Why the huge variety of diesel locomotives when first introduced?

[Masboroughlad]

When diesel locomotives were first being introduced, how and why did we end up with so many classes of loco? Would it not have been more cost effective all round to have fewer types with bigger numbers? (granted, it would not have been as interesting!)

Something along the lines of:

Shunter - 08 type
Express, intercity loco - Class 47 or 50
Lighter, mixed traffic - 31 or 37
Heavy freight - 56s

Electrics - just 86s

I know its a random thought, but why was it so?

 

[Swanny200]

You could probably say the same about Airplane manufacturers making 3 or 4 different types of the same plane to do the same role (V bombers for instance)
probably to do with money and keeping all the different works busy after being in austerity and a decade or so after being on a war footing.

In terms of the aircraft situation, they only really sorted that in the late 60's by combining companies but only after spending a hell of a lot of money and making a hell of a lot of people redundant in the process. It was probably the same with the railways although there were a lot less aircraft makers in this country in the 70's and 80's than Railway works.

The major comparison with the two could be with their two most major projects in my opinion which were the HST and the TSR-2, the HST we all know about, but the TSR-2 didn't do so well, it was designed as a Tactical strike/reconnaissance plane and would have been able to keep pace and hit anything else comparable at the time, it would have been groundbreaking, but changes in government meant that it was cancelled and we had to go and buy American Phantoms.

To compare, the HST was groundbreaking in a sense, they were and have been the mainstay of fast main line railways in Britain for over 30 years when many other classes of train have met a cutters torch.

 

[pdeaves]

Remember that a lot of 'modernisation plan' locomotive classes we ended up with were originally intended as experimental types to compare the products from different manufacturers.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Should've built more Deltics

 

[70014IronDuke]

When diesel locomotives were first being introduced, how and why did we end up with so many classes of loco? Would it not have been more cost effective all round to have fewer types with bigger numbers? (granted, it would not have been as interesting!)

Something along the lines of:

Shunter - 08 type
Express, intercity loco - Class 47 or 50
Lighter, mixed traffic - 31 or 37
Heavy freight - 56s

Electrics - just 86s

I know its a random thought, but why was it so?

I would have thought this subject had been done to death in past threads.

I think you need to read a book about the development of any technology, especially in its early days: you could say the same about steam locos, or cars, or houses or computers ....

But added to this particular mix was a) political need to spread work out and b) BR's urgent need, or perceived need, (from about 1958) to get rid of steam ASAP. so the order went out - Make that order for 10 EE 4s er, 200 please.

 

[70014IronDuke]

............
The major comparison with the two could be with their two most major projects in my opinion which were the HST and the TSR-2, the HST we all know about, but the TSR-2 didn't do so well, ..... .

I'd have thought a better comparison woudl be between TSR2 and APT.

Or, HST and the 747.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Should've built more Deltics

I have wondered about this - but really you should start another thread.

On the down side, once they were out of front line service, their demise was pretty quick. I think they were considered for cascading to the Midland, but rejected.

 

[4973]

When diesel locomotives were first being introduced, how and why did we end up with so many classes of loco? Would it not have been more cost effective all round to have fewer types with bigger numbers? (granted, it would not have been as interesting!)

Something along the lines of:

Shunter - 08 type
Express, intercity loco - Class 47 or 50
Lighter, mixed traffic - 31 or 37
Heavy freight - 56s

Electrics - just 86s

I know its a random thought, but why was it so?

On the diesel side 47s and 50s are really second generation designs, coming along some years later than the original Type 4 (i.e. 2000HP +) designs of Classes 40 and 44/45/46, 56s were even later.

The power capability of the later designs was simply not possible prior to about 1962 and neither operators or politicians were prepared to wait that long. It might have been possible to get GM locos, but (according to an explanation I've seen from someone who was involved at a fairly high level) GM were insisting on all production being in the USA and payment being in US$ hard cash. The UK was in a fairly parlous state for foreign exchange at the time and the Treasury would not permit such a transaction.

Much of the multiplication of classes came from updated power units coming along (e.g. Cl 26/27) but some came from UK manufacturers who wanted a showcase for their products and managed to convince the politicians that BR should provide same, despite the objections of the engineers.In general the latter group were the less successful designs.

