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

[rodent279]

"If WW2 hadn't happened" is worth a thread in it's own right.

[forest2807]

All of this information about power output and weight and electric motors is genuinely fascinating, but I just wish I understood more of it! Physics A level will only take you so far before you start to regret the humanities degree.

[ikks]

Although I agree with whats been said here i am almost  in agreeance with what happened , Through fate I was allowed to see the last "glory" days of steam as well as witnessing the early transition to diesels.................guess I was lucky

Mike

[Hroth]

"If WW2 hadn't happened" is worth a thread in it's own right.

If only Henry Tandy had pulled his trigger,,,,,

 

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

[rodent279]

If only Henry Tandy had pulled his trigger,,,,,

 

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

Some other nationalist idiot would have taken Hitler's place, and we might have been worse off, because that idiot might have listened to his generals rather than throw tantrums.

[jonny777]

"If WW2 hadn't happened" is worth a thread in it's own right.

 

 

Mind you, we could have thousands of those threads; going back to "what if the Moon hadn't happened by, many billions of years ago?"

[Hesperus]

So to recap and probably start a few arguments,  the actual pilot scheme locos were;

 

Type 1

 

BTH x10 (class 15)  D8200-09  (with another 34 ordered later)  all gone by 1971

NBL x10 (class 16)  D8400-09 all gone in 68

EE  x20  (class 20)  D8000-19  (with 108 as follow on orders, then another 100 to replace Claytons)

 

 

 

Type 2

 

NBL x10 (class 21) D6100-09 (with another 48)  all gone by 71 (68 for locos not rebuilt as 29)

NBL x6 (class 22) D6300-5 (with another 52) all gone by 72

EE x10 (class 23) D5900-09    all gone by 75 (71 in revenue service)

BR/Sulzer  x20 (class 24) D5000-19  (with another 131 24s and 327 25s) all gone 1987

BRCW x20 (Class 26) D5300-19 (with another 26 26's, and 69 27's) all gone 1993

MV x20 (class 28) D5700-19 all gone from service by 68

Brush x20 (class 31/0) D5500-19 (and 243 31/1) just about clinging on in service?

 

Type 4

 

EE x10 (class 40) D200-09 (with another 190) lasting till 85

NBL x5 (class 41) D600-05 lasting till 67

BR/Sulzer (class 44) D1-10 and 127 45's lasting till 1989

 

As most of the locos built after the pilot scheme orders were slightly different I've included 45s with 44s and 27s with 26s etc. 

 

Looking at production dates it would make sense to include the BR built Warships D800-802 but although built as a pilot they weren't part of the pilot scheme according to my limited research on Wiki.  Realistically they worked alongside the D600s and showed rather clearly which was better.

 

I did see the comment that the 30/31 was too heavy to be accepted as a Type 2 but they did order 243 more so they can't have been that upset (until the engines broke).

 

 

So if we consider success to be most of the production locos managing 30 years in service with original engines then the only success stories are the 20 and 26 although the 45 is very close.

[cheesysmith]

IIRC the booked life of a loco was 20 years to pay off its costs. To the list above you have to differentate between those locos withdrawn early due to unreliability and those withdrawn due to either non standard or the work they were intended for disappearing. Also, you need to count different classes together, the 27 were a later version of the 26, but using uprated engine and a different supplier for the electrics due to the problems with CP, the same can be said of the 45 and 46s. The rats almost made book life, but the work they were intended for had gone. The 15s were another class who were reliable but went because they were non standard. The same can be said of the 29s. 

 

The standardisation of BRs loco fleet came down to either EE engines or Sulzer. Everything else went. 

[Junctionmad]

"If WW2 hadn't happened" is worth a thread in it's own right.

 

yes, but hindsight re-imagineing can include anything  

[adb968008]

List Pilot scheme diesels..

http://www.brdatabase.info/pilot.php

First delivered in 1957, last in 1960.

If the pilot lasted say 2 years.(end of 1962). then a decision is made on the standard fleet of BR...
The next decision would be... not the class of locomotive, but the road map of the technology and the manufacturers ability to supply and support...
This takes us until end of 1963 and orders placed in 1964...for delivery late 1964 and entry to service in 1965.

So what has happened in technology between 1957 and 1965.. well history shows us, bar 2 classes (37/50) it was all over in technology stakes.

Additionally what has changed in BRs environment in the same time period... mass closures, concentration on speed, reduction in local passenger and freight on all levels.

