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

[cheesysmith]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

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).

 

The figures are actually a bit generous, as I rounded up where needed. The EE rebuild assumes you use new Brush electrics, but would have been even cheaper using the old EE equipment.

 

As for the southern being left behind by continuing to develop the old EE electrics, I think it was more the management being wedded to "this is the layout, with a door to each compartment, otherwise the loading times would be too slow" rather than anything technical with the electrical bits. After all, the old EE507 motor is still running under the 455 that have not been remotored. The 455 are actually a good example of the old way thinking, as they are incompatible to MU with any other EMU, but instead of auto couplings, like the PEP stock that came before them, they retained the old SR jumper cables and pipes on the cab front. Being suburban units, i don`t think they ever did much splitting or joining in service anyway.

[frobisher]

5 hours ago, cheesysmith said:

The 455 are actually a good example of the old way thinking, as they are incompatible to MU with any other EMU, but instead of auto couplings, like the PEP stock that came before them, they retained the old SR jumper cables and pipes on the cab front. Being suburban units, i don`t think they ever did much splitting or joining in service anyway.

 

No pipes, just the MU connector which is basically the PEP MU connection on a cable rather than being mounted on the drum beneath the coupler, and implemented this way because they were frequently split and joined in service in the SR style and it gave someone something to do rather than the driver just pushing a button...

[Zomboid]

6 hours ago, cheesysmith said:

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?

That would have been a huge philosophical switch though. I assume that the long distance carriages would be taken off to be serviced and reformed for whatever they were doing next away from the station. If the idea had been to introduce fixed formation trains at the same time then that would have been something different.

 

The diesels would have needed to become a much bigger proportion of the service before they'd do any rebuilding, but that may have come sooner to KX, and if it were successful everywhere else too.

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

That would have been a huge philosophical switch though

One that some operators had made already though, although I can’t readily think of a case where the trains involved were simultaneously long (like the ones on the southern) and truly high speed (like the Fliegender Hamburger sets).

 

Having ‘heavy lump’ motive power at either end of a long train, as opposed to distributed power as in an EMU, did take a bit of experiment and test to get to, and was arrived at incrementally through the 50s and 60s, so maybe asking the LNER to go there in the late 30s is stretching things a bit.

[Zomboid]

Taking the leap to diesel power is probably a big enough step. To go from steam locomotives to a proto-HST on the highest profile trains in one step is probably a bit much. One that might make sense now in hindsight, but probably not at the time.

[BernardTPM]

Can anyone think of an example of that kind of operation before the Glasgow-Edinburgh Cl.27 worked trains in 1971 (just pre-dating the Prototype HST)? Ordinary 'Top and Tail' operation doesn't count, it would need through control wiring.

Cl.33/1 and TCs are close, though I can't remember seeing  a 'bagpipes' sandwich.

[Flying Pig]

Making two locos at the opposite ends of a long train work with 1930s electro-pneumatic control systems would have been an interesting exercise.

[cheesysmith]

Actually it is not that big a step for the LNER as they already had semi fixed articulated sets.

 

I don't think they would have gone that far though as at the time they did like to add odd coaches onto trains when busy. Would this practice continue when they found out that diesels cannot be flogged a bit harder to make up for the extra coaches unlike steam? 

 

But once you time the trains to the performance of the diesel with a set load, having a fixed set with a loco at each end makes life easier.

[rockershovel]

24 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Making two locos at the opposite ends of a long train work with 1930s electro-pneumatic control systems would have been an interesting exercise.

Indeed. The Americans already had a railroad system equipped to turn complete trains, and never attempted it. The Germans (probably world leaders in the late 1930s) didn't spend too long over the concept either. 

[cheesysmith]

Actually looking at the Peterborough north and the Grantham layouts on here makes one wonder how long after the diesels came would it have resulted in a whole timetable revision for the ECML. There does appear to be lots of extra slower trains mixed in that ambled along eating up capacity. If they wanted maximum return on their expensive locos, it would have needed a whole new timetable .

[RJS1977]

22 hours ago, Traintresta said:

Like nothing I was expecting!!

So, who's going to be the first to build a model?

 

[RichardT]

1 hour ago, cheesysmith said:

 

I don't think they would have gone that far though as at the time they did like to add odd coaches onto trains when busy.

This. An aspect of traditional railway operational philosophy that died hard but is now often overlooked. I was astonished to find out just how much en-route shuffling/adding/dropping off of carriages from formations was routinely carried out on steam-era long distance trains, as opposed to the “one size fits all” mentality today.

