Why did the 20s outlast other classes?

[SRman]

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

 

True, as long as there were two members on board, as per steam. Single-manning would not be allowed with the long hood leading.

[jjb1970]

Initially a lot of US railroads ran their road switchers long hood first as a normal way of operating. Even the SD70 spartan cabs delivered to Conrail nd NS in the early 90's had ditch lights at the long hood end.

[jim.snowdon]

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. 

 

That is hardly surprising, as there wasn't much by way of "new" technology available until the electronics age arrived, and apart from the adoption of brushless alternators there wasn't much suitable for railway traction until the early steps with the D400s, and we all know what their weak point was.

 

What EE did with the D200 design was take what worked, and kept working. The engines didn't suffer the sort of fundamental problems that others did, not just because they weren't over-stressed, but also because they were a steady development of the engines that pre-dated 10000/10001. The heavy weight and the 1-Co bogies were essentially down to the same conservative thinking that was normal with steam locomotives (and to an extent still is throughout the railway industry, often for good reasons).

 

Jim

[slilley]

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.

 

Documents I have seen at the National Archives at Kew indicate that GM were asked about building locos as part of the Pilot Scheme but declined as the small quantity involved meant it was not worth their while getting involved.

 

The issue was revisited in the 1970s as part of the Class 56 procurement exercise. At the end of 1973 preliminary enquiries were made with potential locomotive builders from both at home and abroad. Various options were considered, The third option considered after the BREL and Brush built options 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.

[cb900f]

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

Thanks Russ and a happy New Year to you too.

 

I knew you would know being ex Thornaby. Have to say they were my least favourite loco to work with, give me a good old 45 or 47 to anything else.

 

Cheers Pete

[russ p]

I still like them today not that we get many now.

Anything is preferable to a 66!

[jim.snowdon]

Documents I have seen at the National Archives at Kew indicate that GM were asked about building locos as part of the Pilot Scheme but declined as the small quantity involved meant it was not worth their while getting involved.

 

The issue was revisited in the 1970s as part of the Class 56 procurement exercise. At the end of 1973 preliminary enquiries were made with potential locomotive builders from both at home and abroad. Various options were considered, The third option considered after the BREL and Brush built options 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.

Yet, some years later, GM built the 59s, in what are, for them, very small numbers to a special design.

 

And even earlier, they were successfully selling custom-designed locomotives to CIE, whose staff managed to simply add them to the repertoire of assorted diesel types they already drove/looked after.

 

One key difference might be that BR were used to specifying everything in detail, often uneccesarily so, whereas GM's approach has long been "there's our standard design - we don't do specials".

 

Jim

[PatB]

Yet, some years later, GM built the 59s, in what are, for them, very small numbers to a special design.

 

And even earlier, they were successfully selling custom-designed locomotives to CIE, whose staff managed to simply add them to the repertoire of assorted diesel types they already drove/looked after.

 

One key difference might be that BR were used to specifying everything in detail, often uneccesarily so, whereas GM's approach has long been "there's our standard design - we don't do specials".

 

Jim

 

Sensible GM. The trouble with doing specials is that you take on responsibility for making any idiotic ideas the customer may have actually work. Then, when said daft ideas cause problems, it's you wearing it.

[kevinlms]

 

Sensible GM. The trouble with doing specials is that you take on responsibility for making any idiotic ideas the customer may have actually work. Then, when said daft ideas cause problems, it's you wearing it.

The 'Slim Jim's' Class 33s were a classic example of this. It sounds easy to narrow down an existing loco, but much harder to do in practice.

[The Stationmaster]

The 'Slim Jim's' Class 33s were a classic example of this. It sounds easy to narrow down an existing loco, but much harder to do in practice.

 

As the 59s proved (like how do you top up the sump oil?  The filler is just there, oops - that's a bit tight against the inside of the body isn't it?).

