CIEs 1948 order for 6 1800bhp express locomotives for Dublin-Cork line.

[Mayner]

CIE decided in the mid-1940s to replace steam with diesel following a fact finding visit to the United States, this lead to the ordering of the two-mixed traffic Sulzers 1100-1101 and the Mirrless diesel shunters. 

CIE also placed an order for 6 1800bhp 'express locomotives" with twin Sulzer engines and Metropolitan Vickers electrical equipment presumably to replace the 4-6-0s on the Cork Line.  CIE was forced to cancel the order by the Government (the Milne Report recommending that CIE continue with steam), but required to purchase the engines and electrical equipment which were eventually used in the B101 Class.

Has anyone information particularly diagrams or artists impressions of these proposed 1800bhp 'express locomotives"?.

Jack Kennedy spoke of the locos running on 3 axle bogies (same as contemporary American practice  for twin engined American passenger locos) both Alco (DL109 & GM E Units had twin engines with similar power output, CIEs 1st Diesel programme (1945/6) included a single cab mixed traffic loco and a Luxury railcar set for Tourist Traffic possibly inspired by the CIE Chairman A P Reynolds visit to the United States. https://www.dib.ie/biography/reynolds-augustus-percival-harald-percy-a7636

He was appointed to the GN Board and acted as Chairman on a bi-annual basis following the re-election of Fianna Fail and is likely to have advocated for investment and modernisation of the Northern.

Interesting to envisage what would have happened if the Government had acted on Reynolds 1948 advice and allowed him to remain Chairman.

Edited March 12 by Mayner

[Mol_PMB]

IRRS Journal Vol.14 No. 86, October 1981, contains two articles of relevance. 'Sulzer locomotives of CIE' by D Renehan and 'CIE's first diesel programme' by J J Leckey. No diagrams or artists impressions but some useful background.

The book on CC1 has a few paragraphs (page 25).

There seems to be rather more information published on the GNR's planned diesel fleet than CIE's early plans.

[Mol_PMB]

This may also be useful:

CIE 101 class, 1100, 1101, sulzer in eire

This was an early Sulzer diesel loco from 1939, which has some family resemblance (curved cab front, 3 windows) to the Sulzer-engined locos built by BRCW for British Railways (e.g. Class 33) but nothing much in common with the Irish Sulzers (even though the B101s were also built by BRCW) so trying to infer a styling or appearance from contemporaries may be a flawed approach.

 

[Blaine]

2 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

This was an early Sulzer diesel loco from 1939, which has some family resemblance (curved cab front, 3 windows) to the Sulzer-engined locos built by BRCW for British Railways (e.g. Class 33) but nothing much in common with the Irish Sulzers (even though the B101s were also built by BRCW) so trying to infer a styling or appearance from contemporaries may be a flawed approach.

 

That's a Swiss Railways BM4/4 II class diesel https://www.trainsdepot.org/en/vehicle/589/bm-4-4ii-18451-18452

Irrelevant to make any Irish comparisons aside from the Sulzer engines

Dont forget Oliver Bulleid was pushing for American locos in the early 1950's having seen what was happening on American Railroads even before WW2, Irish Beef Exports to the UK were one of the factors that prevented this from happening - initially at least, so when CIE needed more diesels after the A/C class debacle the order went to EMD. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he was allowed to go to EMD in the early 1950's and if the GNR had proceeded with their diesel locomotive plans - they wanted electrification too and if this happened in the 1950's it all would have been sourced from Continental Europe, not the UK

[Mol_PMB]

11 minutes ago, Blaine said:

That's a Swiss Railways BM4/4 II class diesel https://www.trainsdepot.org/en/vehicle/589/bm-4-4ii-18451-18452

Irrelevant to make any Irish comparisons aside from the Sulzer engines

Dont forget Oliver Bulleid was pushing for American locos in the early 1950's having seen what was happening on American Railroads even before WW2, Irish Beef Exports to the UK were one of the factors that prevented this from happening - initially at least, so when CIE needed more diesels after the A/C class debacle the order went to EMD. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he was allowed to go to EMD in the early 1950's and if the GNR had proceeded with their diesel locomotive plans - they wanted electrification too and if this happened in the 1950's it all would have been sourced from Continental Europe, not the UK

I am aware what type it is - I took the photo and travelled on railtour behind it. However, I disagree that it is irrelevant to the discussion of CIE's early diesel traction and @Mayner's original question about the Sulzers and CIE's early diesel plans.

