Type 2 withdrawals - why were 20's retained over class 25s?

[Magdalia]

BR should have built more 33s and not bothered with the type 2s.

When they were new, the BRCW Type 3s were useless for passenger trains everywhere apart from the Southern Region because they did not have steam heat.

20s, 33s, 37s and 47s would have been enough.

Of these only the EE Type 1 was in the modernisation plan pilot scheme. The others were not on the drawing board.

 

[Harpo]

Only 4 classes of mainline diesels were really needed. 20s, 33s, 37s and 47s would have been enough.

With lashings of hindsight at your disposal.

If the future could have been predicted it probably wouldn’t have included a class of over 500 type 4s that all had to be derated in order to survive, alongside another 263 locos from the same supplier that needed to be completely re-engined, with English Electric coming to the rescue.

 

[Richard Scott]

With lashings of hindsight at your disposal.

If the future could have been predicted it probably wouldn’t have included a class of over 500 type 4s that all had to be derated in order to survive, alongside another 263 locos from the same supplier that needed to be completely re-engined, with English Electric coming to the rescue.

Hindsight would dictate 500 EE Type 4s but with alternators rather than generators. If must be Sulzer then a reworked 45 would be the best bet.

 

[D Mylchreest]

The 33 & 47 came about ten years after the pilot designs; and the 47 was scarcely a roaring success.
I have always thought that Ivatt got it right for the period and the choice of the various Sulzer diesels was a mistake. It might have been a good idea for BR to sponsor at least one design of two stroke diesel engine, they were inherently lighter.

 

[Harpo]

Back to 20s vs 25s - It had been intended to directly replace Cornwalls china clay 25s with pairs of 20s. The plan failed as the air-braked CDAs were on the way and the LM’s surplus 20s were all VB only.

 

[Taunton]

When they were new, the BRCW Type 3s were useless for passenger trains everywhere apart from the Southern Region because they did not have steam heat.

Even on the Southern, when the BRCW Type 3 were first introduced in Kent, before full electrification, the stock was still steam heated. A batch of Class 24 were transferred from London Midland, and these were coupled inside the Class 33 mainly to provide steam heat. There was a programme on the Southern to convert carriages to electric, they were years ahead of the other regions in this, but it took a while to achieve and they only did BR stock, not the former Southern Railway types (a good number of these had been built in the first couple of years after nationalisation and weren't that old). New BR Mk1 stock being built at the time was all dual heat, but principally was sent to the WCML where the electric locos had the same issue - the LMR actually built heater vans with oil fired boilers for the electric locos to haul, but these were an operational nuisance, not least because they needed their own fireman to attend to the boiler.

 

[35B]

Hindsight would dictate 500 EE Type 4s but with alternators rather than generators. If must be Sulzer then a reworked 45 would be the best bet.

The 47s were reworked Peaks.

 

[Taunton]

I have always thought that Ivatt got it right for the period and the choice of the various Sulzer diesels was a mistake. It might have been a good idea for BR to sponsor at least one design of two stroke diesel engine, they were inherently lighter.

They should have gone to General Motors and licensed the 567 (and later 645) designs. GM did this around the world, with the several mainstream Australian loco builders, also Nohab in Scandinavia. Sulzer is a licence design itself, the company is from Switzerland but the engines were licence built in the shipyard engine factory of Vickers in Barrow.

 

[35B]

The 33 & 47 came about ten years after the pilot designs; and the 47 was scarcely a roaring success.
I have always thought that Ivatt got it right for the period and the choice of the various Sulzer diesels was a mistake. It might have been a good idea for BR to sponsor at least one design of two stroke diesel engine, they were inherently lighter.

You mean like the 2 stroke Crossley engines in the Co-Bos?

 

[Harpo]

the LMR actually built heater vans with oil fired boilers for the electric locos to haul, but these were an operational nuisance

Even on diesel locos, boiler reliability was poor. Gerald Fiennes also mentioned this in ‘I Tried To Run A Railway’.

 

[jadmor]

It wasn't an either/or decision. Except in Scotland, class 20s were primarily used in pairs as a heavyweight type 4 on non-MGR coal trains.

I can recall seeing Class 20s running through Dunfermline Lower in the 70s from Longannet with a pair of Class 20s heading, and one on the rear.

