Why did the 20s outlast other classes?

[jonny777]

Why did the 20s outlast other classes

 

 

Perhaps it was their looks.

 

One of my old neighbours used to be a driver at Bescot depot, he told me that an important item of equipment in the winter was a bin liner to wrap around your legs in order to keep out the cold draughts.

 

I never did find out which particular type he was referring to but it was around the time Bescot had a plentiful allocation of class 25s so always assumed it must have been them.

 

 

 

 

I have often wondered about the shape of a class 20 and why it came to be that way.

 

Ok, so steam locos had cabs at one end and long boilers (Leader excepted); but BR were supposed to be designing locos which did away with all the drawbacks of steam, and surely the "cab at one end' was a major part of that?

 

Was it just because the 20s were designed for shunting and trip working, where crew having to swap cabs each time the loco reversed was considered inefficient, compared to not being able to see in front of the loco?

 

After all the Pilot Scheme class 21s were 1000hp and they had 2 cabs; but they were expected to travel longer distances on suburban trains I presume?

 

I wonder if the class 20 internals had been put into a 21-style body shape, the 20s might have been even more popular than they were?

 

Sorry for the apparently naive questions, but I am sort of thinking out loud (if that can be used in a forum context).  

[Foden]

Don’t think the 20s were ever designed for shunting?

 

My guess with the single cab is it was mainly down to cost more than any other factor.

[russ p]

I hear that 47s also had a very draughty cab.

This thread has provided some very interesting reading indeed, it’s great to hear of various peoples thoughts and experiences of traction from the 90s, both 20s and others.

47s and 57s with rebuilt cabs aren't too bad

 

With regard to the reason a 20 only has one cab it was because the BRB put out tenders for the type A locomotives and this would have specified one cab hence the products from EE,BTH and NBL all only having one

[rodent279]

You have to remember that he sold the idea on the fact that engine overhauls at works was the same cost per cylinder so the Sulzer engines with only 12 cylinders were cheaper to overhaul. brush in the tender for the class 47 actually put forward a design using the 16 cylinder EE engine that would have been cheaper and lighter than the Sulzer version.

 

Sulzer were very conservative with the loadings/RPM of main bearings, so limited their engines until too late for BR requirements. They were still using 2 valves per cylinder, and did build a experiment 4 valve per cylinder engine with higher RPM but was overtaken by the need to solve the problems of the class 47s. If the R series engine had worked, you cold have had a straight 8 in a 33 with 2400BHP. 

I think BR could have been a bit cleverer in it's dual sourcing, along the lines of what DB did with the V200's. Surely the Type 4 spec could have specified interchangeable engines, so that some of the fleet could have Sulzer engines, & some EE engines. The spec could even have required generators to be interchangeable as well. Then you would get a real comparison between types, rather than comparing a 47 to a 50, which is a bit like comparing apples & pears.

 

It would be interesting to see a Deltic engine married to a hydraulic transmission too. Imagine the starting torque you'd get from 3300bhp coupled to a hydraulic transmission!

[keefer]

47s and 57s with rebuilt cabs aren't too bad

 

With regard to the reason a 20 only has one cab it was because the BRB put out tenders for the type A locomotives and this would have specified one cab hence the products from EE,BTH and NBL all only having one

In this respect, the 20s were the best of the bunch in that there was restricted visibility in one direction only - cab first running gave an excellent view, whereas the 15s and 16s had a poor view in both directions

[jim.snowdon]

I think BR could have been a bit cleverer in it's dual sourcing, along the lines of what DB did with the V200's. Surely the Type 4 spec could have specified interchangeable engines, so that some of the fleet could have Sulzer engines, & some EE engines. The spec could even have required generators to be interchangeable as well. Then you would get a real comparison between types, rather than comparing a 47 to a 50, which is a bit like comparing apples & pears.

 

It would be interesting to see a Deltic engine married to a hydraulic transmission too. Imagine the starting torque you'd get from 3300bhp coupled to a hydraulic transmission!

Until relatively recently, if not still, DB took a much much more active role in farming out its design requirements to industry, such that each of the several locomotive builders are would be given projects to work on, with the results then being given to multiple builders for quantity construction. I suppose it is possible that BR might have gone the same way if Riddles had had his way and the politicians not intervened.

 

Jim

[APOLLO]

I remember back in the late 80's the coal trains from Parkside Colliery to Fiddlers Ferry had 2 reversals at Warrington (Walton & Arpley). Trains from Bickershaw had 3 reversals (Springs Branch & the other two) Usually 2 x 20 hauled, a (successful) experiment was performed by putting a Class 20 at each end of the MGR train, "talking" to each other via radio control - only one train crew required. I remember seeing this train at Walton. Don't know the numbers of the locomotives.

 

Very versatile locos and much missed around the North West. (as is the traffic they hauled).

