Diesel Hydraulics, cascades and withdrawals

[Taunton]

The oil foreign exchange issue is sometimes misrepresented. Almost all the UK oil in the 1940s-50s came from places which were in the "Sterling Area", where it could be paid for with pounds. Bahrain, then the Gulf centre; Kuwait; even non-colonial countries like Iraq (left the Sterling area in 1959). So it wasn't foreign exchange which was wanted to buy the oil, because UK pounds were accepted there.

What was the government issue was they wanted the oil to be sold elsewhere instead, to the USA and others, to get foreign exchange for it, and to support the value of the pound (then 4 to the US dollar!). Oil production was not huge then and for it to be used in the UK meant it could not be a dollar export. It was difficult to tell members of the public not to buy cars, although there were attempts, but the newly-nationalised railways provided an opportune and easy single point to say "no more oil for you" to. Elsewhere, oil conversion carried on, notably with shipping where the remaining coal fired ships changed very quickly to oil, it was a major workstream for postwar shipyards with new boilers. Ironically this included the new BR's shipping fleet.

This is what did in the late 1940s steam loco oil firing programme. That had been driven by separate supply difficulties from the coal industry arising from complete lack of long-term investment during the war, coal seams were worked out, as they do, but no new ones had been developed. Once told to stop using oil and go back to coal, there would obviously be no chance of a diesel programme straight away. In government, Bevan, effectively the deputy to the prime minister, was an ex-miner from South Wales, and did not want to see any reduction in coal mining opportunities at the expense of oil from overseas. So just tell the railways what to do.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Using hindsight to criticise decisions is all very well; however, I wonder how that process will judge some of the railway decisions being made recently and currently once the pandemic is over, and its long term effects understood...

Edited to remove duplication of point made in Taunton's post

 

[hexagon789]

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.

Probably, I knew they had a standby one for HST trailers at least.

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/

Not completely, the B113 Sulzer twins had heating boilers originally but when the later classes entered service heating vans were standardised on and they were removed/isolated. Also the 1994 201 Class can provide HEP to all types of AC stock, the control panel has a selector switch for Mk2D/Mk3/Push-pull set, and originally they were going to remove vans from Mk3 sets and use the 201 HEP but as proved the case on the Enterprise sets where it was used the fuel consumption and wear on the engines was very expensive so they even inserted redundant Mk3 vans into the De-Dietrich sets in 2013 so the 201s no longer had to provide HEP.

It also stole a lot of traction power too and when activated any unused heating power could not be given over to traction it was a fixed amount taken as is common with many American/Canadian passenger locos such as the P42DCs.

 

[Richard Scott]

The 1994 201 Class can provide HEP to all types of AC stock, the control panel has a selector switch for Mk2D/Mk3/Push-pull set, and originally they were going to remove vans from Mk3 sets and use the 201 HEP but as proved the case on the Enterprise sets where it was used the fuel consumption and wear on the engines was very expensive so they even inserted redundant Mk3 vans into the De-Dietrich sets in 2013 so the 201s no longer had to provide HEP.

It also stole a lot of traction power too and when activated any unused heating power could not be given over to traction it was a fixed amount taken as is common with many American/Canadian passenger locos such as the P42DCs.

I believe they had to run with engines at max rpm (or close to) even at idle and caused a dramatic failure in one loco?

 

[hexagon789]

I believe they had to run with engines at max rpm (or close to) even at idle and caused a dramatic failure in one loco?

Yes, constant Run 8 (900rpm).

 

[43096]

Probably, I knew they had a standby one for HST trailers at least.




Not completely, the B113 Sulzer twins had heating boilers originally but when the later classes entered service heating vans were standardised on and they were removed/isolated. Also the 1994 201 Class can provide HEP to all types of AC stock, the control panel has a selector switch for Mk2D/Mk3/Push-pull set, and originally they were going to remove vans from Mk3 sets and use the 201 HEP but as proved the case on the Enterprise sets where it was used the fuel consumption and wear on the engines was very expensive so they even inserted redundant Mk3 vans into the De-Dietrich sets in 2013 so the 201s no longer had to provide HEP.

