British Rail EMD/NOHAB locomotive

[pdeaves]

(motto "Concilio et Labore, which I used to think meant "The Council Is Labour")

As an aside, it means "Council and work"

 

[Gloster]

As an aside, it means "Council and work"

I think that it actually translates as ‘By wisdom and effort’, though you could have labour for the second word.

 

[ac6000cw]

If you wanted just the diesel, or just the electric transmission, or wanted licence production in your own country, GM did it, provided of course that the commercial side was right. GM 567 and 645 diesels have gone into vast numbers of ships, ferryboats, etc, and yet GM never owned a shipyard. What they did do well was that stuff where UK manufacturers fell down, on after sales service, spares stocking and distribution, and keeping things going.

I think it was the 'service and support' side of things that (plus GM's financial resources and a production-line approach to building locos in quantity) that really got GM-EMD to its dominant position in North America.

Until they got into electronic wheelslip control, EMD locos were competent but I think not really any better technically than Alco-GE were producing. But Alco apparently had higher production costs than EMD and reliability problems with the post-WW2 Alco 244-series engines, in the boom period for US dieselisation during the late 1940s and 1950s, probably cost them dearly in terms of potential market share.

GE (as in GE of USA, not GEC of UK) also submitted plans, although the other way around, locos not factories. In early 1950s they suggested a range of standardised diesels that /more or less but not exactly/ fitted into the original BTC formulated Types A B and C specifications i.e. before this was revised to Types 1 2 3 & 4. But do not appear to have had a factory plan - probably intended working inconjunction with AEI (becasue of historical links with BTH) that bypassed need for commerical licencing.

At that time (early 1950s), GE were not into 'road/line' diesels on their own account; they did (IIRC) produce some small switchers at that stage, and were in partnership with Alco (as Alco-GE) for larger units. It was only in the very late 50s/early 60s that they started getting into that market as themselves (with their own, GE branded, prime movers). So I do wonder quite what the background to this project was.

In the US, GE effectively developed the diesel-electric loco as we know it, during the 1920s and 30s - while they were basically an electrical equipment supplier at the time, they designed propulsion systems for internal-combustion locos and railcars and held important patents on aspects of the technology. For example, EMC (predecessor of GM-EMD) used their electrical equipment and design expertise for their railcars and locos. AFAIK, GE originally developed the MU system we now know as 'AAR MU', which became the de-facto US standard partly due to the GE electrical equipment that both Alco and EMD used at the time (and EMD kept the MU system when they switched to using their own electrical equipment).

 

[Richard Scott]

A loco without an engine isn't soundly engineered, it's just a collection of bits. Crossley was the problem in all these variations on a theme. Manchester City Council (motto "Concilio et Labore, which I used to think meant "The Council Is Labour") doggedly stuck with them, as a local firm, for many years before switching to Leyland PD3s.

Not as a unit but rest of the parts were fine so replace engine and it works as it should. Brush type 2 was a dud, if we're going down that route?

 

[Taunton]

I think it was the 'service and support' side of things that (plus GM's financial resources and a production-line approach to building locos in quantity) that really got GM-EMD to its dominant position in North America.

Indeed. Having been (extremely) peripheral to the situation in Washington state when Mount St Helens exploded in 1980, with volcanic ash being cleared by snowploughs (!) even hundreds of miles away, rail operations continued with loco air filters, normally just changed at a periodic overhaul, being changed daily. GM within about 72 hours were sending boxcar loads of air filters over, goodness knows how they sourced them or got them, but they did and continued to do so. The railroads there never ran out.

In opposition, and as we are mentioning Crossley, I recall an article from the 1960s about the Co-Bos being all laid up due to engine issues. Crossley had been asked for a quote, which was : "The engines are out of warranty. They are the responsibility of British Railways". As my old university professor used to say, "Compare and Contrast ...".

In the US, GE effectively developed the diesel-electric loco as we know it, during the 1920s and 30s - while they were basically an electrical equipment supplier at the time, they designed propulsion systems for internal-combustion locos

Indeed, GE worked initially with a range of engine builders (Cooper-Bessemer being a principal, but not only one). There were two mainstream electrical kit manufacturers, GE and Westinghouse, and the initial diesel and onetime steam builders - Alco, Baldwin and Lima, plus Fairbanks-Morse - worked with both on early diesels in varying proportions. All the 'electric railway' systems of the era, both interurban and city streetcar, of which there were a huge number at the time, also bought from both, right through to the powerhouse equipment. The classic PCC streamlined streetcars were half-and-half from each. GM diesel engines meanwhile came from predecessor Winton, but they developed their own electric transmission.

 

[Gloster]

Another example, if at a slight tangent. Our school chaplain had spent several years, probably in the mid-1960s, in one of the former British colonies in Africa. He once told how many of the people out there had bought British vehicles: Land Rovers, Morrises, Humbers, and the like. They were fine vehicles, but once they went wrong, sometimes with quite minor (*) problems, they ended up getting dumped because the spares supply and maintenance back-up was effectively non-existant. Instead the Japanese manufacturers were making inroads into the market because, although their vehicles weren’t thought to be so good, their back-up was first class.

(He gave this as an example of things we should be aware of if we went into business: that you can’t just take the money and wash your hands. It was rather pooh-poohed by the economics master, but he was a believer that British products were best because they were British.)

* - Well, they would be if it was a Morris.

 

[Strathclyder]

On the subject of the CIE Metrovicks, I seem to recall reading somewhere that at least two of the original C class (later 201) class locos recieved Maybach engines (I want to say a MD650 as used in the Class 42s) in the mid 60 (1965?) in a effort to find a viable replacement for the terminally troublesome Crossleys. This was before the program to replace the Crossleys with EMD engines started in earnest.

