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

[russ p]

The EE engine was avalible at the time of the modernisation pilot scheme locos with intercooling to uprate it, but BR wanted a type1, with a maximum power for that type was 1000BHP. The same with the class 40s, BR wanted more of the 10203, so that's what EE built.

 

The engine with intercooling was to be used to re-engine the Co Bos.

 

If you want a good type 4 using the bits available at the time, consider this.

 

The truss girder body as used for falcon came in at 21 tons, Vs the class 47 body at 17.5 tons.

 

You could have had a class 47 loco, with EE V16 engine and brush electrics, that would have been cheaper than the class 47 but also lighter by at lest 5 tons.

You could have also had a class 40 loco with 2400BHP on a CoCo at 120 tons instead of the 133 tons of the class 40s.

 

As to using multipule smaller locos, that overlooks the fact that a smaller loco is only slightly less expensive than a bigger more powerful loco.

Wasn't the engine intended for the CO-BO the 8CSVT same engine that was used in the three northern Ireland hunslet BO-BOs

[Suzie]

My thinking behind the class 20 as the basis for type 4 and type 5 use is:-

 

1. 2x class 20 is ony 20' longer than an A4 so not massively bigger.
2. Class 20 was reliable, and that was something quite rare at the time of modernisation.
3. 3x class 20 was more powerful than a 44 so justifies its (much!) longer length.

I am not sure why they were looking at increments of a few hundred horsepower here or there to make a big operational difference. The modern railway looks at "is one shed (3300HP) big enough?" "No, use two sheds (6600HP)". The same could have happened in the '50s where power requirements were much lower and 3500HP was a dream of the future and 1000, 1500, 2000, 3500 would have covered everything required. Even electric locos of the day did not have the 5000HP we take for granted now with class 76 being around 1500HP and class 77 around 2500HP. Double heading of class 76 was quite normal to get 3000HP with no need to fit an engine in!

 

I have no doubt that there would have been evolution of the 'standard' locos that came out of the pilot scheme, and proper selection of reliable types would have cleared the design desks of manufacturers (especially the less successful ones that would have been building the class 20s under license on behalf of British Railways) to learn lessons and design successor locos that worked. I see Kestrel as being a big missed opportunity that had it come out at a sensible weight with Brush properly focussed on it, would have eliminated the need for 56, 58, 60, and probably 59 as well (300 locos) and would have seen the end of twin or triple loco high speed trains with it being the power of a pair of 43s in one loco (another 100 locos). there is much talk of how marvellous a class 43 is, and it is successful for a lot of good reasons, but at the end of the day it produces the same power as 10203 of 1940s vintage! If Kings Cross were that worried about length of loco they could have just plonked a class 40 with tall gearing on each end of the train and had a 1950s HST as fast as (or faster than) a Deltic but with a fraction of the maintenance issues.

 

I just think that a bit less panicking would have seen the potential for a much more rationalised and well thought out succession.

[cheesysmith]

The HST is a excellent design that had stood the test of time. You have to remember the HST was not just a loco (or power car) to power the train, it was a train designed to operate at 25% higher speeds, be used more intensively than anything else before, without any extra costs. This meant it didn't need signals changing, was kinder to the track than what went before, and brought radical improvment to a entire timetable, not just one or two trains a day. Even now, with their newer V16 German engines, that require more TLC than the old Paxman ones, they are still putting in miles and a intensive service few trains can match. And as to their power, well, BR looked at whole costs over the life of a train. They could have had the HST with more power, but decided that 4500BHP was all that was needed. Because of this, everything else was designed around this figure. The weak point in the HST had always been the cooler group, but having a reliable cooling system has always been a problem for trains, going all the way back to the first WR hydraulics, and high speed engines have always been susceptible more to overheating than the heavy medium speed engines. As to why the HST now doesn't have more horsepower, the limit has always been the alternator, which means the HST has not been able to use full power even in its 2250BHP form until above 40mph (IIRC?). The VP185 that was used in some HSTs was actually type tested by BR at 3500BHP, but derated to use original HST bits, and did not need it's control governor modifying for use in the HST unlike the MTU power plant, which needs a lot more TLC, required warming up before use, but is now used because it came with a cheaper overall cost/warranty package.

