@@JackStackhouse Agreed. DP2 would've shared the same fate as the Falcon, had it not been wrecked in an accident. People back then didn't have any regard for unique machines. The railwaymen tried their very best to preserve LMS 10000 or 10001, but to no avail...
Back then I was a member of the Mildland RPS and we tried to preserve the engine. We tried to get EE to donate it, no go, would they put it on perminent loan, no go, can we purchase it at scrap metal price, n go, English Electric concidered it a failure and only wanted to cut it up. Thus it never got preserved, sad.
@@leeosborne3793Yep, a zooming oversized lego brick making the deafening sound of a dentist's drill wherever it went! OK, I guess it's probably not fair to malign the GT3's antisocial noise tendencies as I imagine they'd have found a way to dampen it down a lot in a production loco.
‘Woodhead Hales’ is Woodford Halse on the GC and ‘Whitechurch’ is Whitchurch, Shropshire. The gas turbines are not that noisy, in fact quiet inside the train as the sound frequency is high.
It's a shame the GT3 prototype never survived as a museum piece. Also if developed further the GT3 and the other gas turbine locomotives could have been a answer to replacing the current diesel locomotives as hydrogen gas could have been utilised to run the turbine engine.
... no. Hydrogen outside *_NUCLEAR REACTIONS_* (specifically fusion and antimatter) is a fool's game. Oh, and the required volume to store the hydrogen is 13.5-14m^3 per metric ton... or *A LOT* in plain man's terms. The humble Traveller dTon is based on the 14m^3 volume for good reason. They're just *_THAT BAD_* regarding energy density outside that particular niche.
@@TheTrueAdeptgood comment well made. I’m in railway myself, but fed up of this hydrogen buzz. It’s great for a few low speed ‘demonstrator’ trains but that’s about it.
@@TheTrueAdept All too sadly true. Except when we do something even dumber like battery trains with no provision for running off third rail or overhead wire, so that recharging can only be done at the end of the line.
@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio well, batteries are actually getting pretty good nowadays, especially since e-cars are gaining traction. The problem with cars is that they are *_VERY_* volume-constrained, even though electric transmissions are pretty superior to more conventional ones (that's why most ICE locos are Diesel-Electrics, not Diesel-Hydraulics, and why electric locos have a vast power superiority compared to everyone else for much of railroad history). You can battery-power a loco, but the problem is the batteries themselves, which were not solved until recently.
@1258-Eckhart Brown-Boveri only made the first one, BR number 18000 which currently resides (non-working) at Didcot Railway Centre. The second one, BR number 18100 was built for British Railways in 1951 by Metropolitan-Vickers, Manchester. It had, however, been ordered by the GWR in the 1940s, but construction was delayed due to World War 2. It was later converted into a 25kV electric loco number E2001 for early trials of the 25kV overhead lines before scrapping.
What an excellent presentation! Possibly the best thing I have seen today and in a while, thank you for a brilliant production, writing, and your narration, I really appreciate a well crafted production.
As well as loud it was also very hot - you could stand six feet from it and feel like you were about to burst into flames - the one thing I can remember about it when it used to go through Amersham when being used on the Met/GC line.
I started with BR in 1964, my first trip out with a free pass was "up" the West Coast to Preston from Carlisle and I can remember seeing GT3 near Shap. In later years I sampled double-headed 50s on the West Coast but that's another story.
I remember seeing GT3 on Crewe south shed.. Not in the open air but jn a brick building. I had no idea at the time what it was. I lived in Stoke then so travel was quite easy!
I never saw it but I loved the design and thinking at the time. A driver said it was 'equal to a good Scot'. The heat from the exhaust would have been harmful for footbridges.
I worked at the former (Frank Whittle) English Electric (EE) Whetstone site, but unfortunately, not in the hay day of GEC or EE, but in the mere shadow of Alstec, a former part of GEC. Within the workshop there was an individual (didn't know his name) had all the design drawings and blueprints for GT3 amongst many other projects that EE and GEC had undertaken, and he would happily show those who were interested. Unfortunately time will have caught up with this man, and the Whetstone site was being slowly taken down and replaced with houses while I was there in early 2000's - so needless to say the drawings have all probably been consigned to the bin, shame really.
I find it very sad that the Vulcan foundry, which built so many steam and diesel locomotives is now a housing estate. The same of course can be said for many of the other great locomotive works that once existed in Britain.
It is surprising that EE went down this road when classes 20, 37,40 and Deltic were all in the pipeline and arguably ahead of the competition to replace steam. Good post, quite a few photographs I haven't seen. I think I remember Meccano magazine and Eagle did a spread on it. It seemed an odd design even to a young teenager as I was then not to be a double cab design but I suppose neither was the class 20 and that was a success.Thank you for posting.
20s a success after they were run in pairs nose to nose to effectively give a cab at each end. Running like that 98% of their miles travelled is my guess.
