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

[rodent279]

Clive

 

Both are fair point.s If you want to know what the 1960 Brush EE powered loco looks like there is a drawing of it in Class 47 50 Years of Locomotive History which we obtained from Brush themselves. Would make an interesting model project thats for sure.

 

When you read BR files on the Class 56 project, early on they are described as Class 47s. 

 

Simon

 

My dad took me to an IMechE evening lecture back in about 1980, on the experience, trials & tribulations of the first few years of class 56 operation. They were described as basically a class 47 bodyshell, with an uprated EE 16CVST engine, driving an alternator instead of a generator, mounted on bogies with flexicoil suspension.

[cheesysmith]

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.

[Titan]

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.

 

It was not a story, it was actually minuted in official BR meetings. When EE were still maintaining the power units, they had started to market the class 55 power unit as having a traction rating of 1,800bhp. Somehow this accidentally got to the shop floor and the overhauled units were supplied to BR set at 1,800bhp instead of 1,650bhp. When BR management found out about it they decided to let affected locos continue to run, as there did not seem to have been any effect on reliability, but instructed EE to make sure from now on all power units were set to 1,650bhp.

 

So the most powerful BR loco was still a Deltic, officially or otherwise!

Edited February 20, 2018 by Titan

[Junctionmad]

I suspect the real out come of any pilot in 1965 would be recommendation for an electrification proof of concept... and argue steam should continue until the nation is electrified... I think the UK in a lot of sense would have evolved like PKP in Poland, but with steam declining in UK production from around 1970, and withdrawal by 1995... In that sense EE clearly lead the way, it was clear that EE had a future unchallenged vision of AC electrification in the UK, that no one else matched.

 

If that had been the case, the modernisation of British Railways could have been a whole lot cheaper. Politically however then as now, the UK has a desire to look better or different than Europe and more like the US... so we spent a lot on untried designs to make ourselves feel good, when really it was the Dutch and Swiss that showed how it was done, Sulzer of course.. is Swiss.. GE could have showed us too but that was too embarrassing to accept in the 1960s. Had the UK stuck to it's pilot programme it could have forced the UK's builders to be a bit more innovative and independent by competing on overseas designs, instead they became dependent and ultimately paid the price of being inwards looking, indeed had GE been invited into the Pilot, with it's then elderly 1750hp Nohab design, it could have afforded our manufacturers some earlier competitive insight into what was developing from the US... indeed was the class 37 profile / specification inspired by the Nohab ?

 

 

I don't think , under any circumstances, steam in any form could have survived on BR past the 70s and certainly not the 90s. The whole issue of labour costs and labour availability where entirely different then in Poland.

 

Secondly , most of continental Europe electrified on the back of extensive war damaged rail networks , Britain did not suffer quite the same infrastructure damage and largely had a functional railway. Equally much of the Marshal millions were spent elsewhere.

 

My view is dieseisation didn't occur fast enough , standard steam was a distraction, largely done for " political " reasons. arguably had the railway remained with the big four , dieselisation would have begun earlier ( assuming sources of capital were available of course )

 

But I do agree that in particular EMC/EMD could have provided acceptable technology sooner , sure not covering all potential requirements , but it could have allowed dieselisation to begin in the early 50s , providing a smoother and more gradual transition , while allowing experience to build. Every time BR rushed at things , it was usually a failure !

[Nearholmer]

Something that needs to be factored into our “modelling” of the c1950 mindset is that Britain believed (a) that it was good at engineering and technical matters, and (b) that it’s future lay in exporting high-end is ngineering products. So there was a want to develop a strong diesel loco industry, and sell lots abroad, to earn desperately needed foreign exchange.

 

As it turned out, our opinion of our own competence was just a tad at odds with the facts, and not just in locos, but in jet aircraft, cars, and a few other things. We seemed to be good at occasional flashes of brilliance, but rubbish at turning those into solid, dependable, value for money products. In short ‘Meccano Magazine’ was telling its readers a pack of fibs all through the 50s (and probably the 30s), although it’s writers probably didn’t know it.