 

Never diss the HST. The best train every designed in the UK.

Edited February 19, 2018 by cheesysmith

[rodent279]

The HST is a excellent design that had stood the test of time. You have to remember the HST was not just a loco (or power car) to power the train, it was a train designed to operate at 25% higher speeds, be used more intensively than anything else before, without any extra costs. This meant it didn't need signals changing, was kinder to the track than what went before, and brought radical improvment to a entire timetable, not just one or two trains a day. Even now, with their newer V16 German engines, that require more TLC than the old Paxman ones, they are still putting in miles and a intensive service few trains can match. And as to their power, well, BR looked at whole costs over the life of a train. They could have had the HST with more power, but decided that 4500BHP was all that was needed. Because of this, everything else was designed around this figure. The weak point in the HST had always been the cooler group, but having a reliable cooling system has always been a problem for trains, going all the way back to the first WR hydraulics, and high speed engines have always been susceptible more to overheating than the heavy medium speed engines. As to why the HST now doesn't have more horsepower, the limit has always been the alternator, which means the HST has not been able to use full power even in its 2250BHP form until above 40mph (IIRC?). The VP185 that was used in some HSTs was actually type tested by BR at 3500BHP, but derated to use original HST bits, and did not need it's control governor modifying for use in the HST unlike the MTU power plant, which needs a lot more TLC, required warming up before use, but is now used because it came with a cheaper overall cost/warranty package.

 

Never diss the HST. The best train every designed in the UK.

Couldn't agree more. Kept BR in the Inter City business.

 

Apart from class 310's, which for me, although designed for totally different purposes, are a very close 2nd.

[Nearholmer]

Suzie

 

For the benefit of old blokes, can we talk about HST? I keep thinking you mean Warships!

 

Less trivially, you seem to be putting the case for ‘one big loco per train’, the exact opposite of what I’m advocating (I’m saying they could and should have gone ‘one at each end’ fifteen years sooner).

 

This is a big philosophical difference, and what underpins it is a “whole railway” view, as opposed to what might be called a “lococentric” view. Put another way, because one could do a thing (build highly powerful single-unit locos in the 1960s), doesn’t mean one should do it (it me gut not be the best policy, in the round).

 

Without a ‘whole railwway’ view, one can end up building brilliant locos that can’t be made good use of, a mistake that was made by the SR with the ‘Hornby’ electrics, which could heaven along at a good trot a 100 wagon goods train ...... on a railway that could only accommodate 60-80 wagons, and didn’t have much heavy goods to shift in peace time. A mega powerful (which means fast) traction set would have been a white elephant on most of BR in the 1960s, because the infrastructure wasn’t fit for very fast schedules.

 

Kevin

Edited February 19, 2018 by Nearholmer

[cheesysmith]

Suzie idea missed the point in some respects, and the idea of only having smaller lower powered locos was acctually tried by the Scots Region, who intended to multi them toghter for when higher power was needed. This idea came up short when it came to improving the Edd-Glas service, with the result of using 2 locos per train, with twice the maintenace costs.

 

When you compare the pilot scheme locos and suggest mass use of smaller locos in multi, you also need to compare the purchaise costs (taken from the diesel pioneers book by david clough).

 

class 44 £144, 422 per loco

Swindon warships prototypes (D800-802) £143, 645

NBL warships (D600-604) £102, 526

Class 40 £106. 807

Class 30 (as built) £78, 043

Class 26 £71, 704

Class 23 £79, 110

NBL Type 2s-DE(D6100)£69, 853, DH(D6300)£63, 953

Class 20 £58,955

Class 16 £58, 133

Class 15 £56, 435

 

Remember none of the type 1s had a train heating boiler fitted, so for a passenger version the costs would have been higher. So two class 20s with train heating (of whatever type) would have cost more than a single class 40. Then you have twice the maintenance costs, 8 x brakes Vs 6, 2 x engine filters etc. As to the idea of using 2 of these early locos on each end of a coaching stock rake like a early HST, remember there would have been little benefit as the signals were not upto higher speed running, and the schedules at the time didn't need the better acceleration anyway.

