The Cl 56 build in Romania - what was the reason for this bizarre decision

[70014IronDuke]

Taken from here as it was suffering thread drift in extremis

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...der-the-1955-modernisation-plan.197351/page-2

... That ten years coincided with the closure or mothballing of all the privately owned loco assembly plants - remember Brush had to subcontract their share of the 56 contract overseas because they no longer had a capable work force

Hmmmm. Did Brush really do this - sub-contract, I mean?

In any case, I question that. In my opinion, the whole Cl 56 Romania build fiasco was a political decision made in 1974 to cosy up to the Ceausescu govt - seen at the time as some sort of 'liberal' communist govt (which in itself was a total balls up by the Foreign Office). The FCO believed Romania could be "eased away" from the Soviet orbit. This policy resulted in the Ceausescus visiting Buck House on an official visit.

It's true that Ceausescu's policy was somewhat separate from Moscow, but that didn't make him in any way liberal. As one Romanian I know put it: If you've got Ceausescu and his Missus in charge, who needs the Soviets?

Back to the 56s.

The story that we put together was that BRB, by deciding that BR needed 60 (?) Cl 56s to a stupidly short deadline meant Brush could not do all the work.

Every trainee draughtsman and the tea lady in Derby were incredulous at this decision to build in Romania and knew it would backfire - as indeed, it did. So, in the end, BR got its 60 powerful freight locos in the same time as if it had ordered the lot from Brush/Doncaster in the first place - just at higher cost.

 

[hexagon789]

Taken from here as it was suffering thread drift in extremis

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...der-the-1955-modernisation-plan.197351/page-2



Hmmmm. Did Brush really do this - sub-contract, I mean?

In any case, I question that. In my opinion, the whole Cl 56 Romania build fiasco was a political decision made in 1974 to cosy up to the Ceausescu govt - seen at the time as some sort of 'liberal' communist govt (which in itself was a total balls up by the Foreign Office). The FCO believed Romania could be "eased away" from the Soviet orbit. This policy resulted in the Ceausescus visiting Buck House on an official visit.

It's true that Ceausescu's policy was somewhat separate from Moscow, but that didn't make him in any way liberal. As one Romanian I know put it: If you've got Ceausescu and his Missus in charge, who needs the Soviets?

Back to the 56s.

The story that we put together was that BRB, by deciding that BR needed 60 (?) Cl 56s to a stupidly short deadline meant Brush could not do all the work.

Every trainee draughtsman and the tea lady in Derby were incredulous at this decision to build in Romania and knew it would backfire - as indeed, it did. So, in the end, BR got its 60 powerful freight locos in the same time as if it had ordered the lot from Brush/Doncaster in the first place - just at higher cost.

I had understood it was due to insufficient capacity to build them at Loughborough meant the first batch were built in Romania

 

[70014IronDuke]

I had understood it was due to insufficient capacity to build them at Loughborough meant the first batch were built in Romania

Yes, that was the 'official' reason - but there was insufficient capacity because BRB said it had to be done within a stupid deadline. I posit that this was intentional and political, to justify the build in Romania.

 

[edwin_m]

I seem to remember it was partially a result of the oil crisis. The Government needed to step up coal production to replace oil firing in power stations and needed more locos urgently to move it. Hence also the body was closely based on the 47, and the engine the latest development of the successful English Electric design. Ironically this urgency prevented the sort of "innovation" that made the Class 50 before and the Class 58 afterwards more troublesome in many ways than the 56 (the UK-built ones at least).

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Was it not part of a trade deal which was balanced by Romania buying some BAC 1-11s?

 

[hexagon789]

Yes, that was the 'official' reason - but there was insufficient capacity because BRB said it had to be done within a stupid deadline. I posit that this was intentional and political, to justify the build in Romania.

Wasn't there an aircraft deal done with Romania around the same time?

 

[randyrippley]

Brush had shut down their loco assembly shed, they'd stopped building locos but had left the plant mothballed. It would have taken too long to hire/train staff to reopen the plant. Subcontracting overseas was quicker, and there WAS a speed requirement as when they were ordered the UK was suffering from the results of the early 1970s oil crisis. The 56 fleet was specifically needed to move coal to powerstations.

Brush did eventually reopen the plant but I think all they ever built were the Channel Tunnel locos. After that they concentrated on rebuilds/reengineering.

Why was Romania chosen? At the time there was an attempt by the UK to turn Romania toward the west through technology transfer. Another example was the attempt to give the Romanians aircraft technology by moving the BAC=111 production line there.

