Talk:British Rail Class 22

.

This was partly because of prejudices against hydraulic transmission high up in BR's engineering wings
which deemed all the Western Region's diesel-hydraulic locomotives non-standard. 
Ex-Eastern Region Class 31 diesel-electrics were drafted in as replacements.

I'm not sure this sentence is justifiable. While it's true that the anti-hydraulic sentiments at BR saw the Hymeks, Warships and Westerns withdrawn long before they should have been, the 22 was not a successful locomotive design and would have been withdrawn anyway. Note that NBL's Diesel-Electric Class 21/29 was withdrawn at the same time. FiggyBee 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just been re-reading Vol 2 of Cox's `Locomotive Panorama'. You need to treat his views with care, as an LMS man and a steam man, but he's fairly scathing of the flimsy justification of the Diesel Hydraulic programme, notably the statement that 40% of the problems with D-H locomotives were in fact electrical. This goes against the argument that WR didn't have electrical staff available because of the lack of electrified lines. He essentially argues it came down to the former GWR staff wanting to preserve difference (see also low superheat). --Ibatten 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement about BR's 'prejudice' against hydraulics is so often repeated and so difficult to prove one way or another that I wouldn't try to fight the tide of history.

Nevertheless - a 'contentious' comment such as the quote above should be properly referenced, preferably from multiple sources.FengRail (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

I have deleted "Like most North British products, they were poor..." because I think it is too sweeping a generalisation. 82.21.65.109 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Again same problem as above - so often repeated, so difficult to prove one way or another..FengRail (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

The article states "D6300 was introduced to traffic in 1958" yet the build date says 1959 to 1962.

Only one can be right, which is it! FengRail (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I should just edit it to say mid 80s % for availablilty to make it simple? what do you think?. Heres the referance anyway. Raliway World annual 1980 page 114 to 119 written by Chris Leigh.

Cheers
Jim  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbozed (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I make it ~86% (58 locos, only really 57 in service, availabilty = 85 gives true availability of 85*58/57 )

So i've put "over 85%" with a note.FengRail (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

Were these called 'Ronsons' by staff? I remember that one V-engined type had a problem with vibration-fractures, or it shook a union loose, on the fuel-lines, & dripped diesel between the V, which flashed over on a regular basis... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archolman (talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2012‎

Was the nickname `Baby Warships' actually used by railwaymen when the locos were in service? If it is just an enthusiast nickname, or even worse, one concocted after the class's withdrawal, it would be best to omit it from the article as being inauthentic and mere trivia. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed section

The class is now extinct, but an attempt was made to preserve D6319. A purchase price was agreed with BR but for some unknown reason, it was cut up by staff at Swindon Works. BR became embarrassed and offered the purchaser a Warship class locomotive at the same price and D821 Greyhound thus became the first preserved ex-BR mainline diesel locomotive.

This is a too "a little bird told me" as is, for an encyclopedia.Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

More at User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 2#I don't get it which refers to these edits. I keep meaning to go through my old mags. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Engine types - suffix confusion

• D6300-D6305 1000bhp 1445rpm MAN L12V18/21A
• D6306-D6357 1100bhp 1530rpm MAN L12V18/21BS (or just MAN L12V18/21B )

In http://www.derbysulzers.com/year1957.html it states a S suffix means "supercharged" -it also refers to a "M" engine.

Most engine technical literature the corresponding MAN engine is sometimes called L12V18/2lmA - according to Diesel Railway Traction vol.15 (1961) p.173 it says that "mA" means "mit Aufladung" meaning with pressure charging.. (ie supercharging) .. if so what does the "B" in the D6306-D6357 versions refer to?? Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

According to

• Reed, Brian (1978) [1975]. Diesel-Hydraulic Locomotives of the Western Region. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. pp. 25, 26, 30. ISBN 0-7153-6769-2.

the engine types were L12V18/21A in D600-4 and D6300-6; and L12V18/21B in D6306-57 and D833-65. The codes are explained as

The first supplied to the WR for locomotives D600–4 and D6300–5 were the older L12V18/21A model; the remainder, beginning in 1959, were the revised L12V18/21B. The code L12V18/21S was used sometimes by NBL, the S for supercharged taking the place of the German A for Aufladung.

