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

[Pandora]

On 12/02/2018 at 22:45, The Stationmaster said:

 

The rapid multiplication of the Brush Type 4 (later Class 47) design into mass construction failed to address numerous problems on the locos resulting in a long period of experiments, modifications and of course de-rating of the licence built Sulzer design engine.  In effect the choice of the Brush design from a suite of Type 4 higher horsepower prototypes was almost a repeat of the error in going for large numbers of one Pilot Scheme design (the Derby/Sulzer Type 2, later Class 24/25) which was definitely not the best of the Pilot Scheme Type 2s.  Oddly in both cases it was a BRC&W design which was dropped, I wonder why?

In the early 1960s BR&CW moved away from locomotive construction to  property and finance , had BR&CW remained as a constructor, perhaps Br would have ordered more Class 26 and 27 locomotives and fewer Class 24 and 25 locomotives.  BR&CW Lion,  was Lion a serious competitor to  the Class 47 for the Type 4 fleet?

[kevinlms]

19 minutes ago, Pandora said:

In the early 1960s BR&CW moved away from locomotive construction to  property and finance , had BR&CW remained as a constructor, perhaps Br would have ordered more Class 26 and 27 locomotives and fewer Class 24 and 25 locomotives.  BR&CW Lion,  was Lion a serious competitor to  the Class 47 for the Type 4 fleet?

Did BR&CW leave the market after observing the failure of Beyer Peacock & North British as the giants of loco builders. At the time much of the mass fleet construction was complete, so they got out, before it was too late?

 

It would seem so.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Railway_Carriage_and_Wagon_Company#Closure

[Pandora]

On 20/02/2018 at 01:23, cheesysmith said:

The answer, 47901. When fitted with the V12 class 58 engine it was running at full power rating of 3500BHP, but kept quiet in case anybody complained. As to deltic running more HP than normal, i have heard stories of such usually along with some very impressive top speeds, with a theoretical drawbar HP way above what they should be doing. IIRC the original E&G push pull was to be done using class 47s, but no other region could spare any so the ScR had to use locos it had available, so we had top and tailed 27s.

I recall reading a book covering the Southern Region  Class 33's, the book stated the Southern had ordered too many of the Class ,  a pity the Region denied ScR  the 33 with the  more powerful Sulzer engine and standard electric train heating.

[Titan]

2 hours ago, Pandora said:

I recall reading a book covering the Southern Region  Class 33's, the book stated the Southern had ordered too many of the Class ,  a pity the Region denied ScR  the 33 with the  more powerful Sulzer engine and standard electric train heating.

Yes, can't help thinking that the 33 would have been a better choice for the highland lines instead of the 37, especially as there would have been no need for the ETHELs pending conversion to 37/4. And of course commonality of parts with 26/27.

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, Pandora said:

I recall reading a book covering the Southern Region  Class 33's, the book stated the Southern had ordered too many of the Class ,  a pity the Region denied ScR  the 33 with the  more powerful Sulzer engine and standard electric train heating.

 

A pity the Scottish Region was not dieselised with BRCW type 3s and electric train heating from the start, inter-regional services excepted, perhaps.

[rodent279]

11 hours ago, Titan said:

Yes, can't help thinking that the 33 would have been a better choice for the highland lines instead of the 37, especially as there would have been no need for the ETHELs pending conversion to 37/4. And of course commonality of parts with 26/27.

I wonder how difficult it would have been to put an 8LDA28 engine into a class 26/7, plus suitable generator & traction motors, and create a class 33 clone on the cheap?

[Pandora]

8 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I wonder how difficult it would have been to put an 8LDA28 engine into a class 26/7, plus suitable generator & traction motors, and create a class 33 clone on the cheap?

The scale of the surplus of the SR Class 33 at their mid-life point was high ,  95 locos on the books,  with a case for 80,  a pity the surplus  did not go to Scotland to enhance  the hard working fleet of 20+  Class 27 Glasgow push-pull locomotives. I'm thinking of a 33 + 27 push-pull pairing.  But then the ScR  adopted  to Class 47 push-pull.   As to your question, one for the experts!

