Modernisation Plan Diesels

[jjb1970]

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.

I think that we could boil the argument down to two questions. The first one is whether the diesels bought by BR the right locomotives for their needs? The second is whether the diesels they bought were any good. The first one is something that should have been led by commercial and operational requirements, the second one leads back to whether the designs were well designed, built, commissioned and maintained which are all engineering matters.

[The Stationmaster]

I think that we could boil the argument down to two questions. The first one is whether the diesels bought by BR the right locomotives for their needs? The second is whether the diesels they bought were any good. The first one is something that should have been led by commercial and operational requirements, the second one leads back to whether the designs were well designed, built, commissioned and maintained which are all engineering matters.

The answer to the first question is probably 'yes' but it is also worth considering if the 'needs' were correctly identified although in the sense of the times in which the Pilot Scheme orders were placed the answer, again, is 'yes'.

 

The answer to the second question is really what the Pilot Scheme was supposed to be about - making sure that the right design, or various design features, were incorporated into something suitable for mass production.  that of curse is where things started to go wrong although that was in many respects a consequence of the relocation of the goal posts (to another pitch quite a long way off).

[Urthra]

I may be taking a hindsight view here, but I would suggest the orders for new power units were not what BR needed. In my opinion, they ordered a large number of units which were each tailored to a niche role and capable of general service. I think that even the limited trial they did have should have shown that each unit had a relatively wide range of operational ability, and they did not need so many different types.

[rockershovel]

.... it's not even that complicated.

 

BR didn't understand the requirement sufficiently, went to too many suppliers (who didn't have the relevant experience to draw on) with an insufficiently defined requirement and an unrealistic timescale.

 

The results were about what you would expect.

[Talltim]

Twin engined locos with a large centre cab are not dead! http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/sbb-orders-locomotives-with-working-and-waiting-cabs.html

[jonny777]

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.

 

 

In the biography of Sir Nigel Gresley, by Geoffrey Hughes, he says that one of the last acts by Sir Ronald Matthews, the Chairman of the LNER, before nationalisation; was to open the tender documents from 6 manufacturers for supplying the company with twenty five 1600hp diesels, to be used in pairs, and thus would replace thirty two pacifics.

 

This project was shelved after nationalisation. One has to wonder what drawings were contained in these tender documents, and indeed which were the six companies to produce designs?

 

 

          (Edited to say - sorry I seemed to have overlapped somewhat with The Stationmaster in post 72) .

[jonny777]

However, on my internet travels I did find this extract from The Engineer magazine for Aug 15th 1947:-

 

(Apologies for the justification)

 

 

 

THE board of the London and North-Eastern
Railway Company has approved plans for the
construction of twenty-five diesel-electric locomotives
of 1600 h.p., which are to be used for
hauling the principal Anglo-Scottish expresses.
The L.N.E.R. says that, although the scheme
has not yet been worked out in detail it envisages
the operation by diesel-electric locomotives
of about thirty weekday and Sunday expresses
over the East Coast main line between King's
Cross and Edinburgh, and it is possible that the
locomotives may be worked as far north as
Aberdeen . Altogether, with additional trips
between places like King's Cross and Grantham
and Doncaster, it is likely that about 2,500,000
train miles will be covered annually by dieselelectric
locomotives. The diesel-electric units,
which will work in pairs to form 3200 h.p. locomotives,
operated by multiple-unit control, will
between them probably possess twenty-four
wheels-sixteen of them drivers-will weigh
about 240 tons and measure approximately
114ft over buffers. The present " Pacific,
steam locomotives have a starting tractive
effort of 37,000 lb, but the double diesel-electric
locomotives will, it is estimated, muster a
• starting tractive effort of 90,000 lb and will be
capable of running at a speed of 100 m.p.h.
The scheme takes into account also the special
maintenance and servicing arrangements which
will be necessary, and it is likely that the main
depot for the diesel-electric locomotives will be
situated near Edinburgh with a subsidiary
depot as near as possible to King's Cross.

 

 

 

Further research leads me to understand that the companies submitting tenders included - North British, British Thompson Houston, English Electric, Birmingham RC & W, and Metro-Vick Sulzer.

 

I wonder if these documents are still in existence?

[DavidLong]

Twin engined locos with a large centre cab are not dead! http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/sbb-orders-locomotives-with-working-and-waiting-cabs.html

Nice, useful looking locomotives. Note also 'electro-diesel' and not the clumsy-sounding (and imprecise) 'bi-mode'!

 

David

[Peter Kazmierczak]

This is an interesting read, dating from October 1951:

 

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RE_Motive1951.pdf

[Urthra]

I also found that SR comissioned 2 locos designed by Bulleid, flatnosed DE units. A third was held back to modify during the runins of the first pair. By the time they rolled out they belonged to BR.

LMS comissioned 10001/2 and the Fell diesel, 10010. An interesting 2bobo2 unit...

