Western Region diesel hydraulic shunting locos - were there ever any?

[Rivercider]

When the decision was taken to trial diesel hydraulics on the Western Region as part of the Modernisation Plan

were there ever any diesel hydraulic shunting locomotives allocated to the Western Region? 

 

North British built 0-4-0dh shunting locos in 1957, later numbered D2708-D2780.

They seem to have been mostly in Scotland, which is logical keeping them near where they were constructed. I am not aware that any came to the Western Region, but why not? On the other hand since diesel electric shunting locos had already proved themselves why build a diesel hydraulic shunter?

 

cheers

[Mol_PMB]

I assume you're considering Class 14 as light freight locos rather than shunters?

[Rivercider]

1 hour ago, Mol_PMB said:

I assume you're considering Class 14 as light freight locos rather than shunters?

 

Yes, I did think about the Class 14s, but you are right that I was really thinking about shunting locos in the traditional sense.

 

There would not have been a requirement for very many small shunters in the early stages of the dieselisation,

but Laira could perhaps have found work for a few in the docks rather than Class 03s.  

 

cheers

[Cwmtwrch]

1 hour ago, Rivercider said:

When the decision was taken to trial diesel hydraulics on the Western Region as part of the Modernisation Plan

were there ever any diesel hydraulic shunting locomotives allocated to the Western Region?

Not that I've ever been aware of. The GWR ordered six 350HP diesel-electric shunters, the WR had at least part of the first batch of class 08, with more later, and also acquired quite a few Swindon built class 03. Worcester for some reason had a small number of class 04 in the 1960s.

1 hour ago, Rivercider said:

On the other hand since diesel electric shunting locos had already proved themselves why build a diesel hydraulic shunter?

Perhaps because North British had invested in the technology when it built Warships and was looking for another market in which to use it? 0-4-0 DH shunters weren't a novelty; the German firm of Deutz were building them in the mid-1950s - CIE bought a small batch from them in 1955 and another batch in 1961. BR also had a batch from Yorkshire Engine, and other manufacturers built DH shunters for industrial use.

Edited January 7 by Cwmtwrch

[D7063]

...not the Western region, but one of the Yorkshire Engine DH shunters mentioned 🙂

[Nearholmer]

Various forms of hydrostatic, and  hydro-kinetic transmissions have been used in shunting and other “industrial” locos over the years, the first in the world having been I think a small standard gauge loco exported from Britain to Canada at around the time of the outbreak of WW1 (I know a railcar with hydraulic transmission went, but without checking I can’t remember for certain whether or not the loco order was fulfilled). 
 

What seems to have kiboshed these transmissions for the mass production of shunters for mainline railway use is that they were caught between stools: more expensive, and less proven in reliability terms than mechanical transmissions for the small shunters (c150hp), and not proven, and possibly too fragile at the time, for the duty-cycle of the large shunters (c350hp). The mainline diesel shunter boom really only lasted about fifteen years (say 1945-1960) in Britain, with the outline of standard designs established right from the beginning in the light of 1930s work by the LMS, and by wartime military/industrial experience. By the end of that, BR’s needs were both saturated and rapidly diminishing, so although the technology was advancing, it didn’t really have the opportunity to break through against two very sound, proven general design patterns: Gardner engine with Wilson epicyclic gearbox for the small, and EE engine and electric transmission for the large.

 

By the late 1950s, British shunting/industrial loco production was heading for crisis, with too many manufacturers chasing too few orders (same applied to mainline locos too!), the market was already beginning to dry-up, and BR didn’t help at all by flogging-off the Class 14 in the late-1960s, knocking on the head the progression of the Rolls-Royce Sentinel range that used hydro-kinetic transmission (they cut the legs from under Sentinel, who had designs ready for Corby), and dribbling EE350 and various 150hp machines into the industrial sphere.

 

In short, the hydraulic transmission loco that would have fitted the bill, the Rolls-Royce Sentinel, didn’t arrive in the scene until the late-1950s, by which time it was really too late to make an impact. My betting is that if BR had continued to shunt things, rather than follow Dr Beeching’s wise advice not to, there would probably have been a BR Class NN, consisting of RR-Sentinels. Portuguese Railways bought a class of license-built ones:

 

 

 

Edited January 7 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

Following up with a bit more very early history:

 

The first DH loco was, as I half-remembered, never completed due to a combination of WW1 and the business complexities revolving around the folding of the mega-innovative firm McEwan-Pratt into Baguley. Here is what it nearly looked like:

 

From Webb.

