• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

1955 Diesel Locos

Status
Not open for further replies.

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,226
Location
Dyfneint
The bigger Ventura only ever made it in the 29s & the single 42 - plus a number for export, some even to Germany ( for further export ), and a fair amount of marine use - the engine wasn't related to the earlier more troublesome ones, it was a clean sheet. Maybe those helped get the Valenta deal. The smaller ones went into the 14s & 74s. There was also the YL which I'm a little surprised never made it into rail use here, but that one might have tripped over politics...

Other than the 210, all I can find is a test install on a Derby unit converted as a diesel-electric ( with, yes, the same engines as the 17 ) - if anyone knows more about that I'd love to find out, sounds quite a curiosity.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

etr221

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2018
Messages
1,350
In thinking about Riddles' decision to go for a range of standard steam locos in the first years of BR, three things to bear in mind - firstly, everyone then would have been well aware of the (then very recent) oil burning fiasco, which had seen much investment made and then wasted, when there was a realisation that the country couldn't afford the oil; second, at the time, the superiority of diesel was still unproven - his view was that the future was electric, once the investment could be afforded; and, third, the fact that he, and his chief assistants, had been young engineers on the LMS in the 1920s, not I think exactly a happy time, and had learnt a lesson in how not to integrate motive power fleets.

Perhaps the most interesting 'might have been' is that apparently GM/EMD made - about 1950 - an offer for their diesel engines to be licence built in Britain 'for the Empire Commonwealth' (I forget by whom) - not proceeded with, a subsequent policy change meant all EMD prime movers were made in the USA.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,132
Perhaps the most interesting 'might have been' is that apparently GM/EMD made - about 1950 - an offer for their diesel engines to be licence built in Britain 'for the Empire Commonwealth' (I forget by whom) - not proceeded with, a subsequent policy change meant all EMD prime movers were made in the USA.
Interesting but what did the GM unit offer over the home grown EE units at the time? The issues with EE locos were never with the prime mover? A more sensible approach to our homegrown products of evolution rather than revolution (BR's meddling with what became the 50 and then the hastily development of the 56 leaned towards the latter) may have seen our loco building industry survive?
 
Joined
3 Sep 2020
Messages
149
Location
Dublin
Perhaps the most interesting 'might have been' is that apparently GM/EMD made - about 1950 - an offer for their diesel engines to be licence built in Britain 'for the Empire Commonwealth' (I forget by whom)
Wasn't it Leyland - or was that a separate proposal to build complete locos?
 