 

Richard T

[Nearholmer]

3 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

can't remember seeing  a 'bagpipes' sandwich.

It was a standard formation for excursions: 33+TC+wired buffet+TC+33. A good few rail tours used it too.

 

It was a very nippy set-up, top speed a bit limited (85mph?), but acceleration and hill climbing was brilliant. I went on a tour from Waterloo, out via Salisbury to Exeter, then to  Cornwall via the GWR, and the train easily outclassed the then standard performance over the south Devon banks.

 

How the first use of that formation fitted into the history of ‘lump at each end’ I’m not sure, but we seem to be forgetting The Blue Pullman, the Hastings Units, and the many European TEE sets, which were really the same thing, albeit with fewer cars.

 

I share the doubts others have expressed about far-remote engine control in the late 1930s. I’m not sure the technology for use with Diesel locos had got far enough to permit its use over a full 12+ car train. Clearly MU control of electric trains, and the general principals of EP and EM over long trains had (several decades earlier) - its the interface with the Engine/generator control system at each ‘unit’ that I’m less sure about. Need to read some more old textbooks and journals!

 

The German DE units used a somewhat different engine/generator control scheme from the US ones, so probably need to look it their books too.

 

PS: One book immediately to hand is Hinde & Hinde, 1948, Electric & Diesel Electric Locomotives, which contains sample control schematics from British, European and US locos, and that only makes very fleeting mention of MU control for DE locos, saying that the US system is good for four locos coupled together, without saying why the limitation to four, or why together (the first may simply be to do with drawbar pull, and the second because freight cars didnt have MU jumpers, rather than anything to do with the MU system itself).

Edited October 30, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Traintresta]

15 hours ago, Zomboid said:

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.

The lower drawing does appear to have another cab at the rear/flat end so it is entirely possible that LNER had foreseen the need to turn these and provided an additional cab by this time to make that, and shunting moves down onto a train formation, easier by provision of an additional driving cab.  In much the same way as GMD offered the option of a hostlers cab on it's F and E units, some of which, were mid-loco, but others were at the rear end of what would be a fixed loco consist such as the original drawbar connected FT (A+B as a single unit much like the LNER concept).

[BernardTPM]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

It was a standard formation for excursions: 33+TC+wired buffet+TC+33. A good few rail tours used it too.

 

How the first use of that formation fitted into the history of ‘lump at each end’ I’m not sure, but we seem to be forgetting The Blue Pullman, the Hastings Units, and the many European TEE sets, which were really the same thing, albeit with fewer cars.

I guessed it was technically possible but interesting that it was actually done too.

 

While you could call the Blue Pullmans a sort of luxurious 'Thumper', you're right that there were some of the TEEs sets that did have proper loco power cars on them.

[Traintresta]

3 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

I guessed it was technically possible but interesting that it was actually done too.

 

While you could call the Blue Pullmans a sort of luxurious 'Thumper', you're right that there were some of the TEEs sets that did have proper loco power cars on them.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see the LNER doing a similar concept, or at least BR, even as early as the 50's.  If you look at the LNER concept, it's effectively a single unit two engine locomotive, and in the case of the second version has a cab at each end.  Surely it's not that much of a stretch to use the front half of the design only and place one at each end of the formation.

[BernardTPM]

On 30/10/2021 at 13:17, Nearholmer said:

I share the doubts others have expressed about far-remote engine control in the late 1930s. I’m not sure the technology for use with Diesel locos had got far enough to permit its use over a full 12+ car train. Clearly MU control of electric trains, and the general principals of EP and EM over long trains had (several decades earlier) - its the interface with the Engine/generator control system at each ‘unit’ that I’m less sure about. Need to read some more old textbooks and journals!

This 1931 Armstrong Whitworth advert shows their 'mobile power house' for the B.A.G.S.R. Argentina was used for multiple working and could be a stop-gap before electricifcation, with the same coaching stock (which had traction motors supplied from the power house) able to be converted to full EMUs.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by BernardTPM

[Nearholmer]

44 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

mobile power house' for the B.A.G.S.R. Argentina was used for multiple working

Of course, I’d forgotten that!

 

Would be interesting to understand the control scheme, because it may not have integrated control of the engine, generator, and motors. The use of EMU cars, and the way it was named, suggests to me that the MU control was over the electric traction packages on the motor cars, just as in any EMU, and that the engine-generator set were run on their own automatic closed-loop system, effectively as a tag-along generating station. Which would potentially be inefficient, but would work perfectly well.

