The third gas turbine locomotive

[joseph benjamin]

I've read in the December 1956 Trains Illustrated magazine "The pulverized coal fired gas turbine locomotive sponsored by the Ministry of Fuel and power is nearing completion at the North British Co's Glasgow works" What happened to it?

[Jeremy Cumberland]

There's a paper in the National Archives at Kew. Development of a coal fired gas turbine locomotive by North British Locomotive Company Limited (sub contractors C A Parsons and Company Limited)  with a date of 1958-1958: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3007049

 

There is a previous thread here, but beware confusion with the Reid-MacLeod Steam Turbine Locomotive No. 23141, also built by North British but much earlier, in 1924 or thereabouts:

 

[keefer]

From "British Rail 1948-78 A Journey by Design" (Haresnape/Ian Allan 1979), p.91:

"The abortive attempt to produce a coal-burning gas-turbine locomotive, sponsored by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and carried out at the North British Locomotive Co.'s works 1952-7. It would have required retention of steam locomotive turntables, as it had a cab at one end only. The locomotive never ran, although it reached an advanced stage of building."

Doesn't give any more info other than the project was 'quietly shelved'.

Edited July 19 by keefer

[Martin2]

before i go and try and get a copy,are there any other pictures or diagrams of this locomotive? regards martin.

[The Johnster]

The cab looks unfeasibly small snd cramped. 

[TM2201A]

6 hours ago, Martin2 said:

before i go and try and get a copy,are there any other pictures or diagrams of this locomotive? regards martin.

I think that there is an artist's impression in Locomotives That Never Were by Robin Barnes, it's also long out of print so a copy of the Haresnape book is probably a better starting point.

[keefer]

If it's useful I can scan the above drawing for you but what I posted is all that's in the book.

That said it is a good book, large format hardback with lots of photos, which gives context to the good & bad design decisions in the British Railways/BR era.

Edited September 14 by keefer

[Miss Prism]

I dread to think what the tender looked like.

 

[D7666]

I have some limited gen on it collected bit by bit over time

 

AIUI it was conceived as a 1CoCo1 per the drawing but was going to turn out too heavy so was altered to 1A1A-A1A1.

 

It was not intended to be an actual traffic locomotive beyond being a mobile test bed to prove the concept - the order was not from BTC or any part of BR but order placed  with NBL and Parsons by the Ministry of Fuel & Power in  July 1952; prototype to be ready end 1954.

 

Of note was those dates predate the BR modernisation plan, hence over taken by those events as well as any technical issues it ran in to, as well as not being a BTC/BR project.

 

NBL completed the frame and part bodywork - I have seen somewhere images - I think the Mitchell Library in Glasgow had them but maybe their NBL collection is housed somewhere else now ?

 

Testing gas turbine unit and auxiliaries, mounted on the loco frame and connected to dynamometer (no power bogies; possibly mounted on accommodation ) at Parsons' Heaton Works Dec 1955 to Dec 1958

 

Project suspended March 1959.

 

Somehow then the frame got moved from Glasgow (question = which NBL works, there were three) to Heaton.

Edited Sunday at 18:26 by D7666

[D7666]

 

I can't remember where I got this from and apologies to whatever site I did; it might even have been from the 2015 thread within this forum - for whatever reason (don't bother trying to figure it out) I can see none of the images linked / posted in that thread.

 

This is a photo of a model of it; this model may well exist today in a museum somewhere, but if so I do not know where.

 

Edited Sunday at 18:39 by D7666

[The Johnster]

It looks determined, and angry...

Edited Sunday at 18:41 by The Johnster

[Wickham Green too]

Did they borrow the cab from a VW Camper ?

[John Isherwood]

On 19/07/2024 at 09:35, joseph benjamin said:

I've read in the December 1956 Trains Illustrated magazine "The pulverized coal fired gas turbine locomotive sponsored by the Ministry of Fuel and power is nearing completion at the North British Co's Glasgow works" What happened to it?

 

Just wondering about the thread title - surely 18000, 18100, GT3, ?????? would be the fourth.

 

...... or are you suggesting that ?????? came before GT3?

