Modernisation Plan Diesels

[slilley]

Stewart Joy (once Chief Economist of the BRB) put the failings of the diesel locomotive programme rather succinctly:

 

i) Too much construction,

ii) of the wrong assets,

iii) to the wrong technical standards.

 

{see his book "The Train That Ran Away" [1973, Ian Allan])

What is noticeable reading through the papers of the time is that when looking at the work the new diesels would do, it was done through the prism it seems of a steam operated railway.Doing things the same way but using different traction. To me the decision of May 1957 to bin the Pilot Scheme and have a crash building programme was just a mistake.

 

Simon

[The Stationmaster]

What is noticeable reading through the papers of the time is that when looking at the work the new diesels would do, it was done through the prism it seems of a steam operated railway.Doing things the same way but using different traction. To me the decision of May 1957 to bin the Pilot Scheme and have a crash building programme was just a mistake.

 

Simon

To be honest I think that is being less than fair to many of those - including various people I worked with over the years - because a lot of work was put into getting the best utilisation out of a diesel fleet compared with a  steam fleet and an awful lot of planning was done as indeed was a massive amount of training for both artisans and footplate staff.  Many things were in fact done a completely different way because diesels allowed that to happen and it got far better diagrammed utilsation than had ever been possible with steam - that took some vision and a lot of work to do properly.

 

True diesels were introduced to what in many respects was s team age railway but don't blame the traction for traffic still being handled in the old ways or for lines still being worked with services that were rapidly becoming surplus to what society wanted.  And do try to credit those involved in using the new traction actually seeking to raise train speeds and reduce journey times because that was exactly what happened in so many places although obviously not everywhere and very often for reasons completely unconnected with new traction.  Sometimes simply changing the traction - which brought massive economies in manpower at a time when it was increasingly difficult to recruit - couldn't effect much other change, a lovely example is our local branch line where we are now on our third generation of diesel units but the booked WTT end to end journey time including intermediate stops is exactly the same as it was in the 1890s because quite honestly it isn't very easy to snatch time out of a 12 minute end-to-end journey.

[Nearholmer]

Another "to be fair" point is that if nothing, literally, nothing, else was changed, except for the form of loco on the front, it was probably possible to cut "whole-life, all-in" cost of motive power by c50%.

 

The replacement ratio could be 2:3 or even 1:2; the Diesel required less "through life" labour to drive it and care for it; it gobbled-up less land for maintenance/stabling; it was more fuel-efficient; it was less (obviously) polluting etc etc

 

That's why we tend to have steam locos only "for fun" these days.

 

Someone made the point to me that all the things that are glorious about steam locos are manifestations of their inefficiency. Have a think about it.

 

K

[newbryford]

 

The replacement ratio could be 2:3 or even 1:2; the Diesel required less "through life" labour to drive it and care for it; it gobbled-up less land for maintenance/stabling; it was more fuel-efficient; it was less (obviously) polluting etc etc

 

 

 

Oft quoted that 22 deltics replaced 55 Pacifics on the ECML. (Strange coincidence about them later becoming Class 55)

 

cheers,

Mick

[Clive Mortimore]

Thinking about this and similar discussions around the modernisation of British Railways. Some of us seemed to be better read than others and have shared their knowledge by quoting BR managers and technical staff views of what went wrong (and sometimes what went right). Could any of us done better with the same political and public pressure to change from a Victorian system to one fit for post war Britain?

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Suppose much depends on where/what level we were in the organisation Clive.

 

And if we know where the bodies are buried............................

[Nearholmer]

Clive

 

I thought this was an exercise in retrospective "cabbie-ocracy" or barber-ocracy" *.

 

Kevin

 

 

* That form of rule whereby a chap who has absolutely not the slightest chance of being put in charge of a particular thing, leads forth at a captive audience, to the effect that everyone who is currently in charge of that thing is both stupid and corrupt, and that, if the world had but the wisdom to put him in charge of it, he could have it sorted in five minutes flat, and reduce taxes, and solve the refugee/migrant conundrum, and pick a better England football team, all before breakfast.

