• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Why Was The UK Late To Run Diesels Compaired to Europe

Status
Not open for further replies.

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
657
...and the totally-counterproductive Big 4 rivalry that stifled any hope of a coherent national infrastructure plan. "Silo thinking" writ large. These rivalries persisted well into the sixties amongst "the old guard".

I remember several times hearing the station announcer at Reading General, rolling his Western "rrrr's", state, "This is a Southern Region Train, and not for Public Use!".

True they were for diverted services but the mindset showed.

There was also a sign on a door there saying, "SR Motormen Only".

On the post-war diesel issue, I think that the USA was probably the place to look for the technology, rather than Europe. It had plenty of oil.

WAO
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,081
It appears that West Germany took a strategic national decision in 1951 to stop production of hard coal due to cost/difficulty of extraction and concentrate on lignite ("brown coal") production, mainly for power station use. What hard coal they then used was imported from the east - Romanian, Poland, Ukraine were the remaining significant producers. I wonder to what extent that forced DB's hand in switching away from steam? Lignite is totally useless for transport use.
As far as I can see France never had much hard coal production, so had an even bigger impetus to electrify
 

billio

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2012
Messages
496
Probably at that time the British government, unlike other European countries, didn't think about sustaining post-war passenger growth at the peak of public transport, instead letting it wither. I also think the ill-fated Modernisation Plan may have also brought a wide range of factors to this problem, not helped by letting a large number of manufacturers produce models that varied in reliability. Ultimately this destroyed the image of the railways for years to come. It would've been better off had BR electrified main line routes, which of those that did get electrified received much success, instead of relying on compromises that failed to understand changing trends in passenger and freight traffic.
I read somewhere that Riddles wanted to electrify as much as possible and use large steam locomotives to move coal from pit-head to power station.
 

52290

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2015
Messages
548
It appears that West Germany took a strategic national decision in 1951 to stop production of hard coal due to cost/difficulty of extraction and concentrate on lignite ("brown coal") production, mainly for power station use. What hard coal they then used was imported from the east - Romanian, Poland, Ukraine were the remaining significant producers. I wonder to what extent that forced DB's hand in switching away from steam? Lignite is totally useless for transport use.
As far as I can see France never had much hard coal production, so had an even bigger impetus to electrify
There were quite a lot of oil-fired steam locos in France after the war. The American built 141R class were all oil-fired in the south of France. West Germany also had a fair number of oil-fired class 44, 50 and 01 etc.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
Oil fired steam only worked when the less-efficient oil refineries had a substantial residue product, called Bunker C, which could be burned in the loco firebox at a cheap rate. As refineries developed and recirculated this for more standard product the supply fell away. In the USA oil firing on the west coast was pretty standard, many older refineries and the nearest coal 1,500 miles away.

France had a lot of older coal mines, centred around Lille and straddling the border into Belgium, which is why their smokestack industries were concentrated there.
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
From a documentary I watched, the UK wanted to go from coal powered steam engines to electric traction using coal power stations. Although no political entanglements mentioned earlier in the thread were mentioned, the main reason for avoiding oil based traction was simply geography. We had coal in spades right here under our feet, oil at the time was on the other side of the world and the UK had no control over it.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
and the totally-counterproductive Big 4 rivalry that stifled any hope of a coherent national infrastructure plan. "Silo thinking" writ large. These rivalries persisted well into the sixties amongst "the old guard".
Considering they were effectively regional why did there need to be a coherent national infrastructure plan? Each company was huge enough for economies of scale.
The four companies might have taken different paths but they would have changed quicker and less painlessly once one was clearly doing better commercially.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Post-war investment in Europe took them quickly from steam direct to electric, while we messed about with another steam generation and then a raft of unsatisfactory diesels.
From a documentary I watched, the UK wanted to go from coal powered steam engines to electric traction using coal power stations. Although no political entanglements mentioned earlier in the thread were mentioned, the main reason for avoiding oil based traction was simply geography. We had coal in spades right here under our feet, oil at the time was on the other side of the world and the UK had no control over it.
I think approach to electrification was part of it. In 1939 many Continental countries had quite extensive electrification but the UK had only some fairly short suburban routes, plus Woodhead under construction. Extending existing electrification is always likely to be easier than starting from scratch, because part of the route is probably done already and there is the operating experience and the knowledge that it actually works. Plus the Continent had suffered more badly from war damage so there was a need for more thorough re-building, whereas Britain's network had got through the war by patch and mend and the same continued until 1956. That Plan signalled the end of steam, but when some planned electrification didn't happen there was a need for new traction which had to be diesels.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
I also think the UK completed dieselisation in 1968 quite a way ahead of other mainstream European countries, which invalidates the original thread title. France, Germany, USSR continued well beyond this date with steam.