Going off on a tangent, BR had the chance of a quicker solution to the need for a heavy haul loco and never took it. They had class 40s lying around surplus, they could easily have been reengineered with newer diesels and an alternator - either using the guts from DP2, or the engine and genset from the 56

 

[Royston Vasey]

Brush had shut down their loco assembly shed, they'd stopped building locos but had left the plant mothballed. It would have taken too long to hire/train staff to reopen the plant. Subcontracting overseas was quicker, and there WAS a speed requirement as when they were ordered the UK was suffering from the results of the early 1970s oil crisis. The 56 fleet was specifically needed to move coal to powerstations.

Brush did eventually reopen the plant but I think all they ever built were the Channel Tunnel locos. After that they concentrated on rebuilds/reengineering.

Why was Romania chosen? At the time there was an attempt by the UK to turn Romania toward the west through technology transfer. Another example was the attempt to give the Romanians aircraft technology by moving the BAC=111 production line there.

Going off on a tangent, BR had the chance of a quicker solution to the need for a heavy haul loco and never took it. They had class 40s lying around surplus, they could easily have been reengineered with newer diesels and an alternator - either using the guts from DP2, or the engine and genset from the 56

Class 60, Class 92?!

 

[Taunton]

It was also designed and built in this "urgent need" at the same time as the Class 52 were all being withdrawn, locos which were only about 12 years old but "someone at BRB didn't like hydraulics" (probably the same senior person who thought Romanian-built was a good idea). These locos had picked up the Westbury to London stone trains, but were being replaced by Class 47 which proved not as capable - as any WR engineman could have told the BRB for heavy haul freight. Ironically it needed the Class 56 to be sent to Westbury to restore things to what they had been.

 

[randyrippley]

Class 60, Class 92?!

Yeah OK I'd forgot they were assembled there after the erecting shop reopened, but even then the heavy engineering was subcontracted out - the metal bashing to build the bodies was done by Procor
Brush were reduced to supplying the electrical gear and doing a screwdriver job on a kit of parts

 

[Helvellyn]

It was also designed and built in this "urgent need" at the same time as the Class 52 were all being withdrawn, locos which were only about 12 years old but "someone at BRB didn't like hydraulics" (probably the same senior person who thought Romanian-built was a good idea). These locos had picked up the Westbury to London stone trains, but were being replaced by Class 47 which proved not as capable - as any WR engineman could have told the BRB for heavy haul freight. Ironically it needed the Class 56 to be sent to Westbury to restore things to what they had been.

Do have to wonder if keeping 52s as a stop-gap might have been sensible but then hindsight is great. Someone convinced senior people it was a good idea!

 

[70014IronDuke]

I seem to remember it was partially a result of the oil crisis. ...

Hmmm. I suppose that may have been true. But there again ...

It was also designed and built in this "urgent need" at the same time as the Class 52 were all being withdrawn, locos which were only about 12 years old but "someone at BRB didn't like hydraulics" (probably the same senior person who thought Romanian-built was a good idea). These locos had picked up the Westbury to London stone trains, but were being replaced by Class 47 which proved not as capable - as any WR engineman could have told the BRB for heavy haul freight. Ironically it needed the Class 56 to be sent to Westbury to restore things to what they had been.

Absolutely! I thought this after posting last night. OK, the Cl 52 may have been expensive to maintain, but they had superb tractive effort. Even if they were not 'quite' what BR needed, it is ludicrous to believe that new locomotives built in Romania, in a rush, would prove to be a more cost-effective deal. Just keep 20 or 30 Westerns running for a few more years. And if you can't stomach that, you've always got the 40s to trundle on with. Whoever thought the Romania project up should have been sent to porter on Clapham Jcn till he was 90. (I expect he got a knighthood in reality.)

 

[Taunton]

There was an article in Modern Railways about a year after the Romanian locos were delivered describing the appalling build standard and what had to be done to them once they reached Britain - effectively rebuilt. Some of the materials used like pipework were absolutely non-standard and non-spec. However, it should have been down to the customer, BR, to have sent an effective resident inspector to oversee all the construction in the works there. I guess BR/Brush just didn't have the experience of building things outside Britain.

The first Class 56 were intended for merry-go-round in Yorkshire, where the coal fired power stations were producing substantially more power with the mothballing of oil fired ones. But the network there is different, very much on its own, freight only lines or mixed in with local dmus. Trips were also relatively short, and the 47-hauled trains didn't really get in the way of much else there. In contrast Westbury to Acton is all along a main line mixed in with extensive express and commuter services. It would have been like expecting 47s to take the mgr trains down the ECML to Peterborough.