It also stole a lot of traction power too and when activated any unused heating power could not be given over to traction it was a fixed amount taken as is common with many American/Canadian passenger locos such as the P42DCs.

The 201 Class locos can no longer provide train supply as the sockets have been removed on the loco ends.

 

[hexagon789]

The 201 Class locos can no longer provide train supply as the sockets have been removed on the loco ends.

I knew they no longer provided HEP, but I hasn't realised they had gone so far as to physically prevent them doing so by removing the sockets. Makes sense though.

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

Not completely, the B113 Sulzer twins had heating boilers originally but when the later classes entered service heating vans were standardised on and they were removed/isolated. Also the 1994 201 Class can provide HEP to all types of AC stock, the control panel has a selector switch for Mk2D/Mk3/Push-pull set, and originally they were going to remove vans from Mk3 sets and use the 201 HEP but as proved the case on the Enterprise sets where it was used the fuel consumption and wear on the engines was very expensive so they even inserted redundant Mk3 vans into the De-Dietrich sets in 2013 so the 201s no longer had to provide HEP.

It also stole a lot of traction power too and when activated any unused heating power could not be given over to traction it was a fixed amount taken as is common with many American/Canadian passenger locos such as the P42DCs.

For completeness, some of the previous 201 (C) class were fitted with ETH for a while - it seems puzzling that there was thought to be any power to be spared on a loco that was just 550hp in its original form, but I suppose at the time they were working short, low-speed (often mixed) trains on branch lines. CIÉ had previously experimented with "self-heating carriages" (i.e. a small underfloor diesel generator on each individual vehicle) for branch use, presumably because justifying a heating van was difficult on a short train, but these proved unreliable, which I think was the reason for trying supply from the loco. I don't think that lasted long either. (Afterwards, there were a couple of coaches with storage heaters for the Loughrea branch; incidentally these would often have worked with the very small G class shunters, which had hydraulic transmission, thus providing a very tortuous connection to the original topic of the thread. I believe the storage-heat stock went to the Ballina branch for a while after Loughrea closed.)

Northern Ireland Railways also had some locos with ETH - the Hunslet 101 class and at least two of the EMD 111 class, though I think the latter were retrofits and NIR originally used Mk2 generator vehicles (brake standards - I remember travelling in one at least once) with this class instead. If we're getting really obscure, I think one or both of the diesel locos that Harland & Wolff built for the Belfast & County Down had ETH too.

 

[hexagon789]

For completeness, some of the previous 201 (C) class were fitted with ETH for a while - it seems puzzling that there was thought to be any power to be spared on a loco that was just 550hp in its original form, but I suppose at the time they were working short, low-speed (often mixed) trains on branch lines. CIÉ had previously experimented with "self-heating carriages" (i.e. a small underfloor diesel generator on each individual vehicle) for branch use, presumably because justifying a heating van was difficult on a short train, but these proved unreliable, which I think was the reason for trying supply from the loco. I don't think that lasted long either. (Afterwards, there were a couple of coaches with storage heaters for the Loughrea branch; incidentally these would often have worked with the very small G class shunters, which had hydraulic transmission, thus providing a very tortuous connection to the original topic of the thread. I believe the storage-heat stock went to the Ballina branch for a while after Loughrea closed.)

Northern Ireland Railways also had some locos with ETH - the Hunslet 101 class and at least two of the EMD 111 class, though I think the latter were retrofits and NIR originally used Mk2 generator vehicles (brake standards - I remember travelling in one at least once) with this class instead. If we're getting really obscure, I think one or both of the diesel locos that Harland & Wolff built for the Belfast & County Down had ETH too.

The Hunslets were always said to be underpowered because they had to provide ETH, singly even six-coaches was a struggle on certain of the gradients. I knew 111 and 112 were later fitted for HEP but it was never used in service afaik.