There are also a series of myths about the advances in European countries. Stories about the German "Flying Hamburger" diesel unit (it was only a 2-car set) showing how advanced they were - yet here the GWR alone built more diesel railcars pre-war than the German DR did. The UK had by 1939 the very substantial Southern electrification, to Brighton, Portsmouth, etc, which I think carried more passengers per day than any other country's electric system.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,598
Location
Somerset
They had around 127 V200s (2200hp or around 2500hp in later build - can't remember precise value) which were certainly express passenger locos (I know they were really mixed traffic but so we're many of ours) and 419 218s (2500-2800hp) along with 150 215s (1900 - 2500hp) all of which were 140km/h machines and widely used on passenger work. Would say that's a similar number of locos in that power range to what we had.
Other than the V200s, they didn't really put in an appearance until the mid 1960s - the final 218s being 1969. In terms of tractive effort they would compare with a 37 but couldn't match its top speed. I suspect one of the key points was that while DB's procurement was at least as politically steered as BRs (leading to batches of Class 111 express electric locos coming straight off the production line to work 4-coach S-Bahn services, simply to keep the factory in work), they knew how to do that procurement. Look at any major DB class and you'll see a small batch of prototypes followed two or three years later by the series build (or in a few cases not!). How many BR classes had that luxury essential element?
The classic here is possibly the 628 dmu. Prototypes first built 1974-75 - production series from 1986 - 1996.
 

CW2

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2020
Messages
1,922
Location
Crewe
Other than the V200s, they didn't really put in an appearance until the mid 1960s - the final 218s being 1969. In terms of tractive effort they would compare with a 37 but couldn't match its top speed. I suspect one of the key points was that while DB's procurement was at least as politically steered as BRs (leading to batches of Class 111 express electric locos coming straight off the production line to work 4-coach S-Bahn services, simply to keep the factory in work), they knew how to do that procurement. Look at any major DB class and you'll see a small batch of prototypes followed two or three years later by the series build (or in a few cases not!). How many BR classes had that luxury essential element?
The classic here is possibly the 628 dmu. Prototypes first built 1974-75 - production series from 1986 - 1996.
That's an interesting analysis, but I'm not 100% in agreement. Comparing a DB 218 to a BR 37 ignores the way they were used by their respective railways. The 218s were used almost exclusively on passenger services, very often in pairs if the route gradients or trailing load required it. Their maximum speed of 140 kmh equals 87 mph and was regularly achieved on their IC trains, whereas 37s struggled to achieve 90 mph, and were later regeared for 80 mph on refurbishment.
Also the German system of building a small prototype fleet followed by a big production run doesn't always succeed. The class 120 electric fleet is a case in point.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,598
Location
Somerset
That's an interesting analysis, but I'm not 100% in agreement. Comparing a DB 218 to a BR 37 ignores the way they were used by their respective railways. The 218s were used almost exclusively on passenger services, very often in pairs if the route gradients or trailing load required it. Their maximum speed of 140 kmh equals 87 mph and was regularly achieved on their IC trains, whereas 37s struggled to achieve 90 mph, and were later regeared for 80 mph on refurbishment.
Also the German system of building a small prototype fleet followed by a big production run doesn't always succeed. The class 120 electric fleet is a case in point.
Granted - the 120s never really covered themselves in glory, though at least one of their early problems seems to have been more a defect in manufacturing (there's German quality for you!) rather than a design fault which a prototype would show up.