 

My copy of the book is buried in a cupboard - does it give any details?

Edited October 30, 2021 by Nearholmer

[BernardTPM]

I will dig out my copy and see.

 

Well, I haven't found any real details of how the multiple working was arranged, but the abilty to work in multiple was certainly there and something they were pushing. In a 1933 ad for the 'Universal' loco they actually have a diagram of a 'Suburban' train that features a loco at each end. There's also a photo of  5'6" gauge 800hp loco with one of the Standard Gauge railcars run on the LNER, which are said to be working in multiple on their mixed gauge test track.

It would seem the capabilty to produce such trains was there in the 1930s, but not the will to order any for home use.

Edited November 3, 2021 by BernardTPM

[rockershovel]

I remember the BR diesel pilot scheme being offered as an example of management and policy failure in my student days, quite a long time ago now.

 

The gist of it, as I remember it was that policy was determined by outside influences beyond government control, and the long-standing failure of the market to keep up with developments rendered it unable to respond appropriately. 

 

Diesel traction wasn't new. The Americans had it worked out in the 1930s, we didn't. Electrification wasn't new; the Germans had it worked out and there was a window of opportunity during which the British could have simply walked off with anything and anyone they wanted, at no cost, but mostly didn't. 

 

The steam "Standards" were a natural outcome of a policy and market vacuum in which a solution was desperately needed, but few options existed. 

 

The diesel pilot scheme was a natural consequence. However it disregarded the American lesson, that no major steam locomotive builder successfully transitioned to building diesel or electric units; that North British attempting to make this transition was futile. 

 

Ordering locos before serious trials had been conducted followed logically from this. The government were going to use British manufacturers for a range of reasons. Rejecting the products on offer, wasn't an option. Nor was concentrating on a limited range; the capacity wasn't there. 

 

Finally, as has already been pointed out, the overall design and strategy was seriously flawed. 

 

The pilot scheme was the product of its time, and could never have succeeded. 

 

 

 

[Zomboid]

21 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

The diesel pilot scheme was a natural consequence. However it disregarded the American lesson, that no major steam locomotive builder successfully transitioned to building diesel or electric units; that North British attempting to make this transition was futile

I don't think that's really right. Certainly in 1955 Alco were major players in the diesel game, both domestically and for export. And Baldwin had some successes too.

 

Not to mention Beyer Peacock proved capable of building decent diesel locos (hymeks), though perhaps not to make enough money from it. BR itself built plenty of successful diesel and electric locomotives & units at the old steam erecting shops, too.

 

Was the issue with NBL not simply that they were also making dodgy steam locos by that point, and anyone expecting new technology to result in a positive leap in quality was being a little over optimistic?

Edited October 30, 2021 by Zomboid

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I don't think that's really right. Certainly in 1955 Alco were major players in the diesel game, both domestically and for export. And Baldwin had some successes too.

 

Not to mention Beyer Peacock proved capable of building decent diesel locos (hymeks), though perhaps not to make enough money from it. BR itself built plenty of successful diesel and electric locomotives & units at the old steam erecting shops, too.

 

Was the issue with NBL not simply that they were also making dodgy steam locos by that point, and anyone expecting new technology to result in a positive leap in quality was being a little over optimistic?

It's not a simple question. Alco demonstrated a key problem in respect of making diesel and diesel-electric locomotives; too much of the high-value content has to be bought in. The necessary corporate structure is different, which probably also answers the point about Beyer Peacock. It might be argued that Alco were still making locomotives under the FM/Alco name, but nothing meaningful survives of the original company 

 

You are probably right about North British's tribulations. They were an early example of an old and apparently well-established name failing quite rapidly from within. 

Edited October 30, 2021 by rockershovel

[Nearholmer]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Electrification wasn't new; the Germans had it worked out and there was a window of opportunity during which the British could have simply walked off with anything and anyone they wanted, at no cost, but mostly didn't. 

 

Probably because the Germans who were leading thinkers on industrial frequency electrification had been in close dialogue with their opposite numbers in France prior to WW2, and the two parties picked up where they'd left off as soon as the war was over. It was an Alsacienne thing. It probably helped that the DRG trial section of 50Hz electrification was in an area that France, rather than Britain, controlled in the immediate aftermath of the war.

 

Its also worth remembering that the real leading, leading thinker was Kalman Kando, not a German, but Hungarian, and the Hungarian railways deployed the system well before DRG. Kando was an all round railway electrification genius, whose work began in the 1890s, although at that time focused primarily on three-phase, rather than single-phase, electrification.