 

As to the EM1s and EM2s being underpowered, these were designed to pull the freight trains of the day, and were more than able to. The limit was not the ability to pull a heavy freight train, but the ability to stop one. The EM1s with their regenerative braking (and later reostatic as well) avoided the need to stop at the top of a hill and pin down the wagon brakes. The time savings, which will have saved on crew costs and line capacity were as such, Wath to Mottram yard steam 191 mins, electric 101 mins, Woodbourn Jc to Mottram steam 160, electric 87.

The EM2 had 415HP electric motors, the biggest motor of the required volts (remember the motor volts working range worked with the line volts) that could be fitted into the existing bogie design without alteration. Any follow on orders for other electrification schemes would have used modified bogies, with 500HP motors, but still within a total weight of 102 tons.  

 

The biggest crime of the Woodhead electrification was that it was cut due to rising costs. Instead of trying to keep cost under control and extending it to give bigger benefits and better utilisation of the expensive assets. Short term economics Vs long term exploiting the maximum benefit of the investment (anybody see the same thing now with the GW electrification?).

Edited February 19, 2018 by cheesysmith

[slilley]

Hi Simon

 

Even the best can get things wrong ....with hindsight.

 

 

Wasn't a class 56 a Falcon like loco with a super uprated 16 cylinder engine of EE parenthood, but marketed as a Ruston?

I have been digging out photos of 47 601 to do a drawing of its roof, I am going to use a class 40 drawing for the position of the four exhaust ports and size the rest from them.

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

[cheesysmith]

Quick quiz, what was the most poowerful diesel loco BR had?

 

Kestral doesn't count as it was never owned by BR.

[JohnR]

If you take those capital costs and divide by the HP provided, you can easily see what some of the best value for money engines were. Top comes the NBL D600 - but given NBLs rep, the reliability probably wasnt that great - but close behind them are the EE type 4s. The Sulzer 44s are about mid-table and the duffers are at the bottom (23s, 16, 15, D6100s and Swindon D800).

 

I still say there was no real reason why the EE Type 4 couldnt have come out 4 years earlier, and it would have made such a difference. 

 

Its easy to forget that what happened was a multitude of different designs - as every region wanted something different - and then a mad rush to order diesels as the financial position got worse from 56 onwards. 

[Zomboid]

Quick quiz, what was the most poowerful diesel loco BR had?

 

Kestral doesn't count as it was never owned by BR.

Is this a trick question? One of the ferries?

[cheesysmith]

NO, the word loco was a clue, including what had been talked about earlier.

[New Haven Neil]

58?

[adb968008]

My thinking behind the class 20 as the basis for type 4 and type 5 use is:-

 

 

• 2x class 20 is ony 20' longer than an A4 so not massively bigger.
• Class 20 was reliable, and that was something quite rare at the time of modernisation.
• 3x class 20 was more powerful than a 44 so justifies its (much!) longer length.

I am not sure why they were looking at increments of a few hundred horsepower here or there to make a big operational difference. The modern railway looks at "is one shed (3300HP) big enough?" "No, use two sheds (6600HP)". The same could have happened in the '50s where power requirements were much lower and 3500HP was a dream of the future and 1000, 1500, 2000, 3500 would have covered everything required. Even electric locos of the day did not have the 5000HP we take for granted now with class 76 being around 1500HP and class 77 around 2500HP. Double heading of class 76 was quite normal to get 3000HP with no need to fit an engine in!