 

There was no doubt at all that GM saw the Yeoman orders as a potential Trojan Horse into the UK market and apart from doing some squeezing down and developing a new style of 'car body' for the locos they were effectively selling a standard design into the UK.  Easy enough for them too as far as service was concerned as they already had a rep covering the UK and in reality despatching spare parts to the UK was no more difficult in the age of airfreight (which they already used extensively) than it was to many other customers - anything up to and including a traction motor despatched by airfeight on an overnight basis.  Yeoman could literally get spares for their GM locos as quickly & reliably as we can order and receive a model loco etc from the best retailers here - get the order in on one day (by telex back then) and collect the part at Heathrow the next day.  Problem with the loco? - telex GM and you'll get a fix back by telex within hours - and the fix invariably solved the problem.

 

The equivalent would I suppose be EE or BREL offering a similar level of service for spares and solving problems on anything they'd built virtually since the day they started building diesel locos.

[jim.snowdon]

As the 59s proved (like how do you top up the sump oil?  The filler is just there, oops - that's a bit tight against the inside of the body isn't it?).

 

There was no doubt at all that GM saw the Yeoman orders as a potential Trojan Horse into the UK market and apart from doing some squeezing down and developing a new style of 'car body' for the locos they were effectively selling a standard design into the UK.  Easy enough for them too as far as service was concerned as they already had a rep covering the UK and in reality despatching spare parts to the UK was no more difficult in the age of airfreight (which they already used extensively) than it was to many other customers - anything up to and including a traction motor despatched by airfeight on an overnight basis.  Yeoman could literally get spares for their GM locos as quickly & reliably as we can order and receive a model loco etc from the best retailers here - get the order in on one day (by telex back then) and collect the part at Heathrow the next day.  Problem with the loco? - telex GM and you'll get a fix back by telex within hours - and the fix invariably solved the problem.

 

The equivalent would I suppose be EE or BREL offering a similar level of service for spares and solving problems on anything they'd built virtually since the day they started building diesel locos.

At least with EE, there was already a high level of standardisation within their range, both diesel and electric.

 

Jim

[jjb1970]

One of EMD's big strengths which differentiated them from other early entrants into diesel locomotive manufacture was that they made a determined effort to offer first class customer support, not just spare parts supply but training and even assistance in the different operating possibilities offered by diesels as opposed to steam. And their concentration on standard designs (they always did offer certain options, but they were pre-defined options and effectively still a standard offering) and belief that if the product was right then the advantages such as lower production costs and easier support would be compelling enough to persuade operators to adapt their operations to the available power rather than vice versa was well found. And they were pioneers in using innovative financing packages in rail traction, greatly helped by their parent being GM. They also got into a bit of a virtuous circle in that it and resale values (important in many markets) were boosted by it all making them even more attractive. There were reasons why EMD came to dominate the NA diesel locomotive market in the late 40's onwards, and their position was merited.

[w124bob]

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

Been there done that, in general it was the reverser being moved that caused a loss of tea fault, a simple under floor linkage being the reason. Anyone working on 20's even today will probably have a homemade carriage key to unlock the hood doors. A standard carrige key coudln't be used because it was to short to clear the hood door handle, I was given a homemade one on my second day at work. Simple 10mm rod forged to a tapered square end, bent to an L long enough to clear the hood door handle. Checking the water header tank gauge was interesting, situated in the nose end it was easy to see but with the engine running the traction motor blower could suck the hood door shut. So never step right inside. Only 2 locos were fitted with remote control equipment according the "Power of the 20's" book, numbers 058 and 087 in 1986 and it was a shortlived experiment.

[royaloak]

Yet, some years later, GM built the 59s, in what are, for them, very small numbers to a special design.

 

And even earlier, they were successfully selling custom-designed locomotives to CIE, whose staff managed to simply add them to the repertoire of assorted diesel types they already drove/looked after.

 

One key difference might be that BR were used to specifying everything in detail, often uneccesarily so, whereas GM's approach has long been "there's our standard design - we don't do specials".

 

Jim

The 59s were built to do a specific job in a specific area so the numbers of drivers and fitters who had to be trained was minimized, not the same situation as BR would have found itself in where drivers and fitters all over the Country would have needed training which would have been very expensive. 

