Counterfactual: a nationwide electrification program beginning in the 1960s.

[Indigo Soup]

It seems to have been accepted fairly quickly by British Rail - certainly after the London-Birmingham-Manchester electrification was completed, and possibly earlier - that electrification of major railway routes was economically desirable. But thereafter, electrification was carried out piecemeal (granting that Weaver Junction to Glasgow is a very large piece), with considerable stops and starts.

Given that Weaver Junction to Glasgow was approved before the southern half was in full operation, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine a larger-scale scheme being considered. The well-known 1978-1981 Review of Main Line Electrification found a considerable benefit to a long-term rolling program of electrification; I don't see why the findings would be any less favourable a decade earlier.

Such a programme would probably focus on the key trunk routes. The Electrification Review gave one such perspective, from the viewpoint of the late 1970s. The second Beeching report, The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes, gives another perspective. There's actually a decent amount of overlap between the two: the main lines are, after all, fairly obvious, and our divergence from reality isn't early enough for the introduction of subsidy in 1968 to be materially changed.

We might imagine, therefore, the Weaver Junction-Glasgow scheme completing more or less on the historic schedule, followed by the remaining branches of the WCML in the first half of the 1970s, the ECML and Midland in the late 1970s and early 1980s, followed by the Great Western and Cross-Country routes. By the early 1990s, all the main lines, and potentially some of the major regional routes, would be electrified.

As far as rolling stock goes, I'd imagine a much larger Class 87 order (possibly including a lower-geared version for freight) alongside some kind of 'Class 88' Co-Co heavy freight locomotive. With electrification progressing much faster, some kind of 125mph (if not faster) electric train will be a necessity. Whether that's a production version of the APT, or an electric HST, is anyone's guess. Or, drawing parallels with Germany and the Class E 01, a production version of the Class 89.

I doubt whether the diesel HST gets very far in this scenario - it would probably be unnecessary for the East Coast, but might be useful for the Great Western and Cross-Country routes. With a sufficiently large programme, electric versions of the Class 156 and 158 might also make sense for some of the regional routes. The 150 isn't that far from being a diesel 317, if you squint hard enough, so it's not total madness!

The key question, as ever, is if funds for such a programme would be available. The 1981 report suggests that the long-term financial results would be beneficial. But it would require investment from central government, always a problem for British infrastructure projects.

 

[JonathanH]

The 150 isn't that far from being a diesel 317, if you squint hard enough, so it's not total madness!

The 210 was a considerable way closer to a diesel 317 though.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nobody believed BR's investment plans after the failure of the modernisation plan and the radical restructuring and down-sizing of the 1960s/early 70s.
Electrification proposals were limited to commuter lines (mainly London) where rolling stock was close to life expiry, and usage could reasonably be guaranteed into the future.
That still applies to a certain extent today, though there is now greater belief in major projects having national benefit (but note electrification, Crossrail* and HS2 overspend/under-delivery).

* Crossrail has delivered, but at a cost to the overall rail budget

 

[Indigo Soup]

The 210 was a considerable way closer to a diesel 317 though.

IIRC, the 210 was designed to match 317 performance so they could run coupled St Pancras to Bedford, with the 210 continuing up to Leicester.

With more extensive electrification, the need for that kind of vehicle might be lessened with (e.g.) the wires up all the way to Leicester already. Or it might be greater, as more routes called for extension beyond the limit of electrification. The 1981 report assumed a mix of 317s, 210s, and 'cheaper DMUs' - which I imagine turned into Pacers.

It's not hard to imagine an electric 158 having some similarity to a Class 442, and possibly even being designed for 110mph. There are certainly some routes where they could use it.

And now I'm imagining the 'Class 328' coming into service in 1990, as the Glasgow-Aberdeen electrification is completed, to the fanfare of being 'Scotland's new 110mph electric inter-city trains'! A flight of fancy for sure. But a pleasant one!

Nobody believed BR's investment plans after the failure of the modernisation plan and the radical restructuring and down-sizing of the 1960s/early 70s.

Aye, there's the rub. The case was clearly being made succesfully in 1968 for Weaver Junction-Glasgow... but not successfully enough to get Blackpool, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Manchester done at the same time.

 

[eldomtom2]

Electrification proposals were limited to commuter lines (mainly London) where rolling stock was close to life expiry, and usage could reasonably be guaranteed into the future.