[Rivercider]

On 02/05/2022 at 06:49, Pandora said:

I recall reading a book covering the Southern Region  Class 33's, the book stated the Southern had ordered too many of the Class ,  a pity the Region denied ScR  the 33 with the  more powerful Sulzer engine and standard electric train heating.

With hindsight I think all Regions were ordering far too many locos (including later steam additions) for traffic which was clearly dwindling in many parts of the network .

The WR takeover of lines west of Salisbury would clearly have not helped in the case of the class 33 fleet. However the WR takeover did probably extend the life of part of the class 22/42/43 fleets where I guess perhaps 15-20 various diagrams were working former SR lines radiating from Exeter in the late 1960s. Class 33s then did replace class 42s on the Waterloo - Exeter route in 1971, and later also worked local services in Devon.

 

cheers 

[Rivercider]

2 hours ago, Pandora said:

The scale of the surplus of the SR Class 33 at their mid-life point was high ,  95 locos on the books,  with a case for 80,  a pity the surplus  did not go to Scotland to enhance  the hard working fleet of 20+  Class 27 Glasgow push-pull locomotives. I'm thinking of a 33 + 27 push-pull pairing.  But then the ScR  adopted  to Class 47 push-pull.   As to your question, one for the experts!

I do not know how the SR intended to dieselise the Western District, but I imagine loco-hauled on the main line, with some DEMUs for semi-fast and local services, and DEMUs for the branch line services (a DEMU was planned to be built at Exmouth Junction).

My rough estimate of the locomotive requirement would be:-

Waterloo - Exeter, 6 or 7 diagrams.

Exeter - Plymouth, 2 diagrams

Exeter - Ilfracombe, 2 diagrams.

Meldon ballast, 3 or 4 diagrams.

Local freight in North and East Devon, 4 diagrams.

Local freight in the Plymouth area 2 diagrams.

 

Therefore 20 surplus class 33s could be explained by the loss of the lines west of Salisbury,

 

cheers

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Rivercider
spelling

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Rivercider said:

With hindsight I think all Regions were ordering far too many locos (including later steam additions) for traffic which was clearly dwindling in many parts of the network .

 

In other words, the Pilot Scheme was botched not just because it was abandoned too soon and lots of substandard classes were ordered, but because it was not properly constituted in the first place.  Some of the types which should have come out of it never even existed - my favourite 1500hp EE Type 3 for instance, which should have been a no-brainer.

[Titan]

Whilst it would have been far better for more trains to have ETH from the beginning, the limitation was the inability to convert coaching stock to dual heat fast enough. The sensible  decision had been made that the WCML  electrics would be ETH only from the start, and BR were struggling to convert enough stock to dual heat for that let alone anything else, even resulting in a few old coaches converted with a steam heating boiler to run with them until the ETH conversions caught up.  On the Southern, 33s would often be paired with a type 2 for the sole purpose of providing steam heat, and the class 47 "generators" hardly ever used their ETH on the ECML either until the Mk2ds came along.

 

Using class 33s on the Glasgow-Edinburgh push pulls might seem a sensible idea for ETH provision, but 90mph capable locomotives were required, hence the conversion of the 27s.

[Pandora]

8 hours ago, Titan said:

Whilst it would have been far better for more trains to have ETH from the beginning, the limitation was the inability to convert coaching stock to dual heat fast enough. The sensible  decision had been made that the WCML  electrics would be ETH only from the start, and BR were struggling to convert enough stock to dual heat for that let alone anything else, even resulting in a few old coaches converted with a steam heating boiler to run with them until the ETH conversions caught up.  On the Southern, 33s would often be paired with a type 2 for the sole purpose of providing steam heat, and the class 47 "generators" hardly ever used their ETH on the ECML either until the Mk2ds came along.

 

Using class 33s on the Glasgow-Edinburgh push pulls might seem a sensible idea for ETH provision, but 90mph capable locomotives were required, hence the conversion of the 27s.

The steam heating boilers in the diesel-electrics  were oil-fired, some electric locos had electric steam raising boilers, the boiler contained electric heating elements,  if the diesel-electric had to provide electricity for both  traction and heating of the carriages, some of the diesels such as class 40 would struggle to outrun a decent steam loco, CME Ernest Cox wrote of this ,  "pity the poor steam loco boiler" 

[cheesysmith]

The pilot scheme was botched simply put due to panic buying due to the poor financial position BR was in, with the hope that the new diesels would provide a quick win and turn things round, without looking at the underlying reasons why BR was loosing money.