Sir Felix Pole

Established Member
Joined
21 Oct 2012
Messages
1,394
Location
Wilmslow
The big advantage of Sulzer, which I've not seen mentioned, is that it was the only company at that time offering a single engine of 2300 - 2500 bhp. The LMS 'Twins', the SR versions and their Cl 40 successors were all seriously under-powered for fast, heavy trains. EE went down the route of DP1 and the Deltics with twin engines, but J F 'Freddie' Harrison, CME of the LMR (and later all BR) wasn't interested. Electrification was pending on the WCML, and he didn't like high-revving engines(x2) and the associated maintenance costs. Something was needed for the Midland Main Line however - hence the 'Peaks'.
It was fortunate that Vickers had a licence from Sulzer to build in the UK, to avoid the inevitable political flak if they had been supplied from Switzerland.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,132
The big advantage of Sulzer, which I've not seen mentioned, is that it was the only company at that time offering a single engine of 2300 - 2500 bhp. The LMS 'Twins', the SR versions and their Cl 40 successors were all seriously under-powered for fast, heavy trains. EE went down the route of DP1 and the Deltics with twin engines, but J F 'Freddie' Harrison, CME of the LMR (and later all BR) wasn't interested. Electrification was pending on the WCML, and he didn't like high-revving engines(x2) and the associated maintenance costs. Something was needed for the Midland Main Line however - hence the 'Peaks'.
It was fortunate that Vickers had a licence from Sulzer to build in the UK, to avoid the inevitable political flak if they had been supplied from Switzerland.
Bit ironic that given a few years of development the EE unit would happily produce 2700hp (and even higher as similar engine used in the 56) but the Sulzer had to be derated back to 2580hp when higher power outputs were demanded.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
11,174
Perhaps the most interesting 'might have been' is that apparently GM/EMD made - about 1950 - an offer for their diesel engines to be licence built in Britain 'for the Empire Commonwealth' (I forget by whom) - not proceeded with, a subsequent policy change meant all EMD prime movers were made in the USA.
Contrary to further longstanding comments, GM locos were extensively licence built overseas. Australia is only one example, where Clyde had the licence. Belgium, Spain, Sweden and others in Europe had their own licencee builders. Ireland was quite unusual in Europe in actually importing fully built GM locos from North America (many of GM's exports from there were not built in the USA but at their plant in London, Ontario, Canada).
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
992
GM were very protective of their reputation and CIE had to move heaven and earth to get power units for the A & C class rebuilds. An order for the 181 class and them proving they could do the rebuild changed GMs mind.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
11,174
CIE had really hit the bottom of the barrel in selecting Crossley to provide the bulk of their first generation diesel prime movers. Probably a worse experience than BR!
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,455
Location
Cambridge, UK
Contrary to further longstanding comments, GM locos were extensively licence built overseas. Australia is only one example, where Clyde had the licence. Belgium, Spain, Sweden and others in Europe had their own licencee builders. Ireland was quite unusual in Europe in actually importing fully built GM locos from North America (many of GM's exports from there were not built in the USA but at their plant in London, Ontario, Canada).
Did EMD ever allow licence building of their 2-stroke diesel engines ? Loco assembly yes, but I thought they always supplied the engines from La Grange (USA)?
 

billh

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2015
Messages
283
Why did Crossley fail with loco engines? They had a good reputation for stationary gas & oil engines. Their medium & small marine engines were also well regarded.
By the 1950's they had 70 years experience of engine building, one would think they knew what they were doing by then! They were also into car & bus building at various times
CIE had really hit the bottom of the barrel in selecting Crossley to provide the bulk of their first generation diesel prime movers. Probably a worse experience than BR!
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,226
Location
Dyfneint
There are problems with rail installations that just don't crop up in stationary or marine plant - the flexing was mentioned earlier discussing the Sulzer LDA, but there's also continual heat cycles from going on & off power so frequently which you don't find in more static applications, and much more restrictive packaging for cooling - amongst other issues like vibration and maintenance in steam depots. You'd think road engine experience might count but maybe there were matters of scale.

Feom reading discussions about the time it does seem EE and I guess Vickers had considerable influence when it came to drivetrain choice. EE gear has stood the test of time remarkably well, but that doesn't mean someone else didn't get shafted. Would have been interesting to see the WR use electric transmission with the same engines.
 
Last edited:

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
11,174
GM were very protective of their reputation and CIE had to move heaven and earth to get power units for the A & C class rebuilds. An order for the 181 class and them proving they could do the rebuild changed GMs mind.
Surprised they had this difficulty, given that by this time repowering of previous-generation Baldwins, etc, with GM prime movers in the USA were well known. More likely was that GM had CIE identified for new complete locos to replace the Metrovick/Crossleys, and the sales team would fight at management level against supplying only the engines instead. GM built a large number of individual engines, for electric generators, small ships, etc.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,383
Why did Crossley fail with loco engines? They had a good reputation for stationary gas & oil engines. Their medium & small marine engines were also well regarded.
By the 1950's they had 70 years experience of engine building, one would think they knew what they were doing by then! They were also into car & bus building at various times

Crossley built slow-speed two strokes. By implication big, heavy and low power:weight ratio. Not a problem on a ship, but a problem on a locomotive. Then add their system of pulse pressure charging - which seems to have been a problem. Being 2-strokes they would have been inefficient and smokey. Finally you have the complications mentioned above of using a marine engine in a rail application.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,833
In thinking about Riddles' decision to go for a range of standard steam locos in the first years of BR, three things to bear in mind - firstly, everyone then would have been well aware of the (then very recent) oil burning fiasco, which had seen much investment made and then wasted, when there was a realisation that the country couldn't afford the oil; second, at the time, the superiority of diesel was still unproven - his view was that the future was electric, once the investment could be afforded; and, third, the fact that he, and his chief assistants, had been young engineers on the LMS in the 1920s, not I think exactly a happy time, and had learnt a lesson in how not to integrate motive power fleets.

