NER electric locomotives

[ernestleung]

Hi all,
In 1947 the Gresley EM1 loco was sent to Holland for their newly electrified line, and help their post war reconstruction for more than 5 years.
In the meatime, the NER bo-bo and the express passenger locos were stored and forgotten at Gosforth, and they ended their lives in the mid 1950s, the latter "earing not a single penny throughout its life". They were all regualrly oiled and maintained, and probably still in running order.
I would like to know the reason why these locos weren't sent to Holland, either lent, or sold, or even as a gift. I suppose by then the agreement had been reached that they would be useless except for scrapping. But why, oh why. They could have survived for another 15 years or so, and by that time someone would have already saved one of them.
Thanks
Ernest Leung

[Colombo]

Earnest Leung asked why the NER Electric locomotives were not sent to Holland or used on the Manchester Sheffield Electrification. According to my Ian Allan ABC, the sole remaining member of Class EB1, number 26510 was rebuilt in 1946 for banking work on the Manchester-Wath line. Later I believe that it was reported in use as a carriage works shunter. My ABC for Winter 1957/8 was the last one to list it. Clearly it was not a success.
As for the Raven 4-6-4, or 2-C-2, I would have to hazard a guess that despite the regular maintenance, the electrics would have been so out of date and the insulation on the windings would have decayed by 1950, that new controls and a full rewire would have been necessary, before it could be recommissioned. Even then, technology moves and it was well out of date. In which case it would have been far more cost effective to use the money to build another EM1 as the production line was churning them out.
Unfortunately it was not preserved, but many much more deserving classes were being wiped out at that time, consider the remaining LNWR Claughton, Prince of Wales and Precedent which had been retained by Crewe and were sent to the scrap heap, not forgetting the last A1s, B16s, NER and NBR Atlantics and so on.

[Rlangham]

I thought 26500 and 26501 the ES1 Bo-bo's were used up until the 60's?

[Colombo]

It is quite correct that the two locomotives of Class ES1, 26500 and 26501 were used on the Quayside branch at Newcastle until withdrawal in September 1964. We are fortunate that 26500 has been preserved at the NRM.

Regarding the final years of Class EB1 26510, it was renumbered departmental no.100 and survived until 1963 based at Ilford carriage sidings.

The Raven express locomotive, no. 13, was withdrawn in August 1950 from South Gosforth electric car sheds.

My source of reference is Ken Hoole's " Illustrated History of NER Locomotives".

[billdonald]

There were a numberof reasons why the former NER electric locomotives were not used for the Manchester-Sheffield-Wath electrification. In no particular order some of these were:

1. Brakes - The NER was an air-baked line, and a new vacuum-based system would have to be installed on all of these locomtives.

2. Mechanical - EE1 used a unique quill drive which would have needed expensive maintenance, and since it was a one-off, the question of mechanical spares was a major consideration. The axle loading of all of the NER electric locomotives was not ideal for the proposed operational area. EE1 was intended for Newcastle-York where the only major limitations were the Tyneside bridges and Durham Viaduct. All of these could tolerate a 25-ton per axle loading. The Shildon-Newport line which the EB1 class operated did not have any major civil engineering works associated with it, allowing Raven considerable latitude in their design.

3. Electrical - "Colombo" is quite right to state that the electrical equipment was old and would need complete refurbishment. It was not considered cost-effective to do this. The wartime conversion of No.11 merely underlined this to the LNER. In the event, this particualr locomotive ended up as the shunter for Ilford Carriage Works on the LNER Liverpool Street - Shenfield electrification in 1949.

4. Political - The Manchester-Sheffield-Wath electrification was one of the first of the major schemes by the fledgeling British Railways organisation. The sheer scale of the politiking within the Railway Executive, made the usage of any "big four", let alone pre-grouping designs a complete non-starter. Also, Metro-Vick in Manchester were looking for a nice juicy contract for the electrical equipment - a refurbishment deal was not too attractive to them. Finally, the government wouldn't want to be accused of using "cast-offs" - all those votes in the Lancashire/Yorkshire constituancies to consider.