[rockershovel]

That's why we tend to have steam locos only "for fun" these days.

Someone made the point to me that all the things that are glorious about steam locos are manifestations of their inefficiency. Have a think about it.

K

Not entirely sure about that. Diesels stink of fuel oil and emit a fair amount of soot and undesirable emissions. They don't have anything remotely as evocative as a steam engine whistle.

 

Ben

[brianusa]

Its hard to think of a British steam whistle as evocative.  The US perhaps, which still excels with its multi chime horns as opposed to the British toots.

 

Brian.

[locoholic]

What is noticeable reading through the papers of the time is that when looking at the work the new diesels would do, it was done through the prism it seems of a steam operated railway.Doing things the same way but using different traction. To me the decision of May 1957 to bin the Pilot Scheme and have a crash building programme was just a mistake.Simon

When they did try to do things differently, like with Freightliner trains, there was so much trouble from the unions (rail & docks) that it took years to get the changes through.

[jjb1970]

I think it is true that steam locomotives exert an emotional appeal which is not supported by any logical considerations of performance or economics. This is no difference to diesels, many enthusiasts seem to base their opinions of whether a diesel locomotive is any good based on the noise it makes and what used to be called "thrash value" when I was spotting many years ago. Maybe its because I've spent too much time listening to engines but I really do not see the appeal of noisy diesel engines and firmly believe that less is more when it comes to engine noise.

[Dava]

Clive

I thought this was an exercise in retrospective "cabbie-ocracy" or barber-ocracy" *.

Kevin

* That form of rule whereby a chap who has absolutely not the slightest chance of being put in charge of a particular thing, leads forth at a captive audience, to the effect that everyone who is currently in charge of that thing is both stupid and corrupt, and that, if the world had but the wisdom to put him in charge of it, he could have it sorted in five minutes flat, and reduce taxes, and solve the refugee/migrant conundrum, and pick a better England football team, all before breakfast.

I understand the new term for this is'Corbynomics'; renationalisation of Rail will solve the problems, won't it?

 

Dava

[newbryford]

Not entirely sure about that. Diesels stink of fuel oil and emit a fair amount of soot and undesirable emissions. They don't have anything remotely as evocative as a steam engine whistle.

 

Ben

 

And what do steam engines chuck out the round thing at the front? Clean air? And not only undesirable, but hot. Any washing out on the line needs another wash -not so after a diesel.

 

I live next to a railway line and can't think of when a diesel set fire to the embankment, but had to get the hoseipe out to stop my fence burning down after passage of one of Stanier's finest.

 

 It's also a significant gradient and the best thing audibly is a pair of 37's with 1600 tonnes on the back on a wet rail.

 

Tomorrow will see the passage of 98834 [1] by my back door. If I'm about, I'll watch out for it. If I'm not, then so be it. Yet I'll make the effort to see a 56 on 6J37 or a 37 or 68 on 6K05

 

Although I quite like to see the odd steam loco, I'd rather go watching diesels - each to their own.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[1] TOPS code for a particular coal burner

[Hesperus]

Oft quoted that 22 deltics replaced 55 Pacifics on the ECML. (Strange coincidence about them later becoming Class 55)

 

cheers,

Mick

 

I've often wondered about this,  did the Deltics haul all of the expresses from KX?

 

Because 10 years after they went it took 10?x 125 and 31x 225 to do the same job.

[newbryford]

I've often wondered about this,  did the Deltics haul all of the expresses from KX?

 

Because 10 years after they went it took 10?x 125 and 31x 225 to do the same job.

 

No. Plenty of 47's as well.