Successful electrification proposals were. That did not mean BR did not hold ambitions to electrify far more - see for instance the 1981 report Review of Main Line Electrification, which called for a programme of mass electrification. Interestingly in the report several lines are listed as having electrification schemes "already in hand or which were planned to have started by 1981" that in the event were not electrified until decades later, such as Liverpool-Earlestown, Manchester-Preston, Preston-Blackpool North, and Springburn-Cumbernauld.

 

[Magdalia]

It seems to have been accepted fairly quickly by British Rail - certainly after the London-Birmingham-Manchester electrification was completed, and possibly earlier - that electrification of major railway routes was economically desirable.

It was recognised in the Modernisation Plan. Paragraph 30 says:

30. The main scope for development at present rests with electricity and diesel traction. In many ways electricity is the ideal, since it meets the . requirements of reliability, good acceleration, cleanliness and (where the traffic is sufficiently heavy) economy in operation. Under electrification, moreover, the direct cost of train movement is considerably reduced as compared with steam, though owing to the increased capital investment a certain minimum traffic density is required before electrification can compare favourably as regards total costs of operation.

Under the Modernisation Plan all of the following would have been electrified if the plug had not been pulled:

• ECML to Leeds and York
• GN suburban to Letchworth including Hertford loop
• GEML to Ipswich including Harwich and Felixstowe

This was still the intention right up to late 1960. In a counterfactual these would have been done before anything else not in the Modernisation Plan.

For me, one of the most interesting counterfactuals is what would have happened if the WCML electrification had started at Euston and worked north, instead of starting at Manchester and Liverpool and working south. I have a suspicion that, like HS2, WCML electrification from the south end would not have got beyond the West Midlands.

The key question, as ever, is if funds for such a programme would be available.

And it wasn't, which is why BR ended up with

electrification was carried out piecemeal (granting that Weaver Junction to Glasgow is a very large piece), with considerable stops and starts.

It is an interesting question as to how Weaver Junction-Glasgow jumped ahead of the ECML to Leeds/York in the priorities.

Containerisation and the development of intermodal traffic could have been a factor. In a different world priority might have been given to electrifying routes for intermodal traffic, instead of building new roads.

 

[Indigo Soup]

It is an interesting question as to how Weaver Junction-Glasgow jumped ahead of the ECML to Leeds/York in the priorities.

I suspect the answer to that lies in the second Beeching report. The WCML was seen as the major Anglo-Scottish route, so electrifying it would allow for modernisation of more strategic traffic.

 

[Transilien]

As far as rolling stock goes, I'd imagine a much larger Class 87 order (possibly including a lower-geared version for freight) alongside some kind of 'Class 88' Co-Co heavy freight locomotive. With electrification progressing much faster, some kind of 125mph (if not faster) electric train will be a necessity. Whether that's a production version of the APT, or an electric HST, is anyone's guess. Or, drawing parallels with Germany and the Class E 01, a production version of the Class 89.

At least for the East Coast and the Great Western a more powerful Class 87 could be used as these locos could already go up to 110mph so I don't think it would be a stretch to spec these up for 125 mph operation.

 

[Helvellyn]

It was recognised in the Modernisation Plan. Paragraph 30 says:



Under the Modernisation Plan all of the following would have been electrified if the plug had not been pulled:

• ECML to Leeds and York
• GN suburban to Letchworth including Hertford loop
• GEML to Ipswich including Harwich and Felixstowe

This was still the intention right up to late 1960. In a counterfactual these would have been done before anything else not in the Modernisation Plan.

For me, one of the most interesting counterfactuals is what would have happened if the WCML electrification had started at Euston and worked north, instead of starting at Manchester and Liverpool and working south. I have a suspicion that, like HS2, WCML electrification from the south end would not have got beyond the West Midlands.


And it wasn't, which is why BR ended up with


It is an interesting question as to how Weaver Junction-Glasgow jumped ahead of the ECML to Leeds/York in the priorities.

Containerisation and the development of intermodal traffic could have been a factor. In a different world priority might have been given to electrifying routes for intermodal traffic, instead of building new roads.

