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

[williewhizz]

It is highly unlikely the LNER would have been allowed to import US-built diesel locomotives in the mid-late 1940s, however much they might have wished to.

The problem was the requirement there would have been to make payment in Dollars, at a time the country was desperately short of foreign exchange reserves in the aftermath of WWII. In 1946 for example, the Royal Navy was being instructed to tip virtually its entire stock of American-built carrier fighter and bomber planes, supplied under wartime 'Lend/Lease' agreements, over the side of aircraft carriers returning from the Pacific War, even though they were generally markedly superior to their British-built equivalents. The Americans didn't want them back, but the cost in foreign exchange of the spare parts necessary to keep them operating would have been completely prohibitive.

Indeed, although it didn't immediately become apparent to the general public, the recovery of the domestic UK economy was impaired for several years because so much of the products of British Industry simply had to go for export, just to generate the money necessary to pay for importing food and oil products.

In these circumstances, direct imports on any material scale simply wouldn't have happened, until the early/mid-50s at best. British-built 'reduced' versions of American designs is perhaps a different matter. But I think it more likely that with scarce resources and an urgent need to move freight to support the revival of industry, greater emphasis would have been given by the LNER to further continuation of electrification - especially of the GC London Extension. With that completed, or nearing so, any Beeching-type plan following a Nationalisation later than historically occurred would surely have looked very different ...

[brsince78]

No doubt they would have completed the Manchester - Sheffield electrification scheme. Would this have been further developed and deployed elsewhere?

[52D]

No doubt they would have completed the Manchester - Sheffield electrification scheme. Would this have been further developed and deployed elsewhere?

To the ECMLat least and if finances allowed Whitemoor, i was a little too optomistic about Liverpool Street in an earlier post.

[williewhizz]

But if the priority of the times was the rapid movement of freight - for the "good" of the nations's industry and export business - then why would the ECML be given priority for further electrification over continuing on down the London Extension?

Imagine the 'Annesley Runners' - already a revelation of what could be achieved behind steam traction - and what they could have done with electric haulage!

[52D]

Whitemoor was probably the largest marshalling yard in that time period so it would have made sense to trip in Yorkshire coal for southward distribution instead of sending it all west.

[williewhizz]

Sorry, just don't see that. If the demand for freight and coal was in the west (as, historically, the London Extension had demonstrated), why would it make sense to electrify a line so as to ship it even further east?

In the late 40's/early 50's, passengers were simply not the highest priority (hence the very slow return to pre-war standards of speed and service), whereas moving freight was. If more siding capacity was required, there was ample space around Woodford for even more expansion. Continuing the Woodhead scheme down the LE (at least as far as the links to the ex-GW and M & SWJ) would therefore make far more sense in a time of scarce resources and pressing need.

Imagine what could have been done if the Annesley Windcutters - already a revelation in what could be achieved with loose-coupled steam haulage - could have been electrified.

[Nova]

Imagine what could have been done if the Annesley Windcutters - already a revelation in what could be achieved with loose-coupled steam haulage - could have been electrified.

my knowledge on the windcuttters is lacking, care to enlighten me on how they were a revelation?

[williewhizz]

Gladly.

Extract from Colin Walker's incomparable 'Main Line Lament', a portrait of the GC London Extension in its later years:

"The Great Central was before all else a mover of freight and quite the most outstanding feature of the line in its last years was the introduction of the Annesley-Woodford freight service. These trains were quite separate from the express freights and were largely loose-coupled. [my italics] … their traffic fell into two principal categories – coal and steel.

The coal, originating from the South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire pits, was concentrated in the marshalling yards at Annesley before being despatched south to the yard at Woodford where it was re-sorted and sent on either to London or passed over to the Western region who forwarded it to the South of England via reading or to the South West through Swindon …

The Annesley-Woodford freights were both strictly pathed and timed and on a weekday over forty trains could run between the two marshalling yards in each direction – loaded up and empty down. They ran non-stop on an out-and-home pattern so that an engine took a train and returned with another after a brief interval. The service was introduced in 1947 … It was a step towards greater efficiency and its success was dramatic. In 1950 over 680,000 wagons were being exchanged with the Western Region at Banbury and pressure became so great that alternative outlets had to be sought ….

It was not without good reason that the trains were called ‘Runners’ or ‘Windcutters’ by the railwaymen themselves. They were express freights in everything but official designation. Their speed was calculated to average thirty mph for loaded Southbound trains and thirty-three mph for returning empties but it was rare to see them proceed in anything like such modest fashion. Even through Nottingham and Leicester they would hustle through in the thirties but at fifty they would storm the banks and at sixty race the long dips. In the course of a day the engines would usually get in two round trips and occasionally three. As a freight service it was incomparable and it became a showpiece of efficiency."


