Traintresta

Traditionally re-building of diesel locomotives tends to re-use the platform and upgrade the equipment. You could upgrade a class 40 by uprating the prime mover and adding new electronics but only if you were looking at a new locomotive programme on a budget would you be likely to swap the internal equipment into a new body. It is also unlikely that they would modify the mechanical elements to accept EE 3-axle bogies, purely on a cost/convenience mindset although I suspect it could have been done. The 1Co bogies were 28tons each in weight, if you could reduce that by a third you would have a loco of similar weight to a class 47 or 50, but it is highly unlikely to happen. The equipment for the first 20 class 47's was not modified equipment from Class 46's, it was originally ordered for the 46's but the last 20 were cancelled and the equipment moved over and installed in the first 20 new class 47's. The 47 was a development of the 44/45/46, re-packaged in a different body and riding on different bogies. There was originally a plan to order 200 Hymeks with electrical transmission. Given that they were build along traditional Diesel locomotive lines with a heavyweight frame on cast bogies, they would probably have been just as effective as the hydraulic versions and would have been mechanically equivalent to half of the D0280 Falcon but with a little more power due to four more cylinders.

Quite right, I went off on a bit of a tangent there and my next train of thought was 'if they were ultimately aiming at electrification, why did they not pursue ETH more aggressively?' This would have had a knock-on effect to diesels and the need for a train heating boiler would vanish, saving some weight in the process. I believe the ETH equipment was small and of negligible weight in comparison? Clearly electrical transmission was the way forward so hydraulics were indeed a dead-end technology.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sounds very much like what I was thinking. It's a shame they weren't repeated. It's also a shame the EE CSUT engine didn't get passed the development stage.

So the main objection to a 2 cylinder pacific was the size of the cylinders, and the need to squeeze them into the loading gauge?

This could certainly have been feasible, but even more so it's odd that EE didn't offer a 12CSVT rated at 2000hp in a 37 type body, as it's type 4 offering. That sort of package was already available as evidenced by the LMS Twins and the prototype Deltic. They could even have offered a 2400hp 16CSVT in the same sort of package and probably still had a much lighter and more powerful loco than the 1Co-Co1's. I really like the class 40's, but can't help but wonder what could have been? Had the LNER followed through on the order for 25 mainline diesels for the ECML, these may well have been in the format of the class 40 and we could have seen the newer designs afterall. What really baffles me, is that BR insisted on taking de-rated EE engines but pushed the Sulzer beyond what turned out to be reasonable. EE had a proven track record in export models and could have provided some really solid and powerful loco's for a fairly reasonable weight. A lot of wasted time could have been avoided with the Class 47 saga if they had chosen the 16CSVTor a complete EE package instead of going around the houses and then going back to EE for the class 50 when they needed something similar. With the EE products directed at the type 4 power range, we might have seen more of the Sulzer type 3 arrangements in both BR and BRCW locos. What would have become of the BR/Sulzer type 4 though, perhaps they would have been forced to find a similar solution and the class 45, or probably 46 might have become something similar to what the 47 was? I still feel the Brush type 2's should have received a 12LDA or 12LVA engine and become a type 4 instead of building the class 47. As for the EE type 1, I think that would always have had to be re-packaged into a centre cab or more realistically a Baby Deltic style body. I'm not sure you could mount the engine low enough to make an effective centre cab. Given that the Baby Deltic body was made slightly heavier to compensate for the lower engine weight, I'm sure they could make it of standard construction and mount an 8CSVT for a similar loco with a much more reliable power source. I do think there would still be Sulzer offerings in this power range, purely to meet the demand and keep BR workshops in work, particularly since the smaller Sulzer's seemed less prone to trouble.

I realised that just after I logged off! Why were two cylinders not used before the standards though? Was it only feasible because of the higher boiler pressures?

I’m not sure if this was covered earlier in this thread, but how feasible is a 2-cylinder Pacific within the British losing gauge? just looking at Thompson’s original pacific design (conversion) that didn’t make it off the drawing board and his conversion of the V2’s. There was a comparison to the 2-cylinder mixed traffic locos that did similar work that got me wondering if you could get enough power for a pacific from two cylinders.

I didn't realise any of the GNR/LNER moguls were regular in this area?