 

[Taunton]

I can recall seeing Class 20s running through Dunfermline Lower in the 70s from Longannet with a pair of Class 20s heading, and one on the rear.

Polmadie 2x20 sets in Scotland were extensively used on MGR from the Ayrshire coalfield to Longannet power station in Fife. I have written here before about seeing them in the 1970s hammering up the about 1 in 50 through Alexandra Parade and Springburn flat out at walking pace. Prominent railway author Derek Cross did a footplate ride on this working leading to a Railway Magazine article about it around this time. It may have been in that article that it was described that 2x20 was preferred over a Class 47 because they gave better adhesion on undulating colliery tracks. I can believe that even so they might sometimes need a banker - the MGR trains were notably heavy for such haulage over steep gradients like this one.

Some Polmadie Class 20 were also air braked very early on, as they were used to haul (via the same route) empty Blue Trains between the two long-unconnected electrified networks, north and south of Glasgow, a task which at the beginning had been given to the last remaining Caledonian Railway steam locos in Glasgow, which were still fitted with Westinghouse brakes.

 

[Trainman40083]

They should have gone to General Motors and licensed the 567 (and later 645) designs. GM did this around the world, with the several mainstream Australian loco builders, also Nohab in Scandinavia. Sulzer is a licence design itself, the company is from Switzerland but the engines were licence built in the shipyard engine factory of Vickers in Barrow.

Well, as someone who worked for British Rail both before and after privatisation,, I'd say. Political pressures would not have allowed British Rail to buy GM locos, even though, they were far superior to anything British Rail built. The customers starting with Foster Yeoman got so fed up with the service provided, they bought their own Class 59s; and others followed. Very "lucky" the Class 60s got ordered at all, as the freight sector wanted Class 59s. Privatisation came, and EWS ordered 200 Class 66s, that almost worked straight out of the box. Other operators then followed.

 

[Taunton]

One is not suggesting BR buy GM locomotives made in the USA. While the UK government merrily bought Bedford lorries by the thousand for the military, nobody complained that they were General Motors. After all, they were built in Luton. I also suspect that only a few on the railway realised that Sulzer diesels were a Swiss licenced design. In Australia, the NSW 42 class, built by Clyde as so many Australian steam locos had been, even looked like USA units, but this wasn't necessary. GM licensed their engine designs worldwide.

 

[35B]

One is not suggesting BR buy GM locomotives made in the USA. While the UK government merrily bought Bedford lorries by the thousand for the military, nobody complained that they were General Motors. After all, they were built in Luton. I also suspect that only a few on the railway realised that Sulzer diesels were a Swiss licenced design. In Australia, the NSW 42 class, built by Clyde as so many Australian steam locos had been, even looked like USA units, but this wasn't necessary. GM licensed their engine designs worldwide.

At the time, any suggestion of purchasing abroad was contentious and, equally importantly, liable to government intervention due to exchange controls. The Bedfords may have been GM designs, but they were built in Britain and the amount of currency required to leave the country was limited.

For trains, this combined with a deep protectionist impulse to avoid losing control to American companies.

We can see how that went.

 

[D Mylchreest]

You mean like the 2 stroke Crossley engines in the Co-Bos?

It's true that the Crossley engines in the Co-Bo were 2 stroke and that they had, to say the least, weaknesses. But the GM engines in the 66 locos are 2 stroke as well. They are very good indeed and the design has antecedents that go back well into the forties (some might say the thirties).
If BR had instituted a program for the development of a 2 stroke engine in the late forties/early fifties there would have been plenty of time to iron the bugs out, but instead Riddles was appointed CME and he loathed diesels and so developed a totally unnecessary range of steam engines, purely as a vanity project.
Don't get me wrong here, my preference is for steam, very much so, but the steam engine was obsolete by the time of nationalisation and it was time for a change, not more of the same.

 

[Taunton]

It's true that the Crossley engines in the Co-Bo were 2 stroke and that they had, to say the least, weaknesses. But the GM engines in the 66 locos are 2 stroke as well. They are very good indeed and the design has antecedents that go back well into the forties (some might say the thirties).
If BR had instituted a program for the development of a 2 stroke engine in the late forties/early fifties there would have been plenty of time to iron the bugs out, but instead Riddles was appointed CME and he loathed diesels and so developed a totally unnecessary range of steam engines, purely as a vanity project.
Don't get me wrong here, my preference is for steam, very much so, but the steam engine was obsolete by the time of nationalisation and it was time for a change, not more of the same.