I suppose the bit of the question I was looking at was "Therefore, my question is how did say the German and the French Railways manage to run reliable Diesels during 1948 to say 1970 or did they have the same problems with their locos and did they change designs every 10 years and do many change outs in the fifties and sixties."

As far as German "mainline" diesel locos are concerned, they didn't have the same problems - they found a couple of things that worked and basically stuck to them - tweaking as necessary. However, they also took things more slowly, with steam surviving until 1977 and no significant (given the size of the network) build of "heavy" dmus (as opposed to railbuses) until the late 1980s, so didn't tend find themselves with a far greater quantity of unreliable or unsuitable (or both) locos than they had trains to run them on, as we did - class 14 being the classic example!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I also think the UK completed dieselisation in 1968 quite a way ahead of other mainstream European countries, which invalidates the original thread title. France, Germany, USSR continued well beyond this date with steam.
But the UK dieselised over a shorter period than those other countries, having very few diesel locomotives until the late 1950s. Thus, I suspect, the twin issues of the replacement of steam locos well before their planned lifetime, and the over-hasty procurement of unproven diesel designs.
 

chorleyjeff

Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
673
Probably not as a class 40 is only about equivalent to a class 5. You might have seen the 5MT and smaller built as diesels but you would still have to wait for the Sulzer type 4 designs to come on stream for anything more powerful. Or maybe the class 50 engine would have come earlier.
But the diesels couldn't have been easily built in volume in the BR workshops anyway - neither Derby or Crewe were able to keep up production rates on the Peaks, while Swindon was said to be expensive with no effective production management. And that was AFTER the BR workshops had been updated. Ten years earlier they wouldn't have coped

Did you ever see 5MTs and EE type 4s working alongside each other in day to day service? Would seem not.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
The greatest example of success of early dieselisation is normally given as the USA, which had got well into it by the 1940s. Yet it is apparent that in main line service locos were often replaced after some 10 years, and reading accounts of those who were around at the time, it is apparent why, generally with fundamental design issues being cracked, alas only one at a time. General Motors is often quoted as "the best" so especially notable the issues with them. Their early diesels, streamliners (even for freight) were done so with corridor connections because the radiator shutters were manually controlled, the fireman having to work up and down the loco set to handle them before, especially in deep winter, the coolant might freeze or boil. Anti freeze was not possible because a very longstanding issue was water leaks, there needing to be substantial drain holes in the loco floor, and refilling the coolant more than once a day as locos aged. The engine room interior, which the fireman had to negotiate in each unit, was often awash with coolant, with a substantial film of lubricating oil on top.

Of course, if you have a four-unit diesel set, a normal early type, having one of them shut down doesn't give the same issues as in Europe with a single loco.

Where they did score, over just about anything in Europe, was simple design, common parts across the range, and an excellent spare parts distribution system and servicing manuals.
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
1,988
Location
Dyfneint
Where they did score, over just about anything in Europe, was simple design, common parts across the range, and an excellent spare parts distribution system and servicing manuals.

I think I've mentioned before that some of the later US steamers just about equalled overall costs of the equivalent amount of diesel power at the time. I can't remember where I saw the figures but they're fairly readily available I think.

*EMD* did well - Alco, Baldwin etc, not so much ( Alco at least improved a bit eventually ) - which leads me to wonder if any notable steam builder anywhere made a really good job of diesels.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,867
Location
Airedale
They had around 127 V200s (2200hp or around 2500hp in later build - can't remember precise value) which were certainly express passenger locos (I know they were really mixed traffic but so we're many of ours) and 419 218s (2500-2800hp) along with 150 215s (1900 - 2500hp) all of which were 140km/h machines and widely used on passenger work. Would say that's a similar number of locos in that power range to what we had.
A good point - TBH I hadnt realised quite how many of the V160 design had been built (218 etc).
At the same time the standard electric locos E10/40 (110/140 and variants) numbered some 1250, and that's without the E03/103s, the 6-axle types and the prewar electrics.
Perhaps I should say that main line diesels formed a much smaller proportion of the DB fleet compared with BR.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
I think I've mentioned before that some of the later US steamers just about equalled overall costs of the equivalent amount of diesel power at the time. I can't remember where I saw the figures but they're fairly readily available I think.

