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

[Nearholmer]

28 minutes ago, peach james said:

Your numbers are suspect..

 

Comparisons based on fuel costs at given dates will always come into collision with similar comparisons made in different places and/or at different times, because the costs of fuels aren't fixed in time or by location. What might make economic sense in one place at one time, might seem utterly nonsensical in another place or at another time.

 

Much of the debate in this thread is really about that very thing, in that Britain chose domestic coal over imported oil, and chose to burn it in locomotives rather than generating stations, for railwway purposes c1948.

[kevinlms]

14 hours ago, Titan said:

 

The issue of weight was nothing to do with performance, and all about hammer blow to the track.  The lighter you can make a loco, the less the cost of track maintenance, particularly if that loco is run on express passenger. Diesel Hydraulics had a further advantage in this respect in that the unsprung weight was much less without a heavy motor suspended from the axle, and unsprung weight makes a significant contribution to track damage in itself.

Weight and hammer blow to the track isn't as clear cut as you suggest. The Class 86 electrics prove that.

They were vastly less weighty than any of the big diesels, yet they still smashed the track. It was all to do with how the motors are mounted in the bogies. BR never really solved the issue with the 86's, messing about with the wheels and fiddling with speed limits. They knew the correct answer, they mounted the motors in the Class 87, using the same methods as they did for Classes 81-85s.

 

They tried to save money on the 86s, but it backfired badly.

[Pandora]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Comparisons based on fuel costs at given dates will always come into collision with similar comparisons made in different places and/or at different times, because the costs of fuels aren't fixed in time or by location. What might make economic sense in one place at one time, might seem utterly nonsensical in another place or at another time.

 

Much of the debate in this thread is really about that very thing, in that Britain chose domestic coal over imported oil, and chose to burn it in locomotives rather than generating stations, for railwway purposes c1948.

A Govt inspired scheme of the post WW2  1940s, led to the spending of £500,000 by the LNER on   conversions and facilities for steam locos to be fired on oil, a Govt  project to cope with coal supply issues of the period,  the ever-incisive Bonavia pointed out,   30 cwt of fuel oil in a steam  locomotive firebox needed to to save 20 cwt of locomotive coal,  but 20cwt of fuel oil in a diesel locomotive saved 100 cwt of locomotive coal, we can make a guess of  the wasted  money on the oil-firing project triggering  the cash-strapped LNER to commission the 1947 ECML diesel fleet  study, many thousands of tons of coal needed each week were required  to run the express passenger service between London and Scotland

Edited October 28, 2021 by Pandora

[mdvle]

18 hours ago, peach james said:

Your numbers are suspect...there are more recent (late 70's) numbers from South Africa in The Red Devil, and the figure I have seen over here was that at 6%n, steam burning coal was cheaper than diesel burning oil.

 

But is that just fuel costs, or total loco costs?

 

Because coal burning would have to be really cheaper to allow for the higher maintenance costs of a steam loco vs diesel.

 

18 hours ago, peach james said:

From a capital prospective, I am far from convinced that the 25kv electric system the UK has chosen to implement is the most capital efficient- I suspect that 3000VDC overhead might be cheaper, depending on the standards of track and speeds expected.  (a la MIL western lines, as posted above by me...).  I suspect there is a large gap between what can be made to work reasonably safely (even in current safety climates) and what is elected to be done in the UK, alongside what is going to end up being done in Ontario with GO...I think that they are trying to make a Daimler when an Austin Mini would do  (or Cadilac and Ford, for those over here...).  

 

Except experience has taught us there are efficiencies to using a common standard and not attempting to go unique, and most if not all new build electric for decades has been 25kv unless an extension of an existing system.

 

As for GO (if it ever happens), 25kv offers compatibility with all new stuff in North America (newer portions of the NEC, the new CalTrain electrification, a now off the shelf EMU from Stadler) as well as being best for potential longer term electrification by VIA or others (or even GO as it continues to expand beyond a traditional commuter system).