Perhaps the most interesting 'might have been' is that apparently GM/EMD made - about 1950 - an offer for their diesel engines to be licence built in Britain 'for the Empire Commonwealth' (I forget by whom) - not proceeded with, a subsequent policy change meant all EMD prime movers were made in the USA.
Another factor in the decision to build BR standard steam locos was that maintenance suffered during WW2, and BR had inherited many locos in poor condition, with many hundreds dating back as far as the 1880s. As Marples + Beeching had not been conceived, there was a need for rapid replacement of the old stock. In retrospect, things could have been done differently, with fewer standard designs, and if Fairburn (of LMSR) had lived a few years longer, he might have got the CME job instead of Riddles, and apparently he was more interested in "new traction" than some of his colleagues.

See https://www.steamindex.com/people/fairburn.htm

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fairburn
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,218
Location
Reading
In thinking about Riddles' decision to go for a range of standard steam locos in the first years of BR, three things to bear in mind - firstly, everyone then would have been well aware of the (then very recent) oil burning fiasco, which had seen much investment made and then wasted, when there was a realisation that the country couldn't afford the oil; second, at the time, the superiority of diesel was still unproven - his view was that the future was electric, once the investment could be afforded; and, third, the fact that he, and his chief assistants, had been young engineers on the LMS in the 1920s, not I think exactly a happy time, and had learnt a lesson in how not to integrate motive power fleets.

Perhaps the most interesting 'might have been' is that apparently GM/EMD made - about 1950 - an offer for their diesel engines to be licence built in Britain 'for the Empire Commonwealth' (I forget by whom) - not proceeded with, a subsequent policy change meant all EMD prime movers were made in the USA.
I have written about this before, but it bears repeating. The Railway Executive (RE), the agency of the British Transport Commission (BTC) which was responsible for the railways, did not understand that the world had changed dramatically from that of 1939.

Some 350,000 men had been killed during the War - all of them fit and most of them young. As the country reverted to a civilian economy there were serious labour shortages. Wages were increasing, it was becoming increasingly difficult to attract staff to the dirty jobs done during unsocial hours which is part of steam railway operations. Yet the RE continued to build motive power and operate train services using labour intensive technologies and methods as if it were still 1939.

The BTC was, from the very start, concerned that the RE was not studying the potential of newer forms of traction and wrote to the Railway Executive to this end in April 1948. In comparison to the RE’s speed in setting up its Locomotive Standards Committee on 8th January 1948, within a week of the RE being formed, its reaction to this letter was grudging. It set up a Committee in December 1948 which reported 2 1/2 years later - by which time the BR ‘Standard’ classes of steam locomotives were a fait accompli.

Essentially it had already made its mind up and wasn’t to be diverted from its chosen path. This isn’t to criticise the need to built a number of steam locomotives quickly to replace all those very worn out and ancient machines that would have gone earlier if the War had not intervened but this aim could have been achieved by building more of the modern and efficient Big Four designs than actually were built. The design effort spent on the ‘Standards’ could have gone into refining the existing main line diesels and railcars and operating these would have given valuable real-life experience. Another ten years of experience would have weeded out those lemons that the inexperienced BTC purchased as a result of the 1955 Modernisation Plan - by then it should have been clear which of Ruston, Paxman, Napier, English Electric, Sulzer, Crossley and so on and so forth should have received production orders.

