Largest UK locomotive

[Quenfight]

What's the largest domestic (excluding le shuttle locos) locomotive, either diesel or electric that has operated in the UK, in terms of general size?

 

[Gloster]

As far as I can see the LMS Garratts were the longest, although only 7 1/2“ longer than the LNER U1, a difference that could be accounted for by buffer type. The U1 were significantly heavier.

Source: Wikipedia, so not guaranteed.

 

[D6130]

As far as I can see the LMS Garratts were the longest, although only 7 1/2“ longer than the LNER U1, a difference that could be accounted for by buffer type. The U1 were significantly heavier.

Source: Wikipedia, so not guaranteed.

In fairness, the OP did specify diesel or electric locomotives.

 

[signed]

A unverified guess but surely the new (incoming) Cl. 99 is in the running

 

[Gloster]

In fairness, the OP did specify diesel or electric locomotives.

Oops, missed that.

 

[ac6000cw]

The current class 70 I think, at 21.7m long and 135t fully fuelled weight (info from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_70_(diesel) )

The class 92 is probably the longest and heaviest electric loco (a little bit shorter than the cl. 70 diesel).

In reality, all of the modern GB six-axle locos are similar in length and weight - for freight you need to maximise the axle load and also for a diesel the fuel capacity.

 

[Richard Scott]

46s were probably heaviest at 141 tons.

 

[Magdalia]

46s were probably heaviest at 141 tons.

Though EE Type 4s were longer than BR Type 4s.

I only have the imperial measurements: EE Type 4s were 69'6" over buffers compared with 67'11" for BR Type 4s.

 

[Richard Scott]

Though EE Type 4s were longer than BR Type 4s.

I only have the imperial measurements: EE Type 4s were 69'6" over buffers compared with 67'11" for BR Type 4s.

Both EE type 4s, those being 40s and 50s were longer than 44/45/46s.
Bodyshell on its own is probably lighter than you'd expect, a class 45 shell minus power unit is about 40tons. Bogies are around 30tons a piece (with traction motors).

 

[D7666]

Neither on length nor weight, but on height and width then maybe the EMD SW1001s bought 1 each by (then) Foster Yeoman and Hanson for the Mendips quarries rank here somewhere.

OP did not exclude non BR / main line locos.

I can't yet locate dimensions of the precise SW1001 model but is updated version of SW1000 :

EMD SW1000 Data Sheet

Key data for this thread :

15 ft 0 in high

10 ft 3 in wide

Way bigger than GB main line loading gauge.

Also ~25.5 ton each axle - even Derby at it's most inept did not produce something that heavy.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Neither on length nor weight, but on height and width then maybe the EMD SW1001s bought 1 each by (then) Foster Yeoman and Hanson for the Mendips quarries rank here somewhere.

OP did not exclude non BR / main line locos.

I can't yet locate dimensions of the precise SW1001 model but is updated version of SW1000 :

EMD SW1000 Data Sheet

Key data for this thread :

15 ft 0 in high

10 ft 3 in wide

Way bigger than GB main line loading gauge.

Also ~25.5 ton each axle - even Derby at it's most inept did not produce something that heavy.

Is that this thing...? I'm fairly sure the high axle loading was a deliberate feature in order to assist with tractive effort while shunting around the quarries?

 

[bnsf734]

Yes thats the one, and dimensionally it will be the same as an EMD SW1000.

 

[ac6000cw]

According to the info here - https://www.american-rails.com/796330.html - SW1001 is lower height than an SW1000 (which didn't sell well to industrial customers due to its height).

SW1001 dimensions are 14' 3" tall, 10' 3" wide and 44' 8" long. Weight is 230000 lbs (104.3 tonnes). 57500 lbs starting tractive effort, 1000hp V8 645 series diesel engine.

The 26t axle load is on the light side for a US loco, but in keeping with the heavy shunting of 102t glw wagons and multi-thousand tonne trains at the quarries.

 

[DelW]

IIRC one of those EMDs tried to escape the confines of its quarry and go for a jaunt towards the main line. It had a coming together with the first overbridge, resulting in some restyling of the cab.