The situation on electric locos was similar, in particular the technology used to convert 25 kV AC to the DC required for the traction motors. Early locos used motor-generator sort of things, then Mercury-arc rectifiers were used (despite the issue of Mercury in a glass vessel should there be a smash), then Germanium rectifiers and finally Silicon rectifiers. In all cases earlier use was not possible as the technology itself was not available for the earlier types. Successive types also saw improvements in suspension and traction motor mounting, some of the early AC locos being very rough on the track.

 

[Spartacus]

I'd have thought a better comparison would be between TSR2 and APT.

Or, HST and the 747.

Yeah, lots of evidence to suggest that the TSR-2 was trying to do too much in one package, at least a decade before it became practical.

Back on topic though, when the first diesels were being ordered it was an industry still pretty much in it's infancy in Britain, despite experiments over the decades, and numerous designs were ordered on a small scale (the 'pilot scheme') to try out each different manufacturer's offerings and see what worked best: sometimes literally. The theory was is one type didn't work it was a small loss if there were small numbers. One that did prove itself could be ordered en-mass. This went a bit awry when the elimination of steam was announced and some designs were built en-mass with little testing: some successfully, some not: don't forget the Class 31s needed re-engined before they were a success: scrapping such a big fleet at the time was unthinkable.

Different regions being able have their own locomotive policies didn't help: Western going for diesel-hydraulics when everywhere else was using diesel electrics being the most noticeable.

All this was made all the more obvious when as lines closed or traffic dried up or migrated to road the diesels that worked those lines, both locos and DMUs, became surplus to requirements. The least preferable ones, based on performance, reliability, and numbers were scrapped, the rest retained as per requirements, with some manufacturer's locos being concentrated in one area to ease maintenance.

 

[coppercapped]

When diesel locomotives were first being introduced, how and why did we end up with so many classes of loco? Would it not have been more cost effective all round to have fewer types with bigger numbers? (granted, it would not have been as interesting!)

Something along the lines of:

Shunter - 08 type
Express, intercity loco - Class 47 or 50
Lighter, mixed traffic - 31 or 37
Heavy freight - 56s

Electrics - just 86s

I know its a random thought, but why was it so?

Do some research on the 'Pilot Scheme' diesels for the BR Modernisation Plan of 1955 - all will be revealed!

A total of 174 locomotives were to be built and tested in a year or so of trial running before production orders were placed for the best types. Of the diesel-electrics there were to be three different Type 1 designs, six different Type 2 designs and two different Type 4 designs. No Type 3s were planned. One Type 2 diesel-hydraulic was planned and two different Type 4s.

The largest batches ordered were for 20 locomotives, which were later called the Classes 20, 24, 26, 28 and 30. All the others were for batches of 3 to 10 locomotives.

Then the financial situation deteriorated so quickly that it became urgent to get rid of the steam locomotives as soon as possible so more diesels were ordered, in some cases before the original prototypes had even been completed.

 

[Western Lord]

You could probably say the same about Airplane manufacturers making 3 or 4 different types of the same plane to do the same role (V bombers for instance)
probably to do with money and keeping all the different works busy after being in austerity and a decade or so after being on a war footing.

In terms of the aircraft situation, they only really sorted that in the late 60's by combining companies but only after spending a hell of a lot of money and making a hell of a lot of people redundant in the process. It was probably the same with the railways although there were a lot less aircraft makers in this country in the 70's and 80's than Railway works.

The major comparison with the two could be with their two most major projects in my opinion which were the HST and the TSR-2, the HST we all know about, but the TSR-2 didn't do so well, it was designed as a Tactical strike/reconnaissance plane and would have been able to keep pace and hit anything else comparable at the time, it would have been groundbreaking, but changes in government meant that it was cancelled and we had to go and buy American Phantoms.

To compare, the HST was groundbreaking in a sense, they were and have been the mainstay of fast main line railways in Britain for over 30 years when many other classes of train have met a cutters torch.

TSR-2 flew only briefly and the general opinion is that it was too much too soon and would have cost a fortune to bring to squadron service. The Phantom wasn't its replacement, the original replacement was the American F-111 which ran into major problems and the UK orders were cancelled. The RAF were then obliged to take Buccaneers which they could have had in the first place but rejected as A/- they weren't "supersonic" (which was the buzz word of the time) and B/- they originated with the Royal Navy and the RAF wanted it's own kit.
The HST was far from being groundbreaking. It was conventional rail technology developed by traditional railway engineers as opposed to the groundbreaking APT which was developed in large part by engineers from the aerospace sector.
As for the number of types of diesel loco ordered in the fifties, under the original modernisation plan there was to be a pilot scheme with ten locos of various types ordered and tested in service and then larger follow on orders would be placed for the successful types. BR then decided it couldn't wait and placed large orders for several different classes, many of which turned out to be unsatisfactory.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would anyone agree with me when I say that the 117 Clayton Class 17 Bo-Bo locomotives, built between 1962 and 1965, were the worst of the Type 1 type of locomotives?