 

[Stathern Jc]

Some interesting comments on retro fitting eth here.

Looking at the excellent book "Diesel-Hydraulic Locomotives of the Western Region" by Brian Reed, the section on Warships has a diagram of the layout showing a dynastarter for each engine located in the nose under the cab.
This is quoted as being 16.5KW. Reference has been made earlier in this thread to a possible source of eth from an uprated dynastarter. I suspect that for the Warships space to accommodate such equipment would have been problematic; the book in the same series on the Sulzers says the Class 33s had a 235KW generator to provide a mid range eth Index of 48 which gives some indication of what would have been needed.
Finding room in the Hymeks, Westerns and D6300s could well have been easier.
Removing the steam heat boiler would create a generous space, but would taking drive from both ends of an engine lead to other difficulties through thermal expansion etc?

Another thought on eth from twin engined diesel hydraulics.
Would there have been reservations about drawing the power from one end and creating an imbalance on power delivery to each bogie?
I have it in the back of my mind that it wasn't considered good practice to have two generators feeding the eth supply. So a relatively modest supply from each engine, reducing the size of equipment and balancing the demand from each engine, might not have been a realistic prospect. Someone may be able to correct this, but I suspect that would eventually have been a greater challenge with an AC supply than with DC.

Maybe an easier option for eth would have been to remove the steam heat boiler and replace it with a generator set as was done with the Class 27s. That could have been equally possible for any of the hydraulics.

 

[matchmaker]

Some interesting comments on retro fitting eth here.

Looking at the excellent book "Diesel-Hydraulic Locomotives of the Western Region" by Brian Reed, the section on Warships has a diagram of the layout showing a dynastarter for each engine located in the nose under the cab.
This is quoted as being 16.5KW. Reference has been made earlier in this thread to a possible source of eth from an uprated dynastarter. I suspect that for the Warships space to accommodate such equipment would have been problematic; the book in the same series on the Sulzers says the Class 33s had a 235KW generator to provide a mid range eth Index of 48 which gives some indication of what would have been needed.
Finding room in the Hymeks, Westerns and D6300s could well have been easier.
Removing the steam heat boiler would create a generous space, but would taking drive from both ends of an engine lead to other difficulties through thermal expansion etc?

Another thought on eth from twin engined diesel hydraulics.
Would there have been reservations about drawing the power from one end and creating an imbalance on power delivery to each bogie?
I have it in the back of my mind that it wasn't considered good practice to have two generators feeding the eth supply. So a relatively modest supply from each engine, reducing the size of equipment and balancing the demand from each engine, might not have been a realistic prospect. Someone may be able to correct this, but I suspect that would eventually have been a greater challenge with an AC supply than with DC.

Maybe an easier option for eth would have been to remove the steam heat boiler and replace it with a generator set as was done with the Class 27s. That could have been equally possible for any of the hydraulics.

If I recall correctly, the Deutz generator on the 27s was notoriously unreliable and prone to bursting into flames!

 

[Stathern Jc]

Think there were problems with circulation of cooling air leading to overheating. Not a unique affliction.

 

[Taunton]

The real downside of the auxiliary generator, like the Deutz in the Class 27/2, was the power was not available for the various (majority) occasions when it was not required. Apparently leaving the hefty steam heat boiler and water tanks out of a Class 27 saved so much space and weight that an 8-cyl Sulzer instead of a 6-cyl could be put in the engine room, and thus the Class 33 was born. All the extra power was available for freight, and in pre-AC days to add an extra coach or so in the summer. When the Class 33 were put on Waterloo-Exeter it was regular in winter to switch the ETH off for 10 minutes on the long climbs, such as westbound from Axminster up Honiton bank, and switch it on again once over the top.