 

No surprise that the LNER wanted in on it. One of the articles I read on the LMS units claimed their performance would warrant a 25% to 30% cut in locomotive numbers based on their much higher availability and quicker turnarounds

 

Given that was 47-48, a very pertinent question is why did BR seem to stick its head in the sand and ignore everything bar steam for its first few years?

[Edwin_m]

The diesel-electric units,

which will work in pairs to form 3200 h.p. locomotives,

operated by multiple-unit control, will

between them probably possess twenty-four

wheels-sixteen of them drivers-will weigh

about 240 tons and measure approximately

114ft over buffers.

So assuming those figures apply to a pair*, each loco would have four motored and two trailing axles.  Would this have been a 1B+B1, perhaps a diesel version of the Woodhead locos with unpowered axles for steering and weight distribution like the 1Co-Co1 diesels?  Or are we looking at something more exotic like a rigid 1-D-1 or even, given the use in pairs, 2-Ds coupled with the unpowered axles outwards. 120 tonnes on six axles sounds like it could have been pretty hard on the track. 

 

*the text could be read as applying to the whole fleet!  But with less than one wheel each that would be silly. 

[Titan]

Perhaps A1A-A1A? 

[The Stationmaster]

This is an interesting read, dating from October 1951:

 

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RE_Motive1951.pdf

A fascinating document which of course also sheds light on what subsequently happened.  I was amused to see that discussions on single manning of diesel and electric traction got underway in 1947/48 - the result of thsoe discussions was some change in 1955 but for loco worked trains the matter wasn't actually resolved until the 1957 Manning Agreement (which we were basically still working to in the late 1980/early '90s!).

[Zomboid]

So assuming those figures apply to a pair*, each loco would have four motored and two trailing axles. Would this have been a 1B+B1, perhaps a diesel version of the Woodhead locos with unpowered axles for steering and weight distribution like the 1Co-Co1 diesels? Or are we looking at something more exotic like a rigid 1-D-1 or even, given the use in pairs, 2-Ds coupled with the unpowered axles outwards. 120 tonnes on six axles sounds like it could have been pretty hard on the track.

 

*the text could be read as applying to the whole fleet! But with less than one wheel each that would be silly.

I'd like to think that they would have been streamlined, like the EMD E units, given that the LNER were into streamlined steam trains, and they would run in back to back pairs...

[russ p]

I think whatever wheel arrangement was chosen it would have had six traction motors. I base this on the fact that the LMS and SR types of similar power had six.

I've never given thought until now of the loco's being single cabbed but as they were to work in pairs and infrastructure existed to turn Pacific's this is entirely feasible

[jonny777]

I think whatever wheel arrangement was chosen it would have had six traction motors. I base this on the fact that the LMS and SR types of similar power had six.

I've never given thought until now of the loco's being single cabbed but as they were to work in pairs and infrastructure existed to turn Pacific's this is entirely feasible

 

 

Where does it say they would be single cabbed?

[russ p]

The post above mine mentioned back to back. None of the documents that have come to light mention single or double cabs

[Zomboid]

Where does it say they would be single cabbed?

That was just me imagining E and F units (and Alco PAs) in an LNER version of ATSF/ Delaware & Hudson warbonnet...

 

Though given that express locos in the 1930s were single ended and some were streamlined, it's not a ridiculous suggestion that a 1930s express diesel would be a single ended streamliner, especially given that they were intended to work in pairs.

[Clive Mortimore]

Backtrack did an article on the proposed LNER diesels, many years ago. From memory there was a drawing of two single cabed locos back to back.

[Reorte]

I think it is true that steam locomotives exert an emotional appeal which is not supported by any logical considerations of performance or economics.

Performance and economics are just other things that ultimately boil down to an emotional appeal, they're means to an end not an end in themselves and if that end isn't a better world to live in (ultimately an emotional position) then they're totally pointless. Certainly pursuit of them to the exclusion of everything else doesn't necessarily make the world a better place, and when they do succeed it's only because they're part of providing more of what we need to make us happy (i.e. emotional).

[cheesysmith]

The LNER plan sounds almost identical to the LMS twins. They were originally going to be A1A and had the American inspired bonnets on the front. They could have used the sulzer LDA28 twelve cylinder engine for 1800bhp per loco, but with a engine mass 40000lds with generator, they would have had problems getting it down to a low enough axle load with the building techniques at the time.

[jjb1970]

Performance and economics are just other things that ultimately boil down to an emotional appeal, they're means to an end not an end in themselves and if that end isn't a better world to live in (ultimately an emotional position) then they're totally pointless. Certainly pursuit of them to the exclusion of everything else doesn't necessarily make the world a better place, and when they do succeed it's only because they're part of providing more of what we need to make us happy (i.e. emotional).