So what would they order:

Class 08 as it was already ever present.
Single engined type 2 along the lines of the class 26
Single engined type 3 along the lines of the class 33
Large engined type 4 along the lines of a class 33 in a co-co variation
Type 5 along the lines of DP2 class 50


Why...
lets go back to the list..
http://www.brdatabase.info/pilot.php

EE was by all accounts a failure in the pilot scheme.. it provided class 20, class 23 and class 40 to the pilot, and expertise in high speed with non pilot Deltics.
The class 20 whilst operationally successful, did not meet the needs of BRs changing environment... what use a single cab diesel, for short freight workings, when turntables were going, dual cabs were the future, and the very work suited to it was disappearing... the fact they have most of their lives worked in multiple demonstrates this. Additionally the baby deltics were an overweight failure, which would count as a second strike against EE. And finally the class 40.. also an oversized locomotive under powered in engines, in a design already 16 years old (10201), which wouldn’t seem to stack up.. however overall reliability of the 20/40 and class 55, together with a road map for a strong successor prime mover in DP2 would show the are a good candidate for the higher speed market, even if at the smaller end they were not.

I think that DP2 would have been a template for 200 type 5’s over the next 3-5 years and all 7/8P locos would have succumbed by 1970.

Sulzer.. the track record of class 24 would have lead in 1963/4 to a prototype of an advanced 24.. which we recognise as a 26/7. It was successful from the outset without a real challenger. This could have been a class of 600, taking into account residual needs of a type 1 (ie no class 20). This class could have been built on premise at all important BR workshops at a less breakneck pace, as such Brush wouldn’t have succeeded, which I believe won due to its ability to supply, not the merit of its own designs.

Sulzer was the clear winner at this point, the question really remains about all eggs in one basket.. do you standardise on 500 type 3’s from sulzer?, do you split the order and increase costs.. there was no pilot 37, it’s design is untested, EE wasn’t a clear winner in pilot scheme? The answer I would say lies in looking at BRs peers... overseas railways had few issues with having sufficient skills in house to maintain a fleet using prime movers supplied by outside suppliers.. I suspect the safe answer is “no one gets fired for buying IBM”.. so Sulzer would have taken the type 3 prize and the type 4.

Brush.. it’s only contributions were failure.. class 30 and Falcon. It wouldn’t have challenged Sulzer or EE It’s best role would have been the same role as BRCW.. ultimately an outsourced supply of sulker type 2/3/4 locomotives. It’s rail products are unproven at this point.. Remember the 47 is a Sulzer product in a BRCW shell (Lion) .. it’s only cost that put BRCW out of the frame. For constructing class 47’s at BRCW... ultimately Brush provided bodies and a workshop at a time BR needed vast capacity.. which wasn’t what the pilot was supposed to be about.


Construction...
BR would have maintained a sedate “keep it in house” policy for build so with unions happy that 600x class 26, 400 x class 33 (the lions share of construction) would be in house. EE would be supplier of 200x DP2’s and BRCW (with Brush and BR own works as subcontractor ) for 1000x type 4’s.

My guess is this 2000 locomotives would have taken 10 years to be provided, and steam would have been finished by 1975... just as the oil crisis emerged.. next step would be electrification.

I do think the argument is trivial however...

I suspect the real out come of any pilot in 1965 would be recommendation for an electrification proof of concept... and argue steam should continue until the nation is electrified... I think the UK in a lot of sense would have evolved like PKP in Poland, but with steam declining in UK production from around 1970, and withdrawal by 1995... In that sense EE clearly lead the way, it was clear that EE had a future unchallenged vision of AC electrification in the UK, that no one else matched.

 

If that had been the case, the modernisation of British Railways could have been a whole lot cheaper. Politically however then as now, the UK has a desire to look better or different than Europe and more like the US... so we spent a lot on untried designs to make ourselves feel good, when really it was the Dutch and Swiss that showed how it was done, Sulzer of course.. is Swiss.. GE could have showed us too but that was too embarrassing to accept in the 1960s. Had the UK stuck to it's pilot programme it could have forced the UK's builders to be a bit more innovative and independent by competing on overseas designs, instead they became dependent and ultimately paid the price of being inwards looking, indeed had GE been invited into the Pilot, with it's then elderly 1750hp Nohab design, it could have afforded our manufacturers some earlier competitive insight into what was developing from the US... indeed was the class 37 profile / specification  inspired by the Nohab ?