Only 18000 was built by Boveri - 18100 was built by Metro-Vick in Manchester. Different fuel oil types (and turbine designs to match) were used to assess which would be the most economical fuel to use, but this was possibly the least useful criterion to judge useability by. Additionally, neither loco was well served by steam-era crews, maintenance depots and staff - although this was not their fault. GT3 was meant to be a compromise design to allow the continuing use of steam-based diagramming and working practices (including turntables) as an intermediate solution. Good gamble, decent design, not taken up as a result of the abandonment of the phased modernisation plan during the "diesel panic".
I think the real reason it didn't work out is simple - you have to keep the turbine running all the time, it would be like idling a diesel engine at full revs. Gas turbines were tried the world over, and all failed for the same reason - their being inherently uneconomical.
French railways SNCF had 2 generations of successful gas turbines multiple units, ETG and RTG. They were used until 2004 and sold to several countries. The TGV was planned originally to have gas turbines.
I guess it depends on your defintion of failure. The Union Pacific RR in the US had a fleet of 56 gas turbine heavty freight locos which lasted for nearly 20 years, all covering more than 1 miilion miles in revenue service. They took over from the 4-8-8-4 Big Boy Mallets and the third series were then the world's most powerful locos being rated at 8,500hp. They still hold the world record for a single prime mover.
Many thanks for this very informative Vid. I'm not a "Rail enthusiast" but appreciate the GT3 belonging to the heritage of a transport system that English engineering introduced to the world.
Although the world would have been more interested by the Union Pacific Big Blow series production gas turbines running day in day out for all of the sixties with mile long freight trains.
Nice presentation, but a few errors. I researched GT3 before building my working 5" gauge model which can be seen on UA-cam. The model has a 5Kw turboshaft engine. KR Models used my drawings to produce their OO-gauge model. I am now working on completing a 5" gauge working model of 18,100 using the same design of turboshaft engine.
Fascinating if anachronistic approach to the steam phase-out. The design aesthetic is exemplary of "Dieselpunk" even though it's actual life was over a decade after the genre typically ends (end of WWII/beginning of the Cold War). Thanks for sharing!
I have mentioned this elsewhere, the gas turbine was removed and ended up at the old English Electric works at the GEC Gas Turbines works Whetstone site in Leicestershire, it was still there when the factory was shut in the early 1980's, no idea what happened to it after that.
I find it hard to argue with the practicality that diesels, push/pulls and later Multiple Unit trains brought for turnarounds/running. That said locos like this make me wonder about a world, where technology continued to move forward but the packaging stuck with that of the traditional steam engine. Diesels with their engines where the boiler would be, fuel tanks in the tender etc. Obviously seeing this on a large scale is a fantasy, but it would be interesting to see how the railways would have looked in such a world.
01:41 _Brown, Boveri & Cie_ is short for _Brown, Boveri et Compagnie_ (i.e. Brown, Boveri and Company). BBC was a Swiss manufacturer of heavy electrical equipment (it's now part of ABB).
I believe they used to use diesels and gas turbine locos together on trains, so the diesels could get the train up to speed so the gas turbine loco would take over, and at high speeds they were very efficient.
It's not so much about speed as constant high power. Gas turbines worked a bit better in the US on freight trains as they could run for hundreds of miles at high power hauling long heavy freight trains. They were not well suited to the Europe where there is a need for regular power changes. Even on long distance services with few stops, it's still often full power up hill, then coast down, then power on for the next hill, plus shutting off to slow for a curve, then back on the power on the straight. Even diesels had a lot of issues with constantly going from full throttle to idle and back. The funny thing is that today Gas Turbines might actually be more viable, as part of a hybrid setup with batteries. They could run at constant speed and charge batteries when full power wasn't needed, with the batteries boosting when more power was needed. Still would be noise issues though. Gas turbines are remarkably tolerant when it comes to fuels too, which would be an advantage.
@@ChrisCooper312 I'd love to see the Gas Turbines come back. The rumbling was intense. The technology should be developed further, I feel. It's been suppressed for too long.
@@abloogywoogywoo I've also heard it said that GT3 was banned from stopping with the exhaust underneath signal gantries and bridges because of the intense heat of the exhaust.
I wonder why at EE, which were the first in the UK to produce modern main line diesel locomotives in the familiar single or dual cab designs went the route of adapting something like a steam locomotive for GT3, almost if a King class had its boiler and cylinders removed and replaced by the gas turbine. Also it was turbine-mechanical which made efficient operation of the gas turbine more difficult than the turbine electric variant like no.18000. Operating conditions in the UK and Europe in general did not suit gas turbine drive. In the US they operated successfully for the Union Pacific on long freight hauls with the turbine operating at high output for prolonged time, that was when the turbine was the most efficient. At low loads which happen often in European operating conditions a diesel engine is much more efficient.
The British GTELs suffered the same fate heavy fuel oils got more expensive, loud but not like a bird burner of the UP and more traditional power was just cheaper.
I wonder if it would’ve been possible to construct a diesel/turbine hybrid in a similar manner to something like the kitson still locomotive. Using diesel ( don’t know much about the viability of kerosene engines in locomotives ) at low speeds and switching from an engine to a turbine at a set minimum speed when the turbine is at a good efficiency. Certainly over complicated but I assume it would be the best of both worlds if done properly.
