British Railway Operations

[Murphy Siding]

Simon Reed: Thanks for the links. It's pouring rain here, which gave me a lot of time to check them out.[^]



Cogload: What is a signaller? Maybe we call them something different here?

Thanks

[Simon Reed]

A few links may help to explain the intentions for 804 the ALCo.

www.preserved-diesels.co.uk

www.preservedshunters.co.uk

www.railcar.co.uk

www.ukhrail.uel.ac.uk

The last, if you follow the navigation through UK Heritage Railways, might be very informative for you.

[Simon Reed]

The ALCo will intially be used in service on the Nene Valley Railway - www.nvr.org.uk/ - as an additional member of their diesel fleet.

A feature of the UK railway preservation scene is that preserved locomotives often move from their home bases for "guest" visits to other railways and this may be an option.

This, however, is running before we walk, and there is a LOT of time, effort and, of course, money to be expended before we get to that point. Right at the moment simply getting the group off the ground is proving troublesome due to a variety of factors but I hope to have a press release, backed up by an operational website and a binding constitution, in place shortly.

The Class 66 is pretty much ubiquitous in this country now. All four of the principle UK frieght operators own at least several, and more are on order for a fifth operator. I think their operation, and the status of the UK railfreight market, has been covered earlier in this topic.

I'm not a railwayman but as I understand it they are favoured for their reliability and relatively low running costs but are disliked for their lack of acceleration and pulling power compared to the BR types that they have replaced, in particular the Paxman engined Class 56.

[Hugh Jampton]

I dunno about anyone else but I'm gettin a bit sick of the sight of them class 66s. They only come in 3 colours and all.. EWS maroon and gold, Freightliner green or GBRF blue. They've also started selling them in Europe and I saw a couple of Dutch ones when I was there last.
They're OK, but not perfect. They don't like starting at temps below 35, and they're having problems with the engine mountings. The drivers seem to like hem, but think they're a bit underpowered in some situations.

EWS was created at privatisation and they got the bulk of the UK freight business. It's been reasonably sucessfull, and they're quite agressive at trying to get more freight back onto the rails.

[Murphy Siding]

In Brian Solomon's excellent book "Locomotive" , there is a short chapter about the EMD Class 66 locomotive. It seems to be somewhat of a British version of an SD-40 with double ended cabs. The book says that Ed Burkhardt (of Wisconsin Central fame) came to control the English, Welsch & Scottish Railway. He purchased 250 Class 66 locomotives for EW&S, starting in 1998. Are these locomotives familiar to any of you Brits? I'm curious how they are performing. What about EW&S? I've not heard that name before, has it been succesful?

Thanks

[Murphy Siding]

Simon Reed: About your ALCO-what is the intended use for it, once it is returned to running condition?

Thanks

[Simon Reed]

Mr. Hurley - I think we're roughly saying the same thing from two different perspectives. I am an unashamed Socialist with a deep regret that neither World War was able to generate sufficient momentum to depose the invidious influence of class that this country still suffers.

As for Bessemer converters - I'm guessing from your shed plate that you're South Wales based. I'm the son of a BSC (and later British Shipbuilding - even worse) manager based initially at Workington and latterly Barrow Hoopworks, where in the mid 70's they were still working with an unmodified 1924 plant. Can you help me with some info about my ALCo?

Back to railways - thanks for the clarification on grade seperated/grade crossings. Had'nt realised it was that simple. As a signaller Cogload may be able to help us but as I recall after the Ufton Nervet incident last year (in which a suicidal man drove his car onto a grade/level crossing leading to a derailment with multiple fatalities) the figure given for remaining grade/level crossings in the UK was something like 1400.

[Murphy Siding]

mhurley87f: Thanks for that little insight into British post WW II economic history. It makes sense to me. I sometimes can focus on something pretty tightly. and not see it in the big picture.

As always Thanks

[mhurley87f]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Simon Reed

I think that there are two keys to the failure of US Diesel manufacturers to impact on the UK market.