 

My understanding is that GT3 was conceived way back into the 1950s.

 

John Isherwood.

[Wickham Green too]

Moreover we all know about three, so a fourth - even if out of sequence - will come as a surprise to many !

 

( Robin Barnes numbered ?????? as 18200 in his painting ..... seems logical, but was there any fact behind that ? ) 

[D7666]

The NBL-Parsons device certainly predates GT3 in any physical form, and almost certainly predates it on paper too.

 

GT3 construction date was 1958-1960 and did not start road testing until 1961.

 

GT3 is some 6 years after 1952 work on NBL-Parsons started, and then suspended 1959 two years before GT3 turned a wheel.

 

GT3 or some such EE device may well have been on paper in early 1950s, but then it could be argued that if the NBL-Parsons device was announced in 1952, then it almost certainly was on paper in late 1940s - none of these things spring up overnight.

 

So describing NBL-Parsons as the third is IMHO technically correct, and GT3 is the fourth.

 

NBL Parsons never made it (AFAIK) into a Ian Allen Combined Volume, and things that did not make Ye Holye Booke Of Numberes tend to be forgotten (or never known about) by persons not doing thorough research.***

 

As for number 18200 for anything, well I propose that is nothing but pure conjecture (and artistic licence in one case)

 

 

*** DIGRESSION but examples of omissions from contemporary IA ABC that then go on to be omitted by more modern writers (including one of this very year)

 

Examples

 

BEL1 and BEL2 were in ABC but L&Y no.2 (a similar 4w battery loco) not

ED2-7 in ABC but SR DS400 and DS600 not (but they are the same model of Fowler loco)

ED1 in ABC but GWR No.1 not (but is same model off Fowler 0-4-0)

 

I know there are more examples.

 

No writer is perfect, but I see these (and others) omitted over and over again by new writers trying to produce the definitive list of everything - to repeat the same omissions to me means lack of original research, merely transferring and reformatting a set of flawed data.

 

The latest example of this is the 2024 edition of the P5 diesel and electric Locomotive Register which has omitted the above, as well as others - I managed to find definite 28 omitted locos in all, notwithstanding the editorial comment about excluding minor small works tugs and tractors; I have taken all this up with the publisher. The NBL-Parsons is not one of the 28, but that one is in my submission to P5 albeit a grey area one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 22:55 by D7666

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, D7666 said:

 

NBL Parsons never made it (AFAIK) into a Ian Allen Combined Volume, and things that did not make Ye Holye Booke Of Numberes tend to be forgotten (or never known about) by persons not doing thorough research.***

 

The Ian Allen Combined included all locos, even those not owned by BR, that might be seen on the BR network and 'spotted', hence the inclusion of GT3, but the NB/Parsons loco never made it out of the works, and was never completed.

Edited Monday at 01:12 by The Johnster

[jjb1970]

10 hours ago, D7666 said:

 

I can't remember where I got this from and apologies to whatever site I did; it might even have been from the 2015 thread within this forum - for whatever reason (don't bother trying to figure it out) I can see none of the images linked / posted in that thread.

 

This is a photo of a model of it; this model may well exist today in a museum somewhere, but if so I do not know where.

 

 

I think someone should send that picture to Heljan or KR........🤣

[rodent279]

12 hours ago, D7666 said:

 

I can't remember where I got this from and apologies to whatever site I did; it might even have been from the 2015 thread within this forum - for whatever reason (don't bother trying to figure it out) I can see none of the images linked / posted in that thread.

 

This is a photo of a model of it; this model may well exist today in a museum somewhere, but if so I do not know where.

 

It's got the look of something that escaped from behind the Iron Curtain- by "Ludmilla" out of NBL perhaps?

[jjb1970]

7 hours ago, D7666 said:

The NBL-Parsons device certainly predates GT3 in any physical form, and almost certainly predates it on paper too.

 

GT3 construction date was 1958-1960 and did not start road testing until 1961.

 

GT3 is some 6 years after 1952 work on NBL-Parsons started, and then suspended 1959 two years before GT3 turned a wheel.

 

GT3 or some such EE device may well have been on paper in early 1950s, but then it could be argued that if the NBL-Parsons device was announced in 1952, then it almost certainly was on paper in late 1940s - none of these things spring up overnight.