I suspect part of the reason Weaver Junction to Glasgow jumped ahead was the M6, which got all the way to Carlisle in the 1970s. As a major freight artery electric traction was also better suited for freight over Shap and Beattock - not just container traffic but the substantial steel flows from Ravenscraig (pairs of 86s/87s hauling freshly rolled steel South, still radiating heat in transit) and limestone from Hardendale Quarry.

 

[HSTEd]

Is there much need for a large fleet of hauled stock in a world with a larger electrification programme?

If loco changed aren't needed would it be better to convert to EMU rather than messing around with the Class 87 or the Mark 3 buy?

 

[Indigo Soup]

At least for the East Coast and the Great Western a more powerful Class 87 could be used as these locos could already go up to 110mph so I don't think it would be a stretch to spec these up for 125 mph operation.

The proposed HST-E from the early 1980s was seemingly along these lines. The Class 89 was intended to haul 16-coach trains at 125mph - glorious, but a bit silly in practice.

Is there much need for a large fleet of hauled stock in a world with a larger electrification programme?

In the mind of British Rail in the 1960s and early 1970s, maybe. The 87s and Mark 3s were built for an electrified railway, and as late as 1981 they were still talking about needing several hundred locomotive for passenger work alongside high speed EMUs. There was still a lot of parcels traffic and portion working going on.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It was recognised in the Modernisation Plan. Paragraph 30 says:



Under the Modernisation Plan all of the following would have been electrified if the plug had not been pulled:

• ECML to Leeds and York
• GN suburban to Letchworth including Hertford loop
• GEML to Ipswich including Harwich and Felixstowe

This was still the intention right up to late 1960. In a counterfactual these would have been done before anything else not in the Modernisation Plan.

For me, one of the most interesting counterfactuals is what would have happened if the WCML electrification had started at Euston and worked north, instead of starting at Manchester and Liverpool and working south. I have a suspicion that, like HS2, WCML electrification from the south end would not have got beyond the West Midlands.


And it wasn't, which is why BR ended up with


It is an interesting question as to how Weaver Junction-Glasgow jumped ahead of the ECML to Leeds/York in the priorities.

Containerisation and the development of intermodal traffic could have been a factor. In a different world priority might have been given to electrifying routes for intermodal traffic, instead of building new roads.

One interesting question which I’ve never truly figured out is what could have happened if the Northern Heights project taking use of Moorgate in perpetuity. Would GN electrics have been stuck at King’s Cross? Widened Lines electrified or Broad Street used for Welwyn/Hertford trains?

 

[etr221]

One interesting question which I’ve never truly figured out is what could have happened if the Northern Heights project taking use of Moorgate in perpetuity. Would GN electrics have been stuck at King’s Cross? Widened Lines electrified or Broad Street used for Welwyn/Hertford trains?

I'm not aware of any thoughts as to what might have happened. By the time GN main line suburban electrification got beyond 'pipe dream' status, which would have been modernisation plan (c1955) time, I think the 'Northern Heights' long term tube to Moorgate (GNC) was cancelled and off the table. And if it hadn't been, who knows? Revert the line to Highgate HL/Alexandra Palace/Finchley Central to BR (or LT 'surface stock' operation)?

Going back to what might have happened if more BR electrification had been possible in the 1960s...

By the time it was finally cancelled, the 'modernistion plan' ECML electrification had grown to extend to Newcastle, also branch to serve Sheffield, and the Nottinghamshire coalfield - had this come about I think it would have been done mid to late 1960s, following GN suburban in c.1963-65, and probably more on the GE (to Harwich, Ipswich and - maybe - beyond to Felixstowe and Norwich, also to Cambridge).

And there were thoughts within the BTC in the late 1950s (c1957-60) as to priorities for electrification: with a proposal for 3145 route miles by 1970, another 1645 by 1980 and 683 to follow. A later iteration listed various lines for 1963-90: ECML on to Edinburgh and Aberdeen; WCML on to Glasgow, Perth and Kinnaber Junction (for Aberdeen); Glasgow-Edinburgh; East Anglia principal lines beyond Ipswich and Bishops Stortford; principal lines in Lincolnshire, S Yorks, Notts., W Riding, and NE coast area; Midland mainline from St Pancras to Leeds and Manchester; and SR lines beyond Woking to Weymouth and Exeter. (All this extracted from British Railways Engineering 1948-80, by J Johnson and R.A.Long)
How much of this might have been achieved (I can imagine a couple of project teams each electrifying c100 route miles/year for a two or three decades), and what changes/alternatives might made/chosen, had BR electrification been allowed to proceed at the hoped for pace, is anybody's guess, but t'was not to be - as were a number of later (and earlier!) grand, long term, plans (or at least proposals).