As has been suggested in previous posts the nationalisation of Britain's railways in 1948 was in part necessitated by the huge investment required at that stage following WW2, and in part a highly politicised reinforcement of the economy. Although Britain did not suffer the same degree of collateral damage as mainland Europe during WW2, the war and the increasing industrialisation of the commonwealth countries meant that the immediate postwar years effectively saw the end of the British empire.

This led to a tremendously parochial and insular approach as Britain effectively set out to rebuild itself as an independent trading nation. The nationalised industries (and you must understand that nationalisation encompassed more or less all significant production and services) were very much pressured into using home grown resources to progress and modernise, even though in many situations the technology and expertise was not available domestically. As an example, British Steel plodded along with basic Bessemer technology well into the 1970's, when huge advances had been made elsewhere.

I think the simple answer, therefore, is that established US diesel manufacturers were not approached to assist in implementing the modernisation programme because it was against policy to do so. To measure how costly that instance of "stiff upper lip" was, look at some of the locomotive disasters mentioned by M636, then look at CIE, the nationalised transport operator in Ireland. Their Crossley (UK) engined A and C class diesels were such an abject disaster that they looked to GM. The result - the "B" class - are largely still in traffic today and the original A and C classes were re-engined with GM products.

It's also worth mentioning that the British "establishment" were, in the 1950's, still smarting over the fact that the US Army effectively brought about the end of WW2, and in certain circles there was a marked antipathy toward all things American.

The second key? Try sending a Double Stack down any route in Britain....

Simon,

At the end of WW2, the UK owed the US big time for the materiel etc lend leased / sold on tick over the 6 years. That single fact shaped Public Policy for Post War Governments for several years.

The UK didn't suffer as badly as France and the Low Countries, but then we didn't qualify for Marshall Plan Aid, and we had to repay the war debts in US Dollars, not Pounds Sterling !!

Let's not forget also that while the Hot War had mercifully ended, the Cold War was very much on, vide the Berlin Blockade of 1948, and the Korean War shorlty afterwards., even in comparative peace time, military spending was considerably higher than it had been prior to 1939.

Check out your history, the Government's message at the time was export or die, domestic demand had to be damped down by Purchase Taxes to encourage exports, especially if they were paid in Dollars.

How were the Railways affected by this - there's the story of the Oil Firing initiative kicked off by the GWR, and later seized on by BR, only for the whole thing to founder as the Nation couldn't spare the foreign exchange (i.e. Dollars) to buy the 26 tanker loads of that time of Bunker C !!

How did Nationalisation work, well it allowed the Govt to ration out funds to all the Sectors desperate to repair war damage and get back to some form of normality.

I don't suppose the man in the street honestly cared a toss about what type of locomtive pulled his train, or where it had been built, his concern was more probably, "when can I get the bomb damage repairs to my home finished?, or where can I get a home for my family (and not have live in apartments with my in-laws)?, or has her indoors enough points to get a joint of beef from the butcher?

Against that backdrop, significant bombing damage, industries worn out by 6 years of war, and 6 years of maintenance arrears, housing shortages, and no Doolars to buy the GM diesels that BR did at the time acknowledge as the best around at the time, the only answer was to carry on with steam, using coal, the fuel that was thankfully spread out fairly well around the mainland, until times got better.

I can assure you that parochialism wasn't our problem in those difficult years, rather it was pressure on the exchequer to repay the war debt, and use what foreign exchange was available for the greatest good of the Nation as a whole.

By the way, where on earth did you read about Bessemer converters still in widespread use in the UK in the 1970s? Your Geography Text Book must have been years out of date as any left were on British Steel's Closure List.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C


The reason that EMD missed out in Britain was the insistence that the engines be built in the UK.



M636C

Interesting. A dozen years before, Rolls-Royce was letting Packard build Merlins, but EMD wouldn't licence their diesels to be built in Britain. Looking back, I would think having them licence built in Britain would have helped the British railroad system, and given EMD a big foot in the door for the future.

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Why are diamonds so rare? I would have thought that there would be lots of rail lines going every which way in Britain.