*EMD* did well - Alco, Baldwin etc, not so much ( Alco at least improved a bit eventually ) - which leads me to wonder if any notable steam builder anywhere made a really good job of diesels.
I'll offer Kolomna, from Russia, as having been a major producer all the way through to today

Kolomna Locomotive Works - Wikipedia

But generally, major manufacturers of products, of any sort, do not last for generations. They come and go. General Motors is of course now out of the diesel market.

Regarding the practicality of US large steam, I read that when the Union Pacific 4-6-6-4 Challenger was restored and running just odd excursions in the US west, the desirable coal was in Pennsylvania. Some five hopper cars were in exclusive service running to and fro with coal, just to keep one loco and these periodic outings going. Eventually the loco was converted to oil firing, the residual (and cheap) Bunker C low-grade fuel oil still being readily available in the western USA.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,995
But generally, major manufacturers of products, of any sort, do not last for generations. They come and go. General Motors is of course now out of the diesel market.
Exactly, especially when big leaps in technology take place. Adaptation and innovation are both key.

We're seeing it in the car industry where the Germans have been a little late and need to quickly develop the battery technology to match their expertise in petrol/diesel engines. Get it wrong and your product quickly becomes obsolete (try telling kids today about when Nokia and Blackberry were market leaders in mobiles!).
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
Granted - the 120s never really covered themselves in glory, though at least one of their early problems seems to have been more a defect in manufacturing (there's German quality for you!) rather than a design fault which a prototype would show up.
The 120s came out at a time when technology was moving on rapidly and DB were looking at what they needed for the new high speed lines. It could be argued that the 120 ICE1 power cars were the follow-on order to the 120s.
As far as German "mainline" diesel locos are concerned, they didn't have the same problems - they found a couple of things that worked and basically stuck to them - tweaking as necessary. However, they also took things more slowly, with steam surviving until 1977 and no significant (given the size of the network) build of "heavy" dmus (as opposed to railbuses) until the late 1980s, so didn't tend find themselves with a far greater quantity of unreliable or unsuitable (or both) locos than they had trains to run them on, as we did - class 14 being the classic example!
Class 14 is an interesting one, as the specification was almost identical to the DB V60 design, many of which are still in service today. Just shows the different nature of the railway between the UK and Germany!
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,121
Location
Cambridge, UK
Regarding the practicality of US large steam, I read that when the Union Pacific 4-6-6-4 Challenger was restored and running just odd excursions in the US west, the desirable coal was in Pennsylvania. Some five hopper cars were in exclusive service running to and fro with coal, just to keep one loco and these periodic outings going. Eventually the loco was converted to oil firing, the residual (and cheap) Bunker C low-grade fuel oil still being readily available in the western USA.
The recently rebuilt/restored UP 'Big Boy' 4-8-8-4 has also been converted to oil firing (they were all originally coal fired). Many of the Challengers were converted from coal to oil firing after WW2 while in normal service.

And of course, much of the Southern Pacific steam loco fleet was oil burning (for the fuel cost/availability reasons you mention) - which allowed the development of the SP 'Cab-Forward' articulated locos by Baldwin (rotate loco through 180 degrees, attach tender to smokebox end of loco and pipe fuel oil and water through to firebox/cab).

I think I've mentioned before that some of the later US steamers just about equalled overall costs of the equivalent amount of diesel power at the time. I can't remember where I saw the figures but they're fairly readily available I think.

AFAIK, the Norfolk & Western railroad went on record (in the late 1940s/early 50's I think) to say their modern big steam power was as economical as diesel power.

But remember they made their money hauling high quality coal out of the mountains to the Atlantic coast (so their fuel costs were low as it was on the doorstep, and burning coal was good for customer relations), they designed and built the locos themselves to suit the operations, stayed with compounding for maximum fuel economy, installed coaling bunkers over the mainline tracks (so locos didn't have to come off trains to refuel) and streamlined the day-to-day servicing operations as much as possible etc.