 

 

[Bittern]

17 hours ago, Pandora said:

30 cwt of fuel oil in a steam  locomotive firebox needed to to save 20 cwt of locomotive coal,  but 20cwt of fuel oil in a diesel locomotive saved 100 cwt of locomotive coal,

It wasn't quite as silly as that makes it sound, since converting the steam loco fleet could be done for much less time and money than scrapping them and building whole new locos. Also cracking wasn't as well developed so an oil-fired steam loco could in principle use cheaper low-grade fuel, and because oil left less ash theoretically locos could keep running longer and you'd need fewer locos and cleaners. In principle it could have still saved money, especially if higher utilisation had allowed them to scrap older locos, and it might have allowed single-manning  on lighter duties (so it was strange that they didn't convert small tank engines too), at a time when there was a shortage of warm bodies, let alone skilled workers. Of course, those "theoretically"s and "in principle"s are doing a lot of heavy lifting, and it didn't work out in practice, but it was worth a try, and if they hadn't I'm sure we'd be here asking why they didn't try to make better use of the already paid for steam fleet with things like oil firing.

 

It was still a bad idea to cancel the LNER diesels  though, for all the reasons people have said.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Bittern
clarification.

[Tumut]

Re Peach James and others on p20,

 

1 / in the 1950s the VR did try Pulverized Brown Coal ( La Trobe Valley, East Gippsland is one of the world's largest supply of brown coal at 430 billion tonne reserve in 2013 ) for steam locomotive use, though successful engineering wise, cost wise showed no appreciable economic benefit. The VR also initially used Bunker C for the oil burning classes J & A2 ( some members of each class ), however, as the world demand for Bunker C increased, and the availability of supply decreased, the VR then used diesel for oil burning steam, which remained the case until the end of daily steam operation in 1968, though steam was still available, on an as required basis, until steam finished in 1972.  

 

2 / in the 1950s and early 1960s, steaming coal was generally confined ( there were other smaller supplies elsewhere ) to the NSW East Coast and in Collie, Western Australia. So moving coal to loco depots around Australia required long transits by both sea and rail, and then man handling it into storage. That is expensive and dirty, and coal is relatively heavy. Contrast this with diesel, which is easily transported by rail tank, and in which most Australian diesels would only need to refuel at a very small number of locations, especially when compared to steam. ( For years the VR had only one fuel point, South Dynon Loco, and that location was easily the most used fuel point on the system. The bulk of the VR diesel fleet was also allocated to South Dynon Loco. )

 

3 / additionally, those diesels that replaced steam on particular traffics, such as wheat lines, could usually haul double the displaced steam loading, and for rural branch goods this usually resulted in one train a week, as opposed to the two previous steam trains per week, for the same loading. Additionally, these diesels did not need refuelling, or rewatering for those rosters. ( When the VR V/Line G class Clyde-EMD 3,000hp entered service from 1984, complete grain lines could be cleared by one train. )

 

4 / the other obvious benefit was that diesels can multi unit with one loco crew, and all Australian diesels used the same MU coupling, unlike the variety that BR had to put up with.

 

5 / although English Electric did supply some diesels , the majority from Rocklea in Queensland, the most common diesels in Australia were Goodwin-Alco, and Clyde-EMD, the VR in particular favouring Clyde- EMD ( B,S,T,Y,X, H,C,G,N ) due to its very high reliability and ease of maintenance, the fact that VR B ( 1952 ) and S (1957 ) class diesels are still in revenue service today is proof of that.

 

6 / The Western Australian Government Railways / WAGR did use 48 x Class X Beyer-Peacock / Metropolitan-Vickers / Crossley 1-Do-1, 1,045hp diesel electrics, which were notorious for catching fire, just the thing for wheat lines and eucalyptus forests !

 

7 / unlike the UK, Australia did not have a domestic Diesel engine maker that built locomotive diesel motors, so Australian private builders made the mechanical and body parts whilst importing the diesel motor and related components from the US.

 

8 / The other point is that Australia, from a railway operating perspective, was more akin geographically to US operations, and Australia, like the UK. also had experience with US equipment during WW2, and post war, the US was in a position to more adequately meet Australian needs than was the UK, therefore Australia followed a different path from the UK. ( I did once think of modelling a CNW wheat line till I discovered the branch line goods consisted of 2 x SD9 , combined 3,000hp, and 100 bogie wagons ! which is roughly 20' long in HO, and it has not moved yet ! )

 

The UK was also trying to readjust its industry from steam age engineering, whereas Australia was  expanding into new manufacturing industries, so the economic and political issues were different. And economics is always political in one form or another, despite what some economists claim.