 

[AM9]

There was an article in Modern Railways about a year after the Romanian locos were delivered describing the appalling build standard ...

I think that you mean 'build quality'. 'Build standard' is a definition of the version of all components used in the design. Other than the quality requirements defined in the build standard, it does not relate to how a product deliverable from one manufacturer might be better or worse than one from another.
It is to be assumed that the build standard was clearly defined, but the manufacturing workmanship and subsequent inspection and testing integrity was less acceptable than the corresponding items delivered from the UK producer.

 

[edwin_m]

I think that you mean 'build quality'. 'Build standard' is a definition of the version of all components used in the design. Other than the quality requirements defined in the build standard, it does not relate to how a product deliverable from one manufacturer might be better or worse than one from another.
It is to be assumed that the build standard was clearly defined, but the manufacturing workmanship and subsequent inspection and testing integrity was less acceptable than the corresponding items delivered from the UK producer.

That raises the question of whether the problems were due to the Romanians not building to spec, or whether they built something that was compliant to a spec that was inadequate. In that era BR was probably used to passing a specification or even a design to their own workshops or to "friendly" manufacturers, who would fill in the gaps to the sort of standard they had always used and BR would have expected. Passing that sort of spec to a supplier you don't have any past relationship with, and who doesn't expect any repeat business, may result in getting back something different to what you expect.

 

[randyrippley]

That raises the question of whether the problems were due to the Romanians not building to spec, or whether they built something that was compliant to a spec that was inadequate. In that era BR was probably used to passing a specification or even a design to their own workshops or to "friendly" manufacturers, who would fill in the gaps to the sort of standard they had always used and BR would have expected. Passing that sort of spec to a supplier you don't have any past relationship with, and who doesn't expect any repeat business, may result in getting back something different to what you expect.

That article in Modern Railways concentrated on two areas.
First was the construction techniques used, for instance the Romanians didn't have access to advanced welding techniques. I can't remember the details but butt vs flash welding rings a bell. Whatever it was, it gave lower quality weaker welds e.g. with inferior bogies as a result.
Materials science was the other issue: poorer quality steel causing numerous issues including weight, wiring with inadequate insulation (were they still using fabric insulation?), inferior bought-in items like knobs and switches using poor design and inferior plastics.
And what was in the background (but unsaid) was the complete absence of any kind of quality control concept in a communist society.

BR should have had engineers onsite at Electroputre monitoring all this, but so also should Brush/Hawker Siddeley. Brush were the ones contracted to supply the first thirty, and it was Brush who subcontracted the job out - and failed to supervise.
Its a telling point that despite initial plans to use the 56 design for home use in Romania and Bulgaria, Electroputre never actually built any more.

 

[70014IronDuke]

There was an article in Modern Railways about a year after the Romanian locos were delivered describing the appalling build standard and what had to be done to them once they reached Britain - effectively rebuilt. Some of the materials used like pipework were absolutely non-standard and non-spec. However, it should have been down to the customer, BR, to have sent an effective resident inspector to oversee all the construction in the works there. I guess BR/Brush just didn't have the experience of building things outside Britain.....

BR did exactly that. Well, I'm not sure about ALL contruction, but an engineer was sent out - it was an MS3 grade job. He might, I suppose, just have been examining the finished product, before ok ing it for despatch to the UK. I don't know who it was, but a second or third hand tale I heard was that the locos would be taken out on a test run and would often stop in the countryside and stop while the driver and guard (or whoever) would jump out and nick some vegetables from the surrounding fields.

 

[70014IronDuke]

That raises the question of whether the problems were due to the Romanians not building to spec, or whether they built something that was compliant to a spec that was inadequate. In that era BR was probably used to passing a specification or even a design to their own workshops or to "friendly" manufacturers, who would fill in the gaps to the sort of standard they had always used and BR would have expected. Passing that sort of spec to a supplier you don't have any past relationship with, and who doesn't expect any repeat business, may result in getting back something different to what you expect.

Very likely an element of the problems. But there again, the tea lady in Derby knew that before the whole fiasco was authorised, let alone managers with gold passes.

That article in Modern Railways concentrated on two areas.
First was the construction techniques used, for instance the Romanians didn't have access to advanced welding techniques. I can't remember the details but butt vs flash welding rings a bell. Whatever it was, it gave lower quality weaker welds e.g. with inferior bogies as a result.
Materials science was the other issue: poorer quality steel causing numerous issues including weight, wiring with inadequate insulation (were they still using fabric insulation?), inferior bought-in items like knobs and switches using poor design and inferior plastics.
And what was in the background (but unsaid) was the complete absence of any kind of quality control concept in a communist society.

