Jump to content
 

British Railways - The Prototypes


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I'm putting together a list of the mainly diesel prototypes that were around just before and at the beginning of the British Railways era (1948 onwards). I'm sure I'm missing some, so any additions welcome. I will add known manufacturers of OO / 4mm versions at some point. I haven't added the various shunters that were precursors to the 08, but I can do for completeness if necessary.

 

Locomotives:

 

-----

 

Prototype External Designs:

 

Diesels:

10000 & 10001 (Ex LMS)

10201 / 10202 / 10203 (Bulleid)

DP1 (Deltic)

DP2 (not counted as a test bed as its body, though similar to a Deltic, isn't actually the same and wasn't reused from a previous Deltic)

Lion

Falcon

Kestrel

10800 'Hawk'

11001

10100 The Fell (? is this a prototype ?)

41001 / 41002 (HST Power Cars)

DHP1

 

Electrics:

89 001

 

Gas Turbines:

18000

18100

GT3

 

-----

 

Test Beds (that is, a re-used body with different internals):

 

Diesels:

47 601 / 47 901

 

Electrics:

E1000 / E2001 (ex 18100)

87 101

 

-----

 

Shunters:

(to be completed)

 

=====

 

Units:

 

Diesels:

Lev 1 / 2 / 3

RB004

140

151

210

 

Electrics:

20001 / 20002 / 20003 (Bulleid/Raworth)

2 PEP (446)

4 PEP (445)

4DD

 

Gas Turbines:

APT-E

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ian J.
Link to post
Share on other sites

4-PEP and 2-PEP

Class 210 DEMU

Arguably, the 4-DD sets

87 101

 

This could become a bit of a unicorn hunt though, in that all sorts of prototype/experimental things were created to test ideas at various stages, either as new-builds or conversions of existing things, and there is a very fuzzy line between manufacturers' demonstrators intended to drum-up sales (which is really what DELTIC was) and prototypes.

 

10800 was a prototype twice, for two completely different things!

 

The pre-08 EE350hp shunters were, for the most part, not prototypes but earlier series-built versions of the breed, and where one draws the line with the smaller shunters goodness only knows. Most of them were BR-ised versions of designs already proven in industrial use, but a few were basically manufactuer's demonstrators of new designs/concepts that were foisted upon BR in the hope that would help domestic and overseas sales.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Along that fuzzy line you have D1702-06 the short lived 'class 48's' Do they count as prototypes or a very short lived class experiment?

 

Also the uprated class 31 at 2000hp for a time, lots of things to consider.

Cheers

James

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

For my part, anything that was a 'test bed' doesn't count. Class 48s, 47601, 47901, 87101, etc, not counted, they weren't their own designs as they were based on other platforms that either became or already were existing classes.

 

I was thinking of any non-steam locomotive (and that can include DMUs / EMUs) that was a one-off in the British Railways era, or part of a very small definitely experimental class. So not the initial Peaks, the D6xx Warships, the 4DDs (I think), etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

they weren't their own designs as they were based on other platforms that either became or already were existing classes.

 

And, therein lies your defintional problem, because what you are saying seems to boil down to "if its the same shape on the outsiide as a previous design" it isn't or can't be a prototype, whereas from an engineering standpoint what it looks like on the outside really doesnt matter a great deal, its what makes it work that matters, and taking 87101 as an example, that was internally very significantly different from the predecessor 87s: it was absolutely and definitely a prototype for a new generation.

 

Has the class 89 loco been mentioned yet?

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, russ p said:

I suppose the three bullied/Raworth electic locos could also be classed as prototypes

 

Another fuzzy line thing that, because they incorporated a lot of novel design, and bugs were knocked-out of both the mechanical and electrical designs as they went along, but they weren't (and possibly weren't intended) as the rototypes of a larger series. Maybe if the SR had continued in existence, and electrification had progressed at the rollicking rate they planned, a series might have followed, to haul boat trains and fitted goods from the Kent Coast - we shall never know!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

And, therein lies your defintional problem, because what you are saying seems to boil down to "if its the same shape on the outsiide as a previous design" it isn't or can't be a prototype, whereas from an engineering standpoint what it looks like on the outside really doesnt matter a great deal, its what makes it work that matters, and taking 87101 as an example, that was internally very significantly different from the predecessor 87s: it was absolutely and definitely a prototype for a new generation.

 

Has the class 89 loco been mentioned yet?

 

Valid point re the internals. I still see them as 'test beds' rather than 'prototypes' though, being that they were based on previously existing platforms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

What about 71000 ?  Prototype for Standard Class 8 which was never built.

And weren't most of the DRBs effectively prototypes?

 

They did enter service, but then so did LMS 10000

 

I'm not counting steam locomotives for this, just the non-steam prototypes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Another fuzzy line thing that, because they incorporated a lot of novel design, and bugs were knocked-out of both the mechanical and electrical designs as they went along, but they weren't (and possibly weren't intended) as the rototypes of a larger series. Maybe if the SR had continued in existence, and electrification had progressed at the rollicking rate they planned, a series might have followed, to haul boat trains and fitted goods from the Kent Coast - we shall never know!

 

I know visually the third was was different to the first two but were they the same engineering wise?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From memory, I think the basic circuitry was the same, but I have a feeling that some of the components had slightly different ratings; mechanically I think they were essentially the same, but evolved a bit. There might have been differences in train heating boiler too. My copy of the very good 'Southern Way' special edition about them is deeply buried, so I can't check quickly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

 

Valid point re the internals. I still see them as 'test beds' rather than 'prototypes' though, being that they were based on previously existing platforms.

 

So presumably DP2 was just a "test bed" as it was based upon a previously existing platform...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Ian J. said:

I was thinking of any non-steam locomotive (and that can include DMUs / EMUs) that was a one-off in the British Railways era, or part of a very small definitely experimental class. So not the initial Peaks, the D6xx Warships, the 4DDs (I think), etc.

4DD - a class of two, I would have thought they definitely were a failed experiment (limited route availability because of loading gauge, took too long at stations). Of course, if an experiment succeeded then it often generated modified production versions (10201-3 -> Peaks).

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I can see there's a need to be more detailed with this subject to get better categorisation, so when I'm done with work today I'll revisit the original post and split out the 'designed' and 'test bed' items, and also create sections for locos, units, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, zarniwhoop said:

4DD - a class of two, I would have thought they definitely were a failed experiment (limited route availability because of loading gauge, took too long at stations). Of course, if an experiment succeeded then it often generated modified production versions (10201-3 -> Peaks).

10201-3, and 10203 in particular, were very much the prototypes for and developed into the EE Type 4 Class 40s not the Peaks.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...