I only know of this engine thanks to the mod for Transport Fever 2. I do not understand the thinking behind building it like a steam locomotive, which are infamous for having terrible vision that through history has led to multiple crashes because the drivers couldn't properly see the track ahead. The layout of steam engines turned out the way it did, because they had to solve the problem of how to boil a lot of water on a moving engine, and there has never been any succesfull designs that were able to give the drivers better working conditions. When using any other kind of propulsion there's no sensible reason to use the same engine layout, but they clearly didn't bother consulting the drivers when they decided to build the GT3 that way
An excellent explanatory video that I knew little about. What a great shame, and they were only a few steps away from success. Across the channel where I now live, this concept was developed further as French RTG and ETG multiple units, one with 2 gas turbines and the latter with 1 GT and 1 diesel engine. The RTGs saw a 30-year service on several regions including credible high speed performance from Paris to Boulogne to connect with the hovercraft.
An irony: My father, who worked on the Deltics as an engineer for Napier, and had also been involved in the project to re-power fast torpedo boats with that engine, had by the time they scrapped this weird abortion, joined the TurboTrain team in North America as the liaison for United Aircraft Canada, who supplied the ST6 engines for those motive units. Typical of a time in the UK where lots of good minds, dealt with visionless management; which in turn was the downfall of many industries that failed during that time.
What a handsome locomotive. It’s a shame there don’t appear to be any sound recordings of it in operation. I imagine that would have been quite a cacophony! Is there a model available, does anyone know?
As a Railfan from Across the Pond, That was a Sleek Locomotive Package! Different type of eye-catching MCM style. Listening to "Just the facts...", and not trying to be a Conspiracy Theorist, the In/Out feeling smacks of a little bit of politics..... Maybe it worked out Too Well for the long distance runs it was designed for...🤔 OR.... It was such a revolutionary step up in design, it's technology scared many of the "stuck in the mud" power people..... And as you know, WE can't have something that actually Works and is technologically Scary! Chocolate Zephyr...... Very cool 😎!
I must say, British rail seems to have both ends of the beauty spectrum covered. Stuff like the Flying Scotsman on the beautiful end, and this giant turd on the other end. Lol! I'll bet it sounded amazing though.
The electrification of the ECML didn't start until 1976 and that was only for suburban traffic out to Royston. Did you mean the WCML or the the suburban lines out of Liverpool Street?
@@JackStackhouse I only wish that I could. It was A3 size I would say, first picture was the complete loco and as you turned the pages more was exposed. Unfortunately it got destroyed with much railway related material and not by me.
Well you hit upon two points that assure its failure! Firstly the turbo loco that preceded it and failed because it was expensive to maintain and was in workshop for long periods. Secondly the use of oil fuel in fifties was frowned upon by the Treasury who had no finance for such a switch. They had already forced British Railways to reconvert to coal firing half of its fleet which had been converted to oil firing because of lack of exchange finance. They also required the best coal to be exported and made the Railway to run on cheap, low thermal conversion coal! However desirable the design by a private contractor nothing was going free BR from financial constraints with successive governments trying to pay off the debts of three wars and this was not managed until Thatcher eliminated those debts by paying them off with North Sea oil revenues. This is not a political recommendation or condemnation but a statement of history as recorded in a number of publications over the years none of which appear to have been sued over their statements!!
So it didn't really fail. In fact it worked very well. It just didn't make sense to spend money on it at the time when the diesels were all coming good?
The loco was scrapped in early 66. There was barely half a dozen serious preservation societies by then. Even the KWVR was some 2 years from running again. This was on nobodys radar
The travesty that this unique and iconic loco was not preserved for future generations, but i suppose it the "20-20 hindsight effect" is that at the time historical significance was probly like "shall we preserve a 2023 Ford Mondeo ??" ;(
Am a great fan of English Electric products so am sure if BR had of sponsored the development of the engine then a great addition to BR,s Motive power would have been developed
had english electric put the power unit and equipment in conventional diesel body (say a deltic bodyshell) i bet it would have been a much bigger success. whether it would have meant a full production run a doubt it
Was not the French SNCF RTG gas turbine railcars much more successful and long lived in service. This was the first train I travelled on when visiting Europe in 1980.
...electrification of the WEST coast mainline. The ECML would not see electrification until the seventies around London and the late eighties for the rest of the route.
Another sad tale of how British technology and inventive creation were stifled and betrayed by anything connected to Government. The list from the '50s and '60s is long and tragic. This could have been an excellent development test machine and there was no reason EE could not have re-engineered a diesel electric loco design to fit the GT from GT3 to alternators / generators already in use. It just needed support and belief, sadly two things the cold hands of beaurocracy never have. Given the large diesels being produced by EE and others were fundamentally poor the GT could not have been any worse especially as, as it was reported, on test runs it proved reliable. Excellent video that answered some questions for me.