Who'd ave thunked it, eh?

BR should have had engineers onsite at Electroputre monitoring all this, but so also should Brush/Hawker Siddeley. Brush were the ones contracted to supply the first thirty, and it was Brush who subcontracted the job out - and failed to supervise.

As posted above, at least one BR engineer did go out to Craiova - not sure for how long. OF course, the powers at be might have considered abandoning the whole stupid idea, and kept 30 class 52s running for a couple more years. Even if the 52s were not sent to the Notts-Yorks coalfields, Cl 37s from S Wales could have been used in multiple, and with the 52s staying on the WR to cover the gaps.

Its a telling point that despite initial plans to use the 56 design for home use in Romania and Bulgaria, Electroputre never actually built any more.

Was this a serious idea, or more a speculative punt, do you know?

What I suspect may have happened is the Romanians held this out as carrot, whereby EE thought they'd get some export orders or at least licence fees. Once the order for the 56s was complete (such as it was), the Romanians nixed this idea immediately, because they didn't have the hard currency available to buy anything.

But once again, the tea lady in the British embassy in Bucharest could have told them this was going to happen.

 

[Taunton]

As posted above, at least one BR engineer did go out to Craiova - not sure for how long.

You don't just do a quick visit. When airlines have Boeing or Airbus build them aircraft, they have one or more senior engineers at the factory the whole time, who go in full time every day and have developed a very formalised approach for materials inspection, checking all the paperwork, overseeing daily progress, inspecting tools, verifying against drawings, reporting back to HQ, everything. It's apparently considered a good assignment for up-and-coming young engineering managers with a few years good experience out of university, and before they get married and don't want to spend 6 months stuck in a foreign hotel.

 

[takno]

You don't just do a quick visit. When airlines have Boeing or Airbus build them aircraft, they have one or more senior engineers at the factory the whole time, who go in full time every day and have developed a very formalised approach for materials inspection, checking all the paperwork, overseeing daily progress, inspecting tools, verifying against drawings, reporting back to HQ, everything. It's apparently considered a good assignment for up-and-coming young engineering managers with a few years good experience out of university, and before they get married and don't want to spend 6 months stuck in a foreign hotel.

To be fair, current Boeing "best practice" has developed somewhat over the last 50 years using information that wasn't available to the BRB at the time. And even so they still have parking lots full of planes they can't sell largely because they don't manage their subcontractors/specifications properly

 

[edwin_m]

@70014IronDuke and anyone else interested, please note the third and fourth quotes in post #18 are incorrectly attributed to me.

 

[randyrippley]

Was this a serious idea, or more a speculative punt, do you know?

What I suspect may have happened is the Romanians held this out as carrot, whereby EE thought they'd get some export orders or at least licence fees. Once the order for the 56s was complete (such as it was), the Romanians nixed this idea immediately, because they didn't have the hard currency available to buy anything.

But once again, the tea lady in the British embassy in Bucharest could have told them this was going to happen.

It was reported in the press as being likely. I seem to remember that part of the technology transfer deal was that they could use the design free of licence fee - just buying some components from the UK (e.g. the engine, transformer, traction motor.........) would have been enough
I doubt it would ever have happened: in 1978 Romanian railways started taking delivery of a range of 3000 and 4000hp units using ALCO 2-strokes. They already had a history of using EMD 2-strokes. Both seem to have used a body design licensed from the Swiss, which they were unlikely to abandon. Besides which the simplistic idiot-proof low maintenance needs of a 2-stroke would have been much closer to a communist engineering ethos and skillset.
Negotiations with the Americans must have been going on while the 56 contract was being finalised

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electroputere_locomotives for a timeline of Romanian built locos

 

[randyrippley]

@70014IronDuke and anyone else interested, please note the third and fourth quotes in post #18 are incorrectly attributed to me.

Err, yeah those quotes are mine!

 

[Richard Scott]

It was reported in the press as being likely. I seem to remember that part of the technology transfer deal was that they could use the design free of licence fee - just buying some components from the UK (e.g. the engine, transformer, traction motor.........) would have been enough
I doubt it would ever have happened: in 1978 Romanian railways started taking delivery of a range of 3000 and 4000hp units using ALCO 2-strokes. They already had a history of using EMD 2-strokes. Both seem to have used a body design licensed from the Swiss, which they were unlikely to abandon. Besides which the simplistic idiot-proof low maintenance needs of a 2-stroke would have been much closer to a communist engineering ethos and skillset.
Negotiations with the Americans must have been going on while the 56 contract was being finalised

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electroputere_locomotives for a timeline of Romanian built locos

Appreciate going slightly off topic but how many of the higher powered locos did they build and assuming they've all been withdrawn? Only diesels I've seen in Romania were Sulzer engined 60s or 62s (plus smaller 80s) or rebuilds with EMD 710 engines.
I also thought the 56s were tested on main line to Brasov when built on passenger trains; is this true?