 

Regards, Tumut.

[Pandora]

4 hours ago, Bittern said:

It wasn't quite as silly as that makes it sound, since converting the steam loco fleet could be done for much less time and money than scrapping them and building whole new locos. Also cracking wasn't as well developed so an oil-fired steam loco could in principle use cheaper low-grade fuel, and because oil left less ash theoretically locos could keep running longer and you'd need fewer locos and cleaners. In principle it could have still saved money, especially if higher utilisation had allowed them to scrap older locos, and it might have allowed single-manning  on lighter duties (so it was strange that they didn't convert small tank engines too), at a time when there was a shortage of warm bodies, let alone skilled workers. Of course, those "theoretically"s and "in principle"s are doing a lot of heavy lifting, and it didn't work out in practice, but it was worth a try, and if they hadn't I'm sure we'd be here asking why they didn't try to make better use of the already paid for steam fleet with things like oil firing.

 

It was still a bad idea to cancel the LNER diesels  though, for all the reasons people have said.

The coal to oil conversion initiative came from the Ministry of Fuel and Power and not from the railways, the intiative affected both British  Industry and the Railways, the Railways were not "convinced" and only modest numbers of locomotives were converted,  there were practical difficulties such as a shortage of tank wagons to transport fuel oil to serve the demands of industry,  in essence another "Groundnuts" project.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Pandora

[cheesysmith]

ministry of fuel and power, would this be the same clowns, with a different name, who are now running the UK power generation, and the same who were waiting for the bionic duckweed to avoid having to wire up the UK rail lines?

[Zomboid]

28 minutes ago, cheesysmith said:

ministry of fuel and power, would this be the same clowns, with a different name, who are now running the UK power generation, and the same who were waiting for the bionic duckweed to avoid having to wire up the UK rail lines?

Doubt it. Anyone with decision making power at the time that such things as oil firing steam locos were being considered will be long dead by now.

[cheesysmith]

Back to the early diesels. All these figures are from BR records out of the book "class 47, a 50 year history".

 

This looks at probably the most important aspect, which few people have considered, and why I keep saying rebuilding the older locos was a missed opportunity. that is cost.

 

Note, I have rounded these off to make it easier.

 

The original quotes for the 47 from brush were £107K with Sulzer, but only £95k with EE. From this we can see the EE engine was about £10K cheaper (as well as between 7 and 10 tons lighter). The Sulzer engine cost £40K on it`s own. The cost for the first 20 generators, built using modified class 46 electrical bits was about £4K more.

 

When Crewe built their locos, BR paid Brush for the electrical equipment plus engine came out at approx £73K. The Crewe built locos came out at about £107K, so the cost of building the loco itself was approx £34K. 

 

This is why I say they should have rebuilt more of the older machines. Especially as the engines were just uprated versions of what was already there, so could have been uprated cheaper than new engines. If you had rebuilt the peaks, just using these figures, you would have had a fleet of 2500bhp locos, at around 114 tons weight, for as little as £40K each.

 

Using the above basic figures, if they had rebuilt the class 40s using Brush electrics into a class 47 body, you could have had a 2400hp loco at 107 tons (both these are conservative guesses) for £70K.

 

Just using the figures for the EE rebuild, you could have had 3 rebuilds for the price of 2 new. And looking at the reliability of the 37s, that had the EE V12 engine at roughly the same output, you would have had excellent reliability as well.

 

But loco engineers are not remembered for fixing others mistakes, but for what new and shiney locos they make. Is Sir N Greasley remembered for his work of working to make the LNER more efficient or for his A4s. The only bit of BR that really did the continued development instead of grasping at new and shiney was the SR with it`s use of EE traction equipment.

[Nearholmer]

Its an interesting line of thought, and in general I agree with it, although I do think you need to up the rebuild figures a bit, because rebuilding anything, especially anything filled with cables and pipes, always throws up annoying challenges that couldn't be foreseen.

 

The "continued development" line is also interesting, because railways that have pursued it have sometimes over-reached the idea, and after decades of it paying dividends have suddenly found themselves left behind. This happened to some degree to the Southern (the English one, in the 1970s), the Pennsylvania, and the Great Western (again, the English one).