And all this in the 1940s, with 01s and, later in the 50s, Standard 9Fs. Imagine what could have been done with such trains on an electrified line.

WW

[65447]

The proper answer to the OP's question is to be found in Michael Bonavia's 'A History of the LNER - 3. The Last Years, 1939-48'. Michael Bonovia was in senior management at the LNER and later BR and so has first-hand knowledge of the decisions made that were subsequently frustrated by HMG and Nationalisation.

Chapter 11 discusses in summary 'East Coast and other Diesels', mentioning first the various non-steam-powered and not entirely successful railcar trials in the north-east during the early 1930s. The diesel railcar proposal was revived later in that decade with particular reference to the GWR's successes but never reached firm proposals and died with Nationalisation. Diesel shunters of the type that eventually became TOPS class 08 were purchased with 4 being used at Whitemoor marshalling yards. During 1928 Gresley proposed the purchase of a diesel motor and electrical generator to convert one of the former NER Bo-Bo electric locomotives used between Shildon and Newport for trials hauling heavy coal trains between New England and Ferme Park - for various technical reasons as explained this was not progressed. Following the end of WW2 an LNER representative was sent to the US as part of a review of post-war traction policy being undertaken by all 4 railway companies. The Swiss Brown-Boveri gas turbine experimental unit was also the subject of a report.

The fuel crisis of 1946-7 led to HMG directing railway companies to prepare coal-to-oil fuel conversion schemes but Bonavia notes from a memorandum that he submitted to senior management the observation that 1 ton of fuel oil in a locomotive firebox saves 1.5 tons of coal whereas 1 ton of fuel oil fired in a diesel locomotive is the equivalent of 5 tons of coal. This was taken up and evolved into the East Coast Diesel Scheme. Appendix II to this volume contains the text of the memorandum titled 'Diesel Electric Traction on the LNER' submitted on 24th July 1947 to the Joint Locomotive and Traffic Committees.

In summary it can be inferred that electrification was the eventual goal but the considerable first costs, need for complete conversion and progression section-by-section of line would take a number of years to complete. This is of course eventually what happened under first the WCML then later the ECML electrification schemes and also to the main lines in East Anglia.

Gas turbine power was also considered but deemed to still be at an experimental stage of development.

All relevant aspects of the introduction of diesel-electric locomotives were considered, including the difficulties of obtaining adequate power units within the confines of the smaller UK loading gauge - which deals with one spurious argument made above - the proposals were fully costed and approved by the Board. Although these proposals were almost contemporaneous with the purchase by the LMS of the two English Electric units the proposals were not allowed by virtue of various provisions and restrictions within the Transport Act 1947 which brought about Nationalisation.

Bonavia concludes by speculating that, had the purchase of the 25 diesel-electric locomotives for East Coast services gone ahead, the LNER would have gained much useful operating information that may well have obviated the fiascos that came a few years later under the BR Modernisation Plan and resulting from political interference. He has no kind words for those at the Railway Executive (HQ at 222 Marylebone Road) who binned the proposal.

[Nova]

Gladly.

Extract from Colin Walker's incomparable 'Main Line Lament', a portrait of the GC London Extension in its later years:

"The Great Central was before all else a mover of freight and quite the most outstanding feature of the line in its last years was the introduction of the Annesley-Woodford freight service. These trains were quite separate from the express freights and were largely loose-coupled. [my italics] … their traffic fell into two principal categories – coal and steel.

The coal, originating from the South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire pits, was concentrated in the marshalling yards at Annesley before being despatched south to the yard at Woodford where it was re-sorted and sent on either to London or passed over to the Western region who forwarded it to the South of England via reading or to the South West through Swindon …

The Annesley-Woodford freights were both strictly pathed and timed and on a weekday over forty trains could run between the two marshalling yards in each direction – loaded up and empty down. They ran non-stop on an out-and-home pattern so that an engine took a train and returned with another after a brief interval. The service was introduced in 1947 … It was a step towards greater efficiency and its success was dramatic. In 1950 over 680,000 wagons were being exchanged with the Western Region at Banbury and pressure became so great that alternative outlets had to be sought ….

It was not without good reason that the trains were called ‘Runners’ or ‘Windcutters’ by the railwaymen themselves. They were express freights in everything but official designation. Their speed was calculated to average thirty mph for loaded Southbound trains and thirty-three mph for returning empties but it was rare to see them proceed in anything like such modest fashion. Even through Nottingham and Leicester they would hustle through in the thirties but at fifty they would storm the banks and at sixty race the long dips. In the course of a day the engines would usually get in two round trips and occasionally three. As a freight service it was incomparable and it became a showpiece of efficiency."