 

[MK Tom]

Would anyone agree with me when I say that the 117 Clayton Class 17 Bo-Bo locomotives, built between 1962 and 1965, were the worst of the Type 1 type of locomotives?

Weren't classes 15-17 all massive failures basically?

I've always understood that to be the reason so many class 20s were built.

It's worth noting in this thread that there were a lot more types of service operating in the 1950s than there were after the modernization plan. A huge redundancy of low-power locos were built for types of traffic that simply ceased to exist, like short fitted freights and loco-hauled stopping passenger services.

The duplication of high-power passenger locos was fairly limited really. The peaks and later the 47s were basically the standard, with other classes like 50, 52 and 55 being purpose-built for certain routes. Most of the wastage was at the lower end, with type 1s and type 2s, the traffic for which dried up within a decade of two of them being built.

 

[edwin_m]

DMUs were also ordered in large numbers to numerous different designs at the same time, but my impression is there were far fewer "dud" designs than with the locomotives.

 

[70014IronDuke]

DMUs were also ordered in large numbers to numerous different designs at the same time, but my impression is there were far fewer "dud" designs than with the locomotives.

That's an interesting point, and I agree, that most definitely is the impression. I think some of the early ER ('yellow diamond' was it?) sets went relatively quickly - they were numbered in the E7xxxxx range - I know some were used on some of the branches around Cambridge. I'm not sure if that was because they were in any way poor performers, or just surplus to requirements and abit non-standard.

The railbuses also went quite quickly too, but again, that was probably because the branch lines were just uneconomic and closed according to the good doctor's orders.

 

[Strathclyder]

Would anyone agree with me when I say that the 117 Clayton Class 17 Bo-Bo locomotives, built between 1962 and 1965, were the worst of the Type 1 type of locomotives?

I'd say that the Class 15s/16s were far worse overall, the latter in particular only lasting 11 years total between the first example entering service (1958) and the last one being scrapped (1969), with none surviving to preservation.

But yeah, the 15s/16s/17s were all failures to varying degrees, with chronic unreliability being their biggest problem (even after thorough rectification works in the case of the 15s & Claytons, ). Small wonder that so many of the tried & tested 20s ended up getting built thanks in no small part to their failure, regardless of their visibility issues (which was largely solved anyway by running pairs of 20s 'bonnet-to-bonnet'). It's a small miracle that D8233 (the last Cl.15) & D8568 (the last Cl.17) managed to survive into preservation at all, to be honest.

 

[Swanny200]

TSR-2 flew only briefly and the general opinion is that it was too much too soon and would have cost a fortune to bring to squadron service. The Phantom wasn't its replacement, the original replacement was the American F-111 which ran into major problems and the UK orders were cancelled. The RAF were then obliged to take Buccaneers which they could have had in the first place but rejected as A/- they weren't "supersonic" (which was the buzz word of the time) and B/- they originated with the Royal Navy and the RAF wanted it's own kit.
The HST was far from being groundbreaking. It was conventional rail technology developed by traditional railway engineers as opposed to the groundbreaking APT which was developed in large part by engineers from the aerospace sector.
As for the number of types of diesel loco ordered in the fifties, under the original modernisation plan there was to be a pilot scheme with ten locos of various types ordered and tested in service and then larger follow on orders would be placed for the successful types. BR then decided it couldn't wait and placed large orders for several different classes, many of which turned out to be unsatisfactory.

You are perfectly correct there, I didn't even consider the APT in that logic. The major thing where the railways were concerned were that some of the one offs (Falcon, 89 etc..) were a could have been as well as a should have been. Does anyone think the amalgamating of companies in both sectors affected things too?

 

[edwin_m]

Small wonder that so many of the tried & tested 20s ended up getting built thanks in no small part to their failure, regardless of their visibility issues (which was largely solved anyway by running pairs of 20s 'bonnet-to-bonnet').

If Class 20s were always to be used in pairs then it would have been cheaper and simpler to build half as many of a locomotive with twice the power and a cab at each end (a class 40?!).

