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

[Nearholmer]

Only indirectly, I think.

 

The Soviet Union had started electrifying Railway well before WW2, using 1.5kV, then 3kV dc, and that continued for some years after WW2. They firmly followed the technology most firmly established in the US at the time, pirating and buying it. Later, they moved to 25kV ac, but I think only after France and Britain had proven its viability.

 

The country that did follow fast was Japan. MacArthur’s team attempted to get the Japanese to dieselise their railways using US technology, and to engage in a big road-building programme modelled on the US interstates. The natives waved two fingers at both, and partnered with the French to go full bore on railway electrification. As a result, the Shinkansen and TGV programmes have always been closely related.

 

To bring this back to Britain, we shouldn’t forget that British industry did very well with 25kV. We were only about 6-12 months slower out of the blocks than the French, and achieved a heck of a lot in less than a decade. But, whereas the French bet their shirt on electrification in 1951, ours was a a far less full-bore programme; the very beginning particularly had a whiff of make do and mend about it. But, British industry did change horses from 1.5/3kV dc to industrial frequency pretty adroitly.

 

This isn’t really about pilot scheme diesels though!

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Pandora]

58 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Only indirectly, I think.

 

The Soviet Union had started electrifying Railway well before WW2, using 1.5kV, then 3kV dc, and that continued for some years after WW2. They firmly followed the technology most firmly established in the US at the time, pirating and buying it. Later, they moved to 25kV ac, but I think only after France and Britain had proven its viability.

 

The country that did follow fast was Japan. MacArthur’s team attempted to get the Japanese to dieselise their railways using US technology, and to engage in a big road-building programme modelled on the US interstates. The natives waved two fingers at both, and partnered with the French to go full bore on railway electrification. As a result, the Shinkansen and TGV programmes have always been closely related.

 

To bring this back to Britain, we shouldn’t forget that British industry did very well with 25kV. We were only about 6-12 months slower out of the blocks than the French, and achieved a heck of a lot in less than a decade. But, whereas the French bet their shirt on electrification in 1951, ours was a a far less full-bore programme; the very beginning particularly had a whiff of make do and mend about it. But, British industry did change horses from 1.5/3kV dc to industrial frequency pretty adroitly.

 

This isn’t really about pilot scheme diesels though!

 

 

 

 

The leading British Railway Companies and Engineering Industry  had a firm grip on Electrification as long ago as 1900, the contenders were the L&Y, North Eastern and Dick Kerr of Preston,  the two railways built pilot schemes in advance of main line schemes,the  pilots  were Liverpool to Southport and  Newport to Shildon,  The NER built  the 4-6-4 loco for the abandoned York - Newcastle - Edinburgh  proposal (NBR line).

WW1 and the downturn in railway fortunes in the 20s and 30s and WW2 were some of the downfalls of these advanced schemes.

Recommended  book on the subject: Henry Eogan O'Brien  An Engineer of Distinction by Beesley

 

https://shop.lyrs.org.uk/collections/books/products/henry-eoghan-obrien

 

Post the Grouping,  O'Brien had a serious run in with the Board of the LMSR at Euston over Traction Policy ending  in his departure on half-pension for life, before his demise at 92 years of age he made  comment on the WCML Euston   to Glasgow Electrification of the 1960s, as his original case,  an  electric locomotive simply flattening Shap and unlike a steam locomotive, fit for the return trip unhindered by a need for servicing.

O'Brien had a long lasting friendship with Gresley from their days on the L&Y,  I hazard a guess O'Brien was consulted by Gresley  in the proposals of the LNER Woodhead scheme

Edited October 31, 2021 by Pandora

[Nearholmer]

I would argue about the firm grip c1900, as can be evidenced from the tendering for the Met, where British firms couldn’t on their own put forward any of the more advanced systems of the time, but it is without doubt true that professional engineers in Britain well-understood the overall advantages of electrification, and the merits/demerits of the different options, and that industry was prepared to partner with European firms to learn. Then Westinghouse and GE swept the board on the back of massive investment in U.K. factories.