 

Athough the HST's pretty much replaced the 47 and 55 fleet on the ECML. (There were 37 Class 254 sets)

 

It's important to remember that progress wasn't simply replacement of existing services, there could be extra services included as part of the better utilisation (and speed) of the diesel fleet. (One of the HST diagrams was regularly scheduled to be over 1000 miles in a day!)

 

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

[PatB]

Thinking about this and similar discussions around the modernisation of British Railways. Some of us seemed to be better read than others and have shared their knowledge by quoting BR managers and technical staff views of what went wrong (and sometimes what went right). Could any of us done better with the same political and public pressure to change from a Victorian system to one fit for post war Britain?

 

Clive

 

I thought this was an exercise in retrospective "cabbie-ocracy" or barber-ocracy" *.

 

Kevin

 

 

* That form of rule whereby a chap who has absolutely not the slightest chance of being put in charge of a particular thing, leads forth at a captive audience, to the effect that everyone who is currently in charge of that thing is both stupid and corrupt, and that, if the world had but the wisdom to put him in charge of it, he could have it sorted in five minutes flat, and reduce taxes, and solve the refugee/migrant conundrum, and pick a better England football team, all before breakfast.

 

Fair points both. I certainly don't hold myself up as an expert in many (any?) fields. However, I do find myself frequently surprised by the poor quality of decision-making by people who, supposedly, are. Indeed, having worked in government (in transport but not in the UK and not in railways), although I have, perhaps more of an insight than the average bod in the street as to how and why some decisions which, at face value seem illogical, have been reached, I am also aware of other, equally important decisions which are nonsensical even having been privy to the thought process behind them. It has certainly been my experience that any technical or engineering input to the decision making process is given the lowest priority behind any (small "p") political considerations.

[PenrithBeacon]

Thinking about this and similar discussions around the modernisation of British Railways. Some of us seemed to be better read than others and have shared their knowledge by quoting BR managers and technical staff views of what went wrong (and sometimes what went right). Could any of us done better with the same political and public pressure to change from a Victorian system to one fit for post war Britain?

Probably not, certainly not me.

 

Regards

[jjb1970]

Whilst these are fair points, the counter point is that people in positions of authority and responsibility are elevated to such positions based on having demonstrated certain capabilities and quality, on the basis of education and career development and have access to a huge talent pool in terms of availability of expertise and advice. So yes, I think people on this board would have struggled with many of the dilemma's faced by those modernising BR but it is a bit of a meaningless comparison as very few people on this board have been developed and prepared (nor sought) for such roles. The fact that a person cannot do a role does not excuse poor performance by those who are entrusted to make those decisions. In the same way I'm not a doctor but I'd expect a doctor to make a correct diagnosis and apply suitable medication and treatment if I was sick.

[The Stationmaster]

Whilst these are fair points, the counter point is that people in positions of authority and responsibility are elevated to such positions based on having demonstrated certain capabilities and quality, on the basis of education and career development and have access to a huge talent pool in terms of availability of expertise and advice. So yes, I think people on this board would have struggled with many of the dilemma's faced by those modernising BR but it is a bit of a meaningless comparison as very few people on this board have been developed and prepared (nor sought) for such roles. The fact that a person cannot do a role does not excuse poor performance by those who are entrusted to make those decisions. In the same way I'm not a doctor but I'd expect a doctor to make a correct diagnosis and apply suitable medication and treatment if I was sick.

The other important thing in this particular question is to consider where they were starting from.  The 1950s railway - which was in any case facing ever increasing social and industrial change outside the fence - was a massive concern which in many respects bears no resemblance at all to the railway of today or indeed even to the railway of 25 years ago.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing, foresight starts from a very different place.

[Coryton]

Whilst these are fair points, the counter point is that people in positions of authority and responsibility are elevated to such positions based on having demonstrated certain capabilities and quality, on the basis of education and career development and have access to a huge talent pool in terms of availability of expertise and advice. So yes, I think people on this board would have struggled with many of the dilemma's faced by those modernising BR but it is a bit of a meaningless comparison as very few people on this board have been developed and prepared (nor sought) for such roles. The fact that a person cannot do a role does not excuse poor performance by those who are entrusted to make those decisions. In the same way I'm not a doctor but I'd expect a doctor to make a correct diagnosis and apply suitable medication and treatment if I was sick.