 

[43096]

You don't just do a quick visit. When airlines have Boeing or Airbus build them aircraft, they have one or more senior engineers at the factory the whole time, who go in full time every day and have developed a very formalised approach for materials inspection, checking all the paperwork, overseeing daily progress, inspecting tools, verifying against drawings, reporting back to HQ, everything. It's apparently considered a good assignment for up-and-coming young engineering managers with a few years good experience out of university, and before they get married and don't want to spend 6 months stuck in a foreign hotel.

I'm not sure using Boeing is a particularly good example............

 

[randyrippley]

Appreciate going slightly off topic but how many of the higher powered locos did they build and assuming they've all been withdrawn? Only diesels I've seen in Romania were Sulzer engined 60s or 62s (plus smaller 80s) or rebuilds with EMD 710 engines.
I also thought the 56s were tested on main line to Brasov when built on passenger trains; is this true?

Interesting question which I don't have an answer for. However this page gives some clues http://www.locopage.net/cfr-alcos.htm.
Appears to have been a degree of secrecy about the numbers and uses, though it looks as though they were short lived

The class 66 and 67 are really one class, the 66 being the freight version, the 67 being the passenger version. Little is known of their duties, though likely in the north east as some are there abandoned in depots. Though 66.0004 was seen active near Cluj Napoca in 1995. Fitted with a 3000 horsepower V12 ALCO engine. The 67's were fitted with Electric train heating for passenger use, and were certainly used for a while.

Like the 66/67, the class 70 and 71 are really one class, the 70 being the freight version, the 71 being the passenger version, they share the same number block. Fitted with a 4000 horsepower V16 ALCO engine. The 71's were fitted with Electric train heating for passenger use, and were possibly used for a while, however being the class were not in use for long due the high running costs of such a big locomotive.

==edit==
just found this page, http://www.gari.ro/content/pages/printer/22
couple of auto-translated extracts

-class 66/060-DC
Equipped with ALCO diesel engine, with 12 "V" cylinders. Power 3000 hp, length 19 m, weight 120 tons, traction force 350 Kn, maximum speed 115 km / h. 23 locomotives (including those of class 67) were produced in Craiova, between 1978 and 1982, all being delivered to CFR. They were equipped with electric train heating.

-class 67
Similar to the previous one. Instead it was produced for passenger trains, with a maximum speed of 140 km / h

-class 70/060-DD "didine"
Equipped with diesel engine-ALCO, with 16 "V" cylinders, it is the most powerful diesel-electric locomotive ever built in Romania.
Power 4000 hp, length 20.5 m, weight 120 tons, traction force 345 Kn, maximum speed 115 km / h. Between 1976-1981 a number of 45 such locomotives are built in Craiova: 22 class 70 (for freight trains), 10 class 71 (for passenger trains) and 10 delivered to Greece, to the OSE.

-class 71
Similar to the previous one, having a maximum speed of 140 km / h.

 

[Richard Scott]

Interesting question which I don't have an answer for. However this page gives some clues http://www.locopage.net/cfr-alcos.htm.
Appears to have been a degree of secrecy about the numbers and uses, though it looks as though they were short lived





==edit==
just found this page, http://www.gari.ro/content/pages/printer/22
couple of auto-translated extracts

Thanks for that - very interesting.

 

[Cowley]

I’ve read somewhere recently (and I can’t unfortunately remember where) that candle wax was discovered on the engine blocks of some of the Romanian built locos, due to the workers using them for light in the assembling plant.
Has anyone else heard that before?

 

[Richard Scott]

I’ve read somewhere recently (and I can’t unfortunately remember where) that candle wax was discovered on the engine blocks of some of the Romanian built locos, due to the workers using them for light in the assembling plant.
Has anyone else heard that before?

Had heard the cubicles were assembled using candle light so may be true. Also heard a lorry carrying a power unit skidded off road due to ice, unit was recovered and used in a loco.

 

[Far north 37]

Had heard the cubicles were assembled using candle light so may be true. Also heard a lorry carrying a power unit skidded off road due to ice, unit was recovered and used in a loco.

Read somewhere the floors in the cabs were caked in candle wax.