 

A further rabbit hole. I just remembered that the Soviet’s had a bash at something really important in the late-60s: conversion of 1.5/3kV dc lines to much higher dc voltages (6kV I think), with a loco using a solid state dc-dc (or possibly dc-three phase, I’m not sure) convertor. That was way ahead of its time, and mega-brave, but it didn’t work! The power electronics weren’t up to it! SNCF have a scheme underway now to do the same, using 9kV dc, having calculated that it is better than conversion to 25kV ac on legacy routes, and with 40+ years betterment of power electronics, and the use of power electronics it will doubtless work this time.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Nearholmer

[cheesysmith]

Surprised the French have not gone the old BR route of 6.25kV AC. Would be more efficient than DC. 

[Nearholmer]

Their comparisons and calculations are on-line somewhere not that I can’t find them again!) and they arrived at 9kV dc after an impressively rigorous look across a range of voltages both ac and dc. I think the thing is now at prototyping stage.

 

I’m not sure why you say that ac will be more efficient than dc, because that isn’t anything like a foregone conclusion. The losses in rectifiers can be kept very low by good design, and once on the dc side there are no power factor issues to worry about. I don’t think skin-effect is significant in traction OLE design, but for other applications it sure as heck is, which is a large part of why inter-country grid export-import connections of any length tend to be dc.

 

Even 750V dc traction supply isn’t grossly energy in-efficient in the way that many people seem to believe. It tends to be cost inefficient in many cases, because it necessitates closely-spaced substations, and hence high capital cost, but not hugely energy in-efficient. What people forget is that the energy is carried to within a few miles of the train at high voltage, 3-phase ac, which can be made highly energy or cost efficient*. Where such low voltages come into their own is where space for clearances is at a great premium (routes with a lot of tight bridges and tunnels), and where bare wires are installed in public places (tramways), although personally I’m not totally convinced by some of the thinking in the latter area.
 

*First year content on any electrical engineering course always includes plotting curves of capital cost and lifetime cost of losses with different energy unit prices to optimise the size of cables in a distribution network.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Hesperus]

On 29/10/2021 at 12:18, cheesysmith said:

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.

 

Sorry to be a little slow catching up here.  While the idea of putting the engine from a 40 or 45 into a 47 body is sound enough it would be a lot of money to have the same number of locos.  Most of the 40s and peaks were still working into the 80s and while they might have lasted a little longer with new bodywork the ETH and air brakes they would have been fitted with during the rebuild would have helped them survive longer than shiny square bodywork.

 

Perhaps a more useful cost saving measure would have been to extend the life of some of the pilot scheme locos.  I'd assume the bogies of a diesel hydraulic loco would be unsuitable to use for a diesel electric but what about using the bogies from a class 21 under a diesel electric converted Hymek?

[cheesysmith]

The point is for less cost Vs new you could rebuild the older locos into more powerful but lighter locos . How much extra cost did they incur through their lives in fuel carrying the extra 30tons about. And the extra costs of the poor riding bogies in track damage, and the repair costs of the bogies fractures. And the limits the poor bogies put on route restrictions (unable to use humps in yards etc).

 

If this had been done when they went through main works overhaul, once the prototypes had been done to work out the kinks, it would have probably been quicker than a normal overhaul. Send a 40 to Crewe, and a 2400hp 114ton co co comes back. If you fitted ETH at the same time you have a loco that could haul the same train as the class 40 but with ETH, something the 40s never had (they could have, but it would have reduced the HP for pulling the train. It was considered but the uprating the engine was thought would reduce the reliability. If the engine had been updated with the heads off the class 37/50, but kept down to 2400HP, it would only have equalled the output per cylinder of the 37 which has been one of the most reliable engines BR has had).

[Zomboid]

That kind of thing has been done elsewhere - the ATSF's CF7s for example, though I'm not sure what could have been reused and how much of the "rebuilt 40" would actually be a new loco. In the American rebuildings that I'm aware of, one of the most significant reused components were the trucks, which is one of the first things you'd junk on a 40/ Peak.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Zomboid

[cheesysmith]

The biggest costs were the engine £40k for a twin bank Sulzer and £37k for the Brush electrics used in the 47. These are the costs BR paid to Brush when building them at Crewe. This means the actual build cost plus components came out a approx £30k. It cost a extra £3-5k for Brush to modify the electrics already on order that had been diverted from the last 20 peaks to the first 20 class 47 ( the generators). In the cost of rebuild, the biggest items were the engine and generator/electric drive components. 