 

This is relevant to the BR case, because a part of the motivation was to use the domestic market as the ‘springboard’ for exports.

 

On a technical point, American engines at this period were challengingly big and heavy for use in British loading gauge and axle weight locos. It could be done, as the American military “go anywhere” loco fleet proved, but it resulted in a long loco, to spread weight over six axles, of modest power rating, 1500hp IIRC, so sort of worse than a 40 or Peak.

[Zomboid]

I think it's a pretty safe bet that without WW2 and nationalisation, the big 4 would have skipped over the steam locos of the late 40s and later. The southern was obviously into electric trains, and the LNER would have probably been aiming that way too. The LMS had a fair amount of suburban electrics too, though extending the LNWRs Euston - Watford scheme along the main line seems a little far fetched.

Who knows what the GWR would have done. Maybe experiment with gas turbines, but they'd have just found the same that everyone else did and then carry on building identical 4-6-0s until 1985...

[Junctionmad]

Something that needs to be factored into our “modelling” of the c1950 mindset is that Britain believed (a) that it was good at engineering and technical matters, and (b) that it’s future lay in exporting high-end is ngineering products. So there was a want to develop a strong diesel loco industry, and sell lots abroad, to earn desperately needed foreign exchange.

 

I think there's more then a grain of truth here. A combination of domestic political concerns and a mistaken self belief largely based on perception, resulted in a series of bad decisions

As for history repeating itself.........

[Junctionmad]

On a technical point, American engines at this period were challengingly big and heavy for use in British loading gauge and axle weight locos. It could be done, as the American military “go anywhere” loco fleet proved, but it resulted in a long loco, to spread weight over six axles, of modest power rating, 1500hp IIRC, so sort of worse than a 40 or Peak.

 

 

Certainly by 1970 , EMD could supply 2250 HP to the Irish system , whose loading gauge is only slightly bigger, on six axles with modest axle loading. The 645 engine was in production from 1965 ,which suggest EMD could have met the loading gauge requirements even sooner if someone had asked ?

 

Again the 645 was a development of the 567 engine , which was already an extremely proven and reliable engine

Edited February 20, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Nearholmer]

Zomboid

 

I gave a swift run down of the known intent of the Big Four earlier in the thread, suffice to say that both the LMS and GWR had heaved a heavy groan and said that they would build more steamers until their favoured intent (diesel and GT respectively) had been proven through prototyping.

 

So, the LMS would have done OK, probably dieselising big time from the early/ mid 1950s, but the GWR would have found itself in a serious pickle. Presumably, they would have had to change horses to diesel, and one is tempted to suggest that they would, in typical style, have done what Swindon(BR) did, and gone hydraulic. Not a ‘wrong’ path in the context, just different. And, with lots of brass bits!

 

Kevin

[Junctionmad]

Zomboid

I gave a swift run down of the known intent of the Big Four earlier in the thread, suffice to say that both the LMS and GWR had heaved a heavy groan and said that they would build more steamers until their favoured intent (diesel and GT respectively) had been proven through prototyping.

So, the LMS would have done OK, probably dieselising big time from the early/ mid 1950s, but the GWR would have found itself in a serious pickle. Presumably, they would have had to change horses to diesel, and one is tempted to suggest that they would, in typical style, have done what Swindon(BR) did, and gone hydraulic. Not a ‘wrong’ path in the context, just different. And, with lots of brass bits!

Kevin

I think it's safe to suggest that post war US practice would have had a huge effect on the big four thinking, the US embraced diesels early on and largely there designs proved reliable. To suggest that by 1960 say , one would be saying "let's prove diesel " is ridiculous , it had already swept away steam at sea by 1950-55 and diesels were in day to day use on the US.

