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

[Pandora]

35 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

I've read somewhere that the LNER diesels were to be single ended is there any drawings of them?

A magazine published an article with drawings of the LNER diesels, I think it may have been The Railway Magazine in the 2016 or 2017 volume. i do not have a copy.

Please may I ask the forum to look through their magazine libraries  and post  the title and date of the magazine and article.

[Pandora]

In the case of LMS 10000/1 and the Bulleid diesels,  they were pooled as a fleet and worked on the Southern and then the WCML. during the early 1950s. Had the LNER scheme gone ahead, I can envisage  the pool of Ivatt and Bulleid diesels not on the Southern, but allocated to the ECML to work alongside  the LNER fleet,  as an extra twist, perhaps the WR Gas Turbines would have joined an the ECML loco  pool too .  That would give the Board an extra dimension to examine as a pilot scheme, Gas Turbine side by side with diesel electrics. Perhaps the Gas Turbines of the WR may have been at home on the long distance high speed  runs  of the ECML, where the  penalty of high fuel consumption at slow-speed / part-load working  of a gas turbine locomotive would be side-stepped

Edited October 26, 2021 by Pandora

[Traintresta]

2 hours ago, Pandora said:

In the case of LMS 10000/1 and the Bulleid diesels,  they were pooled as a fleet and worked on the Southern and then the WCML. during the early 1950s. Had the LNER scheme gone ahead, I can envisage  the pool of Ivatt and Bulleid diesels not on the Southern, but allocated to the ECML to work alongside  the LNER fleet,  as an extra twist, perhaps the WR Gas Turbines would have joined an the ECML loco  pool too .  That would give the Board an extra dimension to examine as a pilot scheme, Gas Turbine side by side with diesel electrics. Perhaps the Gas Turbines of the WR may have been at home on the long distance high speed  runs  of the ECML, where the  penalty of high fuel consumption at slow-speed / part-load working  of a gas turbine locomotive would be side-stepped

I think equally we would have seen the LNER fleet tested on the WCML and possibly some on the SR.  It truly would have been the pilot scheme in earnest!

 

I don't think gas turbines would find a home on the rails anywhere.  Even the Union Pacific tried them on long distanced runs in the states and they found the same drawbacks.

[Nearholmer]

One thing the LNER would have had to face up to, but which the LMS had hardly begun to tackle, would have been staffing the care and maintenance of a front-line diesel fleet, and one upon which their reputation would have depended. The LMS based their locos at Stonebridge Park, to have access to electrical expertise, but the LNER wouldn’t have been able to operate on that sort of basis, which is only sustainable in the very early phases. I propose that they would have been seeking ex-RN technical staff, from submarines etc. Hope to goodness they were planning specialist depots, and weren’t intending to trust them to the tender mercies of steam sheds!!

[Pandora]

27 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

One thing the LNER would have had to face up to, but which the LMS had hardly begun to tackle, would have been staffing the care and maintenance of a front-line diesel fleet, and one upon which their reputation would have depended. The LMS based their locos at Stonebridge Park, to have access to electrical expertise, but the LNER wouldn’t have been able to operate on that sort of basis, which is only sustainable in the very early phases. I propose that they would have been seeking ex-RN technical staff, from submarines etc. Hope to goodness they were planning specialist depots, and weren’t intending to trust them to the tender mercies of steam sheds!!

The Report does account for  the issue of servicing maintenance and works attention of the diesel fleet, two new purpose built depots,  London and Edinburgh,   it is a carefully thought through scheme, not much has been overlooked,  it is not a flight of fancy,   which adds  to the tragedy of the shelving of the scheme by 222 Marylebone Road

Edited October 26, 2021 by Pandora

[cheesysmith]

I don`t think that is totally fare to the kremlin, as the instructions they will have been given would have been to be conservative and renewal of the network, not to look forward. How else do you explain the standard wagon group ordering so many single and paired bolster wagons, that I don`t think were even used, over the better bogie bolster wagon, which the LNER version became the type D and is still with us today. The same can be said about the 16 ton rot box.