CIE 1100/1101 and the proposed six large twin-engined locos used Sulzer engines; in the mid-1930s their LDA series was one of the first European designs to evolve into something specifically designed for rail traction. The Swiss Bm4/4ii locos of 1939 were one of these early applications of Sulzer engines to rail traction. When CIE and their potential suppliers were investigating options in the early 1940s, they would have been a key reference. In J.J. Leckey's article on CIE's First Diesel Programme these Swiss locos get a specific mention, not just for the Sulzer engine but also their Brown-Boveri electrical equipment. Alongside 1100 and 1101, in 1945 CIE decided to order a 4-car diesel electric passenger train and this was intended to use the same Brown-Boveri electrical equipment as in these Swiss locos. The plan for the 4-car diesel unit was cancelled, but it does demonstrate their relevance to the early designs for Ireland.

 

It's true that Bulleid had a strong preference for EMD designs for good reasons, and EMD initially proposed a 'type EX' 600hp A1A-A1A with styling similar to their 'BL2' for the US market. 

[Niles]

There's a report from the early 50s(?) which actually advocated the building of new steam locos, tied in with a proposal to cull a lot of the numerically-weak classes in an attempt at standardisation. Interestingly, the usefulness of the 2 K2 class locos (461 and 462) was noted and they would have been spared from the 'cull small classes' plan, had it come to pass. I must dig it out, but it suggests not all in CIÉ where necessarily committed to full dieselisation at that point.

[GSR 800]

39 minutes ago, Niles said:

There's a report from the early 50s(?) which actually advocated the building of new steam locos, tied in with a proposal to cull a lot of the numerically-weak classes in an attempt at standardisation. Interestingly, the usefulness of the 2 K2 class locos (461 and 462) was noted and they would have been spared from the 'cull small classes' plan, had it come to pass. I must dig it out, but it suggests not all in CIÉ where necessarily committed to full dieselisation at that point.

That was the Milne report of 1948, as mentioned by John. It advocated for mass standardisation of the steam fleet (and maintenance practices) down to 2-6-0 and 0-6-0 types to cover all work.

[Mayner]

Its interesting how little information on the proposed twin engines Sulzers has come to light despite the project having reached the stage of Sulzer Bros & Metropolitan Bros manufacturing the 12 engines and generators.

With their twin Sulzer engines they were likely to have been heavy massive beasts, contemporary American twin engined diesels like the Alco DL109 & GM E Units weighed in at approx 150Tons while the Metrovick & Brown Boveri gas turbines weighed in around 120 Tons.

Based on Jack Kennedys comment that the planned locos were intended to run on 3 axle bogies and a maximum Cork Line axle load of 21 tons we are looking at a potential maximum loco weight of 126Tons a bit lighter than the BR Class 40 (lighter axle load 4 axle bogie 3 powered 1 carrying) I remember reading somewhere that the 800 Class exceeded the 21T axle load it was claimed that Inchacore 'struggled" to keep the axle load on the 800 Class trailing driving axle to 25T (possibly a Decade of Stream or one of Drew Donaldson's writings.

If the proposed loco was 6 axle might have ended up looking like a diesel version of BR 18100 the Metrovick Gas Turbine, the Sulzer engine was proven technology for rail traction Metropolitan Vickers electrical equipment had an excellent reputation. CIE 1101 bogies with plate frames and swing links appear similar in general principal to 18100s bogies.

Must draw up a sketch of an interesting "might have been"

Ordering a class of 'express" locomotives specifically for Cork Line work would have made operational sense at the time and a strong statement that CIE was modernising its rail operations, the concept of a medium powered, light axleload go anywhere diesel loco did not really exist at the time. 

CIEs choice of Metrovick and the A Class may have been driven as much as the lack of a suitable alternative loco as low price. Locos with the more reliable Sulzer engine tended to have a higher axle load than CIE 15 Ton 'go anywhere" spec, GM did not introduced a light axle load version of its G8 and 12 export models, GM did not introduced a light axle load version of the G8 until it introduced its GL8 model (including CIE B121) in 1961.

[Mol_PMB]

I was mulling over the weight issue too. Although these days getting 3000hp in a 120t diesel loco is commonplace, back in the 1940s even half that power was pushing the boundaries of the technology. For example the LMS twins 10000/1 were 1750hp and 127t each, and were intended to be used as a pair on the heaviest expresses. The same engine block was developed, in stages over 20 years, into a 3000hp unit.

The Deltics of 1961 provided 3300hp in a 100t loco, which was world-beating performance at the time. But they used a complex and novel engine design design that proved unreliable in a rail traction application, and that engine was only a sketch on the drawing board in the 1940s.

In sketching a 'might-have-been', I wonder whether they would have chosen a load-bearing chassis or a monocoque design with much of the strength in the bodyshell. The latter should have been lighter but more complex to design and providing less easy access for maintenance.

[K801]

I read somewhere CIE tried to flog off the 12 engines for marine use?