And all this in the 1940s, with 01s and, later in the 50s, Standard 9Fs. Imagine what could have been done with such trains on an electrified line.

WW

so could we have seen a similar type of service implimented elsewhere on the network such as on the ECML?

because I'm thinking the 1946 4-8-4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotiv ... rnal_links see "proposed designs" in the drop-down box titled "London and North Eastern Railway locomotives"), assuming it was to be a frieght out-line locomotive, would be perfect for long, fast runs down the ECML.

Even of such a beast wasn't proposed, the idea of a Post war heavy frieght 4-8-4 along the lines of Peppercorn's Pacifics is very tempting

[65447]

Gladly.

Extract from Colin Walker's incomparable 'Main Line Lament', a portrait of the GC London Extension in its later years:

"The Great Central was before all else a mover of freight and quite the most outstanding feature of the line in its last years was the introduction of the Annesley-Woodford freight service. These trains were quite separate from the express freights and were largely loose-coupled. [my italics] … their traffic fell into two principal categories – coal and steel.

The coal, originating from the South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire pits, was concentrated in the marshalling yards at Annesley before being despatched south to the yard at Woodford where it was re-sorted and sent on either to London or passed over to the Western region who forwarded it to the South of England via reading or to the South West through Swindon …

The Annesley-Woodford freights were both strictly pathed and timed and on a weekday over forty trains could run between the two marshalling yards in each direction – loaded up and empty down. They ran non-stop on an out-and-home pattern so that an engine took a train and returned with another after a brief interval. The service was introduced in 1947 … It was a step towards greater efficiency and its success was dramatic. In 1950 over 680,000 wagons were being exchanged with the Western Region at Banbury and pressure became so great that alternative outlets had to be sought ….

It was not without good reason that the trains were called ‘Runners’ or ‘Windcutters’ by the railwaymen themselves. They were express freights in everything but official designation. Their speed was calculated to average thirty mph for loaded Southbound trains and thirty-three mph for returning empties but it was rare to see them proceed in anything like such modest fashion. Even through Nottingham and Leicester they would hustle through in the thirties but at fifty they would storm the banks and at sixty race the long dips. In the course of a day the engines would usually get in two round trips and occasionally three. As a freight service it was incomparable and it became a showpiece of efficiency."


And all this in the 1940s, with 01s and, later in the 50s, Standard 9Fs. Imagine what could have been done with such trains on an electrified line.

WW

so could we have seen a similar type of service implimented elsewhere on the network such as on the ECML?

because I'm thinking the 1946 4-8-4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotiv ... rnal_links see "proposed designs" in the drop-down box titled "London and North Eastern Railway locomotives"), assuming it was to be a frieght out-line locomotive, would be perfect for long, fast runs down the ECML.

Even of such a beast wasn't proposed, the idea of a Post war heavy frieght 4-8-4 along the lines of Peppercorn's Pacifics is very tempting

And then the first motorways were built and longer distance freight began the major modal shift from rail to road.

[williewhizz]

"...so could we have seen a similar type of service implimented elsewhere on the network such as on the ECML?

In theory yes, if the line management (and Unions!) had been receptive to the example. In practice, I doubt there was sufficient line capacity on the ECML at that time to make it happen. The GC London Extension was able to make it work because:

~ the volume of passenger traffic was modest by comparison, so there was less conflict
~ the line was of more modern construction, and despite a more challenging gradient profile than the ECML was well-suited to sustained fast running, especially after wartime upgrades converting refuge sidings to loops
~ there was very much a "can-do" attitude among most of the GC line workforce, which rose to the challenge in a manner that wasn't always evident on other parts of the network. Typically, locomotives came off Annesley Shed but were put onto their train at Bulwell Common where the crew for the actual journey took over; if the train wasn't ready to go it simply lost its slot and had to wait for another, so the crew would be late home that night - and this was accepted as the norm

[Nova]

OK, moving on slightly, back to pre-existing locomotives.

what sort of Deflectors do you think the A3s would have ended up with?

I personally think the Peppercorn Deflectors would help to give the LNER unstreamlined Pacifics a uniform look (barring the Thompsons, but then they were always oddballs), it also, in my opinion, helps to give the engines a cirtain degree of presence and it almost makes them look more powerful


I'll probably start my fleet of Post-war LNER A3s with Humorist anyway, before deciding whether or not to do other A3s likewise, currently I'm leaning towards yes