 

With hindsight, we can say what a missed opportunity they represented for both BR and the manufacturers to learn from and would have avoided a lot of the mistakes of the later mass dieselisation. As for the LNER locos, they could have had either 2000bhp v16 or 1500bhp v12 by the time 10203 was built. The CSVT had been quickly uprated from 1600bhp in 10000, to 1750 in 10201, to 2000bhp in 10203, all without intercooling (which would have added 100bhp per 4 cylinders). By the time the LNER locos would have been built, the EE engine was already available with more than 1600bhp.

[johnofwessex]

How good were the LMS Twins/Bullied diesels?

 

Would they have formed the basis for a workable 'fleet'

[Traintresta]

2 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

How good were the LMS Twins/Bullied diesels?

 

Would they have formed the basis for a workable 'fleet'

The only negative comments I can find about either relate to the low power to high weight ratio and also for the use of the 1Co-Co1 bogies on the 10201-20203.  Otherwise they seem to have been, for all intents and purposes, well regarded.

[johnofwessex]

Clearly they were underpowered by todays standards, but certainly equal or better than all but the largest steam loco's - which is why the LMS Twins were designed to work as a pair.

 

But if they were reliable rolling them out area by area, redeploying the modern steam loco's to replace older machines could have worked

[Nearholmer]

Back to the power/weight ratio issue that I mentioned before. We tend to forget how bl@@dy heavy, and bulky Diesel engines were before compression ratios and air supply were pushed to the extremes they’ve reached now, which are only really possible with very good closed-loop controls.

[Traintresta]

38 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

Clearly they were underpowered by todays standards, but certainly equal or better than all but the largest steam loco's - which is why the LMS Twins were designed to work as a pair.

 

But if they were reliable rolling them out area by area, redeploying the modern steam loco's to replace older machines could have worked

If the LNER scheme had proceeded it could well have shown that a comprehensive dieselisation scheme with the correct repair facilities and support staff was the way forward.  As a result, following tha blueprint, we would probably have seent he are-by-area roll out that was envisioned in 1955.

[Mark Saunders]

More important than making trains go is the ability to stop them!

 

Unfitted trains were common till the mid 1980’s!

[Zomboid]

Which is why the early 30s & 40s American locos were heavy and big and not especially powerful (needing 4 or more units to replace one of their steam locos). The 1937 E units had 2x 900hp engines, which isn't a great return on 142000kg.

[Nearholmer]

Braking wasn’t a problem on ECML  expresses, which is what the LNER intended them for.

 

Before they turned their pockets inside out and found only fluff, the LNER had intended to electrify Yorkshire to London, which is where the heavy unfitted coal trains were, which would have permitted regenerative, or at least rheostatic, braking. I think MSW had ‘toasters’ at the substations to dissipate any braking energy that couldn’t be put to better use.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Nearholmer

[johnofwessex]

17 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

More important than making trains go is the ability to stop them!

 

Unfitted trains were common till the mid 1980’s!

 

Indeed, BUT why when Europe & North America had all vehicles braked, Europe certainly wasnt that different to the UK

[Zomboid]

The fact that freight was often unfitted after about 1920 is one of the great missed opportunities of British railway history.

[Traintresta]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Possibly the biggest missed opportunity of the early years of nationalisation was that it took another 30+ years to see the end of unfitted freights, also not to standardise on the continuous air brake.

Fitted freights could have  completely revolutionised the railways back then, but in terms of what we are discussing it could have meant a future for the diesel hydraulics.  If you look at the reasoning for the hydraulics, it was pretty sound concept for the WR given what was laid out before them if you think about it.  They already had people trained in the mechanical disciplines of engineering and hydraulic transmission was taken up for DMU's so commonality of training, stores, concept was all there.  The lighter weight of the hydraulic type 4's (not withstanding the D600's) due to the techniques employed in their construction, coupled with the slightly lighter hydraulic transmission was a winning combination.  Alas, the lack of fitted freights was one of only many hurdles they had to overcome, but had that not been the case there may not have been such a strong case against hydraulics.

