why were the Metro-Vik Class 28s concentrated upon Barrow?

[Michael Delamar]

Where were these locos scrapped?

 

Ive never seen a shot of one in any scrap yard.

[57xx]

...most of the class had met their end by catching fire within 10 years...

 

They were used on oil trains (from Heysham) when shedded at Barrow so their life there did have some honorous duties.

 

Sounds like the perfect combination!

[The Johnster]

One of the issues of the immediate post-war era through into the 1950s overlooked in this thread is the political need to support home industry and manage foreign exchange. It would not have been politically expedient to buy the whole diesel fleet from the US even if their suppliers had been considered and been able to supply the kit. If my memory is correct it is not that long since the UK paid off the last of the war debts to the US and I very much doubt we could have afforded more debts back in the day. Perhaps an economic historian could amplify this aspect.

 

Aside from the political and foreign exchange issues, I doubt that any US manufacturer could have provided a locomotive powerful enough to be of any use within the UK loading gauge until well towards the end of the 1950s.  Standard fare over there was EMD F series of 1,200 to 1,500 hp in units which, although 'only' Bo-Bo, were massively higher and a good bit wider than anything that could operate here.  GM's first foray into the British Isles was in Eire, replacing troublesome Crossley engines in Metrovicks, and the 5'3" gauge may well have been a factor in that; I do not know if the Irish loading gauge is bigger but the wider track gauge gives a bit more room between the frames, though that may not be a significant factor in a diesel.

 

GM were very sales orientated in the 50s, and marketed hard across the world; it is difficult to believe they wouldn't have got a foot in the British door, even by proxy and licence manufacturing like the politically unacceptable Germans did on the WR, if they'd had a suitable product.  There was a lasting American influence on early British diesel-electrics, both in style and the intended method of operation with the LMS twins and many other designs based to a large extent on the principle of multiple working and gangway connections between the units, and the principle was put into practice with the class 20s and others on a large scale, though the gangway connections were rarely used in practice and later locos designed them out.  Ivatt, Bullied, and those responsible for the Modernisation Plan diesels seem to have been thinking very much in US terms, understandably given that the Americans were the only people who had any real experience of operating diesels anywhere in 1955, never mind 1948.

[jonny777]

Where were these locos scrapped?

 

Ive never seen a shot of one in any scrap yard.

 

 

According to BRDatabase, mainly Cashmore's Great Bridge.

['CHARD]

Where were these locos scrapped?

 

Ive never seen a shot of one in any scrap yard.

 

http://nicwhe8.freehostia.com/d5705/start.html

 

The majority at Great Bridge, remainder in Glasgow.

[New Haven Neil]

The problem of which prime mover to use really was that none of them offered very much horsepower at first therefore multiple working was almost a certainty to replace class 7 and 8 steam power.  Then when they were made more powerful, they blew up.  Hence twin engine Deltics....light (aluminium) power unit but set at a power that would give a reasonable service life.  Try putting two Sulzer LDA6's in one loco.....it would need to be a Do-Do...and be a Dodo!  That is really what their twin bank engines are, and they are heavy.  And they blew up, once uprated - the 47's were far from a paragon of reliability until de-rated.

 

I don't think the EMD 567 is a tall engine, but it only made the same power as a 6 leg, UK made Sulzer so why bother with the expense of importing them - they were V12 's or V16's at this power level so maintenance might have been thought to be an issue.  It isn't - they are very good engines, but would you take the risk back then?

[kevinlms]

Aside from the political and foreign exchange issues, I doubt that any US manufacturer could have provided a locomotive powerful enough to be of any use within the UK loading gauge until well towards the end of the 1950s. Standard fare over there was EMD F series of 1,200 to 1,500 hp in units which, although 'only' Bo-Bo, were massively higher and a good bit wider than anything that could operate here. GM's first foray into the British Isles was in Eire, replacing troublesome Crossley engines in Metrovicks, and the 5'3" gauge may well have been a factor in that; I do not know if the Irish loading gauge is bigger but the wider track gauge gives a bit more room between the frames, though that may not be a significant factor in a diesel.