[Traintresta]

On 27/10/2021 at 17:34, Nearholmer said:

Why? As in what work was there for them that another proven design couldn’t handle? Maybe the clue to why it never happened rests in the answer to those questions.

 

Was cruel to give WR Class 31 though, very cruel.

I have never seen an explanation as to why they weren't ordered, but it may have been that this was a consideration made before he 31's were re-engined or before the 37's were ordered in quantity.  I do know that EE were able to build large numbers in short order so they had the advantage over other builders, and Beyer-Peacock (if I understand correctly) didn't last much longer so they may not have been in a position to fulfil the order.

[Traintresta]

On 27/10/2021 at 18:05, JohnR said:

Trackside October 2021 had some drawings.

Like nothing I was expecting!!

Edited October 29, 2021 by Traintresta

[Nearholmer]

Fascinating!

 

Can you read the dates on those? I ask, because it looks rather inspired by the French pre-WW2 locos, and I wonder whether it is a speculative thing from c1938/39, rather than a postwar proposal.

[BernardTPM]

Hmmm, that's spooky. Maybe this isn't so far fetched after all.

[Traintresta]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Fascinating!

 

Can you read the dates on those? I ask, because it looks rather inspired by the French pre-WW2 locos, and I wonder whether it is a speculative thing from c1938/39, rather than a postwar proposal.

They end in /034 and /036 so you could be right but zooming in, the top drawing appears to have a 45' date and the one below is harder to read but seems to end in a 8.  As much as I can read the number before it is either a 4 or a 6 so I'm guessing it's 48'.

[Ramblin Rich]

The top design seems to be desperately holding onto A4 styling, rather than putting a cab in the sensible place at the front.

[Nearholmer]

Here are the two PLM ones in (expensive) model form. Bernard even got the livery nearly right.

 

http://www.fulgurex.ch/modelle/h0/262/262-01.html

 

(I think that the tech detail in the caption might be wrong, in that the two designs had different engines, MAN and Sulzer IIRC, and different electrics)

Edited October 29, 2021 by Nearholmer

[rodent279]

It's interesting though, looking at those PLM diesels, that their direct descendents were the SNCF CC65500's of 1955. 2000hp, the same as a class 40, on six axles, for an all up weight about the same as a class 47. Arguably, much as I like them, the class 40's and Peaks were out of date almost before they were built.

 

https://www.derbysulzers.com/sncf65500.html

 

(Did SNCF have the same problem with unfitted freights that BR did?)

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

(Did SNCF have the same problem with unfitted freights that BR did?)

 

Looking at the train weights and gradients cited, they must surely have been continuosly braked.

[Ramblin Rich]

Going back to the rebuild idea, there has been some of this: class 47 901 re-engined as a test bed for class 56; 37/9 test beds; class 47s becoming 57s and now 56s becoming 69s. So 47s could have been re-engined to be equivalent of 56s and 37s could have become type 5s on the cheap!

[Zomboid]

5 hours ago, Ramblin Rich said:

The top design seems to be desperately holding onto A4 styling, rather than putting a cab in the sensible place at the front.

You're right, though with the A4 being such an iconic shape that the LNER was rightly proud of its understandable that they'd look at whether it could be applied in this context.

 

I think the answer was "no", but worth having the outline drawing done to be sure.

[Nearholmer]

There were a few miniature A4s with petrol engines, some in the tender, built for 15” gauge and lower in the 1930-50s; maybe the drawing was inspired by them.

 

 

 

In fact, thinking about it George Barlow of Southport built a series of petrol/diesel-electric A4 locos for 15” gauge, which is even closer!

 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Zomboid]

I'm surprised those LNER designs are so single-ended. I can't read the dimensions, but based on proportions they look longer than a steam loco, which would make turning them a right nuisance as they won't fit on a turntable. Putting two pointy cabs on the second design would avoid that whole issue, and make turn around times much faster.

[cheesysmith]

or just put a pointy end at each end of a rake of coaches, HST 30 years earlier. If they did do this, I wonder how long before they would have rebuilt KX to make it cheaper to maintain with fewer loco moves?