I don't think that 2-stroke, per se, is a key aspect. In the USA of the major builders, GM and Fairbanks-Morse did 2-stroke (which the USA calls '2-cycle'), and Alco, later GE, and Baldwin did 4-stroke. The 2-cycle machines had their pinnacle in US Navy WW2 submarines, where weight is important but they effectively run either on or off. Fairbanks Morse units were also vertical opposed piston, so part way to a Deltic engine, just two crankshafts instead of three.

GM had bought the Winton company, and their 2-stroke expertise, in 1930, they had been the engines in the surprisingly numerous USA "Doodlebug" railcars of the 1920s, and apart from marine installations this took them on to the classic high speed Zephyr diesel trains of the 1930s, and others. One manager at GM, Charles Kettering, was the inspiration behind 2-cycle, he drove the purchase of Winton, and moved on to comparable bus and truck engines, which dominated USA buses from every manufacturer for the next 50 years.

In any event, GM's expertise came from exceptional sales and marketing, including extensive financing at a time when this was unusual, and also after sales support of spares, training, etc, again as unknown anywhere else. Compare this to UK diesel manufacturers who were not unknown, in times before formal support agreements, to say to buyers returning for spares literally months after purchase that the unit was now regarded as obsolete and no spares were available.

 

[35B]

It's true that the Crossley engines in the Co-Bo were 2 stroke and that they had, to say the least, weaknesses. But the GM engines in the 66 locos are 2 stroke as well. They are very good indeed and the design has antecedents that go back well into the forties (some might say the thirties).
If BR had instituted a program for the development of a 2 stroke engine in the late forties/early fifties there would have been plenty of time to iron the bugs out, but instead Riddles was appointed CME and he loathed diesels and so developed a totally unnecessary range of steam engines, purely as a vanity project.
Don't get me wrong here, my preference is for steam, very much so, but the steam engine was obsolete by the time of nationalisation and it was time for a change, not more of the same.

There was another 2 stroke design, which worked superbly in one class and was a complete lemon in another - I refer of course to the Deltic.

However, I think the 2 vs 4 view is too narrow. There were a range of schools of thought about how to design 4 stroke diesel engines, and different comparable engines had very different styles. The extreme is the difference between classes 33 and 37, where the 37 (as originally designed) was over 20 tonnes heavier than the 33.

Relevant to another thread, that extra weight in the 37s was very useful on some traffics because of the brake force it provided - one reason why the Hymeks were quite easily displaced from South Wales coal duties. Lighter weight was not necessarily a good thing.

In reality, EE and Sulzer did a lot of the development necessary to get diesel engine power outputs up - the same underlying engine was developed from 1600hp (the LMS Twins) to 3250hp (the class 56) over about 25 years. It's far from clear that, had BR chosen to do that work in house, they'd have done as well. If you doubt me, consider that the same organisation took over 10 years to fail to make APT work while developing the IC125 in about 5 years.

 

[Trainman40083]

There was another 2 stroke design, which worked superbly in one class and was a complete lemon in another - I refer of course to the Deltic.

However, I think the 2 vs 4 view is too narrow. There were a range of schools of thought about how to design 4 stroke diesel engines, and different comparable engines had very different styles. The extreme is the difference between classes 33 and 37, where the 37 (as originally designed) was over 20 tonnes heavier than the 33.

Relevant to another thread, that extra weight in the 37s was very useful on some traffics because of the brake force it provided - one reason why the Hymeks were quite easily displaced from South Wales coal duties. Lighter weight was not necessarily a good thing.

In reality, EE and Sulzer did a lot of the development necessary to get diesel engine power outputs up - the same underlying engine was developed from 1600hp (the LMS Twins) to 3250hp (the class 56) over about 25 years. It's far from clear that, had BR chosen to do that work in house, they'd have done as well. If you doubt me, consider that the same organisation took over 10 years to fail to make APT work while developing the IC125 in about 5 years.

But was it not aircraft engineers brought in to develop the APT, whereas existing rail engineers saw the solution being the, go anywhere, HST? So sell off the tilt technology to Italy and buy the Pendolino.