 

Brit15

[Tim Hall]

They're very popular in preservation. Here's D8137/ 20137 waiting to leave Cheltenham Racecourse for Toddington on the GWSR at dusk yesterday, with 7 Mk1s and small prairie 5526 on the back (having worked the train into Cheltenham, and keeping us warm on the return). The noise from the first droplight was splendid

 

[rodent279]

Until relatively recently, if not still, DB took a much much more active role in farming out its design requirements to industry, such that each of the several locomotive builders are would be given projects to work on, with the results then being given to multiple builders for quantity construction. I suppose it is possible that BR might have gone the same way if Riddles had had his way and the politicians not intervened.

 

Jim

I suspect the reason for the proliferation of untested & diverse designs, with little in common between them, was a result of political influence, in trying to spread state funds across private industry as far as possible. As I said earlier, I don't think there was really very much that the traffic requirements of the 1960's demanded that couldn't be met with a fleet of 20's, 37's & 40's.

[russ p]

Preferred going to boulby with that as 20137 Murray B Hofmayer back in the 80s

[jonny777]

I suspect the reason for the proliferation of untested & diverse designs, with little in common between them, was a result of political influence, in trying to spread state funds across private industry as far as possible. As I said earlier, I don't think there was really very much that the traffic requirements of the 1960's demanded that couldn't be met with a fleet of 20's, 37's & 40's.

 

 

I believe you are right, up to a point. However it soon became apparent to the ER management at Liverpool Street that EE Type 4s (as they were known then) were hardly any improvement on a Britannia in good nick on Norwich services. 

 

The same could be said for their performance (or lack of it) on heavy trains north of Crewe. In fact, rumours of the time were that BR hastily withdrew the remaining Stanier Pacifics in 1964 because inconvenient people such as OS Nock and CJ Allen were timing and comparing performances between steam and diesel; then publishing results in the enthusiasts' monthlies. The results had become somewhat embarrassing when many Glasgow trains were loaded to 14 coaches. 

 

I have seen photos of class 20s assisting 40s over Beattock on passenger services. 

[Tim Hall]

Preferred going to boulby with that as 20137 Murray B Hofmayer back in the 80s

 

 

Like this? Late June 88, with 20118 "Saltburn by the Sea". Taken from outside my house just east of Redcar Central.

[brianusa]

A few enterprising souls quite possibly looked at US locos of the day and saw they operated  very successfully with single engine cabs and where needed, went nose to nose as the Cl.20s do still today.  A pity the government frowned on buying US engines, could've saved a lot of money and effort!

 

Brian.

[russ p]

June 88 2 (2).jpg

 

Like this? Late June 88, with 20118 "Saltburn by the Sea". Taken from outside my house just east of Redcar Central.

137 used to normally run with 122, is that in Redcar loop?

Sometimes we asked to go in there so we could get fish and chips Carlin how was also a good chip stop even coming light from Boulby if the load wasn't ready there were other establishments other than fish shops that were visited back then......

[jim.snowdon]

I believe you are right, up to a point. However it soon became apparent to the ER management at Liverpool Street that EE Type 4s (as they were known then) were hardly any improvement on a Britannia in good nick on Norwich services. 

 

The same could be said for their performance (or lack of it) on heavy trains north of Crewe. In fact, rumours of the time were that BR hastily withdrew the remaining Stanier Pacifics in 1964 because inconvenient people such as OS Nock and CJ Allen were timing and comparing performances between steam and diesel; then publishing results in the enthusiasts' monthlies. The results had become somewhat embarrassing when many Glasgow trains were loaded to 14 coaches. 

 

I have seen photos of class 20s assisting 40s over Beattock on passenger services. 

Probably not surprising, given that the LMS and English Electric considered 2 x 1600hp (ie 10000 + 10001 in multiple) as the equivalent of a Class 8 Pacific. Whether BR ever contemplated letting EE4s run in multiple is an interesting question - they were capable of doing so, but I can't recall ever seeing any pictures of multiple operation.

 

Jim

[Tim Hall]

137 used to normally run with 122, is that in Redcar loop?

Sometimes we asked to go in there so we could get fish and chips Carlin how was also a good chip stop even coming light from Boulby if the load wasn't ready there were other establishments other than fish shops that were visited back then......

 

No, the loop was on the north side of the line (just visible in the background). The photo was taken from the south side and the train is approaching Redcar Central from Boulby heading towards Boro, a couple of hundred yards from the signal box and West Dyke Road. The chippie on West Dyke Rd was pretty good, as was the Chinese near it.....often popped in after getting off last train back from somewhere.....

Edited December 31, 2017 by Tim Hall

[rodent279]

I believe you are right, up to a point. However it soon became apparent to the ER management at Liverpool Street that EE Type 4s (as they were known then) were hardly any improvement on a Britannia in good nick on Norwich services. 