 

As I said, a DH railcar was delivered pre-WW1.

 

Both used the Hele-Shaw hydrostatic drive (https://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/20th-june-1912/15/the-latest-hele-shaw-hydraulic-system) developed in Britain by Prof Hele-Shaw, who was the world leader in fluid-dynamics at the time.

I think the first DH locos to actually enter service did so in 1921/22, using the very different Lentz hydrostatic transmission, a loco fitted with which was imported to Britain and tested on the LNER in 1924:

From Glasers Annalen October 1924, which was reproducing material provided by Railway Gazette.

 

Edited January 8 by Nearholmer

[Wickham Green too]

22 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

... possibly too fragile at the time, for the duty-cycle of the large shunters ...

Yep - this one's been broken for donkey's years -  

 

[Nearholmer]

Que? I was referring to the situation c1945; that loco is a lot later.

[Wickham Green too]

... as is the yellow one up thread ................ a lot later and STILL fragile !

[KeithMacdonald]

On 07/01/2024 at 20:47, D7063 said:

...not the Western region, but one of the Yorkshire Engine DH shunters mentioned 🙂

 

D2856 (shown in that picture) is mentioned in this Wiki page on the Class 02

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_02

 

I can see one (at least) that escaped far enough south-west to get onto what might vaguely be called "Western Region" tracks was D2853 (later 02003 and then "Peter")

 

Quote

02003 was sold to LCP Fuels of Pensnett/Brierley Hill in the West Midlands, being renamed Peter. It began operations in 1976, and spent most of its time in small enclosures with tight turns hauling small industrial goods, but in 1980, 02003 was seen working with Class 25 unit 25 273 in the main Pensnett yard working with coke hoppers and larger wagons. It spent its life there until 1997, when it was acquired by the South Yorkshire Preservation Society.

 

Edited January 8 by KeithMacdonald

[Nearholmer]

Really? My impression is that the transmissions on the Sentinel DH are pretty robust, but that when things do go wrong there are very few people around with the competence and workshop capability to fix them.

[melmoth]

On 07/01/2024 at 11:08, Rivercider said:

 

Yes, I did think about the Class 14s, but you are right that I was really thinking about shunting locos in the traditional sense...

but Laira could perhaps have found work for a few in the docks rather than Class 03s.  

 

 

I think the wheelbase of the class 14 would have made that unworkable

[Nearholmer]

A distinction:

 

The early locos I mentioned above used hydrostatic transmissions, which are still widely used for all sorts of things, one of which is small locomotives, but when railway enthusiasts talk about “diesel hydraulic”, we usually mean a hydrodynamic transmission, using a torque converter.

 

Rather than go on at length about the latter, I ferreted around and found someone else’s explanation, probably s better one than I could provide: https://www.trms.org.au/rm_trans_htc_page.htm (beware that it’s Australian, so all the railcar classes it refers to have designations unfamiliar to most non-Australians!).

 

Somewhere, I’ve got an article about the Fottinger loco transmission design that was the first intended to use this in 1926, and I think the book “Hydraulic vs Electric” goes into subsequent applications and developments, but I’ve put my copy in a safe place, which is to say I can’t find it!

Edited January 8 by Nearholmer

[Rivercider]

1 hour ago, melmoth said:

 

I think the wheelbase of the class 14 would have made that unworkable

You have joined two sentences together there, one where I agreed that I was not considering class 14s as shunting locos in the traditional sense.  I then postulated that there would not have been much requirement for the small diesel hydraulic shunters in the early days of dieselisation, as built by North British in 1957.

The class 14s did not appear until seven years later, in 1964, by which time they were already obsolete, and in any case were never expected to shunt in yards or locations with tight curves.

 

cheers

[tomparryharry]

We had 2 diesel shunters at BSC Whiteheads Newport. These were very similar to the BR 02 type, but without Vacuum brake gear. One wentto the Gwili Railway, and one to Caerphilly Railway Society. Sadly the Caerphilly resident succumbed to radiator failure, and was sidelined. I think the Gwili resident lasted a bit longer, but was also broken up.

 

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, Rivercider said:

The class 14s did not appear until seven years later, in 1964, by which time they were already obsolete, and in any case were never expected to shunt in yards or locations with tight curves.