 

GM were very sales orientated in the 50s, and marketed hard across the world; it is difficult to believe they wouldn't have got a foot in the British door, even by proxy and licence manufacturing like the politically unacceptable Germans did on the WR, if they'd had a suitable product. There was a lasting American influence on early British diesel-electrics, both in style and the intended method of operation with the LMS twins and many other designs based to a large extent on the principle of multiple working and gangway connections between the units, and the principle was put into practice with the class 20s and others on a large scale, though the gangway connections were rarely used in practice and later locos designed them out. Ivatt, Bullied, and those responsible for the Modernisation Plan diesels seem to have been thinking very much in US terms, understandably given that the Americans were the only people who had any real experience of operating diesels anywhere in 1955, never mind 1948.

The Victorian Railways had the B Class diesel built from 1952 onwards using the 567 series engine. They had the first 6 wheel bogies and all axles powered.

 

Due to similar foreign exchange restrictions, the case had to be made that the economics were better than the existing steam fleet. Hence the rapid demise of the S Class steamer and other large steam locos.

Mind you, the B Class proved to be an excellent product.

[Nearholmer]

There is absolutely no doubt that, while diesel experience existed in U.K. and Europe, because the Americans "leapt ahead" in the late 30s and trough the 40s, US ideas had a profound affect here. The LMS diesel team, who were the UK leaders, were off to the US 'like a shot' after the war, and the big twins are effectively GM concept, and 10800 Alco concept.

 

I tend to agree that there were all sorts of reasons why direct import of US locos wasn't a realistic prospect at the time, although, in the other thread, we did identify the LNER making noises in public about importing 'big twins' to use in a pre-electrification speed-up of the southern ECML ...... their idea was basically the same as what led to Deltic: to get c3000hp up-front, to give a noticeable reduction in journey-time, and to realise cost savings by getting rid of a heap of top-link steamers.

 

Anyway, we are straying a bit from Metrovicks here!

 

Kevin

[New Haven Neil]

Except the engines were the other way around - 10800 had a medium/high speed engine, like an EMD but not a 2 stroke, the LMS twins a slower speed engine like an Alco.

 

Back to Co-Bo's....the Wonderoaf.  I wonder what made Hornby chose it for a model?

[Arthur]

 

GM were also averse to supplying just components. They wanted to sell the entire locomotive and spares package.

When CIE approached them to re-engine the A class GM were reluctant and initially offered to supply an engine/generator/traction motor package. CIE did not want the expense of replacing perfectly good electrical components. GM eventually relented and supported them as an existing customer.

 

So whether or not they would have just sold engines to a UK builder is a moot point.

 

.

[Titan]

 

Back to Co-Bo's....the Wonderoaf.  I wonder what made Hornby chose it for a model?

 

Not sure, I guess they wanted a range of diesel types, shunter, small, medium, and large. When the small is a Bo-Bo, and the large is a Co-Co, They may have decided a Co-Bo was a more obvious half way between the two than anything else. They would almost certainly be unaware of it's reliability issues when they made the choice.

[pete_mcfarlane]

GM were also averse to supplying just components. They wanted to sell the entire locomotive and spares package.

When CIE approached them to re-engine the A class GM were reluctant and initially offered to supply an engine/generator/traction motor package. CIE did not want the expense of replacing perfectly good electrical components. GM eventually relented and supported them as an existing customer.

 

So whether or not they would have just sold engines to a UK builder is a moot point.

A couple of the C class were initially re-engined with Maybach engines for that reason. 

[PatB]

When was the Dublo model introduced? If it wasn't long after the Bo-Bo I'd guess there was a more limited range of Class 2 prototypes to choose from than would later be the case. The Co-Bo is also pretty distinctive and, presumably, at the time, bang up to the minute, especially with the introduction of the MV hauled Condor on the real railway. Did Meccano Magazine run a feature on this new, modern train? It's the sort of thing I can see appearing with a tie-in to the Dublo range.