Perhaps the worst miss, and maybe the root cause of so many of BR's problems, was a failure to rethink, in the 1948-55 period, what BR and its network should be, and how it should fit in with the rest of the BTC empire (as didn't seem to happen until Beeching came along in the early 1960s), and produce a top down plan for a 'new tomorrow', rather than a 'bottom up' one for a 'better yesterday'.

 

[Harpo]

Accelerating Crewe to Glasgow must have been a huge imperative for BR. To decide that you need to both procure new diesels and double your diesel traction operating costs (i.e. 2x50) as an interim solution, just to stay in the game, speaks volumes.

 

[mike57]

Going back to the 1960s and earlier it always seems as if diesel traction was struggling to provide the required power outputs, and the rush to replace steam with diesel and the changing requirements due to loss of freight traffic resulted in a lot of money spent for very little gain. In UK terms the electric traction technology seemed much more advanced. The only downside of this would have been the likely resulting mix of 1500vDC and 25kV AC.

If the money saved had things been done diffently had then been invested in electifying the major routes where would we be now? DMU technology was already much more advanced and would have still been the choice for the less important routes, and freight was shrinking, so steam would have gone anyway, maybe a couple of years later, only hanging on where it made sense.

I realise hindsight is 20/20 vision, but not spending millions on similar but different diesel designs, a proper evaluation program, followed by mass production of the best designs would surely have been a more cost effective approach, with electrification being the preferred solution for trunk routes.

The building of new steam right up until 1960 always seemed somewhat strange as well, it was surely fairly obvious even to those on the ground at the time that the future was diesel or electric.

 

[Harpo]

I realise hindsight is 20/20 vision, but not spending millions on similar but different diesel designs, a proper evaluation program, followed by mass production of the best designs would surely have been a more cost effective approach, with electrification being the preferred solution for trunk routes.

Yep. Even when large scale diesel orders were attempted, the very largest order (512x 47s) needed to be derated by almost 200hp, and another huge order (263 x 30/31) needed replacement power units. Both Brush products.

 

[Uncle Buck]

How advanced was bi-mode technology in the 1960s? Would it have been feasible to have had, rather than the Class 47s and Class 87s, a standard locomotive with both an overhead pantograph and a diesel engine, which could have formed the backbone of inter-city services, allowing for a rolling programme of electrification without the need to procure new rolling stock? I do of course know about the Class 73s etc on the third-rail network.

 

[HSTEd]

How advanced was bi-mode technology in the 1960s? Would it have been feasible to have had, rather than the Class 47s and Class 87s, a standard locomotive with both an overhead pantograph and a diesel engine, which could have formed the backbone of inter-city services, allowing for a rolling programme of electrification without the need to procure new rolling stock? I do of course know about the Class 73s etc on the third-rail network.

I doubt it, even third rail electrodiesels were not particularly powerful machines.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2024 ==

I realise hindsight is 20/20 vision, but not spending millions on similar but different diesel designs, a proper evaluation program, followed by mass production of the best designs would surely have been a more cost effective approach, with electrification being the preferred solution for trunk routes.

The BTC's strategy appeared to be to attempt to bounce the treasury into paying for mass electrification, which is why no serious diesel development programme began until the Modernisation Plan forced the issue.
By 1948 it should be clear to all that the writing is on the wall for steam operation, and that diesels were already superior. Indeed the death knell of the steam era was probably sounded with the EMD F-unit in 1940.

Personally I feel the railway was obsessed with trying to replace steam engines one for one with diesels, hence constant attempts to develop high power diesel locomotives - most of which didn't work properly.
In the US, the approach taken was to take whatever diesel units were available and simply build lashups of them - hence photographs from the 1950s of 5-unit F-unit (or contemporary) consists.

The building of new steam right up until 1960 always seemed somewhat strange as well, it was surely fairly obvious even to those on the ground at the time that the future was diesel or electric.

Well, it appears the BTC was hoping it could get the treasury to pay for mass electrification, dispensing with steam before then would fatally wound the case for this.

