Diesel Hydraulics, cascades and withdrawals

[Gloster]

My recollection is that brake tenders were only used on the LM Midland Lines and in the North East.

I think I have seen photos of them on the Southern Region, both going through Clapham Junction and in north Kent.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I think I have seen photos of them on the Southern Region, both going through Clapham Junction and in north Kent.

Presumably that was in the early - mid '60s.
As a relief clerk I sometimes covered the Freight Rolling Stock Distributer post in Euston control slightly later. By then, the S.R. wanted to be a fully fitted freight region, to the extent that the BRB central wagon control's orders were for empty Minfits on hand on our division to be sent to the Southern (presumably for loading at the Kent collieries), of course passing trains of unfitted, but otherwise identical, empty mineral wagons heading in the opposite direction. (Indeed, sometimes trains of empty mineral wagons arrived from the S.R. with a fitted head of Minfits!) Conveying these instructions to both Brent Midland and Sudbury Brent resulted in complaints about the shunting out involved and sometimes an exchange of opinions based on my youth and consequential alleged inexperience and lack of common sense....
I'm have no idea when this policy started, but presumably it was to avoid the use of brake tenders.

 

[Grumpy]

The British made engines and transmissions would have been built to Anglicised drawings using imperial sizes and threads, not the metric of the German made ones.
The cost of retooling the German production lines for a relatively small number of machines would have been prohibitive

Is your statement based on published fact or are you simply assuming? Maybach were happy to make all the components for the 63 engines for the Anglicised Warships, including the engines assembled by the UK. Similarly the early Hymek engines incorporated parts supplied from Germany. So why say parts made in Germany wouldn't have fitted?

 

[Bevan Price]

With the benefit of hindsight:
- Steam should have been phased out more gradually
- There should have been more time spent on trialling the prototype diesels, to work out what was worth pursuing and what should be discarded
- Westerns and Hymeks should have been retained on the WR for longer
- The 1974 post WCML electrifiction cascade of class 50s to the WR could have been avoided, with the 50s taking over North Wales / Trans Pennine / Cross Country services instead, allowing 47/4s to go to WR for the new air-con Mk 2 stock.
- Fewer class 25s and class 31s should have been built
- Money saved by building fewer diesels should have been used on electrification

There were 50 Class 50s; only about half of those would have been plenty for Trans Pennine / North Wales / Cross Country. What would have you done with the others ? In fact, and again in retrospect, perhaps the 50s should never have been built ?

Sadly, I think hydraulics were doomed for a short life on passenger services once it had been decided to introduce AirCon coaches, especially when locos were becoming spare after introduction of HSTs, and decline in some other traffic levels at that time.

 

[Richard Scott]

There were 50 Class 50s; only about half of those would have been plenty for Trans Pennine / North Wales / Cross Country. What would have you done with the others ? In fact, and again in retrospect, perhaps the 50s should never have been built ?

Sadly, I think hydraulics were doomed for a short life on passenger services once it had been decided to introduce AirCon coaches, especially when locos were becoming spare after introduction of HSTs, and decline in some other traffic levels at that time.

50s were only built as 47s not up to the job on WCML north of Crewe. Perhaps should have had 512 50s and no 47s?!!!!!

 

[RT4038]

With the benefit of hindsight:
- Steam should have been phased out more gradually
- There should have been more time spent on trialling the prototype diesels, to work out what was worth pursuing and what should be discarded
- Westerns and Hymeks should have been retained on the WR for longer
- The 1974 post WCML electrifiction cascade of class 50s to the WR could have been avoided, with the 50s taking over North Wales / Trans Pennine / Cross Country services instead, allowing 47/4s to go to WR for the new air-con Mk 2 stock.
- Fewer class 25s and class 31s should have been built
- Money saved by building fewer diesels should have been used on electrification

The money saved on building fewer diesels would have been spent on the expensive running costs of steam locomotives.

With the benefit of hindsight, the local/branch passenger business, and the freight business should have ben streamlined/abandoned earlier, and steam should have been eliminated earlier.

But of course the decisions were being taken in the political and financial conditions of the time.....

 

[Gloster]

I have long thought that one problem with retaining steam into the 1970s would have been staffing. Not so much the high profile job of driver, but those ancillary jobs such as as coalman, ashman and even cleaner. Would many young men in the Swinging Sixties, the era of the white heat of technology, been keen on a shift job that in twenty or more years would allow them to be a driver?