Once it became obvious they were the most reliable design available, BR ordered enough to meet its entire anticipated requirement for Type 1s, but this was only a rational decision if they were expected to be used singly. Therefore visibility from the cab couldn't have been seen as a problem at the time, which is perhaps explained by the fact that there were still plenty of steam locos around at the time with visibility that wasn't much better. There's perhaps also the weight factor helping with braking on unfitted freights, but even those were declining rapidly before the 20s were much out of their first decade. How much was the almost universal nose-to-nose pairing the result of concerns about visibility, and how much because most of the duties that would suit a single class 20 disappeared soon after they were ordered?

 

[Swanny200]

How much was the almost universal nose-to-nose pairing the result of concerns about visibility, and how much because most of the duties that would suit a single class 20 disappeared soon after they were ordered?

I always have wondered what the obsession with having locos like 37's and Deltics with that ruddy great nose overhanging, it wasn't for aesthetics. I'm assuming it was for important parts that they could not fit in the engine bay but the visibility must have been horrendous at times, whereas other locos such as the 31's 33's 47's 50's all were flush at the front.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It's a small miracle that D8233 (the last Cl.15) & D8568 (the last Cl.17) managed to survive into preservation at all, to be honest.

Were they perhaps bought by industrial users? If so that might explain why they lasted so long.

 

[randyrippley]

I always have wondered what the obsession with having locos like 37's and Deltics with that ruddy great nose overhanging, it wasn't for aesthetics. I'm assuming it was for important parts that they could not fit in the engine bay but the visibility must have been horrendous at times, whereas other locos such as the 31's 33's 47's 50's all were flush at the front.

The noses were there for two reasons:
crash protection
reducing the perceived risk of "flicker effect" on the driver from the sleepers. Originally believed to be a major problem, subsequent research downplayed the risk

 

[randyrippley]

TSR-2 flew only briefly and the general opinion is that it was too much too soon and would have cost a fortune to bring to squadron service. The Phantom wasn't its replacement, the original replacement was the American F-111 which ran into major problems and the UK orders were cancelled. The RAF were then obliged to take Buccaneers which they could have had in the first place but rejected as A/- they weren't "supersonic" (which was the buzz word of the time) and B/- they originated with the Royal Navy and the RAF wanted it's own kit.

Thats not really correct. The F-111 was the replacement for the TSR-2, but the British variant was cancelled for technical and cost reasons. We then ordered Phantoms licence-built in the UK. The RAF examples were intended as bombers, primarily as nuclear strike aircraft, however for reasons of cost they shared many components of the Phantoms built for the Navy - such as the air intercept radar. As time went on, the last of the Navy's carriers were scrapped and the Buccaneers (and remaining Navy Phantoms) moved to the RAF. The Buccs were only any good at mud moving, so they replaced the Phantoms and remaining Hunters in the strike role, with the Phantoms becoming purely air defence aircraft. The Jaguars were also purchased to supplant the Phantoms from their secondary close-air-support role

 

[Cowley]

Were they perhaps bought by industrial users? If so that might explain why they lasted so long.

The class 17 ended up in industrial use (Ribble Cement), via our friends the RTC, who clearly loved a challenge as they had D5705 the last surviving class 28 too and also the last class 23 - D5901 (it's a wonder they managed to get out and test anything ).
Another class that didn't last long with BR was the class 14. Although it had mechanical problems at the beginning and was obviously non standard having hydraulic transmission (it also lost the work it was designed for) British Steel and the NCB got years of heavy use out of them hence the high numbers of them ending up preserved.
I think D8233 survived because it was used as a mobile carriage heater. There was one at Marylebone too (D8243 I think).

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think D8233 survived because it was used as a mobile carriage heater. There was one at Marylebone too (D8243 I think).

This is all rather freaky as I've dug out my copy of Pioneer Diesels Around London for some bed time reading and was just looking at the picture of D8205! Four examples were retained as carriage heaters; D8203/33/37 and 43.

 

[Cowley]

This is all rather freaky as I've dug out my copy of Pioneer Diesels Around London for some bed time reading and was just looking at the picture of D8205! Four examples were retained as carriage heaters; D8203/33/37 and 43.