5. Miscellaneous - The EE1 and EB1 locomotives had been moved to South Gosforth Car Sheds in 1942, after being in storage since 1935 in the Paint Shop of Darlington Works. Indeed, EE1 No.13 had languished there since completion in 1922, other than putting in the occasional guest appearance at LNER public exihibitions, during the 1920's and early 1930's. In 1946, the LNER board agreed to some major capital expenditure within the Tyneside Electrified Area. This included updating the electrical control switchgear, extending South Gosforth Car Sheds, and the provision of a traction control room. This meant that space at South Gosforth became at a premium in the late 1940's while the extensions were being built. Given that the NER electric locomtives required covered accomodation, the Shedmaster submitted that they would have to go, and since there was little interest or enthusiasm within the CME's department, the order went out to dispose of them. Ironically, most ended their days in a scrapyard at Sheffield, although some were broken up at Darlington Works.

As to the ES! locomotives, these were withdrawn from service in September 1964 at South Gosforth, having been out of use since February 1964. The Quayside Branch creaked on for a several more years before eventual closure. The reasons for the de-electrification was that the overhead wiring in the Quayside and Trafalgar South yards was literally falling down. That together with major electrical work looming on both of the ES1 locomotives - their last major overhaul had been in the late 1940's, spelled the end. The collapse of the freight traffic from Newcastle Quayside meant that specialist locomotives were not cost-effective, and the final straw came with the requirement to replace the traction feeder cable from Pandon Dene substation to Trafalgar South. The ES1 locomotives had been in continuous service since June 1905, a period of nearly sixty years, and were a tribute to their American designers at General Electric. They were very probably the best bargain of any electric locomotive ever built for a railway in the UK.

[65447]

I realise that this is something of a 'resurrection', given that the last post was made nearly 5 years ago.

I was recently browsing BRJ 37, Summer 1991, and came across the following in a review of Shildon-Newport in Retrospect, Ken Appleby, RCTS, wherein it was suggested the reasons that the NER electrification was not expanded were twofold:

1. The continued reduction in the volume of coal traffic, already alluded to in Richard's article on the main site - 50 million tons in 1915 down to a sustained 7 million tons in the late 1920s;

2. Disagreement over the tariffs demanded by the North of England Electricity Supply Co. for the supply of electricity to the NER, that would evidently outweigh the benefits derived from electric traction.

Interestingly, in the discussion following a 1923 lecture at the Institution of Electrical Engineers on the electrification of the Midi railway in France, Gresley remarked upon the importance of the railway company having its own power stations.

[redtoon1892]

An excellent book on this subject is available from the Oakwood Press No 167 The Electric Locomotives Of The North Eastern Railway.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/North-Eastern-Ele ... 3f00644df9

[PGBerrie]

Woodhead - The Electric Railway (E.M. Johnson, Foxline) has an excellent chapter on the development of the electrification scheme by the LNER. Apparently the the Raven freight locomotives were to be used as bankers and one, No. 11 was converted for these duties. Presumably the delays brought about by WWII put a stop to the idea, although one loco, No. 9, was used as a shunter at Ilford.

The loan of No. 6000 to the Netherlands Railways in 1948 was also in the nature of a prolonged trial - again excellent chapters in the Woodhead book,

Peter

[billdonald]

---snipped---
2. Disagreement over the tariffs demanded by the North of England Electricity Supply Co. for the supply of electricity to the NER, that would evidently outweigh the benefits derived from electric traction.

A couple of factual errors here.

The power supply to both the Tyneside and Shildon schemes was the North Eastern Electric Supply Co.Ltd. This company emerged from the 1932 reorganisation of the Newcastle upon Tyne Electric Supply Company - the original power provider to all of the NER-based electrification schemes, not just traction. NESCO - as both companies were known as, continued until 1947 when nationalisation took place and the supply to the Tyneside scheme was taken over by the North Eastern Electricity Board - known as NEEB.

The de-electrification of the Shildon scheme was primarily through the utter collapse of the coal traffice on the line brought about by the trade depression of the early 1930's. Secondary reasons were a requirement to replace portions of the traction supply equipment precipitated by the frequency standardisation scheme resulting from the spread of the Nation Grid, replacement of wiring in the Teesside area, and major expenditure on the overhaul of the locomotives.

It is completley wrong to suggest that the cost of the electric supply was a factor in the closure of the Shildon scheme. NESCO had a long tradition of maintaining a close relationship withe NER management. Thus the railway enjoyed a VERY good deal for its electricity from NESCO who ran probably the most efficient, reliable, and advanced power supply network in the United Kingdom prior to nationalisation.

