How would the LNER's fleet have developed had BR never come to pass

[Nova]

I recall stumbling across the below impression of a streamlined Thompson pacific and it is a much more handsome beast than the unstreamlined version in my humble opinion

Now that is seriously lacking in aesthetics, to put it politely.

Semi-streamlined, surely?

yes, that's the right term, though it slipped my mind at the time of writing. the design of the semi-streamlining was by a mister A. N. Wolstenholme, who created a number of posters for BR including the well known line-up poster of all the BR designs of the era.

he also came up with a design for a semi-streamlined Duchess, which is...less than graceful


if it wasn't for all that clutter around the smoke box it wouldn't look too bad, but those fins especially seem to ruin the lines, it would probably look somewhat better with a P2-like smokebox.

The fairing on the lower half looks nice in my opinion, though, and I'm tempted to have a go at the sei-streamlined A2/3 purely because it'll be something unique and interesting. Semi-streamlining also makes more sense in a post war climate than full streamlining as it's easier to get at internals for maintenance whilst still marking the engine as something a cut above the rest, plus it would be cheaper than full streamlining.

I shall now retreat to my bunker before the artillery hits (I can already hear the Nebelwerfers)

[billbedford]

The difference was that the LNER wanted to buy off-the-shelf locos from the US, and not develop home-grown designs.

there is one big problem with that
American built locomotives are HUGE, meaning they will encounter problems with the first bridge or tunnel they encounter as Foster Yeoman found out

Do you really think that any competent engineer would order new locos without specifying the loading gauge?

[john coffin]

one notes that many trains for London Underground were delivered too wide,or too high, and also one of the problems with the challenger accident
that was admitted by Nasa was people misunderstanding inches and millimetres.

Everybody makes mistakes, and to suggest that SNAFU's do not happen is naive to say the least.

The reason for using USA technology was more to do with the financial deals that were available during the time of the Marshall Plan
even though the UK was not a direct Marshall plan recipient.

Paul

[billbedford]

one notes that many trains for London Underground were delivered too wide,or too high,

There is a lot of difference between a few inches in the width or height of LT stock and the couple of feet difference in height of the UK/US loading gauge.

The reason for using USA technology was more to do with the financial deals that were available during the time of the Marshall Plan
even though the UK was not a direct Marshall plan recipient.

Actually the UK received more money from the Marshall plan than any other European country, but the government chose not to send it on industrial reconstruction.

[john coffin]

Anyone who worked in any "important" British industry during the 60's and 70's even, know that they were still paying the price of the Atlee labour
government's push for exports without any allowance for modernisation, which is why our car industry and motorcycle one too lost their way.
Indeed Norton famously when they went bust were still using machinery from the 1890's into the 1960's.

However the important thing is that you, Bill stated glibly that engineers would not make measuring mistakes, and in fact they do and will continue so to do, because of lack of care or not looking at history to check why things were of the size and shape they were. In particular, we remember that
Chat Moss should not have worked, nor some of the viaducts built stand the strain of trains which are more than 15 times the weight, and at least three times the speed. Computer engineering, is likely not to allow the kind of excess of safety margin that was allowed by brain power, too much finite allowance is now the god, and frankly too many people believe in the computer, rather than as before questioning this. Garbage in Garbage out is still
a sensible response to all definitive statements that come from computer engineered things.

Paul

[billbedford]

The difference was that the LNER wanted to buy off-the-shelf locos from the US, and not develop home-grown designs.

there is one big problem with that

Really???

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... L66001.jpg
http://www.markgeorgephotography.co.uk/ ... 01c655.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _70017.jpg
http://www.miac.org.uk/images/70003.jpg

[billbedford]

However the important thing is that you, Bill stated glibly that engineers would not make measuring mistakes, and in fact they do and will continue so to do, because of lack of care or not looking at history to check why things were of the size and shape they were. In particular, we remember that

Oh good grief, what a complete non sequitur.

The chances of the LNER being supplied in 1947 with locos that grossly out of gauge were infinitesimal because:

1/ The LNER drawing offices had spent more than 20 years trying to fit some of their own locos in to loading gauges that were smaller than those they were built for.

2/ The LNER contract would have been an introduction into the potentially lucrative UK/British Empire market, so any American loco builder would have been trying there damnedest to make make sure that nobody screwed up, especially with a basic error such as getting loading gauge wrong.

[john coffin]

And you know for sure that the drawing offices of the LNER did not make mistakes??

Think the L1, and the Thompson conversions of the 4-6-2's, let alone some of the other changes he made.

[65447]

Computer engineering, is likely not to allow the kind of excess of safety margin that was allowed by brain power, too much finite allowance is now the god, and frankly too many people believe in the computer, rather than as before questioning this. Garbage in Garbage out is still a sensible response to all definitive statements that come from computer engineered things.

There's certainly a surfeit of garbage in that statement. First the programs are coded, tested and operated by people and most important the data input is as a rule either from human sources or sources which are designed by humans. The safety margins, choice of materials used and so on are human. So any errors are most probably made by a human too - it did not need a computer for Sir Thomas Bouch to under-calculate and hence under-engineer the first Tay Bridge and it still does not need a computer for a human to make mistakes. Half a century ago, the imagination of mathematicians and engineers working under the overall guidance of the brilliant Ove Arup allowed the employment of early computers to undertake a new structural design technique called finite element analysis; without this the roof of the Sydney Opera House would not have been constructed in the form envisioned by it's architect Dane Jorn Utzon. Systems designers and programmers understand the need to incorporate safety margins and the need to set bounds or compare results against limits in computation and can thus ensure that the computer helps prevent garbage coming out - and can also of course validate and identify garbage going in.