 

It's a clear case of NIH , amongst other things that this view existed. the reality is not that" diesels " needed to be proven , what needed to be proven was a method whereby Brotish manufacturers could actually build reliable diesels. Hence , as was pointed out , the pilot programme was not really an attempt to evaluate engines rather one to evaluate suppliers

 

Excerbating the issue was the political issues around large workforces in railway company shops, largely under skilled and under equipped to produce diesels. I mean Bulleid couldn't even get welding done in-house in Eastleigh

 

It's obvious for capital , political and engineering reasons why steam engine production remained , but it only made things worse and in the end caused BR to have to rush the dieselisation processes when it become blindingly obvious the steam engine had to go and go fast.

 

GT , Hydraulics , etc would have been quickly consigned to the " Betamax " of loco designs , as the conventional diesel electric established its dominance, and all before 1960 imho.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Nearholmer]

Junctionmad

 

They did meeting the loading gauge, with military locos that were designed to be used anywhere, c1950, but, as I said, they weren’t very powerful. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_MRS-1

 

I posted a picture of one mocked into LMS livery in a previous version of this thread.

 

K

Edited February 20, 2018 by Nearholmer

[cheesysmith]

Through the commonwealth companies like EE had a ready made export market for their products. But EMD took a lot of the market away through several factors, having access to cheap Capitol allowing cheap lease/buy costs, and steady development of its products without the peculiar British problem of domestic and internal company politics interfering. And EMD provided extensive spares even for its older products. Remember EE was hampered in its engine developments in that the costs of whatever engine developments were costed not to a general research funding, but to whatever loco design used it. Then there was the different factories bid against each other internally for work, and had their own overheads to add to each order. Then you had EE detour down a blind alley with its own high speed diesel engine, which was scrapped just before the first engine was to be installed in a baby deltic (all that R&D scrapped). This sideline caused lack of R&D time and cash for the CSVT engine uprating which had been ignored. Then you had the gov inspired "merger" with GEC, then later the sale of the engine business to Ruston. And to top it all off, British manufacturing was totally focused on short term thinking due to the need to " export or die" fostered by the gov due to its needs for dollars to pay back the yanks for WW2.

[Junctionmad]

Junctionmad

They did meeting the loading gauge, with military locos that were designed to be used anywhere, c1950, but, as I said, they weren’t very powerful.

K

Agreed , but certainly by 1965 + , they could also provide more powerful engines within the loading gauge , that's was my point

[Zomboid]

Certainly by 1970 , EMD could supply 2250 HP to the Irish system , whose loading gauge is only slightly bigger, on six axles with modest axle loading. The 645 engine was in production from 1965 ,which suggest EMD could have met the loading gauge requirements even sooner if someone had asked ?

Though EE supplied 2700hp to BR in 1962 in the form of DP2. Which was (I believe) a roaring success.

[Junctionmad]

Through the commonwealth companies like EE had a ready made export market for their products. But EMD took a lot of the market away through several factors, having access to cheap Capitol allowing cheap lease/buy costs, and steady development of its products without the peculiar British problem of domestic and internal company politics interfering. And EMD provided extensive spares even for its older products. Remember EE was hampered in its engine developments in that the costs of whatever engine developments were costed not to a general research funding, but to whatever loco design used it. Then there was the different factories bid against each other internally for work, and had their own overheads to add to each order. Then you had EE detour down a blind alley with its own high speed diesel engine, which was scrapped just before the first engine was to be installed in a baby deltic (all that R&D scrapped). This sideline caused lack of R&D time and cash for the CSVT engine uprating which had been ignored. Then you had the gov inspired "merger" with GEC, then later the sale of the engine business to Ruston. And to top it all off, British manufacturing was totally focused on short term thinking due to the need to " export or die" fostered by the gov due to its needs for dollars to pay back the yanks for WW2.