The whole point of GT3 was to investigate if gas turbine power could be used directly, WITHOUT the intermediate electric transmission. There had already been TWO gas-turbo-electric designs on trial.
@@tooleyheadbang4239 Yes built by the Swiss. My point was this loco had a valuable part to play in GT use in the UK however the power was transmitted. But they just scrapped it as they always do.
Oh, scrapped just weeks after I was born…😅 Well, it’s a very stubborn thing to make new tech forcibly look & operate traditional, especially in the middle of a paradigm shift. Incumbency and conservatism are strange human traits - and I do mean outside of politics. Shipping or automotive have at times struggled in rhyming ways. Traditions are always reshaped - by us, even when we stick to them…
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Oh yes, I know. That also drove the massive change for aeronautical turbines, from A1 soaking pure jets to 8:1 bypass turbo-fans. Any such failings are due to externalities - Things the ‘developers’ left out of their ‘equations’. So, experience teaches us to re-internalise those, by policy, money, environment or actual engineering deficits. Good ‘inventions’ are crowd sourced and empirical. This massive engine was pure idealism instead… …but amazingly impressive out of context to my rant above. 😅👍
i hate to be this person the WCML west coast mainline as you showed footage as well of a WCML loco was electrified first the ECML wouldnt see electrification till the 80s. you did state with the east coast mainline electrification underway i thought id just put this here that is wrong.
They did the same thing with the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television. It's just the Media Museum now. Seems to be part of a general trend of name shortening across the sector. That said, the Media Museum had a sudden jump in visitor numbers right after doing it, so it seemed to help... somehow.
1:20 It appears I might have confused East and West, Its a bloody good job I wasnt running the Cold War
It's OK, nobody heard you over the turbine scream anyhow. 😁
💥💥💥 "You were ONLY supposed to blow the bloody Soviets up...!"
I think this engine would had made a great addition to the National Railway Museum.
Its a shame it never ended up preserved like DP1 did!
@@JackStackhouse Agreed. DP2 would've shared the same fate as the Falcon, had it not been wrecked in an accident. People back then didn't have any regard for unique machines. The railwaymen tried their very best to preserve LMS 10000 or 10001, but to no avail...
I would like to mention HS4000 at this point
They weren't even interested in preserving a Class 442 - the fastest 3rd rail train in the world 🙄 Not even a driving trailer.
Candidate for a new build, perhaps. Impressive looking machine.
Back then I was a member of the Mildland RPS and we tried to preserve the engine. We tried to get EE to donate it, no go, would they put it on perminent loan, no go, can we purchase it at scrap metal price, n go, English Electric concidered it a failure and only wanted to cut it up. Thus it never got preserved, sad.
That is a pure bummer!
Terrible corporate vandalism! Respect to you and your colleagues in the struggle to preserve our engineering history.
This and the blue Pullman should have been preserved for a museum. Both were scrapped well into the era of such preservations.
7:43 I mean that didn’t stop BR from making a loud as train, the 43s (HST) and 85s-87s were insanely loud
Maybe unsuccessful, but arguably a beautiful looking locomotive.
Dose your guide dog like it ?
Certainly quite striking. Imagine the sight and sound of that thing going up Shap or Beattock!
@@leeosborne3793Yep, a zooming oversized lego brick making the deafening sound of a dentist's drill wherever it went!
OK, I guess it's probably not fair to malign the GT3's antisocial noise tendencies as I imagine they'd have found a way to dampen it down a lot in a production loco.
Such a shame it wasn't preserved. It was a beautiful locomotive despite its failures.
The Fell Diesel Mechanical and the GT3 are two locomotives that are a must for any collector.
‘Woodhead Hales’ is Woodford Halse on the GC and ‘Whitechurch’ is Whitchurch, Shropshire. The gas turbines are not that noisy, in fact quiet inside the train as the sound frequency is high.
It's a shame the GT3 prototype never survived as a museum piece. Also if developed further the GT3 and the other gas turbine locomotives could have been a answer to replacing the current diesel locomotives as hydrogen gas could have been utilised to run the turbine engine.
... no. Hydrogen outside *_NUCLEAR REACTIONS_* (specifically fusion and antimatter) is a fool's game. Oh, and the required volume to store the hydrogen is 13.5-14m^3 per metric ton... or *A LOT* in plain man's terms. The humble Traveller dTon is based on the 14m^3 volume for good reason.
They're just *_THAT BAD_* regarding energy density outside that particular niche.
@@TheTrueAdeptgood comment well made. I’m in railway myself, but fed up of this hydrogen buzz. It’s great for a few low speed ‘demonstrator’ trains but that’s about it.
@@bfapple to be honest, you're better off using electric or ICE engines...
... though in the US's case, you're going to be stuck with ICE.
@@TheTrueAdept All too sadly true. Except when we do something even dumber like battery trains with no provision for running off third rail or overhead wire, so that recharging can only be done at the end of the line.