Bill Donald
Dublin, Ireland

[65447]

---snipped---
2. Disagreement over the tariffs demanded by the North of England Electricity Supply Co. for the supply of electricity to the NER, that would evidently outweigh the benefits derived from electric traction.

A couple of factual errors here.

The power supply to both the Tyneside and Shildon schemes was the North Eastern Electric Supply Co.Ltd. This company emerged from the 1932 reorganisation of the Newcastle upon Tyne Electric Supply Company - the original power provider to all of the NER-based electrification schemes, not just traction. NESCO - as both companies were known as, continued until 1947 when nationalisation took place and the supply to the Tyneside scheme was taken over by the North Eastern Electricity Board - known as NEEB.

The de-electrification of the Shildon scheme was primarily through the utter collapse of the coal traffice on the line brought about by the trade depression of the early 1930's. Secondary reasons were a requirement to replace portions of the traction supply equipment precipitated by the frequency standardisation scheme resulting from the spread of the Nation Grid, replacement of wiring in the Teesside area, and major expenditure on the overhaul of the locomotives.

It is completley wrong to suggest that the cost of the electric supply was a factor in the closure of the Shildon scheme. NESCO had a long tradition of maintaining a close relationship withe NER management. Thus the railway enjoyed a VERY good deal for its electricity from NESCO who ran probably the most efficient, reliable, and advanced power supply network in the United Kingdom prior to nationalisation.

Bill Donald
Dublin, Ireland

In which case I would suggest that you write to the Secretary of the RCTS, as publisher of the information...

[StoneRoad]

Bo-Bo No1 is currently (sorry!) at Shildon.

It has recently had the wooden buffer beams replaced, as the originals had suffered from the passage of time.....

(just so happens that I had something to do with the replacements.....shameless plug .......(oopps sorry again)...if you're interested........... see: http://stanegaterestorationsandreplicas ... 74849.html
I've linked to the whole collection, of which 19 are relevant! try, as a sample http://stanegaterestorationsandreplicas ... 12240.html )

Stoneroad

[billdonald]

---snipped---
2. Disagreement over the tariffs demanded by the North of England Electricity Supply Co. for the supply of electricity to the NER, that would evidently outweigh the benefits derived from electric traction.

A couple of factual errors here.
---snipped---

In which case I would suggest that you write to the Secretary of the RCTS, as publisher of the information...

Why?

I'm not a member of the RCTS. Whoever produces the relevant portions of the Green Bible series relating to the Tyneside and Shildom schemes is perfectly capable of reading the postings here, or doing their own original research - which is what I do.

Bill Donald
Dublin, Ireland

[billdonald]

Bo-Bo No1 is currently (sorry!) at Shildon.

It has recently had the wooden buffer beams replaced, as the originals had suffered from the passage of time.....
---snipped---

Very interesting. It's good to see the Old Lady getting some tlc.

Has anyone got around to repositioning the shoebeams. These are transposed on each side - the collector shoes should be as far apart as possible to avoid gapping. If you look at the locomotive from the side, you'll see that the shoebeam of the front bogie should be located on the rear bogie to comply with maximising the distance between each shoe. Similarly the same applies to the other side.

I pointed this out nearly 20 years ago to the NRM - it went in one ear and out the other. If anyone cares to look at an in-service photo, they'll see what I'm talking about. Take a look at the run of the power cable from the shoebeam fusebox up to the junction box on the solebar. The existing condition of the locomotive would preclude it from actual operation in a freight yard as the power cable would be torn out on the first traversal of an A-type turnout. If the shoebeams were in the correct position, then this wouldn't happen because of the extra available length of power cable.

Bill Donald
Dublin, Ireland

[Rlangham]

Just come across this thread for the first time, a shame as the NER electric locomotives are one of my favourite subjects.

Bill, have you mentioned the faults with NER No 1 to Anthony Coullis, the NRM curator at Shildon? He posts on various internet forums and is very keen and enthusiastic

[third-rail]

the in service picture i took is on this website and it appears that the fuse carrier is nearer the outer sets of wheels but i can not make out the pick ups.but they did carry a jump lead to plug into the socket under the buffer beam the cable was wooden about 10 ft long with plate fastened to a wooden handle which had to be held on the live rail to allow it to move if it became isolated http://www.northumbrian-railways.co.uk/ ... -electrics