all branded HST.

 

My benefit-of-hindsight plan eradicates loads of wasteful ‘odds and sods’, and, much more controversially, skips straight over the 50 and 47 generation of 1960s locos. Resisting the temptation to improve on the great, heavy 1950s c2000hp machines would have required a very steady nerve ....... technical progress was very rapid at this juncture, and my double-heading/ending policy would have been fuel-heavy, but the benefits of waiting ten years would have been considerable, and once things got to double-ending then infrastructure could have been simplified as a way of saving money elsewhere.

 

Thus is history re-written.

 

Kevin

 

Phot9 below shows a typical formation on the “Cornish Riviera Express”, just before HSTs took over, with a 33/4 (110mph bogies) at each end of a pair of 4-TC, with a wired buffet in the middle. The “Flying Scotsman” looked exactly the same at this period.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Nearholmer

[PenrithBeacon]

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? ...

I think BR built all its locos in house but the LMS (and perhaps the LNER?) had most of its engines made by the industry.

[Pete the Elaner]

I think BR built all its locos in house but the LMS (and perhaps the LNER?) had most of its engines made by the industry.

'Most' may be a bit misleading because both companies turned out a lot of new locos themselves.

At times, their demand for locos was too high for their works to cope so some contracts were tendered out to external manufacturers.

[cheesysmith]

The woodhead electrification would probably have been extended down the joint line and to worksop and mansfield concentration sidings, maybe to barrow hill sidings. The extra EM2s were intended for WR lines IIRC. The woodhead was electrified primarly for freight, so if extended would have followed the heaviest freight flows then around.

[eastwestdivide]

... a typical formation on the “Cornish Riviera Express”, just before HSTs took over, with a 33/4 (110mph bogies) at each end of a pair of 4-TC, with a wired buffet in the middle. The “Flying Scotsman” looked exactly the same at this period.

Presumably in the down direction, half the train (incl. the catering) only went as far as Plymouth, and picked up an earlier up Penzance portion for the return, in the manner of the SR's REP to Bournemouth/TC to Weymouth arrangement!

Might need to reorganise the catering car into the centre of the London end 4TC, to provide shunting capability for that half (cab at both ends). 

[Nearholmer]

EWD,

 

Aha, you are picking-up on the general sensibleness of my ATP (Alternative Traction Plan)!

 

Yes, I did think of having a 4-TB, or a 4-TR, set, for exactly the reason that you suggest, but, strangely, I couldn’t find a photo of one.

 

I’ve bored with this before, but I do remember going deep into Cornwall on an excursion train as per my ATP, in 1976. The “Thames Tamar Express”. Even with 85mph limited real Class 33 locos it got a serious move on, much better than the locos used by WR at the time, and the experience of looking out of the window to see a Crompton shoving from behind as it crossed Brunel’s Bridge was quite something.

 

Kevin

[kevinlms]

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 LMS had of course already decided that the initial trials with their diesel electric shunters, was enough to to stop them building any more steam shunting locos from 1936!

 

I would guess that the Western Region built more panniers, because they had little experience of electric loco control gear.

[jonny777]

I think the plan should have been for a progressive extension of the 1500v DC from Sheffield down to Marylebone - but also extension to Liverpool (westwards) and to Scunthorpe and Grimsby (eastwards). 

 

 

Ok. St Pancras to Manchester then. 

 

The precise route is not important; it is the idea of concentrating the new c1954 diesels on one line with dedicated service facilities well away from steam depots, and sorting out all the teething problems before a much bigger country-wide plan was produced.

[Nearholmer]

It’s easy to forget ........

[TheSignalEngineer]

The LMS had of course already decided that the initial trials with their diesel electric shunters, was enough to to stop them building any more steam shunting locos from 1936!

 

I would guess that the Western Region built more panniers, because they had little experience of electric loco control gear.

And lots of coal in The Valleys.

[Nearholmer]

The book that I lifted the GT picture from was published by the GWR in 1946, setting out their modernisation plans, and it is pretty overt that building more steam locos was a necessity, given how many old crocks needed urgent replacement (locos >40 years old up by 21% since 1939), but that the longer term aspirations were diesel shunters (seven under construction), a replacement for steam on main hauls (GT), and more diesel railcars.

 

The LMS picture was almost identical, but with diesel rather than GT as the desideratum. The LNER wanted to electrify, but was fairly skint, so was looking at diesels for ECML as a stopgap. The SR had a firm, and fundable, plan to electrify everything East of the Bournemouth Line, and dieselise everything West.

 

In short four of the big five were looking beyond steam in the late 1940s, and the fifth, London Transport, didn’t have The Steam Problem, because their predecessors had electrified the District and Met c1905.

 

It’s probably unfair to characterise the GWR as electro-phobic, given that both of the GT prototypes had electric transmissions, as did the shunters, but what I think the GT business might betray, as did the hydraulics a bit later, was a mindset at Swindon that put theoretical efficiency, and engineering purity, above the proven practicality of 80/20 solutions(by which I mean DE motive power, which was really rather too heavy for its own good at the time). The best being the enemy of the good? Teutonic, rather than American, thinking?

Edited February 13, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Edwin_m]

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.

The first air-conditioned train in the UK I am aware of was the Blue Pullman, introduced only four years after the start of the Plan.  So I think the need for a reliable ETH supply, suitable for driving aircon rather than just heating elements, was foreseeable at least for the later orders under that Plan.  Instead of that not only the hydraulics but also most of the 47s were built with steam heat only, when the Blue Pullman was already in service. 

[adanapress]

I wonder if anyone knows what that square box placed dentyrally outside the back of the cab cab on the 08s  (or the line of bolt holes where it had once been)  was for?

That should read centrally

[frobisher]

It avoids all the problems with the motor/generator sets n coaches

Only in the MK3s I thought which required them for the loco hauled stock..?

[frobisher]

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

At a rough guess remove the steam heating boiler, put a suitable diesel generator set in the vacated space (a la class 27/2).

Edited February 13, 2018 by frobisher

[Zomboid]

Presumably in the down direction, half the train (incl. the catering) only went as far as Plymouth, and picked up an earlier up Penzance portion for the return, in the manner of the SR's REP to Bournemouth/TC to Weymouth arrangement!

Might need to reorganise the catering car into the centre of the London end 4TC, to provide shunting capability for that half (cab at both ends).

The REP/TC arrangement really was a genius solution.

I can imagine a scenario where similar things could have been done on other routes, such as when traction changes happened at Crewe, with an AL series loco shoving a few TC sets in and a bagpipe fitted type 4 (or why not, a pair of Cromptons) carrying on to Glasgow/ Holyhead. The high level jumpers (whilst not adding much aesthetically) would be ubiquitous as the MU system throughout BR...

[Nearholmer]

Indeed.

 

The first time I travelled on the LM region, in about 1970, I was utterly amazed by the fact that the London to Birmingham service was operated by locos and hauled coaches. I could not, for the life of me, understand why it wasn’t an intercity EMU, a 25kV REP, with a TC for continuation to Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth (which was where I was headed).

 

Even now, the whole bi-mode thing seems to me faintly like over-complicating the solution to a problem that could be dealt with in the same way.

 

The Scots got close, of course, but I always thought the 27 was a bit underpowered for the PP services.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Nearholmer