 

So describing NBL-Parsons as the third is IMHO technically correct, and GT3 is the fourth.

 

NBL Parsons never made it (AFAIK) into a Ian Allen Combined Volume, and things that did not make Ye Holye Booke Of Numberes tend to be forgotten (or never known about) by persons not doing thorough research.***

 

As for number 18200 for anything, well I propose that is nothing but pure conjecture (and artistic licence in one case)

 

 

*** DIGRESSION but examples of omissions from contemporary IA ABC that then go on to be omitted by more modern writers (including one of this very year)

 

Examples

 

BEL1 and BEL2 were in ABC but L&Y no.2 (a similar 4w battery loco) not

ED2-7 in ABC but SR DS400 and DS600 not (but they are the same model of Fowler loco)

ED1 in ABC but GWR No.1 not (but is same model off Fowler 0-4-0)

 

I know there are more examples.

 

No writer is perfect, but I see these (and others) omitted over and over again by new writers trying to produce the definitive list of everything - to repeat the same omissions to me means lack of original research, merely transferring and reformatting a set of flawed data.

 

The latest example of this is the 2024 edition of the P5 diesel and electric Locomotive Register which has omitted the above, as well as others - I managed to find definite 28 omitted locos in all, notwithstanding the editorial comment about excluding minor small works tugs and tractors; I have taken all this up with the publisher. The NBL-Parsons is not one of the 28, but that one is in my submission to P5 albeit a grey area one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The perils of relying on secondary sources. Secondary sources have their place, but cannot replace primary sources if you are serious about a subject. 

[Wickham Green too]

10 hours ago, D7666 said:

... *** DIGRESSION but examples of omissions from contemporary IA ABC t... but SR DS400 and DS600 ...

Grabbing a couple of ABC combos, I find 400S in the 1948 reprint ( p.39 )  and DS600 in the 1955/6 reprint ( p.64 ) .... both listed in the Service Locos section rather than with 'main line' diesels. One ( steam ) loco that never even appears there is the mysterious "The Master General" at Southampton Docks - I came across a reference to it years ago - somewhere - and a photo or two for sale on the web but nowt else.

[John Isherwood]

11 hours ago, D7666 said:

The NBL-Parsons device certainly predates GT3 in any physical form, and almost certainly predates it on paper too.

 

GT3 construction date was 1958-1960 and did not start road testing until 1961.

 

GT3 is some 6 years after 1952 work on NBL-Parsons started, and then suspended 1959 two years before GT3 turned a wheel.

 

GT3 or some such EE device may well have been on paper in early 1950s, but then it could be argued that if the NBL-Parsons device was announced in 1952, then it almost certainly was on paper in late 1940s - none of these things spring up overnight.

 

So describing NBL-Parsons as the third is IMHO technically correct, and GT3 is the fourth.

 

NBL Parsons never made it (AFAIK) into a Ian Allen Combined Volume, and things that did not make Ye Holye Booke Of Numberes tend to be forgotten (or never known about) by persons not doing thorough research.***

 

As for number 18200 for anything, well I propose that is nothing but pure conjecture (and artistic licence in one case)

 

 

*** DIGRESSION but examples of omissions from contemporary IA ABC that then go on to be omitted by more modern writers (including one of this very year)

 

Examples

 

BEL1 and BEL2 were in ABC but L&Y no.2 (a similar 4w battery loco) not

ED2-7 in ABC but SR DS400 and DS600 not (but they are the same model of Fowler loco)

ED1 in ABC but GWR No.1 not (but is same model off Fowler 0-4-0)

 

I know there are more examples.

 

No writer is perfect, but I see these (and others) omitted over and over again by new writers trying to produce the definitive list of everything - to repeat the same omissions to me means lack of original research, merely transferring and reformatting a set of flawed data.

 

The latest example of this is the 2024 edition of the P5 diesel and electric Locomotive Register which has omitted the above, as well as others - I managed to find definite 28 omitted locos in all, notwithstanding the editorial comment about excluding minor small works tugs and tractors; I have taken all this up with the publisher. The NBL-Parsons is not one of the 28, but that one is in my submission to P5 albeit a grey area one.