 

[33017]

I direct anyone interested in the maintenance and reliability of the 'Warships' to the Irwell Press book called 'Book of the Warships'.
The 'Book of ... ' series is usually devoted to a particular class of steam loco, and this is the (I think) only diesel one.
It lists for each loco by number modifications, mileages, and works visits. In the steam loco. books, works visits are broadly at a 2 - 2 1/2 year frequency for express passenger locos, which might seem very frequent; however, the works visits of the 'Warships' over their (roughly) 10 to 14 year lives occupy threequarters of an A4 page in tiny type; typically, over 50, or about every 3 months.

I think you may have misinterpreted what that book shows. It lists any time a major component was changed as a ‘works visit.’ If you look more closely, the vast majority of these ‘visits’ were to their home depot for an engine or transmission change which lasted a few days, something that was always planned to happen (hence the heavy lifting equipment at each main WR diesel depot). In fact, once these depots were completed, most Warships only visited Swindon Works two or three times, usually for overhaul.

The fact remains that Swindon-built Warships managed to average over 90,000 miles per-annum throughout their careers and even the NBL 800s did 75,000+. That compares very favourably to the Peaks, for example.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I think you may have misinterpreted what that book shows. It lists any time a major component was changed as a ‘works visit.’ If you look more closely, the vast majority of these ‘visits’ were to their home depot for an engine or transmission change which lasted a few days, something that was always planned to happen (hence the heavy lifting equipment at each main WR diesel depot). In fact, once these depots were completed, most Warships only visited Swindon Works two or three times, usually for overhaul.

The fact remains that Swindon-built Warships managed to average over 90,000 miles per-annum throughout their careers and even the NBL 800s did 75,000+. That compares very favourably to the Peaks, for example.

I take your point about works visits, although it's fair to say that several of the larger ex GWR sheds, including Laira and Newton Abbot, had workshops separate from the running shed's maintenance area. These were called factories by the GWR, as was Swindon. Laira did 'heavy generals' on Castles, listed in the 'Book of...' for that class, so the Warships just continued an existing policy.

The visits for attention were quite frequent, though. I've just opened the book at random, opened at D856.
This extract is selective in that I've only listed the most frequent repeat repairs.
It had A transmission changed on 8/6/65, 29/6/65, 4/12/65, repaired 3/6/66.
A engine changed 11/5/62, 23/4/63, 11/64, 5/65, 2/66.
The actual unit exchange only took a few days, enabling the loco to quickly be back in service quickly, and knock up the miles; but, behind the scenes, there was a float of engines and transmissions being overhauled. It must have been quite a large one, and was un-productive in the sense that it wasn't in a loco earning revenue.

 

[Stathern Jc]

The real downside of the auxiliary generator, like the Deutz in the Class 27/2, was the power was not available for the various (majority) occasions when it was not required. Apparently leaving the hefty steam heat boiler and water tanks out of a Class 27 saved so much space and weight that an 8-cyl Sulzer instead of a 6-cyl could be put in the engine room, and thus the Class 33 was born. All the extra power was available for freight, and in pre-AC days to add an extra coach or so in the summer. When the Class 33 were put on Waterloo-Exeter it was regular in winter to switch the ETH off for 10 minutes on the long climbs, such as westbound from Axminster up Honiton bank, and switch it on again once over the top.

Absolutely agree. A couple of extra cylinders, or perhaps four in a V engine is by far the most flexible option where the boiler could be disposed of.
But in the context of extending the life of the already existing diesel hydraulics, I doubt that any thoughts of re-engining, uprating radiators etc and the transmissions to make fuller use of the increased engine power along with the associated structural modifications would have got very far. Much as it would have been interesting to see, for example an eth version of the proposal for a "Super Western" with a pair of 16 cylinder Maybach engines.

 

[Richard Scott]

Absolutely agree. A couple of extra cylinders, or perhaps four in a V engine is by far the most flexible option where the boiler could be disposed of.
But in the context of extending the life of the already existing diesel hydraulics, I doubt that any thoughts of re-engining, uprating radiators etc and the transmissions to make fuller use of the increased engine power along with the associated structural modifications would have got very far. Much as it would have been interesting to see, for example an eth version of the proposal for a "Super Western" with a pair of 16 cylinder Maybach engines.

