BR diesel and electric locomotive plans that never happened

[hexagon789]

No, I mean 4000hp per engine

Never heard of that proposal then. I've only heard of the 4,400hp so-called "Super" Deltic - ie two 2300bhp Napiers downrated to 2200bhp for traction in a Class 50 bodyshell.

 

[randyrippley]

Never heard of that proposal then. I've only heard of the 4,400hp so-called "Super" Deltic - ie two 2300bhp Napiers downrated to 2200bhp for traction in a Class 50 bodyshell.

I've linked to this page before, it gives a history of Deltic engine development and an idea of just how much power they could produce.
The units put into the locos were tiddlers in comparison

Napier Deltic Opposed-Piston Diesel Engine

The Napier Deltic was a two-stroke, opposed-piston diesel engine with three cylinder banks arranged in a triangle. The engine was developed in the 1950s for marine and locomotive use, and it is sti…

oldmachinepress.com

4000hp was easy - they even had one demo machine (which used an exhaust driven gas turbine for primary compression) putting out 5000hp.
Just what was intended to be used in the Napier HST is unknown - the limiting factors would have been size of the cooling units, and fuel storage: they would have been thirsty

 

[hexagon789]

I've linked to this page before, it gives a history of Deltic engine development and an idea of just how much power they could produce.
The units put into the locos were tiddlers in comparison

Napier Deltic Opposed-Piston Diesel Engine

The Napier Deltic was a two-stroke, opposed-piston diesel engine with three cylinder banks arranged in a triangle. The engine was developed in the 1950s for marine and locomotive use, and it is sti…

oldmachinepress.com

4000hp was easy - they even had one demo machine (which used an exhaust driven gas turbine for primary compression) putting out 5000hp.
Just what was intended to be used in the Napier HST is unknown - the limiting factors would have been size of the cooling units, and fuel storage: they would have been thirsty

Oh I was aware there were much more powerful engines than 2,300bhp, just not that any of 4,000bhp individually were intended for use in railway locomotives.

 

[randyrippley]

Oh I was aware there were much more powerful engines than 2,300bhp, just not that any of 4,000bhp individually were intended for use in railway locomotives.

I guess we'll never know what they were plotting - the point I was trying to make was that with a Deltic-HST much more power was available. A Deltic with the same rating as a Valenta would be pointless. A thought has just hit me though - with EE handing over the Napier products to Paxman to support, did Paxman kill the project to protect Valenta sales?

 

[hexagon789]

I guess we'll never know what they were plotting - the point I was trying to make was that with a Deltic-HST much more power was available. A Deltic with the same rating as a Valenta would be pointless. A thought has just hit me though - with EE handing over the Napier products to Paxman to support, did Paxman kill the project to protect Valenta sales?

Sorry, I thought you were saying there was an official plan for twin 4,000bhp Napier-engined locos! My mistake.

 

[Strathclyder]

I do remember the concept being tossed around in the magazines in the late 80s, together with some mock up drawings (which basically looked like a 58 with an electric locomotive's roof) but I think it was something that never got past the drawing board.

The Fictitious Liveries site - still available via the Wayback Machine - had a few images of what that might've looked like:

Railfreight Grey with Red Stripe: https://web.archive.org/web/20161022054754/http://fictitiousliveries.co.uk/photo.php?88002_rf.jpg

Railfreight Distribution: https://web.archive.org/web/20161022054447/http://fictitiousliveries.co.uk/photo.php?88047_rfd.jpg

The same site also has/had mockups of what the Super Deltic concept could've ended up looking like in a selection of liveries (InterCity Swallow and ScotRail are my picks out of this lot) had it become a reality:

BR Blue: https://web.archive.org/web/20161022060329/http://fictitiousliveries.co.uk/photo.php?51029_BRB.jpg

InterCity Executive: https://web.archive.org/web/20161022061001/http://fictitiousliveries.co.uk/photo.php?51030_ICE.jpg

ScotRail: https://web.archive.org/web/20161022052547/http://fictitiousliveries.co.uk/photo.php?51031_ICSc.jpg

InterCity Swallow: https://web.archive.org/web/20161022060804/http://fictitiousliveries.co.uk/photo.php?51037_ICS.jpg

 

[Western 52]

When class numbers were first allocated, a number of gaps were left - classes 18, 19, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 49, 51 and 54. Were these left because BR had any future plans for these?

 

[hexagon789]

When class numbers were first allocated, a number of gaps were left - classes 18, 19, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 49, 51 and 54. Were these left because BR had any future plans for these?

18 was going to be a super shunter iirc
19 is the energy storage DVT conversion
32 was never allocated
34 was originally allocated to the narrow body 33s
36 was never allocated
38 was a different proposal for what became the Class 60
39 and 49 were never allocated
51 was the Class 50 body 4,400hp "Super Deltic" proposal
54 was never allocated

As to why certain gaps were left, I doubt anyone could say precisely, its rather piecemeal but originally there was a consideration to giving Class numbers in batches based on the previous power categories - ie "Type" 1-5.

 

[D6968]

18 was going to be a super shunter iirc
19 is the energy storage DVT conversion
32 was never allocated
34 was originally allocated to the narrow body 33s
36 was never allocated
38 was a different proposal for what became the Class 60
39 and 49 were never allocated
51 was the Class 50 body 4,400hp "Super Deltic" proposal
54 was never allocated

As to why certain gaps were left, I doubt anyone could say precisely, its rather piecemeal but originally there was a consideration to giving Class numbers in batches based on the previous power categories - ie "Type" 1-5.