Edited February 18, 2018 by adb968008

[Ramblin Rich]

Given the political idea of keeping NCB pits busy and a desire to move away from steam due to labour intensity, it's surprising electrification (with coal fired generators) wasn't seen as a better option than diesel from imported oil. The North Sea 'bonanza' was still 20 odd years away. I can see the requirements for some diesel for branches and freight lines but surprising that electrification seemed lower priority. Presumably the upfront costs of diesel were more attractive and the short political timeframe always seems to win.

[Kelly]

Given the political idea of keeping NCB pits busy and a desire to move away from steam due to labour intensity, it's surprising electrification (with coal fired generators) wasn't seen as a better option than diesel from imported oil. The North Sea 'bonanza' was still 20 odd years away. I can see the requirements for some diesel for branches and freight lines but surprising that electrification seemed lower priority. Presumably the upfront costs of diesel were more attractive and the short political timeframe always seems to win.

 

You have to remember that at the time, the country was still massively in debt and broke due to the war. Rationing was still in place too at the time.

 

Electrification was deemed the best option, but there likely simply wasn't the money available at the time to be able to go ahead with it fully (like other countries did from the money given to them after the War for rebuilding).

[jjb1970]

The UK was the biggest recipient of Marshall plan aid and chose to spend the money in the way we did. The UK could have used the money to rebuild and modernise in the same way as other countries, however maintaining the illusion of being a global power whilst building a domestic utopia was deemed more worthy.

The UK was the biggest recipient of Marshall plan aid and chose to spend the money in the way we did. The UK could have used the money to rebuild and modernise in the same way as other countries, however maintaining the illusion of being a global power whilst building a domestic utopia was deemed more worthy.

[jjb1970]

The EE prime movers were good, solid engines that gave BR and private owners superb service, they were probably as good as any contemporary diesel engines in their power range (if conservatively rated). Not the lightest engines, but they were durable and reliable, and there is a lot to be said for both qualities. Sulzer abandoned smaller engines to concentrate on bigger units in the 1970's, the engine business was bought by Wartsila and is now essentially Chinese owned and called Winterthur Gas & Diesel. Their current portfolio is limited to low speed two stroke engines.

[cheesysmith]

The problem with the loco orders you discribed above is that it ignores the fact that the best electrical equiptment either came from brush or EE. True, the EE type 2 originally orderedhad faults, but after ebuilding they were reliable enough but were doomed due to being non standard. EE could have made a type 2 using the intercooled version of the V8 for 1200BHP, but BR wanted a lightweight type 2 that the deltic engine would allow. The baby deltic came out heavier than intended due to things like the steam het bioler being heavier than specified. 

 

Also, the problem of getting the needed power within the weight limit BR allowed worked against the Sulzer twin bank engines. The Sulzer engine with generator came in at 22tons, where as the 2 Maybach eninges and 2 generators only weighed in at 13.8 tons. The V16 EE engine came in at around 11 tons (about the same as a GM engine). GM had not even began turbocharging the 567 engine yet, and as a result had less power. We have the EE V16, turbocharged and intercooled, 2400BHP, for about 11tons. Then we have the GM 567 V16, for the same weight but only 1750BHP (the turbo version avalible at the end of 59 had 2500BHP). Then we have the LDA twin bank engine, with 2500BHP in intercooled form but a weight of 22 tons. 

[Allegheny1600]

If that had been the case, the modernisation of British Railways could have been a whole lot cheaper. Politically however then as now, the UK has a desire to look better or different than Europe and more like the US... so we spent a lot on untried designs to make ourselves feel good, when really it was the Dutch and Swiss that showed how it was done, Sulzer of course.. is Swiss.. GE could have showed us too but that was too embarrassing to accept in the 1960s. Had the UK stuck to it's pilot programme it could have forced the UK's builders to be a bit more innovative and independent by competing on overseas designs, instead they became dependent and ultimately paid the price of being inwards looking, indeed had GE been invited into the Pilot, with it's then elderly 1750hp Nohab design, it could have afforded our manufacturers some earlier competitive insight into what was developing from the US... indeed was the class 37 profile / specification  inspired by the Nohab ?

I think this could have been a worthy idea.

However, I think you got GE mixed up with GM as it was the latter who licenced production of the Nohabs to Europe. ISTR Nohabs were used in Belgium, Luxemburg, Hungary, Denmark and Norway and were built in two or more of these countries.