With engine technology progressing at the rate it did could have had a single engined loco with ETH a few years after end of Western production. German 218s were only a few years behind. Know initially they were 2500hp but 2800hp version came along a few years later and all at around 80t or less.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I take your point about works visits, although it's fair to say that several of the larger ex GWR sheds, including Laira and Newton Abbot, had workshops separate from the running shed's maintenance area. These were called factories by the GWR, as was Swindon. Laira did 'heavy generals' on Castles, listed in the 'Book of...' for that class, so the Warships just continued an existing policy.

Not quite. I think you are reading the Book of the Castles incorrectly. Laira never carried out Generals on any steamer, let alone Castles. Only the GWR/WR main works did Generals or Intermediates and Castles were usually dealt with at Swindon, who kept the spare boiler stock for the class.

The locomotive factories were an integral part of the maintenance activity for that District because the GWR didn’t want their works bunged up with relatively minor work, like changing sets of wheels or carrying out complete retubes or serious stay work. That helped keep the locos out of works for their full shopping periodicity but boiler changes were still a main works job, however. In diesel days, compared to the ER where Diesel maintenance activity was generally carried out in one shed, the WR separated the locations because major component exchange (including Power Unit changes) was regarded by WR as a depot activity and you don’t do that in a servicing environment. On ER major component exchange was intended to be a works activity so the depot facilities were comparatively sparse.

So if you wanted to do a t/m change on a 47 at FP, it was Shop it to Crewe works but at OC you regarded it as a routine job and up on one of the sets of jacks in the Factory it went. The OC Factory crane could lift power units - FP could really only lift the likes of cylinder heads. But on the old ER the emphasis was very much on PPM - stop it going wrong and keep it going but on the WR the vibe was definitely more “change it out”.

 

[coppercapped]

The oil foreign exchange issue is sometimes misrepresented. Almost all the UK oil in the 1940s-50s came from places which were in the "Sterling Area", where it could be paid for with pounds. Bahrain, then the Gulf centre; Kuwait; even non-colonial countries like Iraq (left the Sterling area in 1959). So it wasn't foreign exchange which was wanted to buy the oil, because UK pounds were accepted there.

What was the government issue was they wanted the oil to be sold elsewhere instead, to the USA and others, to get foreign exchange for it, and to support the value of the pound (then 4 to the US dollar!). Oil production was not huge then and for it to be used in the UK meant it could not be a dollar export. It was difficult to tell members of the public not to buy cars, although there were attempts, but the newly-nationalised railways provided an opportune and easy single point to say "no more oil for you" to. Elsewhere, oil conversion carried on, notably with shipping where the remaining coal fired ships changed very quickly to oil, it was a major workstream for postwar shipyards with new boilers. Ironically this included the new BR's shipping fleet.

This is what did in the late 1940s steam loco oil firing programme. That had been driven by separate supply difficulties from the coal industry arising from complete lack of long-term investment during the war, coal seams were worked out, as they do, but no new ones had been developed. Once told to stop using oil and go back to coal, there would obviously be no chance of a diesel programme straight away. In government, Bevan, effectively the deputy to the prime minister, was an ex-miner from South Wales, and did not want to see any reduction in coal mining opportunities at the expense of oil from overseas. So just tell the railways what to do.

I must say that I haven’t come across this conspiracy theory for the building of steam locomotives before! But certainly you are correct in saying that there was no shortage of oil. In fact the country was awash with sufficient petrol, aviation spirit, diesel and bunker oil to keep an army of 2.9 million men in the field.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy publishes a time series of energy ‘production’ and areas of use. The figures for coal production in the relevant period (in million tons) were:

1942 208
1943 202
1944 196
1945 186
1946 193
1947 200
1948 210
1949 218
1950 219
1951 226
1952 228

Production suffered in the last couple of years of the war, but bounced back as soon as hostilities were ended; the surge in production pre-dates nationalisation and Bevan’s influence.
Coal consumption by the railways remained between 14 and 15 million tonnes per year from 1913-1922 to 1943-1952 after which it declined. The railways never used more than 8% of total coal production and that was in 1945, the worst year for production.
I see no indication of the coal supply difficulties to which you refer in the period when the decision was made to build more steam locomotives.