 

I have no doubt that there would have been evolution of the 'standard' locos that came out of the pilot scheme, and proper selection of reliable types would have cleared the design desks of manufacturers (especially the less successful ones that would have been building the class 20s under license on behalf of British Railways) to learn lessons and design successor locos that worked. I see Kestrel as being a big missed opportunity that had it come out at a sensible weight with Brush properly focussed on it, would have eliminated the need for 56, 58, 60, and probably 59 as well (300 locos) and would have seen the end of twin or triple loco high speed trains with it being the power of a pair of 43s in one loco (another 100 locos). there is much talk of how marvellous a class 43 is, and it is successful for a lot of good reasons, but at the end of the day it produces the same power as 10203 of 1940s vintage! If Kings Cross were that worried about length of loco they could have just plonked a class 40 with tall gearing on each end of the train and had a 1950s HST as fast as (or faster than) a Deltic but with a fraction of the maintenance issues.

 

I just think that a bit less panicking would have seen the potential for a much more rationalised and well thought out succession.

The original rationale behind diesels was like for like replacement of steam locos., but with less maintenance and more reliability.

THe first shunters were exactly that.. the 08 replaced the Pannier, 3f etc etc.. and was really the only unchallenged standardised BR diesel to reach maximum potential. It did what it said on the tin.

 

It was quickly learned, that actually, diesels would outgrow steam haulage by quite a margin... had the current “like for like” philosophy remained, the class 25 would have been as big as things would have gotten.. after all a 25 is an 8f or a Black 5... what need 2x8f’s... ?... let alone a diesel with the power of 3x 8f’s... on a railway with a mindset that a 25mph 0-6-0 tender engine 3f will do 90% of all work required.

 

It was a revolution in thinking.. faster, longer, heavier trains were possible... as well as cheaper to run, more reliable, less labour intensive and greater utilisation.. it was gold in the hands of BR managers who saw a negative balance sheet and an expanding road network.

 

Once the penny dropped, the scope changed from who’s got the best steam replacement, into who can give me higher powered diesels right now to modernise this place and turn this ship around. It cumulated in HS4000... which proved that size wasn’t everything... it was a loco really suited to the US, but was already years too late for the Americans... in the year HS4000 went to the USSR the SD40-2 was on the drawing board in the US... and in 15 years time became the class 59 in the UK.

 

It’s worth considering whilst BR was evaluating 1000-1200hp type 2’s.. The US was ploughing through construction of over 6000 Type 3’s.. the GP7/9 1500-1750hp diesels and had started back in 1949...and ceased as out dated by 1963...

 

The 20 was successful as a machine, but not required on the changing railway... trip worked freight was dead, branch lines were dead, short freight was dead... the survival of the 20 was down to its reliability, to run as a pair economically. I think if the pilot scheme ran its course the 20 wouldn’t have survived as a type 1 just wasn’t needed on a modern faster trainload railway...

 

The only comparison of a “small engine” policy is the Midland Railway philosophy, which the LMS quickly eradicated, similarly the US principle of A /B units to make vastly longer trains over vast distances.. something we don’t have in the UK.

 

I sometimes think though, had GM got involved in BR trials back in the late 1950’s.. steam could have gone by as early as 1962 and most stds wouldn’t have been built.

Edited February 19, 2018 by adb968008

[New Haven Neil]

I don't recall seeing fuel consumption considered - specific fuel consumption per horsepower/hour.  It must have been a factor, as fuel became more expensive as an import.  Not that we can probably access those figures now, but it would add an interesting factor.  Oh, and the amount of expensive lubricating oil pouring out of Paxmans every pore, which they always did in my experience - then it rained conrods if it hadn't overheated first.....we didn't have much luck with them at sea.

[Titan]

The 20 was successful as a machine, but not required on the changing railway... trip worked freight was dead, branch lines were dead, short freight was dead... the survival of the 20 was down to its reliability, to run as a pair economically. I think if the pilot scheme ran its course the 20 wouldn’t have survived as a type 1 just wasn’t needed on a modern faster trainload railway...