Incidentally the original owner of the second one was ARC, before various changes of name and ownership of the company.

 

[Ploughman]

Does the Quarry Diesel at Swinden Quarry on the Skipton Rylstone branch qualify for this thread?
I know it has made One trip at least to Skipton to recover wagons after the 1994 derailment in Skipton station during the remodelling work.

 

[Snow1964]

Though EE Type 4s were longer than BR Type 4s.

I only have the imperial measurements: EE Type 4s were 69'6" over buffers compared with 67'11" for BR Type 4s.

Metric is 21.18m and 20.70m

both shorter than a class 70 at 21.71m (71'3")

 

[ac6000cw]

IIRC one of those EMDs tried to escape the confines of its quarry and go for a jaunt towards the main line. It had a coming together with the first overbridge, resulting in some restyling of the cab.

Yes, even the 'low clearance' (by US standards) SW1001 is 18" taller than a cl. 08 .

As an aside, the steelworks at Port Talbot operated five US Alco S-1 switchers from 1950 to the early 1980s - roughly the same size as an SW1001 but a bit lighter at 90t and lower power. A few photos here - https://www.philt.org.uk/Industrial/PT/i-fb37mtz . One of them is at the Nene Valley Railway (in non-working condition) - https://www.flickr.com/photos/193003027@N04/53751432287

 

[Taunton]

Also ~25.5 ton each axle - even Derby at it's most inept did not produce something that heavy.

USA locos commonly have substantial axle loads to increase tractive effort. Not necessarily basic design as they are typically ballasted up to the desired weight with concrete blocks or even scrap steel. This varies by order, the locos in the UK would have had whatever ballasting was desired, possibly none - locos for USA lines with weight restrictions could be delivered like this.

Lesser known still than these GM switchers, but not dissimilar in appearance and likely weight, were five older Alco S1 switchers of USA style, bought by Port Talbot steelworks in 1949 and run inside the works until the 1980s. As they had UK buffers added outside the USA centre couplers they were probably even heavier than the standard Alco S1 +data sheets would suggest. Picture here:

ALCO Locomotives - IRPS Night Mail

The Night Mail Project and International Railway Preservation Society are dedicated to preserving the Wagons-Lits, postal and Continental Rail vehicles both on the Nene Valley Railway and abroad.

www.irps-wl.org.uk

 

[norbitonflyer]

I did wonder where the class 13s fitted into this.
60'1" (18.31 metres)
120 tons (122 tonnes)

So certainly very big considering their modest power output (just 700hp)
But tractive effort was their thing, 70,000lbf (better than a class 59)

 

[ac6000cw]

I did wonder where the class 13s fitted into this.
60'1" (18.31 metres)
120 tons (122 tonnes)

So certainly very big considering their modest power output (just 700hp)
But tractive effort was their thing, 70,000lbf (better than a class 59)

It's not better than a 59 - that figure is the maximum tractive effort for a class 13, and the equivalent for a 59 is 114,000lbf (506kN). Are you comparing maximum TE for the 13 with continuous TE for the 59?

From the BR mainline loco diagram book at http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/Locos/Book_No_100_EK_N2_web.pdf , the performance figures for a 59/0 are:



(Note the 8400 amps traction current at max. TE!)

...and from the shunting loco book at http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/Locos/Book_MT27_web.pdf for the class 13:



This is the main page for the BR diagram books on the Barrowmore Model Railway Group website - http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/Prototype.html

 

[norbitonflyer]

It's not better than a 59 - that figure is the maximum tractive effort for a class 13, and the equivalent for a 59 is 114,000lbf (506kN). Are you comparing maximum TE for the 13 with continuous TE for the 59?

I think I might be - the figure I found for class 13 didn't specify whether it was MTE or CTE. In their case I doubt there was a huge difference, given the job they were designed for.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

I seem to remember reading that 'Kestrel' was too heavy to run as built. It had to be placed on a pair of Class 47 bogies to get it's weight down. No idea how heavy it was originally, or it's axle-load.
Pat

 

[43096]

USA locos commonly have substantial axle loads to increase tractive effort. Not necessarily basic design as they are typically ballasted up to the desired weight with concrete blocks or even scrap steel. This varies by order, the locos in the UK would have had whatever ballasting was desired, possibly none - locos for USA lines with weight restrictions could be delivered like this.