On the other hand it is a matter of record that the British Transport Commission (BTC) was very concerned about the Railway Executive’s (RE) rush for steam - but because of the curious structure created by nationalisation it couldn’t do anything about it.

The history of the relationships between the BTC and its various 'agents', the 'Executives' for the different modes of transport, is complex. The 1947 Act nationalising inland transport set up the BTC to encourage each form of transport to specialise in the types of services for which it was most suited. It also set up the public bodies known as 'Executives' to assist it in this task and act as its agents, but the Government - not the BTC - also appointed the heads of the Executives. The RE kept the Commission - which it saw more as a supervisory board - at arm's length by sending it only edited copies of its Minutes. It ran itself as if were a railway company operating in isolation.

The BTC was concerned about the need for the new designs of steam locomotives being promoted by the RE and the lack of interest shown by it in the potential of diesel traction. With this in mind, the BTC's records show that it took action after noting the speed with which the Executive was tackling the standardisation of steam motive power - the RE had set up the Locomotive Standards Committee on 8 January 1948 within a week of nationalisation. In April 1948, the same month that the locomotive exchanges took place, the BTC’s Chairman (Hurcomb) wrote to Sir Eustace Missenden, the Chairman of the RE, to express his dissatisfaction with the progress made in assessing the merits of different forms of traction. The reaction was grudging - over 8 months later, on 20 December 1948, a committee was set up under J. L. Harrington, the Chief Officer (Administration) at RE Headquarters to study other forms of traction. It finally reported at the end of 1951 - 3 1/2 years later.

One of the extraordinary features of the Harrington report was the very crude nature of the financial figures presented. The cost comparisons were for built cost - no effort was made to relate operating costs to different manning levels or utilisation or identify cost/ton-mile or per passenger-mile. It would seem that the RE had little need for financial analysis in deciding its traction policy, nor did it need the BTC to shove its oar in. Until electrification was practical it considered that modern steam locomotives should haul the trains.

The point to remember, and to accept, is that others at the time were critical of the choices made by the RE - but the organisation of the railway business following nationalisation made it impossible for anyone to change the policy. And if Bevan had whispered in anyone’s ear it would have had to have been Missenden’s (RE) as whispering in Hurcomb's (BTC) would have had no effect.

Edit: removed duplication, improved punctuation and grammar.

 

[Taunton]

I have to say that's a bit selective, starting the figures mid-war in 1942 when the production had already fallen way below the 1938-9 level of nearly 250m tons. There was a significant mines labour shortage which led to conscripts in the latter part of the war actually being diverted from joining the military to the mining industry, something which the postwar government actually carried on for longer after the war than during it (same as with rationing), until 1948. The conscripts were known as Bevin Boys, named after ... guess who again, from the government. Here's more detail and a better chart of production by year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevin_Boys

There are plenty of stories of shortage of coal on the railway in the late 1940s, which led to the initial oil fired scheme, and there were coal imports, mainly from the USA, which did not suit UK locomotives well at all. Of course the government thought all coal was the same. The bitter winters of the late 1940s, at a time when most home fuel was coal, were ill-served by all this. There were also incentives to export as much coal as possible, again for the foreign exchange, which had been banned in 1939-45 when all production was home market only.

 

[theblackwatch]

Not quite. I think you are reading the Book of the Castles incorrectly. Laira never carried out Generals on any steamer, let alone Castles. Only the GWR/WR main works did Generals or Intermediates and Castles were usually dealt with at Swindon, who kept the spare boiler stock for the class.