In other words if any US railroad could keep big, modern, steam competitive with diesels, it was probably the N&W. But even they were fully dieselised by 1962, so what does that say about the relative economics of steam versus diesel?

*EMD* did well - Alco, Baldwin etc, not so much ( Alco at least improved a bit eventually ) - which leads me to wonder if any notable steam builder anywhere made a really good job of diesels.
Alco did OK - they invented the 'road switcher' loco design well before EMD embraced it, their diesel engines were generally OK (with the exception of the 244 series) and the GE electrical equipment was good - Alco's were regarded as better 'luggers' than EMD products. But they seemed to have too much historical baggage and never got their production costs as low as EMD, so in the end just pulled out of the US loco market and concentrated on other, more profitable, things instead (their affiliates and licensees in other countries carried on producing the Alco designs for some considerable time afterwards though).

It was difficult for a major steam loco manufacturer like Baldwin (the largest US steam builder) to change to diesels - your main market was going into sharp decline while at the same time you were having to develop and market a new, unfamiliar, product range to replace it. Plus you need a lot fewer diesel locos than steam to haul the same amount of traffic, so your huge production facilities and headcount were going to have to be downsized to match your likely production needs. Alco did a lot better because they were much more serious about diesels earlier on, and had a partnership with GE for a good while (until GE decided to go it alone and market their own mainline diesels in competition, which was probably the beginning of the end for Alco, really).
 
Last edited:

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
1,988
Location
Dyfneint
AFAIK, the Norfolk & Western railroad went on record (in the late 1940s/early 50's I think) to say their modern big steam power was as economical as diesel power.

But remember they made their money hauling high quality coal out of the mountains to the Atlantic coast (so their fuel costs were low as it was on the doorstep, and burning coal was good for customer relations), they designed and built the locos themselves to suit the operations, stayed with compounding for maximum fuel economy, installed coaling bunkers over the mainline tracks (so locos didn't have to come off trains to refuel) and streamlined the day-to-day servicing operations as much as possible etc.

In other words if any US railroad could keep big, modern, steam competitive with diesels, it was probably the N&W. But even they were fully dieselised by 1962, so what does that say about the relative economics of steam versus diesel?

I think the NYC also - but they'd have been comparing with some of the earliest generations. Once running & maintenance costs come down as tech matures, just straight up thermal efficiency will let the diesel win...

( there actually appears to be some data on Wikip on the NYC Niagras from 1946 trials, which is probably taking it from whatever I read in the past. E7s weren't exactly the most high-tech... ).
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
Alco did a lot better because they were much more serious about diesels earlier on, and had a partnership with GE for a good while (until GE decided to go it alone and market their own mainline diesels in competition, which was probably the beginning of the end for Alco, really).
Alco were the longstanding user of GE electricals, and once GE started to do their own locos that was really the end of things for them. They had to move on to Westinghouse electrics, which didn't have the reputation, spares support, or indeed reliability. The Alco concessionaire in Canada, Montreal Locomotive Works (MLW) continued in business after Alco USA shut down, in significant part because GE didn't market locos in Canada for a long time, and continued to make their electrics available to MLW.

Both GM and Alco made their designs available overseas, with varying proportions of local contribution, but the leader must be Alco, whose design was adopted as the mainstream in both the Soviet Union and India, both building thousands of them. GM were more selective, but latterly became of course widespread all round the world. Most of these export units were built at the GM Canadian plant in London, Ontario, and the third world locos formed a considerable proportion of Canadian "third world aid".

That actually brings us back to a point from the original post, because I've seen more than once that GM would not make their diesel designs available for European/UK building. This ignores that they did so in many other European markets, including some that wanted to build them at home. Ireland bought GM direct from the USA, but Nohab in Sweden built GM designs for various Scandinavian countries and even Hungary. Ireland is an interesting one, because having bought sufficient locos in the mid-1950s to dieselise most of the system, engined by Crossley (uh-oh), by the early 1960s CIE were already on to their second generation, wholly GM, which included re-engining all the Crossleys.
 