 

When BR was formed it was run by old men who understood how the old ways worked. Thus the old ways were perpetuated as they knew they worked and it didn`t need new training or investment. A example is, RA Riddles who was in charge of the modernisation plan, had a ride on one of the brand new AC electrics with a old driver. This train would have been speeding along at a speed and acceleration no steam train could match, improving the railway in many ways. But all they talked about was the old steam trains. Or the fact that when BR was formed, there was a large order for standard wagon types, and one order was for a large number of two axle short wheelbase twin bolster wagons. Luckily this was cancelled quickly, as these offered no advantage over a bogied bolster, and a few disadvantages including slower speeds.

 

Or vac brakes/steam heating/slam doors etc. All these can be described as they work with what we have now/maintaining the status quo, not looking at where we want to proceed to. One luckily outcome of the modernisation plan was the DMU, which saved so many lines from the axe that came later. Riddles even had a plan on the drawing board for a small class 2 steam loco for use on secondary services. 

[kevinlms]

5 hours ago, cheesysmith said:

The pilot scheme was botched simply put due to panic buying due to the poor financial position BR was in, with the hope that the new diesels would provide a quick win and turn things round, without looking at the underlying reasons why BR was loosing money.

 

When BR was formed it was run by old men who understood how the old ways worked. Thus the old ways were perpetuated as they knew they worked and it didn`t need new training or investment. A example is, RA Riddles who was in charge of the modernisation plan, had a ride on one of the brand new AC electrics with a old driver. This train would have been speeding along at a speed and acceleration no steam train could match, improving the railway in many ways. But all they talked about was the old steam trains. Or the fact that when BR was formed, there was a large order for standard wagon types, and one order was for a large number of two axle short wheelbase twin bolster wagons. Luckily this was cancelled quickly, as these offered no advantage over a bogied bolster, and a few disadvantages including slower speeds.

 

Or vac brakes/steam heating/slam doors etc. All these can be described as they work with what we have now/maintaining the status quo, not looking at where we want to proceed to. One luckily outcome of the modernisation plan was the DMU, which saved so many lines from the axe that came later. Riddles even had a plan on the drawing board for a small class 2 steam loco for use on secondary services. 

Yet the answer was there to be seen, already existing and proven!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_electric_units

[rockershovel]

On 26/04/2022 at 16:09, kevinlms said:

Did BR&CW leave the market after observing the failure of Beyer Peacock & North British as the giants of loco builders. At the time much of the mass fleet construction was complete, so they got out, before it was too late?

 

It would seem so.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Railway_Carriage_and_Wagon_Company#Closure

The rapid collapse of steam locomotive construction was a world-wide phenomenon. The mighty Baldwin and Alco steam locomotive workshops rapidly faded away after WW2. North British was already failing in the 1930s, kept going through the 1940s by munitions work (especially tanks), Vulcan made tanks after they had effectively ceased commercial steam locomotive production. Beyer Peacock failed to make the transition. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by rockershovel

[Pandora]

On 05/05/2022 at 11:19, cheesysmith said:

The pilot scheme was botched simply put due to panic buying due to the poor financial position BR was in, with the hope that the new diesels would provide a quick win and turn things round, without looking at the underlying reasons why BR was loosing money.

 

When BR was formed it was run by old men who understood how the old ways worked. Thus the old ways were perpetuated as they knew they worked and it didn`t need new training or investment. A example is, RA Riddles who was in charge of the modernisation plan, had a ride on one of the brand new AC electrics with a old driver. This train would have been speeding along at a speed and acceleration no steam train could match, improving the railway in many ways. But all they talked about was the old steam trains. Or the fact that when BR was formed, there was a large order for standard wagon types, and one order was for a large number of two axle short wheelbase twin bolster wagons. Luckily this was cancelled quickly, as these offered no advantage over a bogied bolster, and a few disadvantages including slower speeds.

 

Or vac brakes/steam heating/slam doors etc. All these can be described as they work with what we have now/maintaining the status quo, not looking at where we want to proceed to. One luckily outcome of the modernisation plan was the DMU, which saved so many lines from the axe that came later. Riddles even had a plan on the drawing board for a small class 2 steam loco for use on secondary services. 