 

The root of the Class 14 goes back to Swindon's reaction to inheriting a mixed bag of pre-grouping non-GW 0-6-2 tanks in 1923.  They decided to rebuild the better examples, and these lasted, mostly in rebuilt form, until the mid-50s, by which time they were being replaced by a loco that had been long planned, though not in detail, the Hawksworth 94xx (yes, I know this is best known for ecs Paddington-OOC work, but they were put to this because they looked more 'modern' than the 57xx/8750s, which had been complained about in a letter to the Thunderer.  The rather Victorian-looking M7s at Waterloo raised no such objections...  The bulk of this 210-strong class were allocated to South Wales sheds to replace the likes of TVR 04 and A class or Rhymney R, for shorter haul trip work to collieries or transfer jobs. 

 

This is exactly what the D95xx were for, to replace the 94xx.  They were intended to be in service by 1962, but were delayed by problems with failed Warships which blocked bays in the erection shop, and between 1962 and 1964 the railway world had changed; the Beeching report had been ratified as future rail policy.  This effectively rendered the South Wales 14s superfluous on delivery, and some were diverted to Hull where there was some work for them.  They were not liked in South Wales, being considered unreliable and having weak brakes, unsuitable for colliery trip work, and were spread around the WR as well as the South Wales sheds, going to Bath Road, Gloucester, Worcester, and, as 94xx replacements, OOC for ecs work.  All were out of service within five years (some 94xx had even shorter lives) and found homes in heavy industry, which was the path to preservation for those that are still with us.  They are in fact quite useful machines on a heritage railway.

[Rivercider]

Many thanks for all the replies, very interesting.

 

I guess I was aware of the existence of diesel hydraulic shunting locos, but had never given them much thought before.

I now realise there were several different types.

North British 0-4-0dh D2700 - D2707 200hp from 1953

North British 0-4-0dh D2708 - D2780 225hp from 1957

North British 0-4-0dh D2900 - D2910 330hp from 1958

Yorkshire Class 02 0-4-0dh D2850 - D2869  from 1960.

The class 14 D9500 - D9555 entered service from 1964, but none of them worked in the West Country as far as I know, despite the WR having taken over former SR lines west of Salisbury which brought many hydraulics onto former SR territory. 

 

By early 1960 the Western Region dieselisation of the West Country was proceeding with 34 main line diesels in traffic at Laira by the end of January 1960. These were the 14 pilot scheme locos, and 20 more from the production series, numbers being D600-D604, D800-D815, and D6300-D6312. At that date there was still plenty of traditional railway shunting work required, Penzance Truro St Blazey and Laira sheds would have had quite a few shunting duties between them, but no diesel hydraulic shunters despite there being several classes that could have been used.

 

cheers 

[Nearholmer]

One accusation sometimes levelled at Shunters with torque-converter transmission is that they are ponderous when it comes to reversing, or that the torque-converter is prone to damage if insufficient time is allowed at reversing (I don’t quite get this, because the TC itself doesn’t reverse).

If this is correct, and I’d be interested to hear from someone who has driven one, it might make a difference to exactly what duties they are best suited to. The EE350 was specifically designed for the sort of gruelling, frequent-reversal, duty that went with heavy shunting at sorting yards in the “steam age”, and even they sometimes attracted moans for not being as snappy in reversal as a lever-reverse steam loco.
 

Many industrial loco duty cycles were rather different from this, some actually more short-haul work than sorting-shunting; big industrial locations tended to keep coupled rakes for bulk loading and unloading, or to handle very specialised moves, such as in a steel-works. Even most collieries didn’t “sort” I think; they got a rake of wagons from the mainline sorting yard,  took it under the loading-screens, then took it back, or moved rakes between pits and out loading points, coking plants etc.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Edited January 9 by Nearholmer

[Artless Bodger]

WRT reversal - some time ago, but I think within internet search time, I got some info from Voith about their transmissions, one shunting loco had a single control wheel on the sideways mounted panel (centre cab loco) (brake extra). Turn the wheel one way and off the loco goes in that direction, turn it back through 0 and on the other way and off the loco goes in the other direction - much like my Tri-ang controller. So quite simple by then. By comparison on our RH 165DE, it was necessary to bring the loco to a halt, reduce the throttle to idle which released the interlock quadrant on the reverser, change direction, then open the throttle again. The RH 165s were available in mechanical, hydraulic and electric transmission types, iirc the hydraulics were made for steelworks duties? 

[Cwmtwrch]

8 hours ago, Rivercider said:

The class 14 D9500 - D9555 entered service from 1964, but none of them worked in the West Country as far as I know,

Depends how you define West Country. The original allocations were mostly to Landore and Canton, but some went to Bristol Bath Road and a few to Old Oak Common, which were fairly quickly moved on to Bristol.