On pp. 24-25 of the same book we find that the letters BS preceding a power rating in BHP indicates that British Standard brake horsepower are meant, rather than metric brake horsepower. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - in the BR document the B.S. is not associated with a rating - I haven't seen the equivalent page for the the D6300-6 series yet.Prof.Haddock (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

New build project

Several attempts have been made to include some material on the new build project but these have been deemed unsuitable. Lately the standard has not been good enough, but do we really think this project should have no mention whatever? Globbet (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable third-party WP:SOURCES? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to find a magazine article about the project, but it is not likely to feature in anything I regularly read. Meanwhile, here is a piece in another group's newsletter. And here is a reference to a stand at an Eping & Ongar railway event. Neither of these references is all that independent, but the existence of the project group is hardly a matter that is likely to be subject to challenge, and as it appears to be the first attempt at a diesel loco 'new-build', it is notable enough for me. Globbet (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think there are people within the preserved diesel movement who just see the 22 rebuild project as something pie in the sky and unrealistic and thus this page continually has such mentions removed out of spite/childishness. It's clear to see all the information regarding the group/project on there website - http://www.class22newbuild.co.uk - surely that's enough of a source? It was also in RAIL magazine earlier in the year but I don't have a copy5.133.19.66 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a WP:PRIMARY source. We need WP:THIRDPARTY sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I know it's a primary source but there's no need to be bureaucratic about it. Are you doubting that Project 22 actually exists? There are now a lot of new build projects around and some of them actually come to fruition, e.g. LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

And many of them don't - they're just ways for the gullible to throw money away. Tornado runs special trains across the network, it has been mentioned numerous times in both the specialist and popular press. It clearly meets WP:GNG. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the nanny Wikipedia. The proles can't be trusted to spend their money wisely. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Route Disk

This has become a bit of a pet peeve every time I visit this page now looking down right at the bottom at the GWR Route Disks and seeing it stubbornly be Blue as opposed to Yellow, which the class is listed as, on the official GWR Weight Disk page, but not on it's own page, so I've been trying to get that changed, because you know they show D6343 quite prominently with the 22's Yellow disks on the lower cab. So I was wondering if anyone had the Source listed as to where the Blue rating comes from, which is Diesel Hydraulics of the Western Region by Brian Reed, if someone who has that book could please have a look and check whether is says Yellow or does indeed for some bizarre reason state yellow, I will be quite a happy lad. TheMidnightExpress (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The model railway club that I belong to has an extensive library. Fortunately, Reed is in there, and on page 43 (bottom of first column, top of second) I find: All D6300s on coming into service were painted BR standard green, with the lion-wheel-crown emblem ... The number appeared four times in white paint on the cab sides; below each was a diamond works plate of NBL's Queen's Park factory; and below that again was painted the WR blue circle for axle loads up to 17.6 tons.

Why might this be? On page 38, I find that for the first six, Estimated weights were around 64 tons ... to meet a 16-ton axle load, which ... would have warranted the yellow circle route availability on the WR. Actual all-on weights were 68 tons; it also states that for the main order for 52, the estimated weight was 65 tons. The actual weight for these 52 is not given until page 41, where we find that D6306-25 weighed 64.7 tons in working order, and D6326-57 were 65 tons, so it could be that the Blue only applied to nos. D6300-5, with D6306-57 being Yellow, but no difference in route colour is mentioned.

