For those who know about American & British locomotives.
After the EMD FT was introduced the writting was on the wall for the Steam locomotive.
EMD & Alco were the lead builders of Diesel locomotives from the 40's-50's,
many of them were great preformers.
Across the ocean during the same time the Diesel locomotive was having trouble taking off in England, many of the mainline Diesels failed and had to be rescued by a Steam locomotive.
What were the Brits doing wrong?
This is a question with a great many aspects, and which often requires British and Irish classes to be looked at selectively.
One very basic topic is that Britain was cash-strapped in the postwar years and did not want to acquire anything - including fuel oil or locomotive parts - that was denominated in dollars. This alone kept EMD out of contention for far too long, while on the meantime camel after camel was designed and vaunted British tech and construction savior faire turned out regularly to be anything but.
Even the first real class of modern true-high-reliable-horsepower locomotive, which I think was class 66, had some "unnecessary" design issues not really imposed by the stringent loading gage etc. So it isn't purely a railroad version of the English car business as practiced in those years...
There were a few things involved.
British Rail's original plan was to stick with steam power until money was available for electrification, which ended up never happening. That's why BR ended up building their standard steam locomotive classes.
With the 1955 Modernisation Plan, it was decided to stop this and replace steam with diesels. This meant building lots of diesels quickly, and contracts were given out to a variety of builders without experience building diesels. The consequences were generally a wide range of poor quality, high weight, and low power designs with little commonality. Much of the technology was licensed from elsewhere, which likely accounted for many of the issues with poor quality manufacturing.
A lot of the early American diesels weren't particularly great, either. Alco and EMD had experience building diesels during WWII, though, which helped them in the 1950s.
Overmod This is a question with a great many aspects, and which often requires British and Irish classes to be looked at selectively. One very basic topic is that Britain was cash-strapped in the postwar years and did not want to acquire anything - including fuel oil or locomotive parts - that was denominated in dollars. This alone kept EMD out of contention for far too long, while on the meantime camel after camel was designed and vaunted British tech and construction savior faire turned out regularly to be anything but. Even the first real class of modern true-high-reliable-horsepower locomotive, which I think was class 66, had some "unnecessary" design issues not really imposed by the stringent loading gage etc. So it isn't purely a railroad version of the English car business as practiced in those years...
Was that witty word play or just typos? [camel for Metro-Cammel and savior for savoir?]
NorthWestThere were a few things involved. British Rail's original plan was to stick with steam power until money was available for electrification, which ended up never happening. That's why BR ended up building their standard steam locomotive classes. With the 1955 Modernisation Plan, it was decided to stop this and replace steam with diesels. This meant building lots of diesels quickly, and contracts were given out to a variety of builders without experience building diesels. The consequences were generally a wide range of poor quality, high weight, and low power designs with little commonality. Much of the technology was licensed from elsewhere, which likely accounted for many of the issues with poor quality manufacturing. A lot of the early American diesels weren't particularly great, either. Alco and EMD had experience building diesels during WWII, though, which helped them in the 1950s.
With the multiplicity of manufacturers in the US after the war and until the mid 50's there was also a lot of poor quality, poor performance diesel technology at play. The performance of the various manufacturers products led to the 'market contraction' that has ended up being what we have today.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
charlie hebdoWas that witty word play or just typos? [camel for Metro-Cammel and savior for savoir?]
I regret to say that I completely missed the "Cammell" (and anything that might be a follow-on involving Metro-Vick). And I can't take credit for 'savior' although it would have been pretty good had it been intended and not a phone typo...
charlie hebdo Overmod This is a question with a great many aspects, and which often requires British and Irish classes to be looked at selectively. One very basic topic is that Britain was cash-strapped in the postwar years and did not want to acquire anything - including fuel oil or locomotive parts - that was denominated in dollars. This alone kept EMD out of contention for far too long, while on the meantime camel after camel was designed and vaunted British tech and construction savior faire turned out regularly to be anything but. Even the first real class of modern true-high-reliable-horsepower locomotive, which I think was class 66, had some "unnecessary" design issues not really imposed by the stringent loading gage etc. So it isn't purely a railroad version of the English car business as practiced in those years... Was that witty word play or just typos? [camel for Metro-Cammel and savior for savoir?]
I think Overmod was referring to the old saying "A camel is a horse designed by a committee!"
"Savior" I'm sure was a typo. Hey, nobody's perfect!
Overmod charlie hebdo Was that witty word play or just typos? [camel for Metro-Cammel and savior for savoir?] I regret to say that I completely missed the "Cammell" (and anything that might be a follow-on involving Metro-Vick). And I can't take credit for 'savior' although it would have been pretty good had it been intended and not a phone typo...
charlie hebdo Was that witty word play or just typos? [camel for Metro-Cammel and savior for savoir?]
But your word wit unconsciously came through. Anyway, it was good for a laugh at least from me.
Flintlock76 charlie hebdo Overmod This is a question with a great many aspects, and which often requires British and Irish classes to be looked at selectively. One very basic topic is that Britain was cash-strapped in the postwar years and did not want to acquire anything - including fuel oil or locomotive parts - that was denominated in dollars. This alone kept EMD out of contention for far too long, while on the meantime camel after camel was designed and vaunted British tech and construction savior faire turned out regularly to be anything but. Even the first real class of modern true-high-reliable-horsepower locomotive, which I think was class 66, had some "unnecessary" design issues not really imposed by the stringent loading gage etc. So it isn't purely a railroad version of the English car business as practiced in those years... Was that witty word play or just typos? [camel for Metro-Cammel and savior for savoir?] I think Overmod was referring to the old saying "A camel is a horse designed by a committee!" "Savior" I'm sure was a typo. Hey, nobody's perfect!