 

Don't get me wrong, as bulky and cumbersome as they are, I love the 1Co-Co1's.  But there could have been some remarkably nimble locomotives on British rails if the LNER pilot had shown the way and fitted freights had allowed hydraulic transmission to show what it could do.  There was a plan for a more powerful development of the Western's with, in the region of, 3200hp if memory serves me well, the Hymeks were by all accounts great loco's and the warship's were solid.  They could all have played their part in a much more cohesive traction plan whereby the Type 4 and 5 power range might have utilised further developments of hydraulic transmission and the high speed diesel engine might not have been so well disliked by the CME's department, especially given that they took a u-turn on that policy for HST, which itself could potentially have been a diesel hydraulic.

[kevinlms]

5 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

Clearly they were underpowered by todays standards, but certainly equal or better than all but the largest steam loco's - which is why the LMS Twins were designed to work as a pair.

 

But if they were reliable rolling them out area by area, redeploying the modern steam loco's to replace older machines could have worked

The LMS twins were designed to be used as a pair on express passenger services and indeed mostly were.

But they were also intended to be used on freight services singly, which there seems to be little record of this occurring. Presumably, because they were expensive machines, they wanted the best (noticed by the public) usage from them.

[Tumut]

HelloAll,

 

The Victorian Railways / VR of Australia purchased 26 x B class double ended GM-EMD / Clyde Engineering CoCo 1500 hp diesel electric locomotives, and was derived from the EMD F7 model. The VR found that one B class could cover the equivalent runs of three steam locomotives. ( Which, as it later turned out, was found to be generally true on all Australian railways. )

 

B62 was the first diesel locomotive in Australia to achieve 1 million miles in service from September 1952 to December 1957. To give some context to this, the VR had a geographic spread equal to Britain, with approximately 5,600 route miles. A former Signalman at Melbourne Spencer St No.1 Signal Box told me that the B class were always intensively used, in that they would arrive with one train, be uncoupled, and quickly attached to another for the next departure.

 

Then again, fuel cost wise, in 1953 they cost AusPounds 80- / hp, compared to AusPounds 60- / hp for steam, but as one diesel could cover three steam runs, and not require refuelling or re watering whilst doing so, the benefits are obvious.

 

Also at the time Australia relied on the bulk of locomotive coal coming from NSW underground coal mines, and supply could  be variable. ( Northern NSW and Queensland open cut coal mines were a mid 1960s development. ) Later on, the VR ran an oil pipeline from refineries at Altona, near Newport, to South Dynon Loco ( North Melbourne, near Spencer St ), so fuel supply was no longer a problem. Also, in comparative terms the cost of steaming coal rose whilst the cost of diesel fell, so dieselization was a no brainer even then.

 

In the case of BR, the cost and quality of British coal was declining, cost per ton was rising, and the cost of importing oil was falling, so the elimination of steam by 1968 had a significant effect on lowering fuel costs. One aspect of the case for electrification was that it was , and is, more fuel efficient to burn coal in a power station than burn it in a steam locomotive, though not as visually interesting !

 

Regards, Tumut

[Ramblin Rich]

9 hours ago, Traintresta said:

Fitted freights could have  completely revolutionised the railways back then, but in terms of what we are discussing it could have meant a future for the diesel hydraulics.  If you look at the reasoning for the hydraulics, it was pretty sound concept for the WR given what was laid out before them if you think about it.  They already had people trained in the mechanical disciplines of engineering and hydraulic transmission was taken up for DMU's so commonality of training, stores, concept was all there.  .....

All the first generation DMUs were mechanical transmission with gearboxes and fluid flywheels (apart from the Southern DEMUs with electric transmission). It's the second generation 14x and 15x series that have hydraulic transmission.

Your thoughts around mechanical engineering still hold in that DMUs need mechanics, but not the same skills as for hydraulics.