Some really interesting stuff here that puts a very different slant on this topic. It would be a really interesting thing to mock up the LNER passenger locos that were to be ordered from EE, I wonder if they would have used the 1Co-Co1 bogies that were already in the making for the SR diesels or if EE would have provided something similar to what they supplied to Egypt? Perhaps if larger scale dieselisation was in hand by the time of nationalisation, we might have had the pilot scheme many years before and I think EE would have had a bigger advantage. The two main points I take from that discussion is that A) engines may have been swapped into different loco designs to get a ‘best case’ product similar to what might have happened with an EE engine in the class 47 and B) there may have been a further pilot in view of the fact that the one we had didn’t give us what we needed, as shown by the addition of the type 3 power range. With that in mind we might have seen more competition for the type 3 power range, both the EE type 3 and the Brush type 2 could have competed (just) for the type 4 power range but the brush machine would likely have been found to have engine problems by the time a further pilot wrapped up. Of course a lot of what transpired was hampered by choices in train heating and braking, it would be more interesting to consider that a further pilot scheme might have factored these in or that earlier dieselisation might have allowed these to happen earlier. I think it’s true to say we would have had a very different fleet of locomotives on BR had these things happened.

Good point, this might be where an up uprated Brush type 2 might have slotted in?

I’d forgotten about 37292, I have a reference to it in the book Class 37’s at work, but my dad has it at present. very true that there were way too many type 2’s. However, we could still have been looking at orders for type 2’s in the mid60’s as the Beeching report didn’t arrive til 66’, so this situation might have persisted. Perhaps with the type 4 story and the collapse of BRCW at the time of the order for the class 47’s, and the time that would have elapsed with the pilot scheme running, more BRCW type 2’s and 3’s may not have been possible so we could have been looking at BR derby products and uprated Brush type 2’s. The Mirrless engine of the Brush type 2 sufferers from stress in all of the uprated versions and had to go back to the manufacturer for strengthening. They were later sold on for use in trawlers once removed from BR use. I got the impression that it’s the weight and bogie issues of the EE type 4 and BR/Sulzer type 4’s that were their main drawbacks. You could supply more power to the EE package but if the pilot scheme ran its course, the class 47 would have been on the board before more orders were made, meaning that lighter weight and higher power were already in the works so why persist with the original type 4 designs.

I’ve been trying to figure out what would have happened if the pilot scheme wasn’t abandoned, which, locomotives would have survived and which wouldn’t. This is as far as I’ve got: Selected for further production - EE type 1* (class 20), brush type 2 (class 30/31)**, BRCW type 2 (class 26), BR derby type 2 (class 24) ***. *possibly in more conversational package such as that used by the baby deltic. **possible use for new type 4 requirement with alternative power unit. ***refined design like class 25/3 to keep BR workshops in work. Not continued/replaced by new design: EE type 4 (class 40), BR derby type 4 (class 44). Both to be replaced by new design for type 4 production. Not selected for further development: BTH type 1 (class 15), BTH type 1 (class 16), North British type 1 (class 21), EE type 2 (class 23), metro-vick type 2 (class 28). Other locomotives: BRCW type 3 (class 33) - developed for SR and perpetuated across BR as a whole. EE type 3 (class 37) - produced as a replacement for EE type 4. EE Deltic - perpetuated across both ER and WR until WCML electrification completed. My thinking is that the chosen designs would be produced in larger numbers, the type 4 replacement process would probably follow a similar process to what actually happened in that the class 47 and class 50 could have appeared anyway. I am fascinated with the idea that the brush type 2 was uprated and can imagine if the pilot scheme wasn’t abandoned, the remedial work to make the Mirrless power plants suitable for uprating may have been achievable without leaving BR power hungry. It’s interesting to ponder that BR might have seen the positive power/weight ratio of high speed diesels, coupled with stressed steel construction as a way to achieve type 4 or even type 5 power ratings. This could have resulted in lower axle loadings therefore ridding BR of the cumbersome (albeit handsome) 1Co-Co1’s. It would also not present the disadvantages of diesel hydraulics not having sufficient weight to brake unfitted trains as the diesel electric transmission is still heavier than the diesel hydraulics. The downside to this train of thought is that Brush used two engines to obtain 2800hp out of Falcon so the benefits of using this system were somewhat negated and as proven by the development of the class 47. That said, if BR had not abandoned the pilot scheme, there would have been time for both EE and Sulzer to develop higher horsepower medium speed diesels for rail traction, as eventually happened with the class 47 and class 50. What would have been interesting is whether or not BR could have learned from the experience of SNCF when maintaining the Sulzer LVA, resulting in the use of that engine instead of the LDA. I think the LVA was slightly lighter so would have further helped with axle loads, perhaps this could have been used in it’s 8 cylinder Vee format to re-power the Brush type 2 as a type 3 rated at 1750hp or 12 cylinder Vee format for a type 4. Either way, if it was as simple as I’ve tried to make it we would see the following on BR at the time of steam disappearing (which probably happens later) on top of the pilot scheme orders: EE Type 2 (class 21?) Uprated class 20 in a baby deltic body BR derby type 2 (class 25/3) BRCW type 2 (class 27) BRCW type 3 (class 33) EE type 3 (class 37) Brush/BR derby type 3(class 39?) type 2 uprated to type 3/4 using workshop space vacated by type 4 production Brush type 4 (class 47) Brush type 4 (Class 48) EE type 4 (class 50) EE type 5 Deltic (class 55) Obviously I have not touched on the complicated subject of the diesel hydraulics, I’ll leave that for another day.