The writings of Dr Bonavia are worth close study, Bonavia spent considerable time at 222 Marylebone Road, BR formed under the British Transport Commission, the BTC was somewhat lacking as a leader of  post 1948 BR, Bonavia wrote of their inabilty of the BTC to formulate a Traction Policy for BR,  the first real traction policy for BR was formulated as the BTC entered a period of demise, the 1955 plan could have been formulated many years earlier if the BTC had been far sighted.

[Tumut]

On 08/11/2021 at 05:50, cheesysmith said:

You also have to remember the USA diesel locos were very conservative in the HP outputs. Whilst we had the rats with 1250hp Sulzer units, the same GM engine used in Ireland was only 950hp (?IIRC). Also, GM was only interested in suppling full locos, and only later went down the route of local partners, but too late for the modernisation plan. Which was a pity, as if GM had got their foot in the door, the 56 could have been the loco that set the standard for freight for the next 20 years, in the shape if the SD40-2.

 

(The 59 was actually based on the SD50, without the uprated unreliable engine).

 

On 08/11/2021 at 05:50, cheesysmith said:

You also have to remember the USA diesel locos were very conservative in the HP outputs. Whilst we had the rats with 1250hp Sulzer units, the same GM engine used in Ireland was only 950hp (?IIRC). Also, GM was only interested in suppling full locos, and only later went down the route of local partners, but too late for the modernisation plan. Which was a pity, as if GM had got their foot in the door, the 56 could have been the loco that set the standard for freight for the next 20 years, in the shape if the SD40-2.

 

(The 59 was actually based on the SD50, without the uprated unreliable engine).

Dear Cheesysmith, the Foster Yeoman / BR cl 59 / EMD model JT26CW-ss / 1985  is actually based on the NSW SRA cl 81 / Clyde-GM model JT26C-2ss / 1982, the reason being that the NSW Loading Gauge is close to BR's, and the axle load is also similar, loco weights being 121 tonne, 1,000 imp gals fuel; and 129 tonne, 1,450 imp gals fuel respectively, and both use an EMD 16-645E3 Diesel engine, whereas the SD50 uses the 16-645F Diesel engine, which was less reliable. Regards from Australia.

[rodent279]

On 07/11/2021 at 18:50, cheesysmith said:

You also have to remember the USA diesel locos were very conservative in the HP outputs. Whilst we had the rats with 1250hp Sulzer units, the same GM engine used in Ireland was only 950hp (?IIRC). Also, GM was only interested in suppling full locos, and only later went down the route of local partners, but too late for the modernisation plan. Which was a pity, as if GM had got their foot in the door, the 56 could have been the loco that set the standard for freight for the next 20 years, in the shape if the SD40-2.

 

(The 59 was actually based on the SD50, without the uprated unreliable engine).

I wonder if the conservative rating of US diesels was partly down to the extremes of temperature & humidity experienced over there, particularly the heat in dry, dust desert conditions?

[jjb1970]

If BR had focused on the good designs there were good home-grown designs and I'm not sure buying EMD would have been much better. The EE designs were very good and gave good service for many years, the engines weren't the last word in efficiency or high technology but the 20's, 31's (after re-engining) 37's and 40's seem to have been solid and reliable. Albeit the 31's and 40's were rather heavy for modest power. And although the Deltics were a bit of a one trick pony they were pretty good at that trick (express fast passenger work). Many of the Sulzer types gave pretty good service too.

[Kelly]

32 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

If BR had focused on the good designs there were good home-grown designs and I'm not sure buying EMD would have been much better. The EE designs were very good and gave good service for many years, the engines weren't the last word in efficiency or high technology but the 20's, 31's (after re-engining) 37's and 40's seem to have been solid and reliable. Albeit the 31's and 40's were rather heavy for modest power. And although the Deltics were a bit of a one trick pony they were pretty good at that trick (express fast passenger work). Many of the Sulzer types gave pretty good service too.

 

A lot of the trouble came from I believe companies that had much more experience building steam engines, and were building licenced copies of German engineered engines. At the time it was politically too sensitive for a German company to be allowed to supply all the engines, hence licence building. Of course trouble came from the steam heating equipment too and BR was generally rather slow to move to air braking and electric train heating compared with the continent.