There are lots of lines in the UK, but when they were built competitors generally crossed each other on bridges (or built bridges later when traffic levels made flat crossings hopelessly congested). If they were friendly then they would build a junction. The only US-style flat crossing on an important current route I can think of is at Newark where the Nottingham-Lincoln secondary line crosses the London-Edinburgh main line 'at grade' (both lines are double track, and were originally built by different private railway companies).

Note that I'm talking here about situations where one route crosses another one - there are obviously lots of simple diamond crossings as part of double track junction and complex station track layouts.

Tony

[Anonymous]

As I understand it, level crossings on public roads here have to have flashing lights and barriers - railways in this country have had to be fully fenced-in by law since the earliest days to keep people, animals, etc off the rails (they do still find their way onto the tracks but it's not that common). You will find the occasional farm crossing on branch lines which just has a pair of 5-bar gates and some old sleepers (ties) between the rails - using these is a little risky, you have to open both gates, then cross as quickly as possible while listening for trains. I think some of them may now have a phone to allow farmers moving animals to check that nothing's coming their way - I've not looked closely at one.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by owlsroost

Grade crossing (US) = Level crossing (UK).
Grade separated crossing (US) = Crossing using a bridge.
(also a 'grade separated junction' would be a fly-over or dive-under junction in the UK)

We do have quite a lot of level crossings in the UK, but they are frowned on these days because of accident potential and the expense of maintaining the equipment (safety requirements for them are more onerous than in the US). There are a lot in my part of the country because it's flat and the rail lines were built cheaply 150 years ago, whereas in other areas there are very few. My guess is that the majority of crossings are bridges.

Flat rail/rail crossings ('diamonds') are also very rare in the UK.

Tony

Thanks for translating my words into English[;)]. Sorry I wasn't a little more clear on that. Can you expand on what you mean about safety requirements being more onerous? Why are diamonds so rare? I would have thought that there would be lots of rail lines going every which way in Britain.

Thanks

[daveklepper]

I am very pleased that in the last days of Deltic diesel operation on the East Coast main line, I did get a cab ride from London to Newcastle and it was exactly at 100mph most of the way. Poles for the catenary were already in place on most of the line.

[owlsroost]

Grade crossing (US) = Level crossing (UK).
Grade separated crossing (US) = Crossing using a bridge.
(also a 'grade separated junction' would be a fly-over or dive-under junction in the UK)

We do have quite a lot of level crossings in the UK, but they are frowned on these days because of accident potential and the expense of maintaining the equipment (safety requirements for them are more onerous than in the US). There are a lot in my part of the country because it's flat and the rail lines were built cheaply 150 years ago, whereas in other areas there are very few. My guess is that the majority of crossings are bridges.

Flat rail/rail crossings ('diamonds') are also very rare in the UK.

Tony

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Lucky thing for the British "establishment" that they were able to shun American technology vs. having to *embrace* the technology of the Third Reich[;)] Oh well-water under the bridge. Didn't the Royal Navy have any other diesel experience that could be used for locomotive engines? Why didn't the actual production of engines go to someone with longtime engine building experience-Avro,Rolls Royce, Bristol, etc?

Sadly, success in the marine enviroment isn't a guarantee of good performance on the rails, but the converse does apply, a good rail engine will work in a ship.

The Fairbanks Morse OP and the EMD 201 didn't work as well in diesel locomotives as they did in ships. In Britain, the stabdard post war submarine engine was the "Admiralty Standard Range 1" built in small numbers (relatively) at high cost by Vickers. When World War III was still a possibility, two commercial builders made engines to the same specification, the Paxman YL and the Mirlees JVS-12, for use in expanding the fleet on mobilisation.

The Paxman YL found its way into Italian locomotives, but not in Britain, but the Mirlees JVS-12 was used in the Bru***ype 2 (now Class 31). It started off well. but was found to suffer from crankcase cracking (like the Sulzer) and all 263 locomotives were rebuilt using English Electric 12 SVT engines.

