What was the past really like?

I think you need to read a bit more - the hydraulic experiment was not just driven by the WR, but appears to have been a deliberate comparison between diesel hydraulic and diesel electric. The results are a little ambiguous, but the key element in the demise of the hydraulics was the otherwise universal availability of the diesel electrics as utilisation improved and loco numbers could be held down.

Some might also take issue with your views on aesthetics, especially if you are criticising the Westerms.

 

Not really utilisation, more a collapse in traffic which meant that BR had too many locos, plus on a smaller scale the introduction of HSTs; and the WCML electrification which released the class 50s. The lack of ETH capability on the hydraulics also didn't help their case as steam heating was eliminated.

 

For the network as a whole, 'value' is about the cost and utilisation of the plant you have. That was for a business that employed thousands, and was relied upon by millions. The willingness of a few to work steam does not show anything about the many who would have been required to keep steam going in the long term.

Where I agree with you is that the combination of the BR Standards, Modernisation Plan and Beeching was wasteful. Personally, I would suggest that with hindsight the primary mistake was in building the Standards, and failing to recognise the way that the world was changing.

 

Then the paper catches fire....

 

What railway is that? Strange uniform for a cleaner/fireman.

 

Not if you know what you are doing.

 

Not sure what you mean re fuel. Gas turbines run on botom end products such as kerosine and diesel / gas oil. The aviation industry use kerosine and the electricity industry, whilst predominately gas fired are often run GTs on diesel.Both kerrosine and diesel are widely available

 

I seem to recall that much experimentation was carried out trying to get one of the gas turbines (I can't remember which) to run on cheap low grade oil but that while it ran well enough on high grade fuel (aviation fuel?) the turbine suffered problems or damage with low grade fuel as used in the oil fired steam locos. There seemed to be the idea that they would only be worth continuing with if they could use cheaper fuel than the more economical, though at that time much less powerful, diesels.

 

I f the Westerns were produced today they would be recognised as aesthetic masterpieces. Can no enterprising manufacturer fit modern technology in a Western shell?

 

If the Union Pacific had run their gas turbines on kerosene or diesel they'd have had a lot less trouble with them (the same applied to 18000). However, those fuels were only used for warming up, most of the time they ran on heavy Bunker C (and later a slightly different heavy fuel oil) because it was the only way their extravagant fuel consumption was cost effective. As a result, they got a lot of soot in the combustion and thus faster degradation of the turbine blades, thus increasing maintenance costs. Bunker C became more expensive due to new uses from the plastic industry and improved cracking techniques allowing it to be converted to (more expensive) lighter fuel grades, so the economic justification for the turbines went away.

Their retirement from Union Pacific service also coincides pretty closely with the appearance on the scene of >5000hp single unit diesels....

 

I think it is the crash safety requirements that inhibit design. The first generation locks and HST don't offer the driver much in the way of protection.

 

The Fell Diesel looks as if it would have been safe enough!

 

Wasn't that a scene from "The Titfield Thunderbolt"?

 

My experience as well. The black oils became increasingly poor as refineries invested in new refining methods. We ended up using stuff only just better than Atompsheric residue with SGs near as dam it 1 which played havoc with the centrifuges used to spin out fines and water for consumption in large 2 stroke engines. Also involved in trials of Orimulsion fuel oil in water tube boilers, never seen such quick build up of carbon heaps on the tubes and it wore the fuel pumps and burner nozzle tips out in just a few days.

 

I believe so based on what I have read, but I'm no expert.

 

The GTEL 3rd generation appears to be a very expensive way to obtain 8,500hp. If the 4000 class had been built to the best steam standards available at the time they should have been capable of sustaining 13,000ihp.
I recall seeing a reference to the end of GW1. This was said to come to a close, ceasefire situation, because of the problems maintaining fuel supplies to the US MBTs. These are gas turbine powered, you might have thought that someone might have been aware of railway experience with the type. But apparently not, the Challenger 2 did not present such concern being powered by a Perkins Diesel engine.
You have to admire US mechanical design though and their ability to produce depot systems. It was a pity that we used our budget less than wisely. But how could you introduce facilities of the quality of those used by the N&W without having locomotives designed to benefit from such systems?
If the standard designs had been restricted to a mixed traffic 2-8-2 and a modest 2-6-0/2-6-2T then we might have been able to concentrate less on the breed and more on obtaining the best out of what we had.
Did anyone conciously choose to have more engines rather than better shed facilities? Quality costs, no doubt about it, but the lesson from the experience of the bulk of the rest of the world was that the better the design and build of your engine the fewer of them you would need but a quick turnaround was vital. Hence the depot quality both in material design and in systems used.
We did what we did, producing machines that had no chance of meeting the standards to be found elsewhere and associated working conditions that fell far below the best to be found in areas of best practice. Sad really.