[Rivercider]

56 minutes ago, Cwmtwrch said:

Depends how you define West Country. The original allocations were mostly to Landore and Canton, but some went to Bristol Bath Road and a few to Old Oak Common, which were fairly quickly moved on to Bristol.

Yes I realised once I typed that. South West, and West Country are somewhat open to interpretation,

while the Western Region West of England Division extended from Penzance to Barnt Green! 

 

cheers

 

 

[adb968008]

Maybe @25901 might want to share some of his memories with the preserved NBL shunters D2767/D2774 ?

[Rugd1022]

On 09/01/2024 at 18:09, Cwmtwrch said:

Depends how you define West Country. The original allocations were mostly to Landore and Canton, but some went to Bristol Bath Road and a few to Old Oak Common, which were fairly quickly moved on to Bristol.

 

Photos of the Old Oak batch are few and far between, but John Vaughan's book 'This Is Paddington' (Ian Allan, 1982) has this shot of D9521 passing through Acton Mainline on the down relief...

 

 

D9521 went new to Old Oak in November '64 then moved to Bath Road in October '65.

[br2975]

On 09/01/2024 at 05:00, The Johnster said:

This is exactly what the D95xx were for, to replace the 94xx.  They were intended to be in service by 1962, but were delayed by problems with failed Warships which blocked bays in the erection shop, and between 1962 and 1964 the railway world had changed; the Beeching report had been ratified as future rail policy.  This effectively rendered the South Wales 14s superfluous on delivery, and some were diverted to Hull where there was some work for them.  They were not liked in South Wales, being considered unreliable and having weak brakes, unsuitable for colliery trip work, and were spread around the WR as well as the South Wales sheds, going to Bath Road, Gloucester, Worcester, and, as 94xx replacements, OOC for ecs work.  All were out of service within five years (some 94xx had even shorter lives) and found homes in heavy industry, which was the path to preservation for those that are still with us.  They are in fact quite useful machines on a heritage railway.

.

The origins of the D95xx can be traced back to the late 1950s, and initially there were plns for some 400.

.

Before the "Reshaping of Britain's Railways" was published, the railway was relieved of common carrier status, both of which hit the railway hard.

.

Beeching had identified the loss making shunting and trip work which was to be the bread and butter of the D95xx  ( the cost of which years later contributed to the demise of 'Speedlink' also )

.

As I have written elsewhere, the D95xx were designed solely with 'shunting and trip working in mind' - hence they were built on a shoestring sans multiple working and train heating, when compared to the much more expensive  'standard' EE Type 1s and the Claytons.

.

As a point of interest, a EE Type 1 (Cl.20), Tinsley's D8069  was trialled in South Wales between 6th. - 22nd. June, 1965 and was apparently found wanting.

.

It was the lack of MU and train heating that prevented the D95xx being cascaded to other less onerous tasks such as branchline working.

.

The brake issue of the D95xx had been identified, and was being resolved when it became apparent their life expectancy was being calcuated in months, not years, so only a few were remedied.

.

The same goes for other niggles, which meant railwaymen became wary of them, they had been identified, and some were overcome, but the cost to benefit ratio was too hgh to continue.

.

As with any new class, the niggles would have been ironed out with time, but with traffic drying up, time was not on the side of the D95xxs

.

I know of only 4 occasions where D95xxs 'ran away' (Gelli G.F. / Glyncorrwg / The Western Valley and Adam Street).

.

They were not intended for incline working, and their usual duties in South Wales reflect that eg the Aber Jcn. tripper normally ran loco and van from and to Radyr via 'The Big Hill'.

.

Enthusiasts blather on about seeing D95xx standing idle on sheds and stabling points around South Wales, never earning their keep; but such is the nature of the enthusiast beast that he only visited South Wales on a weekend, late Saturday or on a Sunday - when the freight operation was virtually non-existent, with D955xs, EE Type 3s and 350hp shunters all standing idle together..

.

I have detailed BR info on the duties / turns / workings of the remaining South Wales D95xxs  from 1966 onwards, and the intensity of some diagrams belies the enthusiasts claims.

.

.

One final contentious point;

The D95xx were designed and built at Swindon, one of the greates and most experienced railway works in the world.

They were deployed to brand new state of the art depots ( Canton, Landore, Bath Road etc), where they were maintained by time served artisans, with the best tools and equipment.

If the D95xxs were a failure as a result of this, how do we account for 'outside industry' with staff not always as well versed as BR artisans, with lesser facilities, working in dark and dirty sheds getting the D95xxs to perform better and more reliably than British Railways ?

Edited January 12 by br2975