 

Whilst the reliability helped, it was not the reason they were kept. There were a lot of train workings that only a pair of 20's could do, as larger locos did not have RA5 route availability. So not only were they needed, they were absolutely essential right up until the 1990's. They only got retired once the collieries and power stations with unsuitable track were either closed, or got  their tracks upgraded to allow class 60 operation.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Titan

[russ p]

Quick quiz, what was the most poowerful diesel loco BR had?

 

Kestral doesn't count as it was never owned by BR.

Wasn't 47601 3520bhp ?

[Bob Reid]

I'd perhaps take to task the thought that the Scottish Region 2 x 27's push-pull service somehow came up short - until they were introduced it had not been possible to radically reduce the journey times over a relatively short distance (of 47 miles) and increase the service frequency through a combination of a lighter "unit" (2+6) more rapid deceleration than any other coaching stock at that time on BR (using load proportional two-stage braking giving them a maximum 0.9%g deceleration under a full service application (as later used on the HST's) of course combined with air brakes and Girling WSP as subsequently adopted for the Mk3 stock. All whilst still keeping within the existing signalling layout.  It was a low cost version of the system that would be adopted and improved on with the HST.  Of course like any new service there were teething troubles in the early days and it was quickly proven that the long diagram mileage and rapid accelerations and decelerations was taking its toll on the loco's that were, let's face it, 1950s technology doing a job I doubt very much they envisaged they'd ever do.  

​The HST wasn't particularly new technology when introduced but it was (as it turned out) the best combination of all of the latest conventional systems that the CM&EE had experience of and not just from one region, but from them all.  Mk3 stock had been on the cards long before HST had become the latest TLA but it took a clever bit of design by the engineers under Terry Miller to combine them with what they'd found out the hard way worked for the Power Cars - and what didn't!  I'm afraid I'm not one of those that subscribes to the thought that the HST was born in direct competition with the APT.  Sadly as it turned out APT was a step too far, took far too long with costly unproven technology that had not "evolved" in the old railway sense.  
​
​I felt a sense of irony when the failure of the APT-P gearboxes was solved by the staff from the Regional CM&EE insisting on using their own gearbox oil over that specified by the APT  "designers / implementation team" who seemed incapable of fixing the problem - the answer had been found some 10 years earlier with the push-pull 27's and the fix for their David Brown gears (a change of oil spec.) was exactly the same!.

[Nearholmer]

Firmly agree. The Scottish PP’s were an excellent set of initiatives.

[Titan]

Wasn't 47601 3520bhp ?

 

3,250bhp, so not that one. Does sound like a trick question though. BR? As in British Rail? had? What does that mean, owned, operated by or what?

 

Powerful? Power is measured in bhp or kW, so anything relating to tractive effort is out etc. etc.

 

Does sound like some alternative definition of 'loco' is being used which is not the familiar one...

 

I would not be surprised if the answer does not run on standard gauge, or maybe does not use a reciprocating piston engine...

Edited February 19, 2018 by Titan

[adb968008]

47 155... it powered a whole power station once !

http://www.class47.co.uk/c47_zoom_v2.php?img=0822050000210

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by adb968008

[Bob Reid]

Firmly agree. The Scottish PP’s were an excellent set of initiatives.

 

Now if we'd just managed to convince the Southern Region management we'd a better use for their 33's

[Nearholmer]

‘Ere, ‘old on minute!

[Bob Reid]

That's just what they said!

[russ p]

3,250bhp, so not that one. Does sound like a trick question though. BR? As in British Rail? had? What does that mean, owned, operated by or what?

 

Powerful? Power is measured in bhp or kW, so anything relating to tractive effort is out etc. etc.

 

Does sound like some alternative definition of 'loco' is being used which is not the familiar one...

 

I would not be surprised if the answer does not run on standard gauge, or maybe does not use a reciprocating piston engine...

I thought atbone point it was over that and I've heard people say it had to be less powerful than a deltic for some union reason so was'derated'

I wasn't on the railway then but have heard that off a couple of people

[Titan]

Well if you count unofficial ratings there were some Deltics that accidently got adjusted to something north of 3,600bhp...