[kevinlms]

One of EMD's big strengths which differentiated them from other early entrants into diesel locomotive manufacture was that they made a determined effort to offer first class customer support, not just spare parts supply but training and even assistance in the different operating possibilities offered by diesels as opposed to steam. And their concentration on standard designs (they always did offer certain options, but they were pre-defined options and effectively still a standard offering) and belief that if the product was right then the advantages such as lower production costs and easier support would be compelling enough to persuade operators to adapt their operations to the available power rather than vice versa was well found. And they were pioneers in using innovative financing packages in rail traction, greatly helped by their parent being GM. They also got into a bit of a virtuous circle in that it and resale values (important in many markets) were boosted by it all making them even more attractive. There were reasons why EMD came to dominate the NA diesel locomotive market in the late 40's onwards, and their position was merited.

But GM were prepared for new options to meet customer requirement. The Victorian Railways in Australia requested a 6-wheel all powered bogie & construction in Australia (due to similar foreign currency reasons, as the UK). Both of which they got. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Railways_B_class_(diesel)#Inception

 

So did GM realise they'd made a mistake, by not allowing their products to be made under licence, within the UK?

[Rugd1022]

Been there done that, in general it was the reverser being moved that caused a loss of tea fault, a simple under floor linkage being the reason. Anyone working on 20's even today will probably have a homemade carriage key to unlock the hood doors. A standard carrige key coudln't be used because it was to short to clear the hood door handle, I was given a homemade one on my second day at work. Simple 10mm rod forged to a tapered square end, bent to an L long enough to clear the hood door handle. Checking the water header tank gauge was interesting, situated in the nose end it was easy to see but with the engine running the traction motor blower could suck the hood door shut. So never step right inside. Only 2 locos were fitted with remote control equipment according the "Power of the 20's" book, numbers 058 and 087 in 1986 and it was a shortlived experiment.

 

Reminds of a story in Anthony Gregory's book 'Life On The Leicester Line' where he found himself trapped inside one day when checking the header tank, someone came along to move the 20s while he was still there, banging away at the inside of the door until his pleas were heard..!

[russ p]

Been there done that, in general it was the reverser being moved that caused a loss of tea fault, a simple under floor linkage being the reason. Anyone working on 20's even today will probably have a homemade carriage key to unlock the hood doors. A standard carrige key coudln't be used because it was to short to clear the hood door handle, I was given a homemade one on my second day at work. Simple 10mm rod forged to a tapered square end, bent to an L long enough to clear the hood door handle. Checking the water header tank gauge was interesting, situated in the nose end it was easy to see but with the engine running the traction motor blower could suck the hood door shut. So never step right inside. Only 2 locos were fitted with remote control equipment according the "Power of the 20's" book, numbers 058 and 087 in 1986 and it was a shortlived experiment.

When I worked 20s on BR the doors weren't locked but on DRS we have long T keys , when DRS first started I made a batch of the bent square section you mention and each loco carried one

[The Stationmaster]

The 59s were built to do a specific job in a specific area so the numbers of drivers and fitters who had to be trained was minimized, not the same situation as BR would have found itself in where drivers and fitters all over the Country would have needed training which would have been very expensive. 

 

Not really the whole case though is it.  True the 59s were very concentrated but the 66s came along and effectively work just about everywhere with - like the 59s - most simple on the road servicing more than capable of being handled by a man with a van to get him from site to site. But apart from that I'd love to know how many spare parts, including consumable items, for British built diesel locos can be obtained 'off the shelf' within 24 hours of an order being put in, especially if they're a type where manufacture ceased 10 years ago let alone 20 years ago.  Crikey you couldn't even get some spares for Eurostars within less than 4 years of them being built without waiting for weeks - hardly 'committed manufacturer support'.  

[w124bob]

Reminds of a story in Anthony Gregory's book 'Life On The Leicester Line' where he found himself trapped inside one day when checking the header tank, someone came along to move the 20s while he was still there, banging away at the inside of the door until his pleas were heard..!

I knew Tony Gregory well as I also started at Coalville just a month before him.

[jjb1970]

But GM were prepared for new options to meet customer requirement. The Victorian Railways in Australia requested a 6-wheel all powered bogie & construction in Australia (due to similar foreign currency reasons, as the UK). Both of which they got. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Railways_B_class_(diesel)#Inception

 

So did GM realise they'd made a mistake, by not allowing their products to be made under licence, within the UK?