The reason that EMD missed out in Britain was the insistence that the engines be built in the UK. This was not a concern for Ireland.

The Crossley engines lasted until the mid 1980s in Western Australia, partly because the locomotives had a very low axle load, and could work on lighter track than the EMD (and English Electric) locomotives of comparable power.

M636C

[Simon Reed]

Well maybe we could help each other here. What's the difference between a grade crossing and a grade seperated crossing?

I suspect that we're talking about what we would call level crossings and occupation crossings. A level crossing would be the crossing of a public road over the right of way, whereas an occupation crossing would usually be the crossing of private access (to a single property or industry, or between agricultural fields for instance) over the right of way.

Generically both are referred to as level crossings.

Have I got the right idea?

[Murphy Siding]

Are grade-seperated rail-highway crossings common in Britain? I believe I read that Britain puts a little more emphasis on this than American railroads. With a few miles of my home are 7 grade seperated crossings, and 50+ grade crossings.

[Murphy Siding]

Lucky thing for the British "establishment" that they were able to shun American technology vs. having to *embrace* the technology of the Third Reich[;)] Oh well-water under the bridge. Didn't the Royal Navy have any other diesel experience that could be used for locomotive engines? Why didn't the actual production of engines go to someone with longtime engine building experience-Avro,Rolls Royce, Bristol, etc?

[Simon Reed]

I think that there are two keys to the failure of US Diesel manufacturers to impact on the UK market.

As has been suggested in previous posts the nationalisation of Britain's railways in 1948 was in part necessitated by the huge investment required at that stage following WW2, and in part a highly politicised reinforcement of the economy. Although Britain did not suffer the same degree of collateral damage as mainland Europe during WW2, the war and the increasing industrialisation of the commonwealth countries meant that the immediate postwar years effectively saw the end of the British empire.

This led to a tremendously parochial and insular approach as Britain effectively set out to rebuild itself as an independent trading nation. The nationalised industries (and you must understand that nationalisation encompassed more or less all significant production and services) were very much pressured into using home grown resources to progress and modernise, even though in many situations the technology and expertise was not available domestically. As an example, British Steel plodded along with basic Bessemer technology well into the 1970's, when huge advances had been made elsewhere.

I think the simple answer, therefore, is that established US diesel manufacturers were not approached to assist in implementing the modernisation programme because it was against policy to do so. To measure how costly that instance of "stiff upper lip" was, look at some of the locomotive disasters mentioned by M636, then look at CIE, the nationalised transport operator in Ireland. Their Crossley (UK) engined A and C class diesels were such an abject disaster that they looked to GM. The result - the "B" class - are largely still in traffic today and the original A and C classes were re-engined with GM products.

It's also worth mentioning that the British "establishment" were, in the 1950's, still smarting over the fact that the US Army effectively brought about the end of WW2, and in certain circles there was a marked antipathy toward all things American.

The second key? Try sending a Double Stack down any route in Britain....

[M636C]

The British system considers the maximum power of the engine, while US locomotives are rated as the power input to the alternator after any auxiliary loads, such as the radiator cooling fans and the air compressor have been deducted. A third way would be to measure the power at the traction motors which is sometimes done in Europe. EMD rate the SD39-2 at 2250 HP input to generator, 2475 HP gross engine power. The class 57 is generally described as 2500 HP, which is near enough to the EMD rating. The 47 used hydrostatic fan drive rather than AC electric on the SD39-2, and that might be the difference, assuming the 57 kept the 47 cooling system. My estimates of the paarsitic load were a bit low, (I'd guessed 150HP, while EMD allows 225 HP) but the British rating of the class 57 with an F engine is close to 3000HP, which is an improvement over the de-rated Sulzer at 2500 HP. The 57 gets an improved control system with better wheelslip control, and is regarded as a significant improvement.

M636C

[Murphy Siding]

M636c: Thanks for the info. Yes, the picture was worth a 1000 words. Why is the HP rated different in Britain? Metric system?[;)]


As always- Thanks

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

M636C: Thanks for the info. Two thoughts- Were any other American diesel engines considered for building under licence in Britain? Alco,Baldwin,F-M,Lima, Hamilton......all had engines at about this time frame. And-where would I find a picture of the *baby* Deltic?