 

[hexagon789]

Sadly, I think hydraulics were doomed for a short life on passenger services once it had been decided to introduce AirCon coaches, especially when locos were becoming spare after introduction of HSTs, and decline in some other traffic levels at that time.

One solution would've been to convert BGs to generator vans to work with non-ETH locos. It was considered and indeed tested by the Eastern Region in the late-1960s when switching from steam heat Mk1/2 formations to all electric heating on its best trains.

In the event the Eastern decided to accept converting it's 47s and 55s to ETH and to reduce formations by one carriage to compensate for the reduced traction power.

50s were only built as 47s not up to the job on WCML north of Crewe. Perhaps should have had 512 50s and no 47s?!!!!!

I'm not sure the 50s performed so admirably, while 8 diagrams were paired on Anglo-Scottish services to allow accelerated timings, in practice poor availability often mean only a single loco could be provided.

I think part of the issue was many of the new features and electronics they had pre-refurb. The control system and indeed the air filtration system which gave them their "Hoover" nickname being particularly items for consternation by all accounts.

 

[delt1c]

There were 50 Class 50s; only about half of those would have been plenty for Trans Pennine / North Wales / Cross Country. What would have you done with the others ? In fact, and again in retrospect, perhaps the 50s should never have been built ?

Sadly, I think hydraulics were doomed for a short life on passenger services once it had been decided to introduce AirCon coaches, especially when locos were becoming spare after introduction of HSTs, and decline in some other traffic levels at that time.

Hydraulics were doomed before the aircon stock. They were deemed non standard in the late 60's

 

[edwin_m]

One solution would've been to convert BGs to generator vans to work with non-ETH locos. It was considered and indeed tested by the Eastern Region in the late-1960s when switching from steam heat Mk1/2 formations to all electric heating on its best trains.

In the event the Eastern decided to accept converting it's 47s and 55s to ETH and to reduce formations by one carriage to compensate for the reduced traction power.

Which had exactly the same effect in terms of capacity and saved some fuel...

I'm not sure the 50s performed so admirably, while 8 diagrams were paired on Anglo-Scottish services to allow accelerated timings, in practice poor availability often mean only a single loco could be provided.

I think part of the issue was many of the new features and electronics they had pre-refurb. The control system and indeed the air filtration system which gave them their "Hoover" nickname being particularly items for consternation by all accounts.

I believe it was a cyclonic filter, so with hindsight they should have been called Dysons.

 

[ac6000cw]

so with hindsight they should have been called Dysons.

Except that Dyson vacuum cleaners weren't on sale until many years after the class 50s were built

 

[RT4038]

I have long thought that one problem with retaining steam into the 1970s would have been staffing. Not so much the high profile job of driver, but those ancillary jobs such as as coalman, ashman and even cleaner. Would many young men in the Swinging Sixties, the era of the white heat of technology, been keen on a shift job that in twenty or more years would allow them to be a driver?

Once diesel traction had come on the scene, I am unsure what attraction there can have been (apart from enthusiasts) in a steam locomotive cab. Fireman had a pretty back breaking job, and there were maintenance staff on obsolete engineering in primitive workshop conditions, plus the legions of people maintaining water points, cutting back lineside vegetation etc. It is the sheer quantity of people required to move the traffic compared to diesels, aside from the filth that steam locomotives covered all railway property, and much of the surroundings, with.

I doubt whether one steam MPD would have cut the mustard in the modern Health & Safety culture (introduced 1974), and the railways were already under pressure from the Local Authorities implementing the Clean Air Act, as depots tended to be located in built up areas. Much capital expenditure would have been required to mitigate, which would have been more wisely spent on modern traction.

It is not only BR who bought diesels that did not work as intended - The Western Australian Govt Railway bought some diesels from Metropolitan Vickers that were nothing but a problem, likewise the Pennsylvania Railroad from (I think) Baldwin, and the South African Railways some Diesel Hydraulics. No doubt there are other examples. But, with hindsight, the world would be a completely different place!

 

[Grumpy]

With the benefit of hindsight:

All BR needed to do was buy plenty of class 33's and class 101 DMU's. Nothing else (electrification apart).
Long production runs of single types giving economies of scale in production and minimised operational costs.
The class 33 had good route availability and sufficient power for most operational needs. For higher power needs simply double head.
You could tweak the class 101 furnishing ( and possibly doors) to meet different market needs but keeping the key benefit that any driver could drive, and depot maintain.