@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio well, batteries are actually getting pretty good nowadays, especially since e-cars are gaining traction. The problem with cars is that they are *_VERY_* volume-constrained, even though electric transmissions are pretty superior to more conventional ones (that's why most ICE locos are Diesel-Electrics, not Diesel-Hydraulics, and why electric locos have a vast power superiority compared to everyone else for much of railroad history). You can battery-power a loco, but the problem is the batteries themselves, which were not solved until recently.
An interesting video, thanks. Just a small point, the second GWR gas turbine was built by Metropolitan-Vickers in Manchester, not Brown Boveri.
He never claimed anything different.
@@1258-Eckhart He actually said that BOTH were made by Brown Boveri.
Bennwhite's comment is correct.
@@MervynPartin Nope, he said that both GWR machines were made by Brown Boveri, which is true.
@1258-Eckhart Brown-Boveri only made the first one, BR number 18000 which currently resides (non-working) at Didcot Railway Centre.
The second one, BR number 18100 was built for British Railways in 1951 by Metropolitan-Vickers, Manchester. It had, however, been ordered by the GWR in the 1940s, but construction was delayed due to World War 2. It was later converted into a 25kV electric loco number E2001 for early trials of the 25kV overhead lines before scrapping.
@@MervynPartin Correct, only 18000 had a Brown Boveri prime mover. Both GT3 (here) and 18100 had prime movers from English Electric.
I love this loco and so glad KR Models made a model of her
GT3 still lives - as a 5" turbine powered working scale model by a fellow in Cambridge.
Seen that at a Model Engineering exhibition - it's a work of art !
'Thos' is an abbreviation for Thomas. A good piece of work and thank you very much!
...and Brown Boveri Cie means "company". The pronunciation of Llandudno and Whitchurch needs work too!
@@davidjones332Yes, 'cie' should probably be pronounced 'compagnie'.
Sad they scrapped him. This one belongs into a museum. He might have failed, yet this locomotive is a part of train history.
if the plans still exist , a replica could be made
What an excellent presentation! Possibly the best thing I have seen today and in a while, thank you for a brilliant production, writing, and your narration, I really appreciate a well crafted production.
As well as loud it was also very hot - you could stand six feet from it and feel like you were about to burst into flames - the one thing I can remember about it when it used to go through Amersham when being used on the Met/GC line.
I started with BR in 1964, my first trip out with a free pass was "up" the West Coast to Preston from Carlisle and I can remember seeing GT3 near Shap. In later years I sampled double-headed 50s on the West Coast but that's another story.
I remember seeing GT3 on Crewe south shed.. Not in the open air but jn a brick building. I had no idea at the time what it was. I lived in Stoke then so travel was quite easy!
I never saw it but I loved the design and thinking at the time. A driver said it was 'equal to a good Scot'. The heat from the exhaust would have been harmful for footbridges.
I worked at the former (Frank Whittle) English Electric (EE) Whetstone site, but unfortunately, not in the hay day of GEC or EE, but in the mere shadow of Alstec, a former part of GEC. Within the workshop there was an individual (didn't know his name) had all the design drawings and blueprints for GT3 amongst many other projects that EE and GEC had undertaken, and he would happily show those who were interested.
Unfortunately time will have caught up with this man, and the Whetstone site was being slowly taken down and replaced with houses while I was there in early 2000's - so needless to say the drawings have all probably been consigned to the bin, shame really.
I find it very sad that the Vulcan foundry, which built so many steam and diesel locomotives is now a housing estate. The same of course can be said for many of the other great locomotive works that once existed in Britain.
It is surprising that EE went down this road when classes 20, 37,40 and Deltic were all in the pipeline and arguably ahead of the competition to replace steam. Good post, quite a few photographs I haven't seen. I think I remember Meccano magazine and Eagle did a spread on it. It seemed an odd design even to a young teenager as I was then not to be a double cab design but I suppose neither was the class 20 and that was a success.Thank you for posting.
20s a success after they were run in pairs nose to nose to effectively give a cab at each end.
Running like that 98% of their miles travelled is my guess.
Only 18000 was built by Boveri - 18100 was built by Metro-Vick in Manchester. Different fuel oil types (and turbine designs to match) were used to assess which would be the most economical fuel to use, but this was possibly the least useful criterion to judge useability by. Additionally, neither loco was well served by steam-era crews, maintenance depots and staff - although this was not their fault. GT3 was meant to be a compromise design to allow the continuing use of steam-based diagramming and working practices (including turntables) as an intermediate solution. Good gamble, decent design, not taken up as a result of the abandonment of the phased modernisation plan during the "diesel panic".
I think the real reason it didn't work out is simple - you have to keep the turbine running all the time, it would be like idling a diesel engine at full revs. Gas turbines were tried the world over, and all failed for the same reason - their being inherently uneconomical.
French railways SNCF had 2 generations of successful gas turbines multiple units, ETG and RTG.
They were used until 2004 and sold to several countries.
The TGV was planned originally to have gas turbines.