EDIT:
The prevalence of unfitted freight in this era, whch are limited to very low speeds regardless, does raise a question about whether a Class 08/09 with appropriate gearing would be suitable for mass construction in the early/mid 1950s. Although most Class 08 were not initially fitted with multiple working equipment, they could have been.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Personally I feel the railway was obsessed with trying to replace steam engines one for one with diesels, hence constant attempts to develop high power diesel locomotives - most of which didn't work properly.

The LMS Twins and the LNER's abortive main line diesel scheme from 1947 both envisaged pairs of 1,600hp locomotives replacing Pacifics. The Twins were also designed to work singly in place of Class 4/5 mixed traffic locomotives.

 

[Magdalia]

I realise hindsight is 20/20 vision, but not spending millions on similar but different diesel designs, a proper evaluation program, followed by mass production of the best designs would surely have been a more cost effective approach, with electrification being the preferred solution for trunk routes.

That was what the Pilot Scheme in the Modernisation Plan was supposed to be like.

The building of new steam right up until 1960 always seemed somewhat strange as well, it was surely fairly obvious even to those on the ground at the time that the future was diesel or electric.

So BR's own works can't build diesel locos because they are awaiting the results of the Pilot Scheme, and they can't build steam locos because they don't have a future. Are you going to lay off the workforce for 3 years while you decide what to do?

The prevalence of unfitted freight in this era, whch are limited to very low speeds regardless, does raise a question about whether a Class 08/09 with appropriate gearing would be suitable for mass construction in the early/mid 1950s. Although most Class 08 were not initially fitted with multiple working equipment, they could have been.

The most important factor for unfitted freights is brake force. Class 08 brake force is 19 tons. You are going to need lots of locos, and they won't move fast enough to do a decent round trip in a single shift. At the time of the Modernisation Plan the best way to move a heavy unfitted coal train over long distances was still a 9F.

 

[Harpo]

It's worth reflecting on what was possible 70 years ago. Back then, getting 750 hp under a carriage floor was unachievable and only those naughty Germans could give us type 4s with less than 16 lumbering wheels. 16 seemed a popular number elsewhere with a V16 needed just to give 800hp if you went to Mr Paxman. Useful bimodes in one bodyshell? Unlikely.

However, 800hp was suited to the grossly inefficient freight handling that existed at that time with wagons shuffled from yard to yard. Temple Mills to Acton and back was a fairly reliable 12 hour job. A few hours driving and several hours each way waiting to get into a yard or 'onto the 'ump'. What 800hp couldn't do solo on the main line was speed.

 

[JLH4AC]

Going back to the 1960s and earlier it always seems as if diesel traction was struggling to provide the required power outputs, and the rush to replace steam with diesel and the changing requirements due to loss of freight traffic resulted in a lot of money spent for very little gain. In UK terms the electric traction technology seemed much more advanced. The only downside of this would have been the likely resulting mix of 1500vDC and 25kV AC.

It was unlikely that much more 1500vDC electrification would have been done between 1948 and 1955 when 25kV became the new standard, as electrification schemes have notable lead times and were was a high amount of surplus demand for copper and other non-ferrous metals into the 1970s.

If the money saved had things been done diffently had then been invested in electifying the major routes where would we be now? DMU technology was already much more advanced and would have still been the choice for the less important routes, and freight was shrinking, so steam would have gone anyway, maybe a couple of years later, only hanging on where it made sense.

Trainload and international freight was soon to become a majorly profitable sector for BR, it was only wagonload freight that was in notable decline and BR did have a plan to fix that which would have seemed reasonable at the time as it addressed the many of the shortcomings of wagonload freight operations had at the time.

I realise hindsight is 20/20 vision, but not spending millions on similar but different diesel designs, a proper evaluation program, followed by mass production of the best designs would surely have been a more cost effective approach, with electrification being the preferred solution for trunk routes.

That was the plan in-till it was decided to expand the pilot scheme in 1957 due to political and economic pressure.

The building of new steam right up until 1960 always seemed somewhat strange as well, it was surely fairly obvious even to those on the ground at the time that the future was diesel or electric.