CSX ordered (or modified) some of their AC traction locos with an additional approx 9 tonnes of weight for additional tractive effort - they also subsequently got HTE (High Tractive Effort) software upgrades to improve tractive effort even more.

 

[D7666]

USA locos commonly have substantial axle loads to increase tractive effort. Not necessarily basic design as they are typically ballasted up to the desired weight with concrete blocks or even scrap steel. This varies by order, the locos in the UK would have had whatever ballasting was desired, possibly none - locos for USA lines with weight restrictions could be delivered like this.

Lesser known still than these GM switchers, but not dissimilar in appearance and likely weight, were five older Alco S1 switchers of USA style, bought by Port Talbot steelworks in 1949 and run inside the works until the 1980s. As they had UK buffers added outside the USA centre couplers they were probably even heavier than the standard Alco S1 +data sheets would suggest. Picture here:

ALCO Locomotives - IRPS Night Mail

The Night Mail Project and International Railway Preservation Society are dedicated to preserving the Wagons-Lits, postal and Continental Rail vehicles both on the Nene Valley Railway and abroad.

www.irps-wl.org.uk

I rather think my facetious remark has by passed most of you .

I was not commenting on general weight of US traction but overweight of certain machinery from the Derby design school .

 

[Peterthegreat]

A Eurostar class 373 power car is 72 feet 8 inches (22.15m) long.

 

[Taunton]

I rather think my facetious remark has by passed most of you .

I was not commenting on general weight of US traction but overweight of certain machinery from the Derby design school .

I think it was a fairly straightforward comment; the weight of an initial 2,300hp Peak at I think 133 tons and requiring a 1Co-Co1 set of bogies contrasted with a Swindon Warship at 80 tons and half the number of wheels for much the same power.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I think it was a fairly straightforward comment; the weight of an initial 2,300hp Peak at I think 133 tons and requiring a 1Co-Co1 set of bogies contrasted with a Swindon Warship at 80 tons and half the number of wheels for much the same power.

and all-wheel drive. The Peaks and 40s couldn't even use all that weight for tractive adhesion

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2024 ==

I seem to remember reading that 'Kestrel' was too heavy to run as built. It had to be placed on a pair of Class 47 bogies to get it's weight down. No idea how heavy it was originally, or it's axle-load.
Pat

133 tons according to Wikipedia, slightly less than any Peak, but on only six axles so the axle weight was over specification.

 

[randyrippley]

Anyone got a figure for the weight of 10203?
I would have thought that would be heavier than a 40

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2024 ==

133 tons according to Wikipedia, slightly less than any Peak, but on only six axles so the axle weight was over specification.

but was that with the original Kestrel bogies, or with the replacement class 47 ones, which were lighter?

 

[norbitonflyer]

but was that with the original Kestrel bogies, or with the replacement class 47 ones, which were lighter?

The original ones

Railway Raptors

Noted in Wikipedia as 135 metric tonnes (133tons) as built, 126 metric (124 tons) after Brush bogies fitted - axle weight reduced from 22.2 tons to 21.5 tons - still over the max 21 ton limit.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2024 ==

Anyone got a figure for the weight of 10203?
I would have thought that would be heavier than a 40

SREmG

Enthusiasts, Historians, and Modellers of the Southern Railway, including its predecessors and successors, corresponding over the internet.

sremg.org.uk

135 tons for all three (although Wikipedia says 133). They were 63'9", so nearly six feet shorter than a "40"

 

[Richard Scott]

and all-wheel drive. The Peaks and 40s couldn't even use all that weight for tractive adhesion

Part of the issue was need for heavy locos due to widely used unfitted freights so wasn't much incentive to reduce weight considerably.
Warships also used monocoque technology whereas early British designed diesels were based around a frame. They also used high speed engines as opposed to heavy medium speed engines.