[kevinlms]

On 27/10/2021 at 21:29, cheesysmith said:

Something else overlooked is BR reluctant to rebuild and upgrade old locos as technology advances. It was obvious even when the pilot scheme locos were being built that more power in less weight would b coming along. 10203 was three tons lighter with more power than its two lower powered sisters.

 

Why were the class 40 not rebuilt with updated engines in a class 47 body? Why did they not rebuild the peaks into class 47 bodies? The first 20 class 47 used modified electrical equipment from the class 46. It would have been a LOT cheaper and allowed a bigger fleet of higher powered locos with lighter weight. 

But often rebuilding old locos is not worth the effort. Even for a highly successful design such as the Victorian Railways B Class. They started a program to rebuild them, but owing to mostly the age of them (oldest loco was almost 40 years old at time of rebuilding), they came across various issues, which made the rebuilding expensive and you fundamentally still had an elderly locomotive.

 

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

 

especially

 

Demise, reactivation and preservation

As part of the 1980s New Deal plan to reinvigorate country passenger services, it was decided to rebuild the B class with new traction equipment as the A class. The rebuild contract was let in January 1983 to Clyde Engineering, Rosewater, with the first unit entering service in May 1984. The project was abandoned in mid 1985 after rising costs due to structural fatigue, with the eleventh and final rebuild delivered in August 1985.

[jjb1970]

A lot of the DMUs built in the 50's and 60's gave excellent service. Growing up I used to deride the class 101 and 108 trains which operated the Tyne Valley and West Cumbria line services yet in retrospect they were excellent trains.

[Traintresta]

17 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

If BR had focused on the good designs there were good home-grown designs and I'm not sure buying EMD would have been much better. The EE designs were very good and gave good service for many years, the engines weren't the last word in efficiency or high technology but the 20's, 31's (after re-engining) 37's and 40's seem to have been solid and reliable. Albeit the 31's and 40's were rather heavy for modest power. And although the Deltics were a bit of a one trick pony they were pretty good at that trick (express fast passenger work). Many of the Sulzer types gave pretty good service too.

The interesting thing is that the EE engine has always been very solid and often wasn't pushed to the limits because the Sulzer had suffered from being pushed too far, but they both ended up giving good service in the end.  EMD suffered the same problems at the top end of the 567 and 645 ranges as they tried to obtain more power so the same problems would have existed using EMD products, and they weren't getting to higher power ratings any quicker than EE or Sulzer were.

I was always curious why they didn't push the 31's to a higher power rating by fitting a new generator.  I would have thought that the old generators could have been sold off or put to good use elsewhere, even as spares?  There were plans afoot to make them type 4's by uprating the Mirrlees engine, that would have required a new generator so to add a new generator when they were re-powered wouldn't be too far a stretch, except maybe for the accountants!  But it might have changed the landscape a bit in terms of the power requirements and orders.

[Kelly]

53 minutes ago, Traintresta said:

The interesting thing is that the EE engine has always been very solid and often wasn't pushed to the limits because the Sulzer had suffered from being pushed too far, but they both ended up giving good service in the end.  EMD suffered the same problems at the top end of the 567 and 645 ranges as they tried to obtain more power so the same problems would have existed using EMD products, and they weren't getting to higher power ratings any quicker than EE or Sulzer were.

I was always curious why they didn't push the 31's to a higher power rating by fitting a new generator.  I would have thought that the old generators could have been sold off or put to good use elsewhere, even as spares?  There were plans afoot to make them type 4's by uprating the Mirrlees engine, that would have required a new generator so to add a new generator when they were re-powered wouldn't be too far a stretch, except maybe for the accountants!  But it might have changed the landscape a bit in terms of the power requirements and orders.

 

The work EE did with the locomotives for South Africa and the Southern Railway as well as the LMS for 10201-3 and 10000-1 really helped them get a solid foundation for when they produced the 40s, 37s and others which carried lessons learned from those 3 locomotives forward.

[jjb1970]

The Malaysian 22 class had EE 8CSVT engines of 1700hp which seem to have been reliable enough despite being rated almost as high as the V12 version of the class 37.