 

[35B]

But was it not aircraft engineers brought in to develop the APT, whereas existing rail engineers saw the solution being the, go anywhere, HST? So sell off the tilt technology to Italy and buy the Pendolino.

It was - but that's not my point. These were two separate projects; one was an absolute success, the other in any reasonable estimate a failure. It's unreasonable to assume that, had BR done as suggested by @D Mylchreest, the result would necessarily have been a success.

 

[Trainman40083]

It was - but that's not my point. These were two separate projects; one was an absolute success, the other in any reasonable estimate a failure. It's unreasonable to assume that, had BR done as suggested by @D Mylchreest, the result would necessarily have been a success.

I thought the APT was very, very close to being right. Trouble was Inter City needed the solution quick, if it was going to turn round Inter City.

 

[35B]

I thought the APT was very, very close to being right. Trouble was Inter City needed the solution quick, if it was going to turn round Inter City.

And it had taken a VERY long time to get there

 

[43096]

The 33 & 47 came about ten years after the pilot designs; and the 47 was scarcely a roaring success.

They weren’t about ten years after the pilot designs. Class 33 was ordered in 1957/8 and the first Duffs were ordered in early 1961.

 

[Acathater]

They weren’t about ten years after the pilot designs. Class 33 was ordered in 1957/8 and the first Duffs were ordered in early 1961.

deliveries weren't till around 3/4 years later
they may have placed orders but it looks like that happened before the designs were finalised

 

[43096]

deliveries weren't till around 3/4 years later
they may have placed orders but it looks like that happened before the designs were finalised

The first 33s were delivered in 1960, the Spoons followed in 1962. Still nowhere near the decade since the Pilot scheme designs that I was challenging.

 

[Trainman40083]

deliveries weren't till around 3/4 years later
they may have placed orders but it looks like that happened before the designs were finalised

Possibly an upgrade from the Class 27s. Didn't the Slim Jim 33/2 redesign finish off BRCW?

 

[Acathater]

Possibly an upgrade from the Class 27s. Didn't the Slim Jim 33/2 redesign finish off BRCW?

No, class 33 production started before the 27s, though they were both in build at the same time.
The 33/2 redesign is often quoted as killing off BRCW, but in looking online I've never found anything to back that up.
Rather it looks as if the BRCW board realised early on that orders for new locos and rolling stock were heading downhill and got out of the business. Given the gap between class 47 production ending and 56 starting, they were right.
Instead they shut down manufacturing, renamed themselves and converted into being a property development company - starting with redeveloping the works site. They were successful for around 20-30 years, eventually going bust in the 1990s-2000s (from memory)

 

[ac6000cw]

However, I think the 2 vs 4 view is too narrow. There were a range of schools of thought about how to design 4 stroke diesel engines, and different comparable engines had very different styles. The extreme is the difference between classes 33 and 37, where the 37 (as originally designed) was over 20 tonnes heavier than the 33.

Being fair (and I'm a cl.33 fan!), the 33 is shorter, has simpler bogies with fewer axles and traction motors, and no steam-heat boiler plus water tank. I suspect those differences would account for a lot of the weight difference.

It came up in another thread recently that in fact the Southern Region actually wanted to buy 'their' Type-3 loco from EE (who came up with suitable design), but it was decided 'higher up' in BR/BTC to award the contract to BRCW.

Didn't the Slim Jim 33/2 redesign finish off BRCW?

AFAIK, BRCW saw which way the wind was blowing in terms of potential orders from a monopoly, state-owned railway with its own 'new build capable' workshops to keep open for political reasons and sensibly decided to exit the railway business.

 

[Richard Scott]

The 47s were reworked Peaks.

Reworked 46s, not 45s. 45 a totally different machine and vastly superior for many reasons.

 

[Acathater]

It came up in another thread recently that in fact the Southern Region actually wanted to buy 'their' Type-3 loco from EE (who came up with suitable design), but it was decided 'higher up' in BR/BTC to award the contract to BRCW.

That's not perceived wisdom on other internet sites.
The general belief appeared to be that the BRB wanted Southern to buy the 37, who refused on the grounds of weight - they wanted a "go anywhere" loco (or close to it)
What the truth is, is anyone's guess