 

As for the rebuilds. I would have done away with the mixed traffic idea. These rebuilds regeared for freight would have been perfect for the MGR trains just being introduced.

[Traintresta]

23 hours ago, Hesperus said:

Perhaps a more useful cost saving measure would have been to extend the life of some of the pilot scheme locos.  I'd assume the bogies of a diesel hydraulic loco would be unsuitable to use for a diesel electric but what about using the bogies from a class 21 under a diesel electric converted Hymek?

The bogies on the Hymeks were of traditional diesel bogie construction and could have taken electric traction motors.

[Hesperus]

I can see a benefit of rebuilding the 46s as 47s but 40s, 44s and 45s would have still been non standard so probably wouldn't have lasted much longer than they did as 1Co-Co1's.

 

 

Perhaps the best "might have been" scenario could be reached by looking at what later builds of diesels replaced.

 

Massive and probably inaccurate simplification.

 

Class 50s turned up in the late 60s to speed up the top of the WCML presumably allowing the end of steam and withdrawal of the worst pilot diesels around the same time (together with work drying up due to Beeching etc).

 

Later when the wires went up and they headed to the western region they displaced the Westerns.  The smaller hydraulics had already gone as 25s and 31s became spare elsewhere due to work drying up.

 

After the Westerns had gone we started to get 56s and HSTs which slowly saw the end of 25s, 40s and Peaks.

 

Rebuilding the 56 class 46s could have saved building the 50s but what would have done their work for the next 20 years?  Presumably a few more years of trying to keep the failed pilot scheme locos running then keeping hydraulics a bit longer?

 

I feel that BR withdrew good locos in their haste to get rid of hydraulic power and could probably have done without the class 56s if they had kept them for freight use only (due to lack of ETH).

 

 

 

[Hesperus]

1 hour ago, Traintresta said:

The bogies on the Hymeks were of traditional diesel bogie construction and could have taken electric traction motors.

 

That gives me thoughts of a mini HST style service on the Western Regions cross country routes like Scotland had with the 27s.

[Nearholmer]

7 minutes ago, Hesperus said:

Class 50s turned up in the late 60s to speed up the top of the WCML presumably allowing the end of steam and withdrawal of the worst pilot diesels around the same time

 

From what I recall, the 50s were explicitly intended to allow "electric" schedules to be maintained at the top end of the line, which 40s (IIRC they were what was there before) couldn't.

 

Anyone here got a better memory than me?

Edited November 1, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Traintresta]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

From what I recall, the 50s were explicitly intended to allow "electric" schedules to be maintained at the top end of the line, which 40s (IIRC they were what was there before) couldn't.

 

Anyone here got a better memory than me?

Much as I love EE diesels, they could have had HS4000’s. 

[kevinlms]

10 hours ago, Hesperus said:

 

That gives me thoughts of a mini HST style service on the Western Regions cross country routes like Scotland had with the 27s.

The E-G line though is fairly short and apart from the obvious Cowlairs Bank, is almost level. The class 27's needed special maintenance to cope with the sustained high speed running. This ultimately led to their demise.

 

Not sure that the Western Region had any suitable power, especially considering that it would require an electric control system.

[cheesysmith]

Actually the WR DH were electro magnetic control with fixed throttle positions. The blue star MU system was a infinitely variable air throttle that needed a air pipe between locos. The EM MU system was more reliable than the blue star system, but it was felt that the drivers needed more control of the loco that came with the air throttle. This over looked that the driver has little idea about the second loco when in multi and was relying upon the electrical systems to control tractive effort.

 

The WR had a spate of motors burning out on the 25s, and when investigation shows in multi the slight difference in the weak field setting between locos made one do more work than the other, resulting in the motor damage.

 

So the E-G push pull used coaches with the 27 way jumpers plus a air pipe between locos and a remote fire system (plus one loco having a separate ETH diesel generator). If you had used a WR DH you would only have needed a set of 36 (IIRC) jumpers fitting to the coaches. And as you had already removed the steam generator for a diesel generator, that could have been done to a DH for ETH just as easily. I would have put the diesel generator in the half brake at one end with a cab, like the DVT used with the 47/7, to allow maximum use of unmodified DH locos.