Last edited:

Pigeon

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2015
Messages
802
General Motors is often quoted as "the best" so especially notable the issues with them. Their early diesels, streamliners (even for freight) were done so with corridor connections because the radiator shutters were manually controlled, the fireman having to work up and down the loco set to handle them before, especially in deep winter, the coolant might freeze or boil. Anti freeze was not possible because a very longstanding issue was water leaks, there needing to be substantial drain holes in the loco floor, and refilling the coolant more than once a day as locos aged. The engine room interior, which the fireman had to negotiate in each unit, was often awash with coolant, with a substantial film of lubricating oil on top.

Interesting contrast with the British approach of controlling the radiator shutters automatically - using some kind of godawful Heath Robinson rig which sort of worked when it was new but rapidly fell to bits, whereupon the engine shut down. Or blew up. All different designs but none of them actually any good, and they were still running into the same silly problem when the HSTs came along. I guess the fireman was more dependable overall. I wonder if the US also had punkah-wallahs instead of hydrostatically driven radiator fans.

Keeping the coolant inside the engine was another standard British problem too. Also, inside the right bit of the engine, ie. the cooling system and not the crankcase. Same "solution": use lots of water, don't bother with antifreeze. Consequence: absence of the corrosion protection provided by antifreeze causing engines to suffer from obstructed coolant passages; overheating and localised hot spots, cracked/warped cylinder heads, more leaks.

It's remarkable just how much of the unreliability of British diesels was caused not by problems with the engines themselves but by ancillary equipment failing, for reasons which were often silly to begin with and were invariably made silly when they responded to them by repeating the same temporary cobble-it-together-with-string-and-gaffer-tape procedures for years on end - I think in some cases even to the extent of having to make special supply and disposal arrangements to ensure the availability of enough string and gaffer tape and make it possible to get rid of all the soggy ends from the previous iteration. Perhaps the worst example is steam heat boilers causing more failures during winter than everything else put together. Three or four different designs, none of them were any good, and instead of fixing the problems at source they just carried on for ever swearing at the things for being rubbish.

Though even the steam heat boiler problems aren't as awful as the obstinate persistence with institutionalised sabotaging of engines under the guise of maintenance. Attempting to refurbish injectors themselves instead of returning them to the manufacturer, by grinding worn needles back to the correct profile, going through the case hardening and then using them in service on the soft metal. Such a ruined injector would give a good spray pattern on the test rig but would only last a few hours in service before it didn't any more; consequences, high fuel consumption, claggy exhaust, hot spots caused by carbon deposits, disruption of cylinder lubrication causing increased wear, fuel oil in the crankcase disrupting lubrication systemically causing increased wear of everything and leading to a need to build special plants for dealing with all the diesely crankcase oil. It's a tribute to the basic soundness of the design of the Sulzer and EE designs that ended up as "standards" that they could still keep going for years with stuff like this to cope with.
 

Cheshire Scot

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2020
Messages
1,331
Location
North East Cheshire
Did you ever see 5MTs and EE type 4s working alongside each other in day to day service? Would seem not.
The more successful type 2 designs such as classes 24,25,26,27 would be more akin - and probably slightly superior to - a steam class 5, with class 40 perhaps superior to Royal Scots, Jubilees and V2s and noting on the West Coast Main Line they did replace Stanier Pacifics
 
Last edited:

Pigeon

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2015
Messages
802
Well... they were used on the same kind of duties as Stanier Pacifics, but they were not in the same class. The only things that would have been were the Deltics.

BR did seem to persistently underestimate the power output required of a diesel to match a given class of steam, which is a bit odd, seeing how the early developments were so closely related to the two LMS prototypes and the LMS had already found that they were not up to top link work unless the both of them were used together to add up to a Deltic-class machine. The modest increase from 1600hp to 2000hp with the Class 40 is a long way short of doubling the output!

One advantage of steam is that a steam engine has a short term peak output capability greatly in excess of its continuous power output, whereas with a diesel yer lot is yer lot and that's all yer got. So to match a steam engine's short term output requires a diesel to be specified with that much continuous output, and this can make it very large. For high speed passenger work the continuous output figure for steam is more closely relevant, but the early diesels fell short even on that.