 

The same could be said for their performance (or lack of it) on heavy trains north of Crewe. In fact, rumours of the time were that BR hastily withdrew the remaining Stanier Pacifics in 1964 because inconvenient people such as OS Nock and CJ Allen were timing and comparing performances between steam and diesel; then publishing results in the enthusiasts' monthlies. The results had become somewhat embarrassing when many Glasgow trains were loaded to 14 coaches. 

 

I have seen photos of class 20s assisting 40s over Beattock on passenger services. 

 

My dad worked on the electrification into Euston in the 1960's. He has told me that when the first electrics started running out of Euston, they were running to diesel timings, which were essentially steam timings with the odd minute lopped off. The electrics were regularly arriving in Rugby & waiting 20mins for right time.

 

But in all honesty, apart from a handful of fast expresses, and the heaviest freights, there wasn't much that a class 40 couldn't handle. There is a big gap in installed power between a 40 & a Deltic, so either an uprated 40, or a 50 would have been required as well, but I reckon 90% of traffic requirements could have been met by class 20/37/40.

[russ p]

No, the loop was on the north side of the line (just visible in the background). The photo was taken from the south side and the train is approaching Redcar Central from Boulby heading towards Boro, a couple of hundred yards from the signal box and West Dyke Road. The chippie on West Dyke Rd was pretty good, as was the Chinese near it.....often popped in after getting off last train back from somewhere.....

I can see that now for some reason had it in my head the train was heading for Boulby

[25901]

Without looking in detail on the web but does it seem a certain gentleman based at Barrowhill has mainly RSH rather than EE 20's, is there a build quality issue to be found.

Edited December 31, 2017 by 25901

[jim.snowdon]

Without looking in detail on the web but does it seem a certain gentleman based at Barrowhill has mainly RSH rather than EE 20's, is there a build quality issue to be found.

Although by the time the 20s were being built, RS&H was part of English Electric, as was Vulcan Foundry.

 

Jim

[Reorte]

In this respect, the 20s were the best of the bunch in that there was restricted visibility in one direction only - cab first running gave an excellent view, whereas the 15s and 16s had a poor view in both directions

Even nose forward would the cab view have been regarded as that much of an issue in a railway still used to steam?

[Jeff Smith]

Are the controls set up for cab-first running?

[cb900f]

Yes

 

Which was a problem for the second man,as you had to be careful where you placed your cup of tea.There was a set of controls at each seat (nose or cab leading). If I remember correctly both power handles moved irrespective of which seat you where driving from. Therefore if you were sat in the non driving seat and put your cup of tea in the vicinity of the power handle it could go flying all over the desk. Disaster no tea.

 

I'm sure Russ will put me right.

 

Pete

[jonny777]

My dad worked on the electrification into Euston in the 1960's. He has told me that when the first electrics started running out of Euston, they were running to diesel timings, which were essentially steam timings with the odd minute lopped off. The electrics were regularly arriving in Rugby & waiting 20mins for right time.

 

But in all honesty, apart from a handful of fast expresses, and the heaviest freights, there wasn't much that a class 40 couldn't handle. There is a big gap in installed power between a 40 & a Deltic, so either an uprated 40, or a 50 would have been required as well, but I reckon 90% of traffic requirements could have been met by class 20/37/40.

 

 

 

I think part of the problem was (dons tin hat) the completely anti diesel stance of Riddles. 

 

I am well aware of the oil imports argument, but by the mid-50s BR had five main line diesels. Had another (say) six or seven been ordered in 1951 with similar power outputs, BR could have had a small fleet of a dozen diesels with which to work a reasonably regular service. I doubt the fuel requirements for a dozen diesel locomotives would have brought the UK economy to its knees. 

 

My choice would have been Marylebone to Sheffield, which would allow the diesel service to be as self contained as possible; and small dedicated servicing depots to be constructed at either end of the line. This would have given the operators, maintenance teams and loco manufacturers a chance to work with the new machines in everyday service without inconveniencing the majority of the network. 

 

It may even have led to a slow but steady improvement in power unit research, and possibly to other companies building prototypes, many years earlier than actually happened; just to get a foot in the door if/when more lines were dieselised and more orders put out to tender. 

 

As it was, when D200 rolled off the production line, it showed very little advancement from 10203 which was really based on 1940s technology with an uprated power unit compared to 10201. 

[russ p]

Yes

 

Which was a problem for the second man,as you had to be careful where you placed your cup of tea.There was a set of controls at each seat (nose or cab leading). If I remember correctly both power handles moved irrespective of which seat you where driving from. Therefore if you were sat in the non driving seat and put your cup of tea in the vicinity of the power handle it could go flying all over the desk. Disaster no tea.

 

I'm sure Russ will put me right.

 

Pete

Totally correct Pete the desk for nose leading is the number one or master desk and its this one where the master key is placed the other desk is number two or the dummy desk as it is essentially a shell of a desk with no electrical equipment inside the power handles and reversers are linked by rods under the floor .

 

All the best for 2018