I guess it depends on your defintion of failure. The Union Pacific RR in the US had a fleet of 56 gas turbine heavty freight locos which lasted for nearly 20 years, all covering more than 1 miilion miles in revenue service. They took over from the 4-8-8-4 Big Boy Mallets and the third series were then the world's most powerful locos being rated at 8,500hp. They still hold the world record for a single prime mover.
I worked at Vulcan Works from 1964.
G5T 3 was parked,😢GT 3 was parked next to metal fabrication shop for many years. John
Many thanks for this very informative Vid. I'm not a "Rail enthusiast" but appreciate the GT3 belonging to the heritage of a transport system that English engineering introduced to the world.
Although the world would have been more interested by the Union Pacific Big Blow series production gas turbines running day in day out for all of the sixties with mile long freight trains.
That's one of the best looking engines I've ever seen!
Interesting video on GT3.
The cab layout of the GWR GT locos was well thought out. Looked neat.
I saw GT3 standing in the scrapyard in Salford prior to its being broken up.
And lucky, theres a ready to run 00 gauge model from KR models in that livery aswell as afew fictional liverys
Excellent presentation , thank you..
Only 18000 came from Switzerland (The 2. From BBC first was SBB Am 4/6) 18100 was from Metropolitan-Vickers
Nice presentation, but a few errors. I researched GT3 before building my working 5" gauge model which can be seen on UA-cam. The model has a 5Kw turboshaft engine. KR Models used my drawings to produce their OO-gauge model. I am now working on completing a 5" gauge working model of 18,100 using the same design of turboshaft engine.
The noise couldn't be worse than the old Intercity 125s with their screaming turbos as they pulled away from the station.
Fascinating if anachronistic approach to the steam phase-out. The design aesthetic is exemplary of "Dieselpunk" even though it's actual life was over a decade after the genre typically ends (end of WWII/beginning of the Cold War). Thanks for sharing!
Very interesting , thanks for posting.
I have mentioned this elsewhere, the gas turbine was removed and ended up at the old English Electric works at the GEC Gas Turbines works Whetstone site in Leicestershire, it was still there when the factory was shut in the early 1980's, no idea what happened to it after that.
I find it hard to argue with the practicality that diesels, push/pulls and later Multiple Unit trains brought for turnarounds/running. That said locos like this make me wonder about a world, where technology continued to move forward but the packaging stuck with that of the traditional steam engine. Diesels with their engines where the boiler would be, fuel tanks in the tender etc. Obviously seeing this on a large scale is a fantasy, but it would be interesting to see how the railways would have looked in such a world.
Enjoyable vid.Thumbs up.
01:41 _Brown, Boveri & Cie_ is short for _Brown, Boveri et Compagnie_ (i.e. Brown, Boveri and Company). BBC was a Swiss manufacturer of heavy electrical equipment (it's now part of ABB).
Union Pacific had more success with gas turbines and the APT-E was a gas turbine, they were very heavy on fuel use at anything other than full power.
I believe they used to use diesels and gas turbine locos together on trains, so the diesels could get the train up to speed so the gas turbine loco would take over, and at high speeds they were very efficient.
It's not so much about speed as constant high power. Gas turbines worked a bit better in the US on freight trains as they could run for hundreds of miles at high power hauling long heavy freight trains. They were not well suited to the Europe where there is a need for regular power changes. Even on long distance services with few stops, it's still often full power up hill, then coast down, then power on for the next hill, plus shutting off to slow for a curve, then back on the power on the straight. Even diesels had a lot of issues with constantly going from full throttle to idle and back.
The funny thing is that today Gas Turbines might actually be more viable, as part of a hybrid setup with batteries. They could run at constant speed and charge batteries when full power wasn't needed, with the batteries boosting when more power was needed. Still would be noise issues though. Gas turbines are remarkably tolerant when it comes to fuels too, which would be an advantage.
@@ChrisCooper312 I'd love to see the Gas Turbines come back. The rumbling was intense. The technology should be developed further, I feel. It's been suppressed for too long.
@@abloogywoogywoo I've also heard it said that GT3 was banned from stopping with the exhaust underneath signal gantries and bridges because of the intense heat of the exhaust.
@@Andrea.583 This was often true of steam locomotives.
I saw it on test on the GC here in Leicestershire, also at Rugby on the West Coast Mainline. A great pity it wasn’t preserved.
I wonder why at EE, which were the first in the UK to produce modern main line diesel locomotives in the familiar single or dual cab designs went the route of adapting something like a steam locomotive for GT3, almost if a King class had its boiler and cylinders removed and replaced by the gas turbine.
Also it was turbine-mechanical which made efficient operation of the gas turbine more difficult than the turbine electric variant like no.18000.
Operating conditions in the UK and Europe in general did not suit gas turbine drive. In the US they operated successfully for the Union Pacific on long freight hauls with the turbine operating at high output for prolonged time, that was when the turbine was the most efficient. At low loads which happen often in European operating conditions a diesel engine is much more efficient.
The British GTELs suffered the same fate heavy fuel oils got more expensive, loud but not like a bird burner of the UP and more traditional power was just cheaper.