 

The big issue with single-phase industrial frequency electrification was  traction motors, which can't be made to operate at that frequency. In Hungary in the 1930s Kando used locomotives with rotary-convertors, which created three-phase, and three-phase traction motors, but this made for very heavy locos, and it wasnt really until rectifiers and d.c. motors could be used that the system got into its stride. Modern locos again use three-phase motors, but power electronics now play the role that Kando's rotary convertors played.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Nearholmer

[rockershovel]

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Probably because the Germans who were leading thinkers on industrial frequency electrification had been in close dialogue with their opposite numbers in France prior to WW2, and the two parties picked up where they'd left off as soon as the war was over. It was an Alsacienne thing. It probably helped that the DRG trial section of 50Hz electrification was in an area that France, rather than Britain, controlled in the immediate aftermath of the war.

 

Its also worth remembering that the real leading, leading thinker was Kalman Kando, not a German, but Hungarian, and the Hungarian railways deployed the system well before DRG. Kando was an all round railway electrification genius, whose work began in the 1890s, although at that time focused primarily on three-phase, rather than single-phase, electrification.

 

The big issue with single-phase industrial frequency electrification was  traction motors, which can't be made to operate at that frequency. In Hungary in the 1930s Kando used locomotives with rotary-convertors, which created three-phase, and three-phase traction motors, but this made for very heavy locos, and it wasnt really until rectifiers and d.c. motors could be used that the system got into its stride. Modern locos again use three-phase motors, but power electronics now play the role that Kando's rotary convertors played.

 

 

 

 

 

So, if Hungary was the leading light in railway electrification, how did that affect Soviet electrification post-WW2?

[rockershovel]

On 13/02/2018 at 05:43, Fenman said:

 

Ironically, the most successful companies find this particularly difficult: hugely profitable Kodak had all the technology and skills in place to be world-leaders in digital photography, but could not make themselves cannibalise (as they saw it) their film business. Where is that company today?

 

Similarly the world’s leading digital camera manufacturers are not the same companies that were the world’s leading manufacturers of film cameras (though it’s interesting to see profitable niche players survive, like Leica). I wonder if the same will be true of the companies who manufacture cars with internal combustion engines v. electric ones?

 

It is striking how rapidly most steam loco manufacturers disappeared.

 

If we’re into alternative histories, I wonder who would have done well if we’d skipped dieselisation and gone straight to rapid electrification? Woodhead seemed (technologically-speaking) to work fairly well - though I guess with the benefit of its own mini-pilot scheme for the 76.

 

Back OT, I wonder about the 20s. It happened that they could later be adapted to new traffic by working double-headed but, clearly, they were initially regarded as sufficiently disappointing to be replaced as the standard Type 1 by the new Clayton design. If the latter had been launched with the Beyer Peacock innards (used in the final batch, apparently successfully) rather than the unhappy reality, would they have been considered a success? It keeps niggling at me that the sole survivor went into private industry where a couple of modifications particularly to the fuel feed system led to an apparently reliable and long-lived machine. When in BR service their occasional use on light passenger services might have shown what they could have done more of, after pick-up freight disappeared? And we know they were effective double-headers, since their initial poor reliability meant they were often used that way.

 

Paul

An interesting thought. No 2 Son has recently changed jobs, going from a job with an established motor manufacturer to a start-up company which is aiming for a significantly different model - essentially developing and supplying transmission and running-gear modules to assembler-manufacturers producing specialised vehicles. I await the outcome with considerable interest. It's instructive, if not necessarily encouraging that their finance comes from outside the UK. 

 

British management practices simply don't work, and ceased to do so a long time ago. The collapse of North British was followed by the motorcycle sector. The collapse of the motor industry was certain once it committed to a programme of "old wine in new bottles" in the 1970s.

 

I've seen it in the oil and gas sector, where companies like Statoil prospered mightily from the North Sea. Where's OUR Statoil? 

 

I've just started a new job, which has had the unforeseen effect of bringing me into a staff role for a British civil engineering contractor. I've been through an extended programme (best part of two weeks) of induction, most of it consisting of virtue-signalling and halo-polishing, plus various things I really don't need to know or be involved in at my level. As for things I actually need to know to do my job, I've largely been left to my own devices. It's clear that the department I've joined, have a lot to do catching up things which should have been part of the original plan. Ho hum, plus ca change...

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by rockershovel