[rodent279]

That is the other solution to the lack of ETH issue for the hydraulics - use a generator van. Seems to have worked ok for Irish railways, with steam heat vans. I don't know whether DB used generator vans with their hydraulics?

[Nearholmer]

SNCF used boiler vans, that I do know.

 

(I can’t see any difficulty in fitting a heating generator to a DH, assuming space.)

[Flying Pig]

15 hours ago, Traintresta said:

Much as I love EE diesels, they could have had HS4000’s. 

 

I doubt a production series of HS4000s could have been sorted out before the wires went up. Kestrel did look fantastic though.

 

Interestingly, Kestrel weighed the same as a 40, though with twice the power of course, and was considered overweight.  The Class 68 now puts nearly the same power in an 85t Bo-Bo with similar axle weights.

[russ p]

2 hours ago, cheesysmith said:

Actually the WR DH were electro magnetic control with fixed throttle positions. The blue star MU system was a infinitely variable air throttle that needed a air pipe between locos. The EM MU system was more reliable than the blue star system, but it was felt that the drivers needed more control of the loco that came with the air throttle. This over looked that the driver has little idea about the second loco when in multi and was relying upon the electrical systems to control tractive effort.

 

The WR had a spate of motors burning out on the 25s, and when investigation shows in multi the slight difference in the weak field setting between locos made one do more work than the other, resulting in the motor damage.

 

So the E-G push pull used coaches with the 27 way jumpers plus a air pipe between locos and a remote fire system (plus one loco having a separate ETH diesel generator). If you had used a WR DH you would only have needed a set of 36 (IIRC) jumpers fitting to the coaches. And as you had already removed the steam generator for a diesel generator, that could have been done to a DH for ETH just as easily. I would have put the diesel generator in the half brake at one end with a cab, like the DVT used with the 47/7, to allow maximum use of unmodified DH locos.

 

I thought hymeks and westerns were air throttle?  I wonder if they could have been wired to blue star as the hymek has a 27 way jumper

[ColinK]

If you a modeller you can ‘assume’ the pilot scheme locos continued to work for many years (some after modification).  I do that and have a re-engined CoBo in Regional Railways livery and a large logo Kestrel.

[jcm@gwr]

51 minutes ago, ColinK said:

If you a modeller you can ‘assume’ the pilot scheme locos continued to work for many years (some after modification).  I do that and have a re-engined CoBo in Regional Railways livery and a large logo Kestrel.

 

Likewise, if you are a modeller, you can/could create alternative pilot

scheme locos, that might have been built, either to existing specifications,

or to potentially revised (from experience) ones, even the possibility of

speculative, one off locos, by hopeful manufacturers.

Isn't that part of the fun, and Rule 1?

Edited November 2, 2021 by jcm@gwr

[Traintresta]

1 hour ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

Likewise, if you are a modeller, you can/could create alternative pilot

scheme locos, that might have been built, either to existing specifications,

or to potentially revised (from experience) ones, even the possibility of

speculative, one off locos, by hopeful manufacturers.

Isn't that part of the fun, and Rule 1?

I have considers this many a time, but I find I stumble across two barriers.  Firstly if need to work out all the details and know all the classes in ‘my alternate reality’.  Secondly, and more importantly, I kind of like a lot of what we ended up with and can’t fine a way reconcile the two. 

[jcm@gwr]

58 minutes ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

Likewise, if you are a modeller, you can/could create alternative pilot

scheme locos, that might have been built, either to existing specifications,

or to potentially revised (from experience) ones, even the possibility of

speculative, one off locos, by hopeful manufacturers.

Isn't that part of the fun, and Rule 1?

 

And for those that haven't followed Imaginary Locomotives, here's my alternative take on it, still a WIP!

 

 

[jcm@gwr]

5 minutes ago, Traintresta said:

I have considers this many a time, but I find I stumble across two barriers.  Firstly if need to work out all the details and know all the classes in ‘my alternate reality’.  Secondly, and more importantly, I kind of like a lot of what we ended up with and can’t fine a way reconcile the two. 

 

Why would you need to 'reconcile the two', they could/should be considered as additions,

not alternatives, or replacements