The locomotive factories were an integral part of the maintenance activity for that District because the GWR didn’t want their works bunged up with relatively minor work, like changing sets of wheels or carrying out complete retubes or serious stay work. That helped keep the locos out of works for their full shopping periodicity but boiler changes were still a main works job, however. In diesel days, compared to the ER where Diesel maintenance activity was generally carried out in one shed, the WR separated the locations because major component exchange (including Power Unit changes) was regarded by WR as a depot activity and you don’t do that in a servicing environment. On ER major component exchange was intended to be a works activity so the depot facilities were comparatively sparse.

So if you wanted to do a t/m change on a 47 at FP, it was Shop it to Crewe works but at OC you regarded it as a routine job and up on one of the sets of jacks in the Factory it went. The OC Factory crane could lift power units - FP could really only lift the likes of cylinder heads. But on the old ER the emphasis was very much on PPM - stop it going wrong and keep it going but on the WR the vibe was definitely more “change it out”.

That's extremely interesting to know how different the regional approaches were, even with diesels of the same Class. Presumably Stratford also did some of the larger ER work as well - or was that confined more to just the East Anglia based locos?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Stratford did a lot of GN & GE overhaul work in early diesel years but was closed as a main works after the Mitchell report in early 1960’s. That report led to the rationalisation of workshops and removal of their control from the regions into a separate organisation.

Stratford continued as a D.R.S. (District, later Diesel Repair Shop) and became the ER jobbing shop for unusual repairs, mods, component exchanges as well as such work as the two yearly underframe cleaning on cl.31. Again, the WR depots generally had their own fixed ufc facilities, the old ER had a programme of complete ufc being done periodically by lifting and the LMR really didn’t give their locos (or DMUs) that level of attention.

When the Gob DMU’s came to the Oak from Cricklewood in 1987, they had to go through the “elephant house” cleaning facility (the shed just in front of the Factory) twice before the staff would work on them. They were minging underneath which wasn’t the fault of CW - it was just the LMR regime.

Stratford had a brief resurgence doing overhaul activity in the late 1980’s & early 1990’s when, under the ill fated CEM regime, it became one of the sites for sector Level 5 overhauls.

 

[coppercapped]

I have to say that's a bit selective, starting the figures mid-war in 1942 when the production had already fallen way below the 1938-9 level of nearly 250m tons. There was a significant mines labour shortage which led to conscripts in the latter part of the war actually being diverted from joining the military to the mining industry, something which the postwar government actually carried on for longer after the war than during it (same as with rationing), until 1948. The conscripts were known as Bevin Boys, named after ... guess who again, from the government. Here's more detail and a better chart of production by year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevin_Boys

There are plenty of stories of shortage of coal on the railway in the late 1940s, which led to the initial oil fired scheme, and there were coal imports, mainly from the USA, which did not suit UK locomotives well at all. Of course the government thought all coal was the same. The bitter winters of the late 1940s, at a time when most home fuel was coal, were ill-served by all this. There were also incentives to export as much coal as possible, again for the foreign exchange, which had been banned in 1939-45 when all production was home market only.

My selection of dates for coal production wasn’t intended to be selective in the sense I think you mean, I simply chose the five years preceding nationalisation and the five years subsequent to it. However I do agree with you that at the end of the war the quality of coal being supplied to the railways was low, in many cases it was little more than pebbles and dust as the better qualities were being exported. Incidentally this was one of the reasons for the great smog in London in 1952: although the number of domestic hearths was slightly down to that pre-war most of the other installations had not changed significantly but nevertheless the air pollution was dramatically worse than anything experienced previously. One of the causes was thought to be the use of lower quality, high sulphur, softer coals compared to those burnt pre-war.