GE did not start domestic loco production until the late fifties with the U25B 

[jjb1970]

GE did not start domestic loco production until the late fifties with the U25B 

 

True for road units, but GE had manufactured switchers for many years before entering the domestic road market with the U25B. And of course they were the other half of the Alco - GE joint venture (nowadays remembered as Alco). Probably the oddest GE built locomotives were the Fairbanks Morse Erie builts, built under contract by GE at the same time as GE were in a JV with Alco to build diesel electric locomotives.

[Titan]

 but BR wanted a lightweight type 2 that the deltic engine would allow. 

 

This is not quite true. The baby Deltic would have been too light had it been designed as normal, and would have struggled for adhesion. The superstructure was deliberately made out of heavier material in order to offset the light weight of the power unit. Unfortunately they overshot due to the steam heat boiler and other things being too heavy as you mentioned, and drastic weight saving modifications were required.  Overall EE managed to really cock up on the Baby Deltic design as delivered. All the disadvantages of a high speed diesel and none of the advantages! It did have loads of space inside the loco as the 9 cylinder Deltic was tiny, so it was at least easy to work on.

 

But at the time EE did not have a conventional engine in the type 2 power range. The 8 cylinder was not yet available with charge cooling so was 1,000bhp max, and the 12 cylinder was too heavy and too powerful. They were also looking to market the Deltic in more applications, and could traction rate a 9 cylinder turbocharged unit at 1,100bhp, so that is what they decided on.

[Suzie]

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.

 

The 309 should have been the EMU solution on the West Coast, but for some reason were overlooked in favour of loco hauled Mk1s.

 

I rather feel that had the pilot scheme been properly evaluated there would have been:-

 

08 shunters - already proven and no realistic competition.

20 Type 1 - would have shown its reliabilty over the other types, might have evolved in to a twin-cab.

30 Type 2 - would have worked around the Mirlees engine problem given that the rest was fine.

37 type 3 - would have come in to the frame as nothing being evaluated was any good and they would have had to look again.

20 x2 type 4 - A pair of 20s would have been seen as a go-anywhere alternative geared as appropriate for the duty. 40s would already be established and ordered in some numbers.

20 x3 type 5 - Add a 'B' unit version of the 20 to provide extra power for freight and ETS for passenger use. 'B' unit is higher powered without the CAB using valuable space for the larger engine.

 

[Zomboid]

A 3 unit lash up would use a lot of platform space. That kind of thing works in some situations, but 3 locos on the blocks at kings cross means trains have to be at least 2 carriages shorter to fit.

[Guest theonlydt]

The 309 should have been the EMU solution on the West Coast, but for some reason were overlooked in favour of loco hauled Mk1s.

 

I rather feel that had the pilot scheme been properly evaluated there would have been:-

 

08 shunters - already proven and no realistic competition.

20 Type 1 - would have shown its reliabilty over the other types, might have evolved in to a twin-cab.

30 Type 2 - would have worked around the Mirlees engine problem given that the rest was fine.

37 type 3 - would have come in to the frame as nothing being evaluated was any good and they would have had to look again.

20 x2 type 4 - A pair of 20s would have been seen as a go-anywhere alternative geared as appropriate for the duty. 40s would already be established and ordered in some numbers.

20 x3 type 5 - Add a 'B' unit version of the 20 to provide extra power for freight and ETS for passenger use. 'B' unit is higher powered without the CAB using valuable space for the larger engine.

Interesting small engine policy. The US/Canada did something similar with "B units", though typically these were 1500hp each, but on longer trains.

 

I see a diminishing return with using outputs so small you need three, mostly in upfront cost and maintenance. You've now got 12 traction motors with three class 20s to do the job of six in a 50/55. This probably is advantageous with freight, but a waste on passenger. You then also get into the issue of gearing and suspension for top speed - three 20s can't keep the same schedule as one 55 over the ECML.

 

Therefore I think where you'd put the bulk of the purchasing would be your 37 - two together were trialed on the Western Region. It may not make sense as a one off, but as a policy it could pay dividends. One for short/regional workings, two for longer express. If one engine blows, you've still got one pulling.

 

You do raise a very good point re. a twin cab 20. That's part of the reason the 17s were ordered, and gave them working issues for their entire lives. Was a twin cab ever designed/discussed? Too heavy for the axle loading? Too heavy for the power output? Too expensive?

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I agree with Zomboid, three units of loco is too long to be practical, and not just at Kings Cross, which is why I, earlier, suggested a Crompton at each end.

 

The ER made big play of the shortness of platforms at Kings Cross, but every day you could go there and see a line of locos on the stopblocks, so ‘one at each end’ wouldn’t have caused a problem in that respect. And, it would have improved utilisation.