I think you could summarise the issues that many British loco manufacturers had at the time was around sourcing or developing reliable suitable high power Diesel engines , Sulzer being the standout at the time. Given the 2-stroke US engine was well understood by that time , it suggests that there was a remarkable reluctance by certain British manufacturers to use the blindingly obvious rather then the rabbit hole many went down in trying to develop or modify their own.

[Junctionmad]

Though EE supplied 2700hp to BR in 1962 in the form of DP2. Which was (I believe) a roaring success.

Indeed , I always believed EE could have been the EMD of Europe , they had probably the best engine tech , comparable to Sulzer , but through ineptitude at corporate level , never delivered on its abilities.

 

This doesn't invalidate my point , what I was saying was that reliable medium to high power diesels were available from the early 60s from proven sources , rather then largely untried domestic manufacturers. But I fully accept the extigencies of the political decisions of the day , but British Railways paid a price for that thinking

 

As was said , the pilot programme wasn't really an attempt to evaluate diesels , rather domestic manufacturers , a different thing entirely

Edited February 20, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Bernard Lamb]

 

Excerbating the issue was the political issues around large workforces in railway company shops, largely under skilled and under equipped to produce diesels. I mean Bulleid couldn't even get welding done in-house in Eastleigh

 

 

That just about sums it up. Bulleid was one of the few who did try to do something about it. I know I have mentioned it before but boring lectures at The Welding Institute were lightened by seeing his name on the wall.

In eastern Europe changes were forced on the railways by political and economic pressure so steam locomotives had to be rebuilt and made as efficient as possible and kept in active service. I wonder what could have emerged if we had been forced into a rebuilding and development programme in the UK.

I find it rather ironical that we now have Tornado which while looking like the original design incorporates so much of Eastern European technology.

Such a waste that when we did get round to adopting modern welding techniques in other industries the trained men were forced out of work less than twenty years later.

Getting back to the failure of the Pilot Scheme. If government interference had not shut down Armstrong Whitworth in 1937 as a locomotive builder, with as much knowledge of building diesel powered machines as any company, then things might have been very different.

Bernard

[Nearholmer]

Agree. The loss of A-W from the game must have cost Britain years in this topic, but I think they were redirected to armaments, which was probably no bad idea.

[Junctionmad]

That just about sums it up. Bulleid was one of the few who did try to do something about it. I know I have mentioned it before but boring lectures at The Welding Institute were lightened by seeing his name on the wall.

In eastern Europe changes were forced on the railways by political and economic pressure so steam locomotives had to be rebuilt and made as efficient as possible and kept in active service. I wonder what could have emerged if we had been forced into a rebuilding and development programme in the UK.

I find it rather ironical that we now have Tornado which while looking like the original design incorporates so much of Eastern European technology.

Such a waste that when we did get round to adopting modern welding techniques in other industries the trained men were forced out of work less than twenty years later.

Getting back to the failure of the Pilot Scheme. If government interference had not shut down Armstrong Whitworth in 1937 as a locomotive builder, with as much knowledge of building diesel powered machines as any company, then things might have been very different.

Bernard

 

perhaps , but EE was also at around the same level of experience , I dont think Britain needed any more then two builders of diesels , And of course Armstrong had the Sulzer license which again proved to be an excellent leg up 

[cheesysmith]

Using the gift of hindsight, and looking at the manufacturers around at the time. We had EE who could supply both engines and electrics and the mechanical bits. Then we had the BR workshops who could supply the mechanical bits. Then you have brush who could supply electrical and mechanical bits. Then you have Paxman (good engines, just BR chose the wrong ones for rail use), Miralees (Needed more development for rail use and the thermic cycling  ), Sulzer (I would ignore the heavy twin bank engines and stuck to the single bank inline engines). These are the only ones I would have used for the early locos after a proper trail shows up the faults of the others. Remember the re-engining of the 30s with EE power was more to do with the time out of service whilst the engine troubles were fixed Vs the time out of service with replacing the engines.