 

It must be remembered that the world of information was a VERY different place at the time of publication of the IA ABCs.

 

What was published was, in the main, what was supplied by the Big Four / BR - and there would be different perspectives as to what should / needed to be published between the different companies / regions.

 

Unless you had personal contact with the more obscure locos, how would you know that they existed? I was around in the 1950s / 60s but, even now, I am surprised to find a subject that had hitherto escaped my knowledge.

 

Nowadays, everyone and his granny are posting (mis)information on the internet - the volume is often overwhelming!

 

So, I would caution against cynical criticism of what was, and what was not published pre-internet - you need a whole different mindset to understand that.

 

John Isherwood.

[D7666]

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

The Ian Allen Combined included all locos, even those not owned by BR, that might be seen on the BR network and 'spotted', hence the inclusion of GT3, but the NB/Parsons loco never made it out of the works, and was never completed.

As I have demonstrated, IA combines did NOT include ALL locos, even some owned by BR.

 

Agree NBL/Parsons uncompleted and is a grey area, however, it was - and still is - normal practice TO include locos and units ordered and under construction. As this device was ordered in 1952 and under construction until 1959, there are something like 5-6 years where it ought to have been included, and none of the BC issues I have seen include it.

 

but there are - as I said - 28 locos missing from a current non-IA work - but you will find at least 12 of those are each missing from the relevant contemporary IA books.

 

It is reasonable therefore to apply the gist of what i said - that modern researchers are not researching deeply enough and replicating flawed data sets.

Edited Monday at 19:29 by D7666

[D7666]

9 hours ago, John Isherwood said:

 

It must be remembered that the world of information was a VERY different place at the time of publication of the IA ABCs.

 

What was published was, in the main, what was supplied by the Big Four / BR - and there would be different perspectives as to what should / needed to be published between the different companies / regions.

 

Unless you had personal contact with the more obscure locos, how would you know that they existed? I was around in the 1950s / 60s but, even now, I am surprised to find a subject that had hitherto escaped my knowledge.

 

Nowadays, everyone and his granny are posting (mis)information on the internet - the volume is often overwhelming!

 

So, I would caution against cynical criticism of what was, and what was not published pre-internet - you need a whole different mindset to understand that.

 

John Isherwood.

 

Do not assume or jump to conclusions.

 

I never referred to what is on the internet nor is that the basis of my list.

 

All bar 1 of the 16 missing from IA / 28 missing from P5 books were known to me by early 1990s well before internet spread into these things. The one loco I was not aware of was the L&Y battery loco I listed.

 

The locos I refer to as being missing are all documented in contemporary journals and works - and even most of the 16 missing IA ones are present at the time on their own house journals.

 

People knew they existed exactly BECAUSE they were reported.

 

The incomplete research is by the IA compilers compounded by modern researchers using that same incomplete research.

 

Year after year IA repeated the same blocks of data without any real cross checking.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 19:37 by D7666

[Wickham Green too]

19 hours ago, D7666 said:

... *** DIGRESSION ... ED1 in ABC but GWR No.1 not (but is same model off Fowler 0-4-0)

GWR No.1 is illustrated in Ian Allan's "Fleet Survey Vol.7" - so not totally unknown to the organisation ............................ the caption says it was owned by the GWR from 1934 to 1940 : Young Mr.Allan published his first ABC* in December 1942.

 

* of Southern Locomotives

[D7666]

47 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

GWR No.1 is illustrated in Ian Allan's "Fleet Survey Vol.7" - so not totally unknown to the organisation ............................ the caption says it was owned by the GWR from 1934 to 1940 : Young Mr.Allan published his first ABC* in December 1942.

 

* of Southern Locomotives

Indeed. It may well appear on some IA publications.

 

Of course there are machines that went before IA ABC appeared, but my general point is about modern writers not researching properly - and this exemplifies my point.

 

If a writer is allegedly producing an "every one that ever was" book, research needs to go beyond IA ABC., and have identified GWR 1 [et al] from other resources (and it was there, if you find the right journal).