Pre-nationalisation locomotives kept being built due mix of needing new locomotives to quickly replace a large number of locomotives that were past their economic life and the egos of the former company men. It was known in the 1940s that doing dieselisation/electrification properly would take time and during that time having less labour intensive and more efficient steam locomotives in the form of the Standards could be a benefit (In case, over half of the 9Fs were already built by the time dieselisation began to be rushed.

How advanced was bi-mode technology in the 1960s? Would it have been feasible to have had, rather than the Class 47s and Class 87s, a standard locomotive with both an overhead pantograph and a diesel engine, which could have formed the backbone of inter-city services, allowing for a rolling programme of electrification without the need to procure new rolling stock? I do of course know about the Class 73s etc on the third-rail network.

There was also the 3rd rail Class 74 but despite being a way more powerful electric locomotive it was not that much more powerful than the Class 73/1 in diesel mode. More powerful electro-diesel locomotives were in operation in the USSR from the 1960s that due to dimensional and weight restrictions were two-section locomotives yet were still too heavy to operate outside of quarry railways, and all others of that era that I am aware of were the same power class or less as the Class 73/1 or were primarily diesel locomotives. Some Class 73s were later upgraded to a much more powerful engine but I am not sure that an engine of similar size and power existed during the 1960/70s.

The BTC's strategy appeared to be to attempt to bounce the treasury into paying for mass electrification, which is why no serious diesel development programme began until the Modernisation Plan forced the issue.
By 1948 it should be clear to all that the writing is on the wall for steam operation, and that diesels were already superior. Indeed the death knell of the steam era was probably sounded with the EMD F-unit in 1940.

BTC's strategy from 1947 to 1954 aside from repairing and renewing existing rolling stock and infrastructure was to continue to trail the existing mainline diesel prototypes (This part of the plan only had partial success as further prototypes were meant to be made yet were never built as intended.), begin trials of DMUs and go ahead with select already drawn-up electrification schemes, further dieselisation/electrification was subject to future review (Though officials in BR and the Labour government were favouring electrification due to political and practical factors, and it pretty much everyone's view that steam was outmoded thus needed to be replaced soon.). Robert Ridd was able to convince the Railway Executive to fund the Standard Locomotives as a stopgap fleet was an effective capital investment due to their relatively low capital cost and if he is to be believed the other members of the Railway Executive largely leaving his team to their own devices.

Modernisation Plan did not force the issue as it was a BTC document to push the plan they believed was best, they could easily present the data that gave more preference electrification option if the government would agree to back the plan is a different matter that depends how they present the capital costs for locomotive and their related infrastructure upgrades. The apparent change in commitment to dieselisation/electrification is better explained by the senior staff turnover that happened when the Railway Executive was being fully abolished the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation was reformed into the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and a new government came into power leading to BTC's priorities changing.

Personally I feel the railway was obsessed with trying to replace steam engines one for one with diesels, hence constant attempts to develop high power diesel locomotives - most of which didn't work properly.
In the US, the approach taken was to take whatever diesel units were available and simply build lashups of them - hence photographs from the 1950s of 5-unit F-unit (or contemporary) consists.

There was an issue with BR/BTC trying to replace steam locomotives one to one but problems with locomotives were across power classes not just the more powerful locomotives. There were great and poor locomotives of all types apart from type 3/5 which were pretty much all great likely due to how few locomotive classes fell into those power classes.

 

[HSTEd]

On a related note, would an expanded programme of electric locomotives for hauled stock have much advantage over a big build of Class 309 for this more extensively electrified system?

 

[etr221]

Personally I feel the railway was obsessed with trying to replace steam engines one for one with diesels, hence constant attempts to develop high power diesel locomotives - most of which didn't work properly.
In the US, the approach taken was to take whatever diesel units were available and simply build lashups of them - hence photographs from the 1950s of 5-unit F-unit (or contemporary) consists.

By and large, US railroads had, for steam, substantial (if not total input) into locomotive design (even if RR construction was not the norm that it was here), but when diesels came it was, almost entirely, a case of standard, 'off the shelf' designs, with only a few options to choose from - GM-EMD's attitude was 'this is it - you can have it any colour you like (and we'll throw in the services of a designer to come up with a good colour scheme, with a nice oil painting to show it off)'. There were a few 'one offs' (the PRR Baldwin centipedes, and the UP double engine types (culminating in the EMD DDA40X 'Centenials') of the 1960s), but none of these showed sufficient advantage for large scale construction.