The only issue being that the radiator has been covered over so there would need to be additional radiator space added, which, would increase the length.

Is this one of your kits?

The L&Y had an end on interchange and joint station at Barnsley Exchange. The L&Y ran north to Wakefield and the GCR both North and South (to Sheffield). To the north it had it's own goods yard and then a junction with the Midland from where they both ran northwest to Penistone, the Midland diverging to Huddersfield and the GCR following the Woodhead route to Manchester. MR also ran south from Barnsley Courthouse towards Sheffield but also through Oaks Junction looped back north to it's own lines to Royston and Wakefield.

I have to agree, I rather like it and the idea of getting rid of it doesn’t sit well with me but it would remove the S curve effect from the layout and make it easier to fit things in. I’m still undecided about how I’m going to ultimately configure this.

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I have two options in mind for a run-around in mind. Since arranging this plan I have considered including a little yard with a run-around, there is a very long three-track yard that leads to these spurs on Pier F, a heavily compressed version would do nicely. The other option was using the run-around on the pier. What isn't apparent is the extension on the left side of the layout that will be removable where the staging and end of the pier run-around would be. I have yet to build the baseboards for this, based on the end track plan. I've also had lots of thoughts about straightening the layout at the right hand end to try and increase the apparent length and fit industries better, i.e. move the warehouse down so that the run-around is all on the straight part of the baseboard. This isn't by all means the final design, I'm still tinkering and will come back to it after a bit of reflection. There won't be eastbound and westbound trains, this is a spur in Long Beach terminal so it's a single turn that will do all of the switching. most of the moves will be facing point spurs so I have the option of pushing my train in much like the real thing, but I'm still tinkering.

So I decided I wasn't happy with the main focus of the layout and needed something to better compose the scene and root it as a layout of the Port of Long Beech, so I took to google maps again and found Pier F was much more suited to what I am looking for, all I needed to do was exchange the last warehouse for my petroleum/oil industry so that I can run my favourite tank cars. Here's what happened... Vopak terminal on the right corner; Berth 20/21 warehouse as the main feature; Morton Salt represented to the left in the corner. Once I get the extension up across the window (removable of course) I will have a large highway bridge running across it to hide the disappearing track to the staging and there will be a small yard at the front, maybe only two or three tracks. What I can't decide is whether or not to omit the point that runs from the warehouse towards the front to form a run-around? I think it's there in reality to aid reaching cars that are 'behind' other cars on the track so it may help make switching more interesting than simple long spurs.

I'm curious as to why he turned the bulk carrier around? She would always go starboard side to, with the cranes outboard if using a shore crane. Unfortunately I won't have room for something as nice as that but I'm hoping I can make the most of my space.

So after stumbling across the Pacific Harbor Belt when looking at modern, environmentally friendly locomotives, I spent all week looking at photos and google earth around Long Beach, California. Well guess what, we’re switching to the west cost and modelling the PHL, the track plan has been changed to represent an area of Long Beach terminal that has plenty of lines running around it. I’m obviously not modelling an exact piece but hopefully it looks the part in the end.

The section in front of the door is removable.