Sorry the unconscious word wit got lost. I was not being critical and certainly Overmod doesn't need anyone rushing to defend him.
Not all of the British diesel locomotives were complete disasters.
The Class 55 "Deltic" was very successful although its maintenance costs must have been much higher than contemporary US locomotives.
It started off as a demonstrator built by English Electric to promote rail use of an engine intended for fast patrol boats.
At the instigation of one regional manager, 22 were built for the London Edinburgh service in 1962 and these replaced the 55 steam locomotives working the high speed East Coast service.
The Class 37 which used the same trucks as the Deltic but a cheaper conventional carbody and the English Electric 12 SVT MkII which was more or less equivalent to the Alco 251 was the most successful of the other types and some of these are still in service today.
By the mid 1960s, most of the oddities had been weeded out and the EEs and the Sulzers kept the system going right up to privatisation.
These locomotives might not have survived in the operating environment in the USA, but they did the job they were intended for. There were many political and commercial restrictions on what equipment could be used and where it could be built that governed the design of the locomotives.
Peter
It appears that dieselization in the UK proceeded about 10-15 years later than in the USA and went through a lot of the same mistakes that occurred here.
CSSHEGEWISCH It appears that dieselization in the UK proceeded about 10-15 years later than in the USA and went through a lot of the same mistakes that occurred here.
While the results of buying untested new designs were the same, many of the mistakes in the UK were quite different to those made in the USA.
Since the British Government was paying, all the diesel engines had to be built in the UK. EMD were approached but would not agree to licence manufacture of the 567 engine. (in fact EMD never did licence any of the two stroke engines although copies of the 645 have been made in some numbers, but they did licence the four stroke 265H to China). So with EMD ruled out BR were left with British and European engines.
Had they stuck with the English Electric SVT used in the original 1947 LMS 10000, all would have been well, but EE probably couldn't have built enough engines to meet the schedule of locomotive construction. Of course all the other engine builders wanted a share although there was little to recommend them.
One thing not considered in the USA was the axle load. The BR Civil Engineers wanted to limit the load on individual axles and wanted unmotored leading axles on high speed locomotives. (this feature was added to Santa Fe numbers 1 and 10 by the railroad, but was never used again). The truck design selected was heavy and clumsy and may have made track impacts worse, and was abandoned for new locomotives after seven years.
These trucks were used on two designs, the BR built Sulzer (classes 44, 45 and 46) and the EE Class 40. The class 40 was too heavy and not powerful enough and the Sulzers not much better and they ended up on secondary trains after the advent of the Deltics and the much improved Class 47, which used the same Sulzer power in a lighter locomotive with conventional trucks.
The other mistake was to build too many low powered locomotives for duties on secondary lines which were closed under the Beeching plan.
Multiple unit qperation was not used much in the UK. although most locomotives were capable of MU.
The other mistake was after buying samples of ten locomotives of various types for comparative testing, political considerations meant that production quantities were purchased before any testing had been carried out.
One result of this was that 263 locomotives of class 31 had their Mirlees JVS 12T engines replaced by the EE 12SVT after only a few years of service. The Mirlees JVS was one of three engines built to the same dimensions by different builders intended for use in small warships. Only a few export locomotives to Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe also used this engine.
Rode a Deltic London - Newcaastle including 100mph running. Not sure of the year, but was early summer, July, and most of the poles for the catenary for the future electrification were already in place.
Note that after privitization, EMD did make inroadsd into the UK market. Progress rail still doing it. And diesel development in the UK has pretty much stalled becausse of wide-spread electrification.
Higher maintenance costs on the Deltics would not surprise me due to the nature of the design. It was a three-crankshaft version of the Fairbanks Morse OP engine, which had the same reputation for higher maintenance costs.
After WW2 Britain had a lot of relatively new / modern steam locomotives and - perhaps most importantly - lots of coal in Wales, but little to no oil. Made sense to use what they had.
Keep in mind UK equipment is about 1/8 smaller than comparable US equipment due to their old tunnel clearances and such. Don't know that they could have used US equipment "as is". The US-built engines sold over there in recent decades were built to UK designs. They couldn't just buy off-the-shelf SD-90s.
wjstixAfter WW2 Britain had a lot of relatively new / modern steam locomotives and - perhaps most importantly - lots of coal in Wales, but little to no oil. Made sense to use what they had.
Except that they were already using it -- for export, to make up the costs of the War. What was left to burn in locomotives in those years -- even locomotives pulling trains of coals to Newcastle -- was often pretty poor and dirty.
At one point in the 1940s, roughly contemporaneous with the American effort to do the same thing, the British started implementing oil conversions en masse (due to coal-miner troubles that I don't remember the details of). This also influenced the design of Bulleid's Leader at a critical time ... then went away again as a priority leaving all sorts of design compromise hobbling the effort.
Just under a thousand Standards were built starting right at the end of the Forties -- and yet priority was for dieselization by 1955. With EMD out of the equation for ongoing currency reasons. If we look at the relative success of many first-generation engines done by much more 'practical' engineering staffs on this side of the pond, we might be more lenient with those early British mainline tries.
With EMD out of the equation for ongoing currency reasons.
It wasn't just currency. The diesel engines had to be built in Britain. The Government owned the railway and the government wanted jobs in the new technologies they were introducing, not just building the locomotives but the engines and generators and traction motors.
Ireland had no such restrictions, since all their locomotives were imported and heavy engineering was not a critical industry.
So EMD were out regardless of the availability of dollars since the 567 was not available for licence construction.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.