I'm really not sure. By the time Clyde Engineering were cranking them out in Australia and the European NOHABS were rolling off the line even their US operation had started to relent on their previously ruthless attitude on standardisation (before WW2 they actually made locomotives for inventory which were them sold from stock). Did Clyde manage a lot of the detailed "Australia-isation" using standard engine and electrical packages from EMD?

[TravisM]

Documents I have seen at the National Archives at Kew indicate that GM were asked about building locos as part of the Pilot Scheme but declined as the small quantity involved meant it was not worth their while getting involved.

 

I spoke to my cousin in the US who worked for GM at LaGrange in the 50's and yes they were approached by BR but they declined simply because their order books were bursting and they were having up the lead times to existing customers.  It wasn't uncommon to to have delivery dates extended by 6 months to a year and that was common with all US railroad diesel builders.  

 

I believe a design was submitted based on the GP7/9/18 concept and would have looked very similar to the Class 15 and 16's

[rodent279]

I spoke to my cousin in the US who worked for GM at LaGrange in the 50's and yes they were approached by BR but they declined simply because their order books were bursting and they were having up the lead times to existing customers. It wasn't uncommon to to have delivery dates extended by 6 months to a year and that was common with all US railroad diesel builders.

 

I believe a design was submitted based on the GP7/9/18 concept and would have looked very similar to the Class 15 and 16's

It would be fascinating to see that design.

[Classsix T]

It should be made clear also that the refurbishment by Brush for the DRS Choppers was a not inexpensive practical ground up re-building.

 

It's perhaps testament to the design of EE's 10x12 four stroke vee block that it has stood the test of time longer than the locomotives that have had it installed (with admittedly 3 marks over that period, four if counting the Ruston Paxman iteration).

I'm unsure though if the genset and traction motors were changed much beyond rewinding? Still, a 1000hp 750rpm plodder isn't likely to threaten frequent flashovers requiring an alternator/rectification package, something the 50s could well have benefited from. Purse strings and interior space notwithstanding, natch.

 

C6T.

[18B]

On ‎31‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 15:35, jonny777 said:

 

 

I think it would be more accurate to say the 20s were ideal for *a* job, not *the* job. They certainly were not designed for pulling 42 HAAs anywhere on the system. 

 

Why would a pair of class 25s be overpowered for 42 HAAs? If that was the case, why build the 56s (which by implication were 1250hp more powerful than a pair of 20s) and withdraw 25s?  A lot of money could have been saved; and even more if you count the 58s as well. After all, very few 25s worked for BR beyond their 20th birthday, and some didn't even manage 15. 

 

 

 

There is a strange sentence on the Wikipedia page (yes I know it is not sacrosanct) for the class 17s. It states - "Forward visibility, which had dictated the whole design of the type, was not as good as had been hoped, the long noses meaning that the crew could not see the area immediately in front of the locomotive".

 

If this was really a problem, how did drivers manage when shunting with 08s radiator first? After all, it is not as if the 350hp shunter was a rare beast on BR. 

 

08s weren't bowling down mainlines at 30+mph with heavy freights, or working passenger trains to Skegness at 50+ etc.  

[18B]

On ‎28‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 21:49, Titan said:

I think it is rather a pity that EE were conservative with their engine ratings, whist Sulzer were optimistic. Had the follow on orders for class 40's been rated at 2,400bhp they would undoubtedly have been a better alternative to the slightly more powerful peaks and likely would have outlasted them. It would also have meant 1,200bhp for the class 20's which would have improved their usefulness too, and brought them in to line with the class 37's (more or less) the ED's and some of the DEMU's.

 

One of the reasons for the Baby Deltic was at the time EE did not want to push the 8 cylinder beyond 1000bhp, and the 12 cylinder would have been too big and too powerful. So they thought they would try a 1,100bhp Deltic. After all 'DELTIC' was a success, what could possibly go wrong?    I think a 1,200bhp type 2 "baby class 37" would have been superior to the Sulzer offerings, rather than the other way around with the Baby Deltic!

 

perhaps however, it's the conservative rating of the power unit which ment they weren't thrashed, THe Class 20s, 31s, and 37s, outlived the Class 24/25s...