At Great Western Railway Power and Weight Classification#Weight restriction I find that Blue was for Up to 17 long tons 12 cwt (39,400 lb or 17.9 t) and Yellow for Up to 16 long tons 0 cwt (35,800 lb or 16.3 t). Simple maths (64.7 / 4 = 16.175) shows that at least one axle is going to exceed the upper limit for Yellow, even if the weights are exactly equally distributed between the four axles. But the same article does say that There were occasional amendments in the light of operating experience; for example, the 5700 Class ... were reclassified from "Blue" to "Yellow". Perhaps a similar regrading was carried out here, which hasn't been mentioned in the books consulted so far. But always remember: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see WP:CIRCULAR and WP:CW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Grand, can probably edit the page to include that distinction, it could be possible that they upped the Yellow Restriction through track upgrades? Because all of the photo's I've seen of production batch engines have featured yellow disks, hadn't heard the Prototypes had it different but considering that the Production had a score of modifications that shouldn't surprise me, mhh, might need to find another reference point. TheMidnightExpress (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any changes to the colour definitions, Yellow always topped out at 16.0 tons. But when track upgrades did occur, locomotive colours were left alone but the route itself might be re-coloured: the Cambrian main line, for instance, was Yellow until the 1930s, when improvements - probably bridge strengthening - raised the line to Blue, allowing 43xx 2-6-0s and Manor class 4-6-0s to use the line.

A theory, quite unsupported by sources. It is known that the fuel capacity was 450 imp. gal, and the train heating boiler water capacity was 500 imp. gal. Now what if these were not filled to capacity? The train heating boiler was not needed on the leading locomotive of double-headed passenger trains, and completely unnecessary on goods trains, so the boiler might be empty, saving the weight of 500 gallons of water (density 10 lb per imperial gallon), i.e. 5,000 pounds (2.2 long tons). This brings the total weight down to just under around 63 tons, achieving the 16-ton axle loading for Yellow. The locomotives did not make exceptionally long runs, so another weight saving could be made if the fuel tank was only half-filled. With a density approximately 8.3 lb per imp gal, 225 gallons of Diesel oil weighs approximately 1,870 pounds (0.83 long tons). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking at it if they did give them new disks it had to before 1967 as the photo of D6301 at Woodhams (Or possibly Laira) with D601 looks to show a yellow route disk.https://www.flickr.com/photos/55727763@N02/albums/72157718640121051/ TheMidnightExpress (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that most of the colour photos in that Flickr photostream show yellow discs, but some of them have a doubtful colour balance - including the one captioned "North British diesel-hydraulics, Type 2 D6301 & Type 4 Warship D601 ARK ROYAL at Laira, 16th February 1968", which is, presumably, the one to which you refer. But another colour photo later on, captioned "North British Class 22 diesel-hydraulic D6304 on a china clay train at Par", definitely shows blue discs.

I've found two black-and-white photos of D6301/2 in Haresnape, Brian (September 1983) [1982]. British Rail Fleet Survey 2: Western Region Diesel-Hydraulics. Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 45. ISBN 0-7110-1122-2. CX/0983. which show the locos after the yellow warning panel was added, and where the route restriction discs appear to be darker than the panel, D6302 noticeably so. This may indicate blue discs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I do have to agree that shot of 6304 does look rather blue the angles a little hard to read, but it can't be any other colour, but with 6301 and 601, the colour imbalance very much makes the disk look orange, and seeing as 601 as a part of the 600 Class were Red, I'd say its the colour balance messing with the yellow, seeing as the warning panel is also very orange.

I do have to agree with your earliest findings that the Prototypes were outshopped with Blue Disks, but the production batch and later the prototypes switched to yellow, what seems to be lost in our search is why, because the weight indicates that the engines should probably be blue, but by photographic evidence they very much weren't, it might have been a similar situation to the Panniers, where by the weight was above the limit for Yellow, But, they generated less hammerblow meaning they were easier on the track, it might be the same with the 22's? They were small, light, compared to the other Hydraulics and took over the duties of Ex-GWR tank engines, so it's possible they became yellow due to favourable performance, as you suggest they weren't fully laden with fuel and water, so the okay was given by Civil Engineering, I would want that in proper official recorded writing as opposed to my own thoughts though. TheMidnightExpress (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)