Writing as a former engineer who made use of computers from the early 1970s for repetitive calculations, highway design, traffic and transportation studies and traffic control systems before switching into IT full-time, the power of modern computing and the creativity of those who conceive and program it are the foundation of today's extensive modern industrial complex and commercial operations.

And you know for sure that the drawing offices of the LNER did not make mistakes?? Think the L1, and the Thompson conversions of the 4-6-2's, let alone some of the other changes he made.

Somehow I don't think those could in any way be ascribed to the drawing office staff.

[Nova]

moving the conversation swiftly back on track, it turns out that at the time there was, in fact, american diesel locomotives working in Europe that could fit the bill as a candidate for a possible LNER diesel locomotive.

in the 1960s the Swedish company of Nydqvist & Holm AB, or NOHAB as the locomotives themselves were often referred, built a series of Co-Co Diesel electrics powered by GM-EMD engines. and their American origins are clearly seen in the design


they appeared in Hungary as the class M61


and in Denmark in the form of the MY class (Pictured left) and lighter MX class (Pictured right)


British Railways was actually offered a design similar to the European NOHAB locomotives by GM EMD, to be constructed in the UK under license, but turned it down, so surely it wouldn't be that far of a stretch to use a HO scale model (subtly modified) painted in LNER green, to represent examples built in the UK under liscense


This image created by Paul Burkitt-Gray is based on a photo by Wikimedia user Ollivius distributed under the GNU free documentation license, and as such is released under the same license.


I mean it's not that far of a stretch considering the class 42 "Warships" were essentially a licensed version of the Deutsche Bundesbahn V200

^ V200


^ Class 42 "Warship"

[65447]

Having just re-read John Glover's 'Eastern Electric' and the arguments in favour of domestically-generated electricity (from coal) rather than imported oil, it is most evident that the LNER would have progressed with suburban and main-line electrification should the capital to do so be realised. Of course if HMG had not reneged on the value of the restitution to be made to the railway companies following WW2 then a substantial proportion of that capital would have been available and could have been applied to those schemes, much in the way the Eastern and North Eastern Regions did under BR. There would still be a requirement for non-electric motive power and diesels would probably have been the interim solution for the reasons that BR utilised DMUs etc.

[52D]

I can imagine EM2s on Liverpool Street to Manchester expresses and also on London bound coal trains from Wath to Whitemoor.

[1H was 2E]

The LNER had already invited tenders for the supply of main-line diesel locomotives for the ECML but were prevented from placing an order for them due to impending Nationalisation. That is the most curious event in that all three other grouped companies were able/allowed to continue with their purchase/construction of diesel (electric, mechanical or hydraulic) and gas turbine main-line motive power - LMS 10000-1 in 1947-8, Fell 10100 and NB 10800 in 1950, SR 10201-3 in 1950-1 and GW gas turbine 18000 in 1950 and 18100 in 1952.

The difference was that the LNER wanted to buy off-the-shelf locos from the US, and not develop home-grown designs.

May I refer to what would now be called a 'Press Release' by the LNER that appeared in the September 1947 Journal of the SLS?
It starts "With the object of relieving the difficulties caused by the non-availability of steam locomotive power, the Board of the LNER have recently approved plans to construct 25 diesel-electric locomotive units of 1,600 horse power the principal Anglo- Scottish expresses" I infer from this that the intention was that they would be built in LNER workshops.
25 were to be ordered and they were to work in pairs (presumably with one spare...) and the locomotives are described as "....work in pairs...... will, between them, possess 24 wheels (16 of them 'drivers')" - i.e., for each loco., 4 driving axles and 2 carrying axles - presumably 1-Bo-Bo-1. The description continues, in apparently describing a pair of locos as weighing 240 tons and being 114 foot long over buffers. If there has not been a confusion a 57 foot long loco on 6 axles weighing 120 tons might have met with resistance from the Civil Engineer - which might possibly have been the sticking point.
Were there any US American locomotives that fitted that description? It does seem to be quite precise.

[1H was 2E]

A further thought on the planned locos has just occurred to me...
Lets compare them with a loco that the Eastern Region did get in quantity - the Brush/ Mirlees Type 2, code 13/2
LNER Brush

Driving axles 4 tick
Carrying axles 2 tick
Length approx. 57' 56' 9" (approx. 57')
Weight 120 tons 104 tons
HP 1600 1365, but D5655-D5670 were uprated to 1600.

mmm...

Edit . sorry my tabulations don't seem to work

[billbedford]

I think the bogies of these diesels were more likely to be A-1-A than 1-Bo, since this was a common arrangement at the time in the US,
120 tons on six axles gives an axle load of 20 tons which is less than a pacific. Basically these locos were to be something like a BR class 31.
The full report concerning these loco is reproduced in Bonavia volume 3, which gives a little more information. It concludes that 22 single units would be needed, but to cover any eventuality 25 should be ordered. These would replace 26 pacifics in service, or allowing for availability, 32 in the stock.

The last paragraph of the conclusions reads: " that enquiries be made of all possible builders of Diesel-electric locomotives and designs and quotations obtained"