 

I'd fully agree with that in the case of doctors and the like. When it comes to management, it's not so clear though that the people who end up with authority and responsibility are necessarily the right ones...

[jjb1970]

I'd fully agree with that in the case of doctors and the like. When it comes to management, it's not so clear though that the people who end up with authority and responsibility are necessarily the right ones...

I'd share that concern today but I always had the impression that one of the real strengths of the nationalised industries like BR, the CEGB, regional electricity and gas boards was that they had pretty solid management development processes and had a lot of dedicated, competent people. In many cases they were very engineering led unlike today. Where an organisation fails to ensure they have the right people in key positions then they're responsible for the consequences I think.

[Urthra]

Is it possible, that the very early teething problems of the trial diesels, led decision-makers to believe wrongly that they were dealing with locos which would have as much down time as th steam fleet? That might explain a desire to have so many units of such a variety of sizes.

By teething problems I mean just the little odds and ends, which in cold hindsight can be expected with any large scale trial.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

We all know the names of the railway's chief locomotive engineers - Churchward, Gresley, Stanier, Bulleid etc etc.

 

But we know less about the managers who make many of the decisions. If it wasn't for Britannia 70001, would we remember that Lord Hurcomb was the first chairman of the BTC for example?

 

Maybe this illustrates the "strength" of the engineers in designing locomotives more as an engineering exercise, than what the railways really wanted. Beeching came 15 years too late; it was the non-decisions of the immediate post-war period that set the tone for the following decade.

 

If (and of course it's a very big IF) reliable diesels had been bought in the early 1950s - rather than continued steam construction - who knows how the network might've panned out.

[Coryton]

I'd share that concern today but I always had the impression that one of the real strengths of the nationalised industries like BR, the CEGB, regional electricity and gas boards was that they had pretty solid management development processes and had a lot of dedicated, competent people. In many cases they were very engineering led unlike today. Where an organisation fails to ensure they have the right people in key positions then they're responsible for the consequences I think.

 

Perhaps. I get the impression that it was considered important for management to actually have experience in the organisation they were managing, which seems a less common view these days.

 

And there was probably less reliance on external consultants too...

[jjb1970]

Perhaps. I get the impression that it was considered important for management to actually have experience in the organisation they were managing, which seems a less common view these days.

 

And there was probably less reliance on external consultants too...

Fortunately there seems to have been a bit of a reversal on the idea that it isn't important for managers to have any knowledge of the process they're managing. I think companies learnt some expensive lessons. I think that when you get to very high levels there is some truth to the idea that a CEO or board member doesn't necessarily need to be an industry insider as at that level it is about vision, leadership and the ability to recognise and heed good advice. At levels below that however I think it is essential for managers to have a good understanding of what they're managing. I don't believe (as some do) that managers should be capable of doing the jobs of those they manage (for example, why would a power plant engineering manager need to be a coded welder) but I do think they need to understand the process they're managing and why people do what they do and the risks of their processes.

 

On consultants, that is quite an issue in itself. As somebody who has bought consultancy services and also provided consultancy I do appreciate that consultants provide an important role in industry despite a generally negative press. Ultimately the reason many companies are reliant on consultants is because of their own decisions to down man, de-skill and outsource. That often looks great to accountants in the initial phase where all they see is a huge reduction in head count and payroll costs etc but later on it can cause untold damage. The problem is not so much consultants, as with any other tool it is not so much whether the concept of consultancy is good or bad but whether an informed customer knows what they want and need. On the other hand you do not need to look too hard to find examples of consultants who give the whole concept a bad name and who add nothing to anything except their own profit.