I thought Falcon was nominally allocated the 54 number? Same as the 1000’s were allocated 52?
34 was allocated to the 33/1’s rather than the Slim Jim’s.
Regarding the Class 38 I believe that that would have been a type 3 replacement for the 37, which obviously didn’t happen but the power units used in the 37/9’s (Ruston and Mirlees) were used to evaluate what became used in the class 60’s.

 

[hexagon789]

I thought Falcon was nominally allocated the 54 number? Same as the 1000’s were allocated 52?
34 was allocated to the 33/1’s rather than the Slim Jim’s.
Regarding the Class 38 I believe that that would have been a type 3 replacement for the 37, which obviously didn’t happen but the power units used in the 37/9’s (Ruston and Mirlees) were used to evaluate what became used in the class 60’s.

I thought Falcon was 53?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

There were 3 type 4 prototypes, D0260 lion which was BRCWs white 47alike, D0280 falcon which was essentially a western in a 47 body but with electric as opposed to hydraulic traction and of course the deltic skinned 50, DP2.
only Falcon was allocated a class number on TOPS of class 53 and was given the running number 1200 probably on account of its longer working life compared to the other two and was withdrawn and disposed of in 1976. Lion was scrapped in 1965 having been in service for just 2 years and DP2 in 1967 following its demise at Thirsk.

 

[O L Leigh]

I do remember the concept being tossed around in the magazines in the late 80s, together with some mock up drawings (which basically looked like a 58 with an electric locomotive's roof) but I think it was something that never got past the drawing board.

I don’t believe it ever got past the ideas stage never mind as far as the drawing board, so the Fictitious Liveries mock-up is not official.

I do recall the idea behind the modular design of the Cl58 was to allow for other variants to be cheaply available by reusing standard modules such as cabs, etc. I expect the proposed Cl38 would have been built on this principle. The design was also touted for export in various configurations, with a model of a single-ended variant being displayed.

I think that the gaps in the TOPS classifications was largely a consequence of how the slapdash nature of how types were renumbered. The idea was 0-10 were shunters, 11-20 Type 1s, 21-30 Type 2s, and so on. Clearly there was some bleed-over where there were more than ten classes in a Type category and, while some classifications were reserved, some gaps were merely the consequence of there being no loco class to append them to.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

How about the never was Sprinter for Strathclyde PTE

British Rail Class 157 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There was also a proposal for a fleet of single car class 152s which would have been supplied by Metro-Cammell and based on the class 156. In the end BR went with the cheaper option and sliced up the 155s instead.

 

[randyrippley]

When class numbers were first allocated, a number of gaps were left - classes 18, 19, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 49, 51 and 54. Were these left because BR had any future plans for these?

I've always assumed that some numbers were held for the prototype locos in case they weren't scrapped quickly enough or went into preservation, in which case something like this could have happened
18 10800 / Hawk
19 DHP1 (the super-Clayton)
32 in one version of TOPS this was intended for the narrow 33s
34 originally intended for the TC fitted 33s
36 10000, 10001
38 10201, 10202
39 10203
49 DP2
51 Lion
54 DELTIC

Kestrel could have been anything > 55, with the number later being reused
Of mainline diesels that just leaves 10100 without a class, but it was scrapped in 1960 so no risk of it hanging around

That just leaves a handful of shunter types unclassed, the main significant one being the Blackstone engined 08 clones.

All total speculation and guesswork, anyone see an error?

 

[Speed43125]

Kestrel could have been anything > 55, with the number later being reused

I have seen 62 suggested for the Kestrel, no clue at all on if that was ever suggested in any official capacity though.

 

[E27007]

The 1947 LNER mainline diesel scheme, a fleet of 2000 bhp diesel-electrics to work the Kings Cross to Newcastle route, another "that missed the boat". The scheme was not pursued by the BTC following the 1948 nationalisation, a pity, tenders had been issued for designs with locomotive manufacturers, if implemented the scheme would have given the fledgling BR some very useful experience of diesel locomotive operation and the elimination of steam operation, several years before the 1955 BR pilot scheme for diesel traction

 

[gg1]

I have seen 62 suggested for the Kestrel, no clue at all on if that was ever suggested in any official capacity though.

Highly unlikely they would have jumped from 55 to 62 for a class 5 loco, as a general rule BR didn't skip large blocks of class numbers.

If Kestrel had gone into production I don't think it's inconceivable a new type 6 classification would have been introduced for 4000hp locos in the number range 60-69 though, Kestrel then becoming class 60.

 

[AY1975]

Not a loco….. Class 471 networker express, essentially a 465 on steroids and with corridor connection. Planned to replace Kent coast CEPs

How about the never was Sprinter for Strathclyde PTE

British Rail Class 157 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How about the Class 316 Pic-Vic units?

British Rail Class 316 (Picc-Vic) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This thread is about locos that were proposed but never built. I've set up a separate thread on DMUs and EMUs that were planned but never built at www.railforums.co.uk/threads/br-dmus-and-emus-proposed-but-never-built.231898/

The 157s and 316s are mentioned in that thread.