[cheesysmith]

You have to remember what killed the COBOs was the fatigue cycle. They first had a problem with the head mating to the block at one end, which was cured by tapping a bolt to bring it under tension at that end/corner. They later had the same problem at the other end of the engine. Crossley did have a improved block which would have cured this, but by this time they were doomed anyway.

 

On paper the crossley engine was a good idea, unstressed, simple 2stroke requiring minimal maintenance and low revving (the full RPM of this engine was lower than the idle revs of the high speed engines in use on the western region). Used in different load cycles (constant revs and allowed to maintain temperature, not high/no load and the temperature cycles that come with it) they were good simple engines (the same problems were evident in the mirrlees engines used in the brush type2s). These engines were just under designed for the BR cyclic power requirements.

[Horsetan]

....I do not know if the Irish loading gauge is bigger but the wider track gauge gives a bit more room between the frames, though that may not be a significant factor in a diesel....

 

It is a little more generous than the British composite loading gauge.

[TravisM]

GM were also averse to supplying just components. They wanted to sell the entire locomotive and spares package.

When CIE approached them to re-engine the A class GM were reluctant and initially offered to supply an engine/generator/traction motor package. CIE did not want the expense of replacing perfectly good electrical components. GM eventually relented and supported them as an existing customer.

 

So whether or not they would have just sold engines to a UK builder is a moot point.

 

.

 

GM were reluctant re-engine the A Class but CIE were also looking at whatever other products EMD could produce.  I think the deciding "carrot" was "If you put your engines in these, we'll buy from you", and they have done ever since.

 

I think EMD would have allowed engines to be built here under license like they did in Australia and Europe but I think the deciding factor in the end was BR were forced to "Buy British".  Had BR been given a free reign, then it's likely that EMD and ALCo products would have ended over this side of the pond a lot quicker.

 

Julian Sprott

[kevinlms]

Except the engines were the other way around - 10800 had a medium/high speed engine, like an EMD but not a 2 stroke, the LMS twins a slower speed engine like an Alco.

 

Back to Co-Bo's....the Wonderoaf.  I wonder what made Hornby chose it for a model?

More to the point, is why did they do a pretty awful job of the Co-Bo and especially the Deltic? The earlier Bo-Bo and 08 and all the steam locos were much better models.

[TheSignalEngineer]

When was the Dublo model introduced? If it wasn't long after the Bo-Bo I'd guess there was a more limited range of Class 2 prototypes to choose from than would later be the case. The Co-Bo is also pretty distinctive and, presumably, at the time, bang up to the minute, especially with the introduction of the MV hauled Condor on the real railway. Did Meccano Magazine run a feature on this new, modern train? It's the sort of thing I can see appearing with a tie-in to the Dublo range.

 

There's a brief mention of the Dublo Co-Bo in Meccano Magazine December 1961. Go to page 456

http://www.nzmeccano.com/MMviewer.php

 

 

In the same issue there is an item about the new Co-Co based on the Deltic hauling a 51-wagon train for an actual 100 miles. Perhaps James May should have used one.

[chris p bacon]

 but I think the deciding factor in the end was BR were forced to "Buy British".  Had BR been given a free reign, then it's likely that EMD and ALCo products would have ended over this side of the pond a lot quicker.

 

Julian Sprott

A small correction, it wasn't "BR" but the "British Transport Commission" it also had nothing to do with "having a free reign"    we just did not have the money to be able to import large numbers of expensive locomotives into this country as we were carrying a huge amount of debt from WW2. Currency had to earned from exports not lost to imports.

 

It was similar for shipbuilding, during the 50's and early 60's we were reliant upon home produced ships but the yards did not invest when times were good, and so when restrictions were lifted purchase moved abroad to more modern yards.