Gerry Fiennes understood the need to avoid skimping on diesel power output but not a lot of other people did. He kept asking for a 4000hp locomotive, but they never gave him any.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,996
Willink served as part of the Beveridge Commission and his White Paper was the Tory proposal to implement it.

https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/national-health-service-white-paper
But it was a coalition govt of course, so the dynamics in side the co-alition are important - historians recognise that the Labour members of the coalition as ministers were more heavily engaged in the domestic policy development areas, perhaps / probably more so than the Conservative members. But this is off topic to this thread of course.
PS - just realised that was a failry old post in the original thread - had not spotted the date!
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
The great irony was that there was quite a bit of enthusiasm for electrification amongst some of the pre-grouping companies (including L&Y, MR and NE), if the LNER and LMS had continued that in the way the Southern did then we would have had less of a need for diesels to replace steam.

The LNER did continue it though - it's just that WW2 got in the way.

Don't forget Woodhead and Liverpool St - Shenfield were LNER plans which were scuppered by WW2 and then completed post WW2 by BR.
 

36270k

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2015
Messages
210
Location
Trimley
Interesting contrast with the British approach of controlling the radiator shutters automatically - using some kind of godawful Heath Robinson rig which sort of worked when it was new but rapidly fell to bits, whereupon the engine shut down. Or blew up. All different designs but none of them actually any good, and they were still running into the same silly problem when the HSTs came along. I guess the fireman was more dependable overall. I wonder if the US also had punkah-wallahs instead of hydrostatically driven radiator fans.

Keeping the coolant inside the engine was another standard British problem too. Also, inside the right bit of the engine, ie. the cooling system and not the crankcase. Same "solution": use lots of water, don't bother with antifreeze. Consequence: absence of the corrosion protection provided by antifreeze causing engines to suffer from obstructed coolant passages; overheating and localised hot spots, cracked/warped cylinder heads, more leaks.

It's remarkable just how much of the unreliability of British diesels was caused not by problems with the engines themselves but by ancillary equipment failing, for reasons which were often silly to begin with and were invariably made silly when they responded to them by repeating the same temporary cobble-it-together-with-string-and-gaffer-tape procedures for years on end - I think in some cases even to the extent of having to make special supply and disposal arrangements to ensure the availability of enough string and gaffer tape and make it possible to get rid of all the soggy ends from the previous iteration. Perhaps the worst example is steam heat boilers causing more failures during winter than everything else put together. Three or four different designs, none of them were any good, and instead of fixing the problems at source they just carried on for ever swearing at the things for being rubbish.

Though even the steam heat boiler problems aren't as awful as the obstinate persistence with institutionalised sabotaging of engines under the guise of maintenance. Attempting to refurbish injectors themselves instead of returning them to the manufacturer, by grinding worn needles back to the correct profile, going through the case hardening and then using them in service on the soft metal. Such a ruined injector would give a good spray pattern on the test rig but would only last a few hours in service before it didn't any more; consequences, high fuel consumption, claggy exhaust, hot spots caused by carbon deposits, disruption of cylinder lubrication causing increased wear, fuel oil in the crankcase disrupting lubrication systemically causing increased wear of everything and leading to a need to build special plants for dealing with all the diesely crankcase oil. It's a tribute to the basic soundness of the design of the Sulzer and EE designs that ended up as "standards" that they could still keep going for years with stuff like this to cope with.
The mechanical radiator shutters on GM locos was only on the FT model from 1939 to 1946. They later went to AC motor driven fans from 1947 onwards.
The early 567 engines did have water leaks that were eliminated on the 567C model engine.
 

gg1

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
1,895
Location
Birmingham
The LNER did continue it though - it's just that WW2 got in the way.

Don't forget Woodhead and Liverpool St - Shenfield were LNER plans which were scuppered by WW2 and then completed post WW2 by BR.
The LNER didn't start work on electrification until the late 30s, 15 years after grouping, so I wouldn't really call it a continuation. The LNER of the 1920s didn't inherit the NER's enthusiasm for electrification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top