[Titan]

Junctionmad

 

They did meeting the loading gauge, with military locos that were designed to be used anywhere, c1950, but, as I said, they weren’t very powerful. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALCO_MRS-1

 

I posted a picture of one mocked into LMS livery in a previous version of this thread.

 

K

 

Looking at the specs, 1,600bhp for 110 tonnes in 1953 is not too shabby at all. Steam heat and vacuum brakes would have added to the weight somewhat mind! Looks like they would have made a good freight loco. Now if they had been ordered instead of 8F's and 9F's...

Edited February 20, 2018 by Titan

[Nearholmer]

Some of them actually had steam heat!

 

For those who like small locos in multiple, I’m on a train that just whizzed past Ruislip LU Depot, and saw an S-stock delivery with four, colourful Class 20s, two at each end (I’m sure they run with the back pair shut down, though).

 

K

[kevinlms]

Something that needs to be factored into our “modelling” of the c1950 mindset is that Britain believed (a) that it was good at engineering and technical matters, and (b) that it’s future lay in exporting high-end is ngineering products. So there was a want to develop a strong diesel loco industry, and sell lots abroad, to earn desperately needed foreign exchange.

 

As it turned out, our opinion of our own competence was just a tad at odds with the facts, and not just in locos, but in jet aircraft, cars, and a few other things. We seemed to be good at occasional flashes of brilliance, but rubbish at turning those into solid, dependable, value for money products. In short ‘Meccano Magazine’ was telling its readers a pack of fibs all through the 50s (and probably the 30s), although it’s writers probably didn’t know it.

 

This is relevant to the BR case, because a part of the motivation was to use the domestic market as the ‘springboard’ for exports.

 

On a technical point, American engines at this period were challengingly big and heavy for use in British loading gauge and axle weight locos. It could be done, as the American military “go anywhere” loco fleet proved, but it resulted in a long loco, to spread weight over six axles, of modest power rating, 1500hp IIRC, so sort of worse than a 40 or Peak.

 

The 6 powered axle version, wasn't standard in the US for EMD, into the 1950s, they had 4 wheel bogies, with heavy axle load. The EMD first loco to have 6 wheel bogies to spread the load, was the Victorian Railways B Class. It proved to be successful, so became a standard product.

 

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

[The Stationmaster]

Zomboid

 

I gave a swift run down of the known intent of the Big Four earlier in the thread, suffice to say that both the LMS and GWR had heaved a heavy groan and said that they would build more steamers until their favoured intent (diesel and GT respectively) had been proven through prototyping.

 

So, the LMS would have done OK, probably dieselising big time from the early/ mid 1950s, but the GWR would have found itself in a serious pickle. Presumably, they would have had to change horses to diesel, and one is tempted to suggest that they would, in typical style, have done what Swindon(BR) did, and gone hydraulic. Not a ‘wrong’ path in the context, just different. And, with lots of brass bits!

 

Kevin

 

I think Swindon probably would have taken the hydraulic path for locos as one of the big problem areas with the gas turnbines was electrical shortcomings.  Hence a need in Swindon's eyes to keep away from electrickery if possible.

[Allegheny1600]

Serious question;

Back in the fifties modernisation plan et al - did the UK/British companies actually study how other countries railways had or were dieselising?

Or did we have to re-invent the wheel on the whole thing?

 

I ask because I find it very odd that our closest (WW2) ally, the USA had several railroads that had managed to eradicate steam by the very early fifties (The New Haven by 1952) and steam was entirely gone on almost all major roads by the late fifties.

Even West Germany was busy developing a successful 'pilot scheme' from the early fifties and their solution was to have a small range of locos/units, built by many different manufacturers but all completely compatible with each other so you could, in theory, take the engine from a VT11.5 and put it in a V200, or a V100!

I think about the only other European country that had such a mish-mash of different locos may have been Greece and even they started off buying American but eventually tried more or less everyone going.

TIA,

John.