Thanks

I see the picture question was answered successfully. There don't appear to be any references to Alco trying for the British market. Alco did very well in former British colonies, Australia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh coming to mind. Perhaps Alco couldn't get BR to accept a standard locomotive - Alco exports were more standardised than EMD's export units.

Baldwin would have been exiting the market as BR started buying. Baldwin got a big share of locomotives in Belgium and the Netherlands, because they started earlier. Belgium used the big Baldwin engine whille the Netherlands used the smaller "Superior" engine.

The big F-M engine was a bit tall for BR clearances, and maybe a bit heavy for its power, but they did offer them to New Zealand (unsuccessfully) where clearances are much like those in the UK.

Owlsroost,

I didn't mean to imply that a major part of the class 47 fleet had been converted. I was a little surprised that so many had been rebuilt. I knew that later locomotives had 12-645F3, but had no idea where the break point was. The main difference between "E" and "F" engines is that the later engine runs at 950 rpm. 12-645F3 engines are relatively rare, at least in locomotives. Only the six GP39X units sold to the Southern (now NS) and nine GP49 units sold to Alaska used this engine. The NS units were rated at 2600 HP, about 2750HP in Briti***erms and the Alaska units were 2800 HP, maybe 2950 HP in Briti***erms. The class 57 rating was restricted by the use of an alternator removed from scrapped class 56 locomotives, at least in the early units. Are they still using these, or do they get an EMD alternator with the engine?

M636C

[Murphy Siding]

Thanks Tony! You're fast! I bookmarked that website right away. Looking at that picture though, I can't help but think of something on Thomas the Tank Engine[:)]. The comment by M636C about it looking like a caricature are, I think, true.


Thanks

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: And-where would I find a picture of the *baby* Deltic?

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Pages%20Loco/Recognition%20loco/Illus_23.html

Tony

[Murphy Siding]

M636C: Thanks for the info. Two thoughts- Were any other American diesel engines considered for building under licence in Britain? Alco,Baldwin,F-M,Lima, Hamilton......all had engines at about this time frame. And-where would I find a picture of the *baby* Deltic?

Thanks

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Many of these units were rebuilt with EMD 12-645E3 engines (as in SD-39s)

Only a small number - less than 30 - have been rebuilt into Class 57, the first (Freightliner) batch with 12-645E3 engines, the later (FGW/Virgin) batch with more powerful 12-645F3 (I think) engines to cope with the HEP load.

This is out of a total of over 500 class 47's originally built between 1962-1965, some of which are still running in their original form but quite a few have been scrapped.

Tony

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

M636C: What kind of problems occured with the licence built Swiss and German engines? *Baby Deltic*? Was that developed at the same time as the Deltic that I'm familiar with?

Thanks

The worst problems were with the MAN engines built under licence by North British Locomotive Company (NBL was a long established steam builder formed by a merger of smaller companies in Glasgow, mostly known for quoting low prices but sometimes needing to fix things after delivery). THe MAN engine was OK, not as high tech as the Maybach (who were lucky enough to get aero engine builder Bristol Siddeley as their licence builder) but the reliabilty figures for the NBL built engines were noticeably (not just statistically) worse. At one stage NBL had to import German built engines to keep units on the road. Many NBL engined units were rebuilt with Paxman engines and these were more reliable. Paxman engines before the HST Valenta engine were not highly though of even in England. One Royal Navy technical paper said of the "Ventura", the engine in question in the D6100 rebuilds, "the best feature of this engine is that the Navy didn't have to pay for its development!". After NBL went out of business, the parts came from Germany and the problems eased a bit, but the NBL/MAN engined units all had a short life.