 

[edwin_m]

All BR needed to do was buy plenty of class 33's and class 101 DMU's. Nothing else (electrification apart).
Long production runs of single types giving economies of scale in production and minimised operational costs.
The class 33 had good route availability and sufficient power for most operational needs. For higher power needs simply double head.
You could tweak the class 101 furnishing ( and possibly doors) to meet different market needs but keeping the key benefit that any driver could drive, and depot maintain.

I'm not convinced quadruple-headed 33s would have been a sensible HST substitute.

 

[Gloster]

I read somewhere that BR was intending to standardise on one or two designs in each power range, with possibility some commonality between designs, but pressure from the government, which had been lobbied by the British loco manufacturers, led to the plethora of types.

 

[CW2]

Class 33 ETH capability wasn't up to working with Air Con stock.
Class 33 axle load meant it wasn't suitable for the secondary lines in Scotland.
Bad experiences with the Sulzer engine in 47s ended up in a permanent downrating, so trying to get more power out of a 33 (to work a greater ETH load) wasn't really viable.
So a bigger build of 33s wasn't really an option.

 

[Richard Scott]

Class 33 ETH capability wasn't up to working with Air Con stock.
Class 33 axle load meant it wasn't suitable for the secondary lines in Scotland.
Bad experiences with the Sulzer engine in 47s ended up in a permanent downrating, so trying to get more power out of a 33 (to work a greater ETH load) wasn't really viable.
So a bigger build of 33s wasn't really an option.

Another class that should have been re-engined with an EE V12? Not being serious by the way!

 

[Grumpy]

I'm not convinced quadruple-headed 33s would have been a sensible HST substitute.

True, but I was responding to CW2's post which seemed to cover the pre-HST era.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2020 ==

Class 33 ETH capability wasn't up to working with Air Con stock.
Class 33 axle load meant it wasn't suitable for the secondary lines in Scotland.
Bad experiences with the Sulzer engine in 47s ended up in a permanent downrating, so trying to get more power out of a 33 (to work a greater ETH load) wasn't really viable.
So a bigger build of 33s wasn't really an option.

Not sure about this. For example the 33 had the same route availability as the 24's and 26's which seemed to get to most places in Scotland.

 

[curly42]

With regard to brake tenders on the Western Region - in the early to mid 1970s,the early evening Llantrisant to Kingswinford working regularly had a brake tender.

 

[Helvellyn]

All BR needed to do was buy plenty of class 33's and class 101 DMU's. Nothing else (electrification apart).
Long production runs of single types giving economies of scale in production and minimised operational costs.
The class 33 had good route availability and sufficient power for most operational needs. For higher power needs simply double head.
You could tweak the class 101 furnishing ( and possibly doors) to meet different market needs but keeping the key benefit that any driver could drive, and depot maintain.

I know your post is tongue in cheek but on a serious note there is the fact BR got Riddles as CME to oversee the development of the Standard steam loco types. Then we hit modernisation and all bets are off.

Even WCML electrification saw 100 locomotives of 5 types (AL1-AL5) built before things settled down a bit and we got the 100 AL6 locomotives.

 

[CW2]

Not sure about this. For example the 33 had the same route availability as the 24's and 26's which seemed to get to most places in Scotland.

That's true - I must have been mistaken.
I think they did look into using 33s on the West Highland Line when the Mk 3 sleepers were introduced, but in the end went for dragging an ETHEL around until such time as the 37/4s arrived. Again the incompatibility of the 33's ETH system probably didn't do them any favours, and I think the civil engineer preferred the lighter track loadings of a 37. When the 67s took over they were speed restricted in some locations. Now it is 73s - who would have predicted that 10 years ago?
If the 33s had been 90 mph and full standard ETH, the 37/4 fleet wouldn't have been needed.

 

[hexagon789]

Which had exactly the same effect in terms of capacity and saved some fuel...

To be fair most long-distance coaching rakes had a BG anyway, but yes pretty much.

 

[Bevan Price]

To be fair most long-distance coaching rakes had a BG anyway, but yes pretty much.

Passenger rakes with a BG only became common from around the 1970s or 1980s onwards. Prior to that, most trains would have a BSK (or BSO, BFK, BCK etc.) at one end -- or on both ends for long formations.

 

[hexagon789]

Passenger rakes with a BG only became common from around the 1970s or 1980s onwards. Prior to that, most trains would have a BSK (or BSO, BFK, BCK etc.) at one end -- or on both ends for long formations.