I wonder if it would’ve been possible to construct a diesel/turbine hybrid in a similar manner to something like the kitson still locomotive.
Using diesel ( don’t know much about the viability of kerosene engines in locomotives ) at low speeds and switching from an engine to a turbine at a set minimum speed when the turbine is at a good efficiency.
Certainly over complicated but I assume it would be the best of both worlds if done properly.
turbine electric? keep turbine at constant rpm use electric traction and smaller turbine using less fuel?
It's so British to design a gas turbine locomotive that looks like a steam engine! lol
I only know of this engine thanks to the mod for Transport Fever 2. I do not understand the thinking behind building it like a steam locomotive, which are infamous for having terrible vision that through history has led to multiple crashes because the drivers couldn't properly see the track ahead. The layout of steam engines turned out the way it did, because they had to solve the problem of how to boil a lot of water on a moving engine, and there has never been any succesfull designs that were able to give the drivers better working conditions. When using any other kind of propulsion there's no sensible reason to use the same engine layout, but they clearly didn't bother consulting the drivers when they decided to build the GT3 that way
An excellent explanatory video that I knew little about.
What a great shame, and they were only a few steps away from success.
Across the channel where I now live, this concept was developed further as French RTG and ETG multiple units, one with 2 gas turbines and the latter with 1 GT and 1 diesel engine. The RTGs saw a 30-year service on several regions including credible high speed performance from Paris to Boulogne to connect with the hovercraft.
A good friend whi lived next to the GC mainline in Leicester said of this ,you could tell when it had passed , ie the smell ,and it was quite nippy
An irony: My father, who worked on the Deltics as an engineer for Napier, and had also been involved in the project to re-power fast torpedo boats with that engine, had by the time they scrapped this weird abortion, joined the TurboTrain team in North America as the liaison for United Aircraft Canada, who supplied the ST6 engines for those motive units. Typical of a time in the UK where lots of good minds, dealt with visionless management; which in turn was the downfall of many industries that failed during that time.
NBL had started construction of a gas turbine loco in 1953 but project abandoned in late 1956
What a handsome locomotive. It’s a shame there don’t appear to be any sound recordings of it in operation. I imagine that would have been quite a cacophony!
Is there a model available, does anyone know?
Yes a RTR model is available , just google it mate.
As a Railfan from Across the Pond, That was a Sleek Locomotive Package! Different type of eye-catching MCM style.
Listening to "Just the facts...", and not trying to be a Conspiracy Theorist, the In/Out feeling smacks of a little bit of politics..... Maybe it worked out Too Well for the long distance runs it was designed for...🤔
OR....
It was such a revolutionary step up in design, it's technology scared many of the "stuck in the mud" power people.....
And as you know, WE can't have something that actually Works and is technologically Scary!
Chocolate Zephyr...... Very cool 😎!
I wonder if the 4-6-0 design was adopted in anticipation of converting steam locomotives to gas turbine power?
I must say, British rail seems to have both ends of the beauty spectrum covered. Stuff like the Flying Scotsman on the beautiful end, and this giant turd on the other end. Lol! I'll bet it sounded amazing though.
The electrification of the ECML didn't start until 1976 and that was only for suburban traffic out to Royston. Did you mean the WCML or the the suburban lines out of Liverpool Street?
Rather than side-rods, would gears connecting the axles be.tter? Thank you.
Some interesting cab shots. Thanks for sharing.
I remember being on Orpington station when this loco roared through. I always thought it looked good possibly because it looked like a steam loco.
No editing? I did have a large pamphlet showing exploded views on film type medium.
@@Mounhas That would be incredibly interesting to see if you'd be happy to share! 😁
@@JackStackhouse I only wish that I could. It was A3 size I would say, first picture was the complete loco and as you turned the pages more was exposed. Unfortunately it got destroyed with much railway related material and not by me.
So many errors.
Electrification of WEST coast main line.
GT2 built by Metro-Vic, not by Brown Bovrie.
WHITCHURCH not White Church.
What are the circles within the air intake upfront for?
Great video.
Such a pity that it was scrapped. Very interesting look vehicle.
3:37 I think it didn't help that the train looks permanently sad.
Loud, but so was the Leyland National, which became the standard bus of the 1970s. Similar turbo whine.
A locomotive with a 5000 HP RR Tyne would have been great.
I never saw this locomotive, but I do have the KR Models version of it in OO gauge..an unusual locomotive..
Womder if Porsche knows this loco name precedes their use of the moniker on a 911 model?
Gas turbines are hugely inefficient at anything other than full power, and running under heavy load for continuous periods of time.
Well you hit upon two points that assure its failure! Firstly the turbo loco that preceded it and failed because it was expensive to maintain and was in workshop for long periods. Secondly the use of oil fuel in fifties was frowned upon by the Treasury who had no finance for such a switch. They had already forced British Railways to reconvert to coal firing half of its fleet which had been converted to oil firing because of lack of exchange finance. They also required the best coal to be exported and made the Railway to run on cheap, low thermal conversion coal!