 

Given that the Hastings units and the Blue Pullmans, and a host of continental trains, were ‘one at each end’ from no later than 1960, I wonder exactly when the first seed of what became HST was in the ground? My betting is that somebody was thinking about in the early 60s, but perhaps wasn’t in a position to get their voice heard.

 

Interesting that, while we have a bit of a Sulzer vs EE split, there is a bit of an emerging theme in this thread that up-geared Type 3 Locos, operated in pairs, might have been a sane answer to the speed challenge.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Nearholmer

[cheesysmith]

The EE engine was avalible at the time of the modernisation pilot scheme locos with intercooling to uprate it, but BR wanted a type1, with a maximum power for that type was 1000BHP. The same with the class 40s, BR wanted more of the 10203, so that's what EE built.

 

The engine with intercooling was to be used to re-engine the Co Bos.

 

If you want a good type 4 using the bits available at the time, consider this.

 

The truss girder body as used for falcon came in at 21 tons, Vs the class 47 body at 17.5 tons.

 

You could have had a class 47 loco, with EE V16 engine and brush electrics, that would have been cheaper than the class 47 but also lighter by at lest 5 tons.

You could have also had a class 40 loco with 2400BHP on a CoCo at 120 tons instead of the 133 tons of the class 40s.

 

As to using multipule smaller locos, that overlooks the fact that a smaller loco is only slightly less expensive than a bigger more powerful loco.

Edited February 18, 2018 by cheesysmith

[Nearholmer]

I’m factoring fuel, capital and maintence costs in when advocating ‘one at each end’ Cheesy. Not real figures, because I don’t have them, but on an ‘educated guess’ basis.

 

My thinking is that fleet economies of scale (more type 3s rather than Deltics or Westerns), better utilisation (no locos hanging about between services at termini), the ability to simplify track layouts, etc will count in favour of ‘one at each end’, as will the ability to split the train in the middle on some routes.

 

So, I’m thinking that on a “train service provision system” basis, ‘one at each end’ could well “wash its face” financially, even if the capital cost of a Crompton is, wild guess coming up, 80% that of a Deltic.

[adb968008]

The EE engine was avalible at the time of the modernisation pilot scheme locos with intercooling to uprate it, but BR wanted a type1, with a maximum power for that type was 1000BHP. The same with the class 40s, BR wanted more of the 10203, so that's what EE built.

 

The engine with intercooling was to be used to re-engine the Co Bos.

 

If you want a good type 4 using the bits available at the time, consider this.

 

The truss girder body as used for falcon came in at 21 tons, Vs the class 47 body at 17.5 tons.

 

You could have had a class 47 loco, with EE V16 engine and brush electrics, that would have been cheaper than the class 47 but also lighter by at lest 5 tons.

You could have also had a class 40 loco with 2400BHP on a CoCo at 120 tons instead of the 133 tons of the class 40s.

 

As to using multipule smaller locos, that overlooks the fact that a smaller loco is only slightly less expensive than a bigger more powerful loco.

But a couple of things work against this...

1. Hindsight... we know from history, but they couldn’t predict the future performance.

2. Enterprise.. the pilot was a competitive process it was manufacturer against manufacturer, not unified collaboration.

 

The 47 nor 37 were really part of the pilot scheme... they came later as a result of the ditching of the pilot scheme, by all accounts if the pilot scheme wasn’t accelerated, they would only exist on a drawing board in 1965.

 

Each vendor submits there product samples for evaluation, and at the end of the POC, the customer questions the vendor on performance, road map, price and supply amongst other factors, whilst reevaluating their own environment and any changing needs as a result of lessons learned.

The customer could say we want X technology from Brush, incorporating into Y from frames EE, but chances are they would be sued for breaching confidentiality, and probably wouldn’t end up with what they wanted either.

There would be a certain amount of latitude (preference to a component supplier, such as AEI or Sulzer as part of a design preference) but wholesale ripping of one IP belonging to one company to another is a No No.

 

History shows us the pilot scheme didn’t evaluate prototypes.... it evaluated suppliers. It demonstrated companies like Clayton, Metrovik, NBL were not going to deliver, and that EE and Sulzer technology could give performance, similarly EE, Brush and BRCW would be able to supply. Similarly it showed Paxman to be still immature at the time.

Whilst the prototypes didn’t necessarily deliver, it showed which manufacturers BR could trust to manage the sudden change of scope.

Edited February 18, 2018 by adb968008