Aw lend us it! I remember seeing D8243 at Marylebone when I was up there during the first Network Southeast day in about 1986. It was somewhere around the depot from what I remember along with I think Flying Scotsman and rather a lot of DMUs. Dirt and grime everywhere, lovely.
The 15 was green but with double arrows like it probably was when it was withdrawn in the 70s. It was numbered ADB something or other.
I've gone a bit off topic here, sorry

 

[Strathclyder]

This is clearly a subject on which my grasp is rudimentary at best. It's for the best that I just see myself out and not comment any further, lest I humiliate myself. Again.

edwin_m - Yeah, you're right. That's something, within the bounds of my limited intellect (let alone my limited knowledge on the subject), I failed to even consider. I'll coincide the point to you. I'll comment no further on this thread...

 

[edwin_m]

I always have wondered what the obsession with having locos like 37's and Deltics with that ruddy great nose overhanging, it wasn't for aesthetics. I'm assuming it was for important parts that they could not fit in the engine bay but the visibility must have been horrendous at times, whereas other locos such as the 31's 33's 47's 50's all were flush at the front.

I've read somewhere that there was a concern about something called "sleeper flicker", which I guess must refer to the sleepers passing through the driver's lower field of vision causing distraction. A nose on the cab would avoid this, but I think the later flat-fronted cab designs made sure the driver was far enough back from the windows that the sleepers passed out of sight well ahead of the front of the loco.

The other reason for the nose might be to increase the protection of the train crew from frontal collisions. American-designed locomotives almost universally have noses even today, possibly due to the number of level crossing collisions they get.

 

[341o2]

I always have wondered what the obsession with having locos like 37's and Deltics with that ruddy great nose overhanging, it wasn't for aesthetics. I'm assuming it was for important parts that they could not fit in the engine bay but the visibility must have been horrendous at times, whereas other locos such as the 31's 33's 47's 50's all were flush at the front.

But better than a large steam loco surely?

 

[Bevan Price]

I'd say that the Class 15s/16s were far worse overall, the latter in particular only lasting 11 years total between the first example entering service (1958) and the last one being scrapped (1969), with none surviving to preservation.

But yeah, the 15s/16s/17s were all failures to varying degrees, with chronic unreliability being their biggest problem (even after thorough rectification works in the case of the 15s & Claytons, ). Small wonder that so many of the tried & tested 20s ended up getting built thanks in no small part to their failure, regardless of their visibility issues (which was largely solved anyway by running pairs of 20s 'bonnet-to-bonnet'). It's a small miracle that D8233 (the last Cl.15) & D8568 (the last Cl.17) managed to survive into preservation at all, to be honest.

From memory, I think that Class 15 was nowhere near as unreliable as Classes 16 & 17. Their main problem was that most of their work disappeared due to Marples-Beeching, and what little work remained could be performed by other classes. As a relatively small class, it was more economic to get rid of them and retain Class 20 of which there were over 200, and which was a pretty reliable loco.

 

[Bevan Price]

Yeah, lots of evidence to suggest that the TSR-2 was trying to do too much in one package, at least a decade before it became practical.

Back on topic though, when the first diesels were being ordered it was an industry still pretty much in it's infancy in Britain, despite experiments over the decades, and numerous designs were ordered on a small scale (the 'pilot scheme') to try out each different manufacturer's offerings and see what worked best: sometimes literally. The theory was is one type didn't work it was a small loss if there were small numbers. One that did prove itself could be ordered en-mass. This went a bit awry when the elimination of steam was announced and some designs were built en-mass with little testing: some successfully, some not: don't forget the Class 31s needed re-engined before they were a success: scrapping such a big fleet at the time was unthinkable.

Different regions being able have their own locomotive policies didn't help: Western going for diesel-hydraulics when everywhere else was using diesel electrics being the most noticeable.
.

Whilst the Western still liked to think it was still an independent GWR, there was some merit in trying diesel hydraulics. A Class 42 weighed 79 tons, and had a slightly better power output than a Class 40 weighing 133 tons. So, in principle, the Class 42 could haul heavier loads than a Class 40. And the 42 was based on a successful German design (V200 / DB Class 220). The big mistake was letting NB build the similar (but unreliable) Class 43.

But, as a small, non-standard class, they were sacrificed when spare class 47s became available following the post Marples-Beeching cuts.

The Westerns (Class 55) were about 15 tons lighter than a Class 47, but also non-standard, and lacked an economical way to allow modification to operate electric train heating. Coupled with arrival of HSTs, and more spare 47s available, Class 55 was also sacrificed after rather short lives.