However desirable the design by a private contractor nothing was going free BR from financial constraints with successive governments trying to pay off the debts of three wars and this was not managed until Thatcher eliminated those debts by paying them off with North Sea oil revenues. This is not a political recommendation or condemnation but a statement of history as recorded in a number of publications over the years none of which appear to have been sued over their statements!!
I LOVE THIS TRAIN!!!!
So it didn't really fail. In fact it worked very well. It just didn't make sense to spend money on it at the time when the diesels were all coming good?
Nice photos
The loco was scrapped in early 66. There was barely half a dozen serious preservation societies by then. Even the KWVR was some 2 years from running again. This was on nobodys radar
They should have contracted Rover for the engines instead of a Swiss firm
The travesty that this unique and iconic loco was not preserved for future generations, but i suppose it the "20-20 hindsight effect" is that at the time historical significance was probly like "shall we preserve a 2023 Ford Mondeo ??" ;(
You can drive GT3 virtually in Trainsim Classic.
Am a great fan of English Electric products so am sure if BR had of sponsored the development of the engine then a great addition to BR,s Motive power would have been developed
Knowing what we do now, BR perhaps should have invested the time and money into developing this technology. It's a shame the loco never survived.
had english electric put the power unit and equipment in conventional diesel body (say a deltic bodyshell) i bet it would have been a much bigger success. whether it would have meant a full production run a doubt it
Interesting video but several factual errors and the pronunciation of Boveri and LLandudno needs correcting.
I suspect a double end cab, turbo-electric may have been more successful.
When you need a new locomotive, love steam trains and obsess over planes.
Was not the French SNCF RTG gas turbine railcars much more successful and long lived in service.
This was the first train I travelled on when visiting Europe in 1980.
18100 was built by Metropolitan Vickers not Brown Boveri
...electrification of the WEST coast mainline. The ECML would not see electrification until the seventies around London and the late eighties for the rest of the route.
Interesting loco first I’ve heard of it. Be interesting if it was more efficient big oil wouldn’t have liked that.
No point in mentioning Nock's cab ride and published log of his run over Shap if you then tell us nothing more and don't show us a copy of the log.
Another sad tale of how British technology and inventive creation were stifled and betrayed by anything connected to Government. The list from the '50s and '60s is long and tragic.
This could have been an excellent development test machine and there was no reason EE could not have re-engineered a diesel electric loco design to fit the GT from GT3 to alternators / generators already in use. It just needed support and belief, sadly two things the cold hands of beaurocracy never have. Given the large diesels being produced by EE and others were fundamentally poor the GT could not have been any worse especially as, as it was reported, on test runs it proved reliable.
Excellent video that answered some questions for me.
The whole point of GT3 was to investigate if gas turbine power could be used directly, WITHOUT the intermediate electric transmission.
There had already been TWO gas-turbo-electric designs on trial.
@@tooleyheadbang4239 Yes built by the Swiss. My point was this loco had a valuable part to play in GT use in the UK however the power was transmitted. But they just scrapped it as they always do.
Oh, scrapped just weeks after I was born…😅 Well, it’s a very stubborn thing to make new tech forcibly look & operate traditional, especially in the middle of a paradigm shift.
Incumbency and conservatism are strange human traits - and I do mean outside of politics. Shipping or automotive have at times struggled in rhyming ways. Traditions are always reshaped - by us, even when we stick to them…
The problem for all turbine powered vehicles is that they are inefficient at all but high engine speed.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Oh yes, I know. That also drove the massive change for aeronautical turbines, from A1 soaking pure jets to 8:1 bypass turbo-fans.
Any such failings are due to externalities - Things the ‘developers’ left out of their ‘equations’. So, experience teaches us to re-internalise those, by policy, money, environment or actual engineering deficits. Good ‘inventions’ are crowd sourced and empirical. This massive engine was pure idealism instead…
…but amazingly impressive out of context to my rant above. 😅👍
at least theirs a RTR model of her
Why did they have to go and give it sleepy stoner eyes tho…?
Looks like something out of Thomas the Tank Engine.
A great video! Many greetings from Germany. I show monument locomotives on my UA-cam account.
i hate to be this person the WCML west coast mainline as you showed footage as well of a WCML loco was electrified first the ECML wouldnt see electrification till the 80s. you did state with the east coast mainline electrification underway i thought id just put this here that is wrong.
Kannst du nicht etwas gegen das Rauschen machen ... jede Videoschnittsoftware bietet die Funktion an ... man kann sich auch etwas Mühe geben!
Very interesting, but please - Marylebone, not Marleybone.
It was to see a couple of my photos I took on the 17/9/61 at 15E Leicester Central.
Whoever thought that removing the word national from the nation's railway museum needs a good talking to!
They did the same thing with the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television. It's just the Media Museum now. Seems to be part of a general trend of name shortening across the sector.
That said, the Media Museum had a sudden jump in visitor numbers right after doing it, so it seemed to help... somehow.
It's in line with The Model Railway Club. The UK's oldest model railway club.
Trying to look like a steam locomotive