The Sulzer engines were built by Vickers-Armstrongs, a ship and armament builder but they had been building diesel engines since the 1930s. The Sulzer was heavy and expensive to build and was reasonably reliable at the original power ratings. The 12LDA28C in the Class 47 was rated much higher up the scale than the original Pilot Scheme units (2750 HP compared to 2300HP) and the high levels of utilisation in Britain resulted in fatigue cracking in the welded crankcase structure. This could be corrected by welding, stress relieving and line boring the shaft lines again, but this was too expensive, and the Class 47 was dropped in power to 2500HP at which level they held together for a reasonable period. Many of these units were rebuilt with EMD 12-645E3 engines (as in SD-39s),

The prototype Deltic that led to the class 55 (twin 18 cylinder supercharged engines of 1650 HP) was around from 1955, but the production units only arrived in 1962. The Baby Deltic was a Type 1 unit of 1958/59, four axles with an 1100 HP nine cylinder turbocharged Deltic, in a carbody based on the big class 40 reduced so much in length to look like a caricature. The turbocharged Deltic was not fully developed at the time, and the units were stored for some time while the engines were rebuilt. These were the D5900 series, and one had actually been rebuilt to take the English Electric "U" series engine, basically similar to the successful Paxman Valenta or the German engines (but the U engine was cancelled as a cost saving measure. Years later the RK215 engine was developed to fill the same role and has gained a number of export orders.

M636C

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Simon Reed

To put things in perspective it takes 30 minutes to get from the centre of London to Heathrow or Gatwick airport, and even longer to Stanstead. It's probably a similar distance from Charles De Gaulle Airport to the centre of Paris. Why fly?

If you take the Eurostar to Brussels, which is the same distance and time roughly, you can make a cross-platform change onto a Thalys High Speed Express towards Amsterdam or Cologne - another hour each.

Many of the Amtrak threads on this forum have contained teeth gnashing and chest beating over the future of passenger rail in America. If you'd suggested in Europe 20 years ago that you could get from London to, say, Zurich in five hours by rail you'd not have been taken seriously.

The passenger train has, sadly, fallen out of idealogical currency in the US and the High Speed, dedicated track networks we see in mainland Europe are unlikely to usurp the Airlines as your favourite waste of taxpayers money.

Still, the European model shows what can be achieved with a willingness to transform the moribund into the dynamic.

I have made the point many times that if NA railroads had continued their evolution toward higher speeds out of the 1930's (when 100 mph operation was percieved as becoming "commonplace"), rather than settling for the long slow "load factor maximization" concept, it is likely the railroads could have outpaced the highway/trucking system's speed advantage and thus retained the time sensitive traffic dominance as well as the low value bulk commodity dominance, e.g. the erstwhile 70% railroad market share. This would have by default made rail passenger operations more viable in many of the medium length corridors, rather than the oxymoronic concept of trying to run time valued passenger trains at nominal NA freight train speeds.

The theoretical "natural" speed limit of railroad technology has always been around 125 mph (increased over the years with new technological advances), while the natural highway speed limit seems to have settled at around 60 to 70 mph. One can question what would happen to time sensitive freighting if railroads could double or triple their average velocity from the 25 mph range to 50 or 75 mph range.

In this aspect, the Europeans are light years ahead of NA. Now, if you continental types would just put more freight and less people on the rails, you will have achieved surface transporation Nirvana (the Edenistic ideal, not the grunge rock group!)

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

AFAIK, there are not many commuters from Paris to London or back, but more and more British citizens buying weekend houses on the French shore of the Channel. Northern France is an economically depressed area - smokestack and textile industries largely being gone - and real estate is cheaper than in southern England.
If you look for a job, it is easier to find one in Britain, e.g. London, than in France, because British economy is doing very well.

As far as screw couplers are concerned: they are certainly dangerous and labour-intensive to handle, but many European passenger trains practically run in fixed-consists, even if they are not m.u.s. It is cheaper to run an extra coach than to couple on or off during the day. In the seventies, a modern automatic-coupler-design was finally not adopted by the European railroads, largely because of French opposition.

In my area, people drive 2 or more hours to get to their lake cabins. Taking the train to a seaside cottage on the weekends might be good for what ails you.[:)]