Edited May 8, 2017 by chris p bacon

[Arthur]

 

GM were reluctant re-engine the A Class but CIE were also looking at whatever other products EMD could produce.  I think the deciding "carrot" was "If you put your engines in these, we'll buy from you", and they have done ever since.

 

Wrong way round. CIE already had several US built General Motors locomotives in service years before any Crossley engines were replaced with GM units. It was not carrot and stick but, as I said, GM supporting an existing customer.

 

.

[PatB]

There's a brief mention of the Dublo Co-Bo in Meccano Magazine December 1961. Go to page 456

http://www.nzmeccano.com/MMviewer.php

 

In the same issue there is an item about the new Co-Co based on the Deltic hauling a 51-wagon train for an actual 100 miles. Perhaps James May should have used one.

 

Interesting. By 1961 there were other Type 2s around that were arguably more attractive. The Brush 2, for example, although maybe Triang got in first with that one and H-D didn't want to hobble themselves with unnecessary duplication. A North British prototype might have made sense, though, being able to use a close relative of the Bo-Bo chassis.

[Arthur]

 

The Condor service got quite a lot of coverage at the time and seemed quite glamorous, some influence there? Did Cuneo's quite widely seen painting of them on the Condor have an influence? It featured on the Dublo catalogue and other publications.

 

 

Having said that, I don't know which came first, the Cuneo painting or the model.

 

Either way, the Condor had given the MetroVicks a high profile

[ardbealach]

Two CoBos at Carlisle Upperby on 24 June 1967.  Sorry numbers not noted.  Also in adjacent road is Derby Lightweight 79179 noted by Chard on the postings on RMWEB on the Bachmann Derby Lightweight page in 29 November 2011 where the following comment was made by Chard ........ 

 

Now this is where it gets interesting for the Cumbrian afficianadoes: the following, from the later batch were then drafted in to replace some of the wastage of the older units: M79128/9/42/4-6/8/71/5/7/80/1/79663/7/8/72/3/5/6/8-80/3/4. Admittedly some of these went to the wall in February '68 but the majority lasted a further year beyond the cull, not retiring until April '69 in the majority of cases. Now within all this lot there is definitely scope for running each forthcoming Bachmann DLW from Cockermouth to Hawickos on Carlisle Upperby Shed on 24 June 1967. Sorry numbers not noted - also  

 

 

 

 

[Phil Bullock]

Was the only Co-bo to carry GFYE D5708? And the only blue one D5701 IIRC

 

Cheers

 

Phil

[slilley]

One of the issues of the immediate post-war era through into the 1950s overlooked in this thread is the political need to support home industry and manage foreign exchange. It would not have been politically expedient to buy the whole diesel fleet from the US even if their suppliers had been considered and been able to supply the kit. If my memory is correct it is not that long since the UK paid off the last of the war debts to the US and I very much doubt we could have afforded more debts back in the day. Perhaps an economic historian could amplify this aspect.

 

BR did approach GM at the time the Pilot Scheme was being put together, but they declined the work as the numbers of locomotives required was too small from them. Years later at the time of the Class 56 procurement exercise, the Americans were talking to BR about the supply of locomotives.

 

This is a quote from an article I wrote for Railways Illustrated on the 56 procurement story

 

"The third option was for an American built standard locomotive modified to fit the smaller British loading gauge. Deliveries would start a year after the order was placed at a rate of five per week. Thirty locomotives would cost £210,000 each. This last option was on reflection thought not to be viable for several reasons. Firstly, the relatively small number of locomotives would restrict their use to where maintenance knowledge and spares could be concentrated. This would not be a problem if large numbers of locomotives were to be bought from the USA but this was unlikely given BR’s locomotive policy at the time. The second issue was the extensive driver and maintenance personnel training required, given the locomotives would be unlike any others in the fleet. Finally, there was likely to be fierce union opposition within BREL to an overseas purchase. The longer-term disadvantages outweighed the short-term cost advantages". 

 

Simon