And the staff would have been available to operate and maintain these trains. Technology had advanced tremendously during the War. Many, if not all, of those being demobbed had experience of high speed internal combustion engines - all those lorries, jeeps, tanks and aircraft - as well as electronic communications.

The issue about not being able to buy oil is a red herring. In 1946 there were 1.7 million private cars registered for use on the road and although petrol was rationed ordinary people could buy it. By 1950 there were nearly 2 million cars - if one includes buses, lorries, motorbikes and so on there were nearly 4 million road vehicles licenced. Much oil came from Persia which was in the Sterling Area and the crude paid for in Sterling. The country was awash with oil - it and the refining and distribution infrastructure had just driven armies across half of Europe, powered thousands of war planes and a huge fleet of ships. A few hundred, or even thousands of, gallons of oil for a few diesel locomotives and railcars would not even have been noticed.
 
Last edited:

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
10,832
Location
Up the creek
I was told many years ago that one factor was lobbying of the government by the domestic loco-builders once they realised that the BTC was looking at small trial orders and then standardising on a few designs. Their argument was on the lines of, “How can we win export orders if our own national railway does not purchase our designs?”
 

Strathclyder

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
3,452
Location
Clydebank
CIE had really hit the bottom of the barrel in selecting Crossley to provide the bulk of their first generation diesel prime movers. Probably a worse experience than BR!
I'd wager that the WAGR in Australia ended up copping it worse with their X Class locos. Oddly, they were the only ones to persist with the original Crossley powerplants as opposed to re-powering (CIE) or outright withdrawal (BR). Through extensive modifications, the last of the X Class family was withdrawn in March 1988. Not bad going, all things considered.
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,226
Location
Dyfneint
I have written about this before, but it bears repeating. The Railway Executive (RE), the agency of the British Transport Commission (BTC) which was responsible for the railways, did not understand that the world had changed dramatically from that of 1939.

And that, unfortunately, was not limited to railways. We also had all sorts of foreign technology to study by the end of the war, to rather mixed ends.

It's also worth noting that those private car figures are in spite of almost all production going to export to try and reduce the war debt.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
I'm not convinced that Paxman would have been significant -every UK rail application for their diesels prior to the Valenta seems to have been doomed to failure.
Class 15,16,17,27 and the one-off Warship, none took the market by storm. They only got things right with the Valenta in the HST. I suspect an earlier expansion using the early Ventura designs would have been a technical failure and put the company at risk.

Did they ever supply a DMU engine in the UK? I read somewhere that the engines in the Claytons were originally intended for railcar underfllor use.

210 001 had a Paxman above-floor engine, the 6RP200L, so effectively half an HST engine. I'm certain that's the only application of a Paxman engine in a multiple unit, rather than loco/HST power car in the UK. The other 210 unit had an MTU engine.

First generation DMU underfloor engines were all AEC or Leyland, with a very small number of Rolls Royce engines - the class 110s had these.
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,226
Location
Dyfneint
210 001 had a Paxman above-floor engine, the 6RP200L, so effectively half an HST engine. I'm certain that's the only application of a Paxman engine in a multiple unit, rather than loco/HST power car in the UK. The other 210 unit had an MTU engine.

First generation DMU underfloor engines were all AEC or Leyland, with a very small number of Rolls Royce engines - the class 110s had these.

As noted at the top of this page, there was a testbed install of the Paxman ZH in a Derby lightweight, complete with electric transmission. I'm finding it near impossible to get any info on it though. Quite a few 1st gen DMUs had RR engines.

I have wondered why RR never got into large diesels until they bought MTU ( I can't help feeling a certain sense of irony with that acquisition ) - you'd think all that aero engine experience would at least help building generators.
 

Pinza-C55

Member
Joined
23 May 2015
Messages
1,035
If you can get hold of a copy "British Rail Fleet Survey 1 Early Prototype And Pilot Scheme Diesel-Electrics" by Brian Haresnape (Ian Allan 1981) has lots of useful info and photos of the locos you are asking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top