However the Railway Executive knew all about the difficulties in obtaining coal suitable for the railways, and in spite of this evidence decided to go ahead anyway and design its own steam locomotives. I am not arguing about the short term need to build new locomotives to more modern designs to replace those well past their retirement dates and those worn-out by their war exertions. The RE was well advised to build more of the latest ‘Big Four’ designs as the tooling already existed and little design work was needed so the locomotives could be produced quickly. In fact the RE built 1518 locos to designs of ‘The Big Four’ (source: Johnson and Long, ‘British Railways Engineering 1948-80’, published by Mechanical Engineering Publications Ltd., 1981. ISBN 0 85298 446 4) which was sensible. But the 999 ‘BR Standard’ designs were a complete waste of money - in most cases they were simply Big 4 designs but with new tooling and details. The design and engineering effort put into the ‘Standards’ would have been much better applied from 1948 onwards to the development of diesel locomotives and railcars.

This is not written with the benefit of hindsight - Cyril Hurcomb of the BTC had already recognised the problem early in 1948.

To get us back to diesel-hydraulics! The steam locomotive based engineering attitude of the RE was later reflected in the direction of BR’s mainline diesel locomotive development which produced large, heavy and underpowered machines. The Western wanted machinery which could fulfil the promise of the Modernisation Plan - and this required light train weights and a high power-weight ratio. It also had the management which was capable of understanding the commercial and engineering issues. Apart from H H Philips (assistant general manager) and K W C Grand (the regional general manager) the regional Chairman was R F Hanks who, although trained at Swindon left the railways in 1922 and joined Morris Motors. He was perfectly at home with high speed engines and non-electric transmissions and understood the need for high power-to-weight ratios in transport. The concepts of light-weight engines and repair by replacement were quite normal for them. It was the way that armies and air forces worked.

History has shown them to have been correct - the large, heavy, slow-revving Sulzer, and similar, engines were a dead-end in the days of fast trains.

 

[WesternLancer]

I have to say that's a bit selective, starting the figures mid-war in 1942 when the production had already fallen way below the 1938-9 level of nearly 250m tons. There was a significant mines labour shortage which led to conscripts in the latter part of the war actually being diverted from joining the military to the mining industry, something which the postwar government actually carried on for longer after the war than during it (same as with rationing), until 1948. The conscripts were known as Bevin Boys, named after ... guess who again, from the government. Here's more detail and a better chart of production by year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevin_Boys

There are plenty of stories of shortage of coal on the railway in the late 1940s, which led to the initial oil fired scheme, and there were coal imports, mainly from the USA, which did not suit UK locomotives well at all. Of course the government thought all coal was the same. The bitter winters of the late 1940s, at a time when most home fuel was coal, were ill-served by all this. There were also incentives to export as much coal as possible, again for the foreign exchange, which had been banned in 1939-45 when all production was home market only.

Interesting posts Taunton, but just to check are Bevin and Bevan getting mixed up? Post #91 cites Bevan (minister of Health and S Wales MP), this cites Bevin (minister of Labour, London MP and ex T&G leader - so not a mining union)

 

[Gloster]

Ernest Bevin, born on Exmoor and formerly of the T&GWU, was Foreign Secretary and effectively deputy to Clement Attlee in the 1945-1951 Labour Government. During World War II he had been Minister of Labour and had arranged for conscripts to go down the mines to bring an end to a Labour shortage (the Bevin Boys). Aneurin Bevan, father of the NHS and to whom we should all be eternally grateful, was an ex-miner and Minister of Health 1945-1951.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Not quite. I think you are reading the Book of the Castles incorrectly. Laira never carried out Generals on any steamer, let alone Castles. Only the GWR/WR main works did Generals or Intermediates and Castles were usually dealt with at Swindon, who kept the spare boiler stock for the class.

As you gently point out, I had indeed read the 'Castles' lists incorrectly. That book shows shed allocations and works visits in a single column, whereas the Warships lists have separate columns for allocations and works visits. I think I was seeing what I wanted to see, and made a stupid error.

The different regional policies are certainly interesting, and show how the former companies' policies took a while to be unified. The LMR did have satellite works (Rugby and Devons Road) which, I think, were still carrying out classified repairs in the 1950's.

If only I had been more observant in those days, instead of being intent on racing around sheds before being caught, writing down as many numbers as possible...