Given the ideas behind transition to electrification, getting experience with electric transmission made sense and hydraulic transmission is really (sadly) a bit of a dead end.

[cheesysmith]

6 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

All the first generation DMUs were mechanical transmission with gearboxes and fluid flywheels (apart from the Southern DEMUs with electric transmission). It's the second generation 14x and 15x series that have hydraulic transmission.

Your thoughts around mechanical engineering still hold in that DMUs need mechanics, but not the same skills as for hydraulics.

Given the ideas behind transition to electrification, getting experience with electric transmission made sense and hydraulic transmission is really (sadly) a bit of a dead end.

 

Apart from the 113, 125 and 127 DMU that used RR engines and hydraulic drive, using the diesel fuel as the transmission medium in the gearbox (smart idea, low fuel levels and recirculating the fuel through the gearbox, and if any leaks you get atomised fuel sprayed about, result fire). 

 

 

[Zomboid]

20 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

All the first generation DMUs were mechanical transmission with gearboxes and fluid flywheels (apart from the Southern DEMUs with electric transmission). It's the second generation 14x and 15x series that have hydraulic transmission.

Your thoughts around mechanical engineering still hold in that DMUs need mechanics, but not the same skills as for hydraulics.

Given the ideas behind transition to electrification, getting experience with electric transmission made sense and hydraulic transmission is really (sadly) a bit of a dead end.

Hydraulic transmission on units in the sprinter era obviously made sense, but in the vast majority of the world it never really went anywhere with locomotives, presumably for good reason. The Southern Pacific tried a few but never ordered any more.

 

As we see now with 22xs and 80xs, some of the 73/9s and even deltics, distributing electrical power around is relatively easy and means you can get much better performance with an engine out (either broken or for economy reasons when full output isn't needed) than a hydraulic arrangement where each engine is tied to a final drive.

 

The Maybachs in the British hydraulic locos sound magnificent, but they don't really offer anything else that's especially useful which a DE doesn't. And presumably it would have been possible to connect a generator to the output of those prime movers too...

[Ramblin Rich]

21 minutes ago, cheesysmith said:

 

Apart from the 113, 125 and 127 DMU that used RR engines and hydraulic drive, using the diesel fuel as the transmission medium in the gearbox (smart idea, low fuel levels and recirculating the fuel through the gearbox, and if any leaks you get atomised fuel sprayed about, result fire). 

 

 

Thanks, yes should have said most of 1st generation...

[Nearholmer]

I’m not at all convinced that hydraulic transmission would have been a long/medium term good idea for large locomotives, even though it would undoubtedly have permitted (did permit) a higher power to weight ratio, and high weight wouldn’t have been necessary with continuously brakes freight trains.

 

Why? Because it involves using very specialised, highly stressed mechanical components, in place of what can easily be very ‘run of the mill’, low-stressed electrical components.
 

The advantage of electric transmissions became writ even larger once power-electronics advance to the point where three-phase traction motors were viable.

 

If you look worldwide, in all applications, not just rail, hydraulic transmissions of the sorts of ratings we are talking about are pretty unusual, while electric transmissions are very common. Even the Germans, who were clearly very good at the mechanical engineering involved, seem to have largely steered away from it in heavy rail applications over the past c40 years (Voith did build one big demonstrator didn’t they?), unless there is something I’m missing.

[Zomboid]

11 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m not at all convinced that hydraulic transmission would have been a long/medium term good idea for large locomotives, even though it would undoubtedly have permitted (did permit) a higher power to weight ratio

Does that really stack up? A Western had 2700hp installed and weighed 108 "long tons" (whatever those are), whilst a 50 also has 2700hp and weighs 115 "Long tons" (why can't we just use SI units?). 47s weighed about the same and had 2750hp (initially, and the derating wasn't to do with the electrics).

 

By the time you've coupled up enough of a train to justify 2700hp that's going to be a negligible difference.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Zomboid