What was the past really like?

Much the same as Bulleid then. On the tailcoats of a fabulous tradition that was dying out under Nationalisation.

 

I suppose the thing to look at there is: how many electrification projects were begun in the 1947-55 period? I'm no expert but the only ones I can recall under way were those already started by the LNER.

 

That's what I remember. The 9Fs might as well have cancelled after 1958 or so but one of the saddest was the Class 14s (as they became), really useful locomotives whose intended traffic was dying as they were built. I think that they have highest survival rate of any totally withdrawn class. (Yes, I know the standard class 8 has a 100% survival rate!).

 

Whatever the reason for their unreliability, it made no difference to the traveling public whose trains were cancelled as a result. All well and good ring reliable in Germany but that's of no consequence if we can;t get it right when building and operating similar locos over here.

 

It was politically squashed on the unwritten basis that the public wouldn't like it only 10 or so years after the end of .... that spot of bother we had with them. Totally different now of course as we're all in the EU and pulling together.

 

The modernisation plan was produced in 1955. Ten years prior to that the nation was still at war and BR was still three years away from being created so can't work out your reasoning for that remark.
And with a nation almost bankrupted by WW2, where was all this money for early modernisation?

 

Immediately before Nationalisation the LNER had asked various manufacturers to tender to build a fleet of diesels of similar spec to LMS 10000/10001, for ECML services. Those are the sort of plans that *could* have been continued.

 

the plan may have been thought up then but it didn't come to fruition before the elimination of steam. It wouldn't have been early modernisation, just timely like the rest of the first world countries, take France (SNCF) as an example...how did they do it when they suffered much more damage from WW2, physically and financially.

 

The more general historical question there of course is: why didn't the UK have its own Wirtschaftswunder?

It's slightly ironic in this context that Gen Sir Brian Robertson was, before joining the BTC, the military governer of Germany when the Federal Republic was established.

 

In part because the allies pushed through all kinds of change in West German in terms of organisation and government that just didn't happen in the UK for reasons that are best discussed in NGC. Also huge sums of money were spent in West Germany in an attempt to get it back on its feet; a huge experiment I Keynsian economics; and a make do and mend culture in this country which hampered the embracing of new ways of doing things.

 

Steam lasted longer in France than it did in the UK IIRC.

 

It did, but most European counties didnt have the oversupply of railway lines that the UK had and so their closure programmes were less deep and spread over a longer period of time. They tended therefore not to end up with the surplus of motive power that we did.

 

Indeed but that's a red herring as electrification was widespread and they were the world leader in rail technology at the time, holding the world speed record very early indeed.

 

"Engineman Elite" by Norman McKillop has some interesting passages about what life was like on the footplate on the NBR before the Great War - when each locomotive did have its own dedicated crew, expected to act as fitters and keep their locos in truly spotless condition. I suspect it was the Great War that ended that way of working, in order to get more efficient use of resources, although it probably also enabled better training of maintenance staff.

 

Only because the Germans tended to operate them at 100 kmh; BR opted to run them at 100 mph; a slight difference in operating environments methinks !

 

I did read some time ago class 52 Westerns were more reliable than class 47s at one point. Coming back to the present, almost all new diesel multiple units are now diesel hydraulic. So maybe the WR should of kept to their guns and stayed with hydraulic transmission. I just wonder if hydraulic transmission had of become the standard transmission for BR would the class 43 be so successful with hydraulic transmission. One big benifit of hydraulic transmission locos/units is the power to weight ratio.

 

I think you need to look at the context of Riddles' decisions. It was obvious that the railway fleets needed building up with replacement traction - but what form ? Remember that after WWII the UK had to both repay loans to the USA and rebuild the UK economy without outside help ! In short the UK was bankrupt ! In that financial environment Riddles had 3 choices (1) electrification with its heavy up-front cost (2) diesel traction which had limited experience of UK operating environments or (3) a fleet of simple (i.e. 2-cylinder designs) that could be built quickly and cheaply.

As Riddles expected option (1) was ignored because of the initial costs; option (3) was adopted because it could be enacted immediately and it offered both employment and retained existing skills whilst also being the cheapest option and option (2) was taken at a later date as a short term policy between acting on (3) until sufficient funds became available to adopt the favoured option (1).

The actual decision to undertake mass dieselisation was a Union self-goal in 1955 when the Unions (justifiably IMHO) called a strike over pay and the effects were quickly felt; so quick in fact that the Government of the day promised to fund the Dieselisation Programme if the BTC could get the railways back to work. As is now known the railways succeeded and the money was forthcoming with 2 caveats. Caveat 1 - no purchases from abroad - especially the USA - although production of foreign parts under licence by UK companies was acceptable hence the WR adoption of hydraulic transmission; Caveat 2 - BTC was given the money - BUT as a LOAN with interest charged at 8%; that interest forced BR into the red, despite making operating profits, where it remained ever after.