The LNER Encyclopedia

I recently got hold of a copy of 'British Rail - The First 25 Years' by Michael Bonavia (an ex-LNER man himself). Quite a good read, with snippets of gossip, but it left me wanting more.

The book refers to the abandonment of the LNER plan to buy 25 large diesel-electric locos for the ECML as a serious mistake, as it would have provided valuable experience for the eventual transfer to diesel traction generally.

Can anyone provide more information on this proposal? Were the 25 diesels to replace the A4s and, in that case, would the A1s have been built?

I understand there were to be two depots for the diesels - one (I assume) in London, but where was the other one to have been? Was it intended to operate the diesels from London to Edinburgh, or perhaps only as far as Newcastle?

Any further information greatly appreciated, including any links to other books on the early days of BR.

In July 1947 the LNER invited tenders for 25 1,600 hp diesel electric locomotives to be used in tandem on the East Coast Main line between London and Scotland and to replace 32 steam Pacifics. It would appear that the impetus for this move may have come more from Board level rather than from the CME's department, as might have been expected. The proposals were certainly approved by the Board.
Several firms submitted tenders North British, British Thompson Houston, English Electric, Birmingham RC & W, Metro-Vick Sulzer with a range of possible power units and Brush Traction. Prices per unit varied from forty to seventy + thousand pounds with most around the £60,000 mark and delivery of the first loco promised for 24 to 36 months. The nationalisation of the railways in 1948 effectively ended the scheme as Riddles and Co had different agendas.
Later it was said that the LNER scheme was a 'last kick' by the company and was not too serious in intent ,but perhaps these facts prove otherwise. It is likely that the scheme was also in part a response to the government's own ill fated scheme to convert hundreds of steam locomotives to oil burning, despite the cost in scarce dollars -which effectively killed this idea! If you were going for oil then burning it in a diesel engine was much more efficient, despite the considerably greater initial cost of the motive power unit compared with a steam engine at that time. Michael Bonavia always regretted the shelving by B R of this LNER scheme,considering it a great mistake. He had helped draft some of the original 1947 proposals. Adoption of the scheme might very well have helped avoid some of the gaffes, heartaches and financial waste later suffered by the 1955 Modernisation Plan on the motive power side. Hope this helps. In providing these facts I would like to thank Dr. G. J. Hughes who was kind enough some years ago to share some of this information with me.

It seems that 1 600 hp was about the maximum for a diesel loco until the 1950s - I think 10000/10001 and 10201/10202 were the same weren't they?

Which raises an interesting question: 1 600 hp is more or less equal to 6MT in BR parlance (think Jubilees). Not enough for ECML expresses I would have thought (or WCML ones either, as 10000/10001 and 10201/10202 mainly worked in tandem on the WCML).

So was the LNER intending to use these diesels in tandem?

10000/1 were reckoned only to be the equivalent of a Type 3 diesel, so handy enough but not really capable on their own of timing the heavy stuff, think that's why the LM ran them in mult for things like the Royal Scot. Details of the specs for LNER diesels seem hard to come by - wasn't there also some talk of getting US imports, if that was so, what would GM have been able to offer? If they were to be built here, then I suppose 1600 hp was about the limit so, yes, The Aberdonian would have needed two of them - but, as Stembok says, don't think it was ever really an option given the circumstances.

I was involved with the prototype main-line diesel locomotives many years ago. I had the opportunity to ride on all of them at some point. The horsepower ratings of these locomotives were as follows:-

10,000 & 10,001 - 1,600 hp
10,201 & 10,202 - 1,750 hp
10,203 - 2,000 hp

At the time of its introduction, 10,203 was the most powerful single engine diesel locomotive in the world. The EMD E8 locomotives from the same period in the USA were rated at 2,250 hp, provided by two 1,125 hp engines.

It is true that EMD planned to build diesel locomotives in the UK at a plant in the Southampton area. I have been told that the American manager who was to work on this project died suddenly and the project "fell through the cracks", as it is said. It was many years later before EMD diesel locomotives could be seen in operation in the UK, and then only locomotives built in Canada and in private train operation initially.

Sir Brian

The intention was,I believe ,to mainly use the locos in tandem. It seems that 1,600 hp was the approximate maximum offered at that time and of course the power/weight ratio would be considered poor by later standards. It would however, in true LNER tradition, have been a fairly bold scheme as a trial of this size should have been able to provide some worthwhile comparisons on the economics and utilisation of steam v diesel, as opposed to just one or two prototypes. In 1948 the economics of steam v diesel were nowhere near as clear cut as they were later to become, given the cost of diesel locomotives at 3-4 times the cost of a steam Pacific. Could diesels ,for instance, achieve what were then thought to be the annual mileages necessary to amortise this first cost? In the 1950s, however, the overall quality and size of coal declined while the price soared and fuel oil declined in price so that the advantages of diesels became more clear cut. This of course was in addition to other issues which helped the diesels, the growing difficulty in recruiting labour for steam operation and the public impression that steam was outmoded, remember that many of our influences and ideas, then as now, were taken from the USA. The drive for change was,therefore, primarily, though not solely economic, operating costs had to be reduced. As for the non involvement of General Motors this was in part to do with licensing, but perhaps due more to political influences and a home based industry. The BTC would perhaps have liked to involve GM in their 1955 Modernisation Plan and it could well have saved much heartache, as well as money,but the British manufacturers and their lobbyists initially saw the 1955 Plan as a great opportunity for them for both home and export markets. The result? A ludicrous number of diesel designs, many unfit for purpose. The rest ,as they say, is history, with most of the British loco builders just historical footnotes within ten years. It was to be many years before GM products began to appear on British rails in quantity, introduced by the then American owned EWS.