I’d agree we want the world to be happy and that emotional wellbeing is important however in this case I do not think even many enthusiasts would genuinely advocate a return to steam. Whilst steam locomotives are wonderful to look at (in my opinion) and still exude what might be called charisma (if any machine can be said to do so) I think quality of life and wellbeing actually favours alternatives. Operating and maintaining steam locomotives was a demanding and dirty job. I don’t think many drivers would want to swap the driver environment of any modern train (or those diesels and electrics built in the 50’s and 60’s) to go back to the environment of a steam locomotive. You could engineer a modern steam design with fully automated controls and a clean, air conditioned cab environment but such a train would lose the emotional appeal anyway I think. And I think either oil firing or automated coal handling would be mandatory as few in today’s UK are going to willingly shovel coal all day. Doing a turn as a fireman for the odd day on a steam special or preserved railway may be good fun but does anybody really want to do the job day in, day out? Equally with maintenance steam locomotives were labour intensive and much of the work was heavy toil and very dirty. Some of that could be mitigated by modern maintenance techniques and improved technology but ultimately no matter which way I look at it I think a steam locomotive is going to place heavier demands on maintenance staff and be a dirtier environment than alternative forms of traction and that doesn’t really lend itself to quality of life for staff. Much of that could be mitigated by operating on clean distillate fuel but why use a carbon heavy finite fuel in a steam locomotive at probably less than a quarter of the efficiency you’d get from just using a modern diesel arrangement? I think quality of life is also something that should be considered in terms of those who provide services and I think modern railways (aside from issues related to non-technical stuff such as management and labour relations, T&C’s etc) provide a far better working environment than was normal in the steam are or which would be achieved even by modern steam traction.

The real arguments over quality of life are emissions. The exhaust of a steam locomotive may be splendid to watch but it is dirty and essentially a pollution pump. Even if we set aside arguments over carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases that exhaust was laden with all sorts of pollutants linked to public health issues as well as pollution such as acid rain and generally just leading to a very dirty world from all the soot deposition etc. Even without the current debate over carbon and global warming those emissions would be unacceptable on account of public health concerns, damage to ecosystems and the general dirt. And all of those aspects ultimately are grounded on quality of life issues. The clean air acts and associated environmental regulation were always going to make it exceedingly difficult for coal fired steamers to continue, it is why I think that despite all the various arguments over the modernisation plan, continued manufacture of steamers etc etc the end of British steam would not have altered by more than a handful of years regardless of all the railway specific issues. Coal fired boilers in power plants are fundamentally different from those used in locomotives, even they’re on the way out as they’re politically toxic yet their emissions abatement include particulates, SOx and NOx as governed by regulations such as LCPD/IED. Emissions abatement would be difficult on a steam locomotive.

Whilst efficiency may seem to act against quality of life, the purpose of a transport system is to get people from A to B safety, efficiently and within an acceptable journey time I think. Yes, some journeys are about the experience but when I commute to work it is an important part of my quality of life that the rail service offers a short transit time so I spend more time at home with my family which massively outweighs any advantages of enjoying a leisurely ride behind a steamer. High speed railways have made the world smaller and allowed people to make journeys they perhaps wouldn’t have done in older times or alternatively have made rail competitive with air and so offered an escape from the truly ghastly experience of modern air travel. I suppose I could go on and on and this is already an overly long post so I think it can be summed up that whilst steam locomotives may be wonderful for enthusiasts in almost every other way it is hard to argue that a return steam would enhance quality of life.

For all that I'd still like to see the 5AT built.

[Reorte]

Although I quite strongly disagree with some of the points  I don't disagree with the general trend of your argument. I wasn't specifically arguing for a return to steam, just that the emotional reason for having something shouldn't be dismissed and economic and practical ones automatically accepted (they all too often get treated as ends in themselves instead of means to an end). Easier isn't always better either, it's getting the right balance that is (I wouldn't like to go back to Victorian conditions but a car with headlights that turn themselves on to save me the effort of doing so is pretty pointless).

 

Anyway, I'll try to shut up now, this is pretty off-topic.

[jonny777]

Backtrack did an article on the proposed LNER diesels, many years ago. From memory there was a drawing of two single cabed locos back to back.

 

 

I suppose the BTC shelved the project after nationalisation because the LMS twins were already running and the first of the SR ones was under construction, so they thought they would have enough examples to gain experience with?

 

For me, this whole argument - and the speeding up of the 1955 plan - boils down to Robin Riddles and his standard steam designs which appear to have stalled the progress made by the Big Four for 10-15 years, but I suspect there has been a thread on that already.

[Reorte]

For me, this whole argument - and the speeding up of the 1955 plan - boils down to Robin Riddles and his standard steam designs which appear to have stalled the progress made by the Big Four for 10-15 years, but I suspect there has been a thread on that already.

Isn't that a "with hindsight" argument though? AIUI the introduction of standard steam was down to the idea that it made more sense to stick with steam until large-scale electrification had appeared, a change to diesel followed by a change to electric not too long afterwards didn't make much sense. At the time that might've seemed perfectly reasonable. Indeed it may even be possible to suggest that the same thing is happening now, I get the impression that there's a reluctance to order more diesel trains in the light of the current expansion of electrification (probably justified, but you can never tell for certain until later).