On looking at the Harris Mk2 book, looks like I misrecalled it was Mk2 BSO which the ER converted to ETH generator van not a Mk1 BG

 

[Merle Haggard]

On looking at the Harris Mk2 book, looks like I misrecalled it was Mk2 BSO which the ER converted to ETH generator van not a Mk1 BG

The W.R. had a loco hauled HST standby set with a BG generator van, perhaps that's what you had at the back of your mind.

 

[Taunton]

In Ireland they never had heating supply from diesel locomotives, the first generation used separate steam heating vans, then when the AC (UK Mk 2d and Mk 3 designs) stock came along there were dedicated brake/ETH generator vehicles with each build. There's an explanation about all this here https://irishrailwaymodeller.com/topic/3732-6-wheel-heating-vans/

On BR the Western Region did indeed have a standby HST set with a BG-conversion generator car. For some reason it was numbered in the departmental series and thus didn't appear in coaching stock lists.

 

[Stathern Jc]

Helvellyn said:
"I know your post is tongue in cheek but on a serious note there is the fact BR got Riddles as CME to oversee the development of the Standard steam loco types."


It's also interesting to wonder what might have happened if modernisation was considered straight after nationalisation.

Maybe instead of the Standard range of steam classes there would have been about 500 LMS 10000s or Southern 20000s (and perhaps at least as many Class 40s and 44s given the preference for the leading axle??).
The Western Region would probably have still looked to find their own solution, that would hardly have been a surprise and the hydraulics would have looked even more attractive.

 

[coppercapped]

Helvellyn said:
"I know your post is tongue in cheek but on a serious note there is the fact BR got Riddles as CME to oversee the development of the Standard steam loco types."


It's also interesting to wonder what might have happened if modernisation was considered straight after nationalisation.

Maybe instead of the Standard range of steam classes there would have been about 500 LMS 10000s or Southern 20000s (and perhaps at least as many Class 40s and 44s given the preference for the leading axle??).
The Western Region would probably have still looked to find their own solution, that would hardly have been a surprise and the hydraulics would have looked even more attractive.

I agree with you completely. In 1948 the Railway Executive (RE), the agency of the British Transport Commission which was responsible for the railways, did not understand that the world had changed dramatically from that of 1939.

At the end of the War there were serious labour shortages, some 350,000 men had been killed - all of them fit and most of them young. Wages were increasing, it was becoming increasingly difficult to attract staff to the dirty jobs done during unsocial hours. Yet the RE continued to build motive power and operate train services using labour intensive technologies and methods as if was still 1939.

Technology had advanced tremendously during the War. Many, if not all, of those being demobbed had experience of high speed internal combustion engines - all those lorries, jeeps, tanks and aircraft - and electronic communications.

The development and construction of the ‘Standard’ steam locomotives stands as an example of where the RE got it completely wrong - it was a total waste of engineering and development resources. This led to a lost decade in technology. At the time BR was created the LMS had already built diesel shunters and prototype main line diesels. The GWR had built a series of diesel railcars in the 1930s and ordered some gas turbine main line locomotives. The Southern had electrified significant parts of its network by the time war broke out.

Then it all stopped. BR added diesel shunters to its build programme and picked up railcar development again in 1952. Diesel mainline locomotive development restarted in 1955 with the publication of the Modernisation Plan. By this time the second or third iteration of, for example, the Ivatt designs could have been putting out 2,000 bhp or more with much operational experience behind them.

If by 1955 the 2nd and 3rd generation Ivatts had shown they could reduce operating and maintenance costs and offer an improved train service there may well have been no diesel hydraulics as the need to catch up would no longer have been there.

 

[Gloster]

Although generally agreeing that the BTC got it wrong, I would add the point that coal was easily available from domestic sources which provided a great deal of employment, while oil required foreign exchange, something that was in short supply while the costs of the war were paid off.

 

[Stathern Jc]

This shows how ideas can change significantly in a relatively short time.

In 7 years from 1948 to 1955, the newly developed standard range of steam locomotives (which were mostly quite respectable) were no longer seen as the way forward.
In another 7 years, the preference had shifted from the heavyweights to classes such as 37s and 47s with rationalisation through reduced traffic.
Another 10 years and the focus had shifted again, to the HST fleet as full scale electrification wasn't an option.

While the efforts to reduce the number of different types of equipment seemed understandable, I still think there is a risk in having all eggs in one basket. Hence the hypothetical example I gave of a "big bang" change giving a large fleet of what would soon have been seen as not being what was really the best option.
Could there be a parallel today?