 

[Gloster]

On the subject of the CIE Metrovicks, I seem to recall reading somewhere that at least two of the original C class (later 201) class locos recieved Maybach engines (I want to say a MD650 as used in the Class 42s) in the mid 60 (1965?) in a effort to find a viable replacement for the terminally troublesome Crossleys. This was before the program to replace the Crossleys with EMD engines started in earnest.

C 233 and 234 (the last two) were fitted with Maybach MD650 engines in May 1966 and December 1965 (respectively); they retained them until fitted with GM ones in 1980 and 1979. Maybach MD220 motors had been fitted to the (E) 401 and 421 shunters on building.

 

[Strathclyder]

C 233 and 234 (the last two) were fitted with Maybach MD650 engines in May 1966 and December 1965 (respectively); they retained them until fitted with GM ones in 1980 and 1979.

Those were the ones, cheers for that. I think I first saw it mentioned on the classes' Wikipedia page, so that's likely why I wanted to ask and check the veracity of the article.

Bit surprised they lasted so long with Maybachs in a near all-GM/EMD powered mainline loco fleet, barring the 14 Sulzers until 1978: the 12 BRCW-built 101s and the pair of home-built 113s.

 

[Gloster]

Those were the ones, cheers for that. I think I first saw it mentioned on the classes' Wikipedia page, so that's likely why I wanted to ask and check the veracity of the article.

Bit surprised they lasted so long with Maybachs in a near all-GM/EMD powered mainline loco fleet, barring the 14 Sulzers until 1978: the 12 BRCW-built 101s and the pair of home-built 113s.

I would presume that CIE’s thinking was that there was no point in buying two more GM-motors if the Maybach ones were still working OK. It wasn’t as if they were complete loners in the fleet as the E continued operating until the early 1980s.

 

[D Mylchreest]

Crossley was taken over by AEC in the late forties, basically because Crossley was on a high and taking market share from AEC. When the take-over happened AEC got Crossley's profits. But, and it's a big but, AEC just took the money and didn't re-invest, it also left the Crossley brothers in charge. As these blokes got older they lost their innovative zest and so the company become very moribund with no new products to match its competitors.
When AEC woke up to the issue all the design engineers had left so there was no in-house experience to base the new product line on. The inevitable happened and the new range was awful, no match for the Leylands and Daimlers.
The Crossley factory in Heaton Norris still exists I believe

 

[ThirteenArches]

Bit surprised they lasted so long with Maybachs in a near all-GM/EMD powered mainline loco fleet

Don't forget how poor the Irish Republic was before the European Union and the Celtic Tiger years.

 

[D7666]

Crossley was taken over by AEC in the late forties,

You have confused "Crossley Motors" with the "Crossley" subject business here.

The buses etc part of the busines had nafa to do with CoBos, CIE, or anything else BR or other railways.

Crossley Motors was part of the original Crossley Brothers business and sold to AEC in 1948 i.e. before any CIE or BR/BTC order.

The Crossley business that built the large engines for locomotives, ships, continued eventually part of RollsRoyce via NEI , continuing to build large engines, albeit in later years licence builds of other makers (e.g. Pielstick).

Crossley engine were generally sucessful, just not the 'E' prefix two stroked BR et al tried. ame as Mirrlees, the 'J' was a disaster, the rest were not.

'trainspotter' level gen needs to stop jumping to conclusions that one piece of junk from a company does not mean everythinf from same compny is equally junk.

 

[D Mylchreest]

You have confused "Crossley Motors" with the "Crossley" subject business here.

The buses etc part of the busines had nafa to do with CoBos, CIE, or anything else BR or other railways.

Crossley Motors was part of the original Crossley Brothers business and sold to AEC in 1948 i.e. before any CIE or BR/BTC order.

The Crossley business that built the large engines for locomotives, ships, continued eventually part of RollsRoyce via NEI , continuing to build large engines, albeit in later years licence builds of other makers (e.g. Pielstick).

Crossley engine were generally sucessful, just not the 'E' prefix two stroked BR et al tried. ame as Mirrlees, the 'J' was a disaster, the rest were not.

'trainspotter' level gen needs to stop jumping to conclusions that one piece of junk from a company does not mean everythinf from same compny is equally junk.

I think I could do without the last paragraph, thank you. I have a book on Crossley Motors, it isn't just

"'trainspotter' level gen"

 

[Chen Melling]

Returning to the original post, though going slightly off-topic, any theoretical NOHAB-style EMD locomotive for the UK would likely not have have worn any of the LNER liveries, as EMD only started licensed export production after 1948, with the MY type only appearing in 1954 (the larger Clyde ML1 / GM Class appearing in 1951 as EMD's first export type).

As others have noted already, the MX would have been too large for the UK loading gauge in any case. The first EMD export model (probably) suitable for the UK loading gauge was the G12, as altered for New Zealand Government Railways in 1955, so some years before the Irish Class 121, and of a higher HP rating than them.

 

[D Mylchreest]

I think there was a deliberate decision by the government of the day to prohibit EMD from the British market in order to promote/protect the British railway industry. Not sure that succeeded.

 

[Taunton]

I think there was a deliberate decision by the government of the day to prohibit EMD from the British market in order to promote/protect the British railway industry. Not sure that succeeded.

This indeed is the more likely situation; government had pressure from both sides of the political spectrum, the UK loco manufacturers on one side and the workforce unions on the other, to maintain what was in all truth at the time a very substantial part of manufacturing industry, albeit one very much stuck in the past. If GM had actually bought out one of these (say North British) it might have been a different matter. GM had bought Vauxhall Cars and Bedford Lorries earlier and ran both as substantial operations for many years.