RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted April 26, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 26, 2017 A good in depth article (8 pages) on 18000 in today's 'Rail' magazine. Perhaps this could be one of the last 'oddities' to be produced by Heljan or somebody else...unless l've missed an announcement! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 ...or possibly a new build! >>>>>>Well, someone had to say it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 Hi All, Why does it need to be a new build? http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/locos/18000/18000.html Best of luck getting it out of the railway centre though with the wires up... All the best, Castle 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) IIRC as well as the turbine engine, it also had a small diesel engine for use when shunting. I know the innards of 18000 are all gone but I sometimes daydream that the diesel engine could be reinstated allowing it to move under its own power again. I agree a model would be great. I have an N Gauge kit sitting in my UFO pile which actually looks like it would make up into a nice model if I could find the right chassis. Best of luck getting it out of the railway centre though with the wires up... 18000 has been under the wires before though. Edited April 26, 2017 by Karhedron 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePipersSon Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 Also featured in the latest Great Western Echo (Spring 2017 - no 217). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) I think the biggest problem isn't the overhead wires, but the modifications to the lower body done whilst the loco was in Switzerland acting as a test vehicle. It's now out of (UK) gauge. Edited April 26, 2017 by pete_mcfarlane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted April 26, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 26, 2017 I think the biggest problem isn't the overhead wires, but the modifications to the lower body done whilst the loco was in Switzerland acting as a test vehicle. It's now out of (UK) gauge. Wasn't it also out of gauge when in original form so could only operate over selected routes? Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 It is not often you see a British loco that looks bigger than a continental one... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted April 26, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) IIRC as well as the turbine engine, it also had a small diesel engine for use when shunting. I know the innards of 18000 are all gone but I sometimes daydream that the diesel engine could be reinstated allowing it to move under its own power again. According to Wikipedia the diesel was also used to start the turbine and typically the loco was driven to Padington with the diesel and then the turbine started just before departure due to the noise it produced. Keith Edit: Are there any traction motors still fitted? One original A1A is motorless(?), effectively a 6 wheel carrying truck, and the other was replaced with a bogie with just one motor which could be changed for the tests. Edited April 26, 2017 by melmerby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 When it first arrived at North Road station, it didn't appear to be overly noisy although I don't suppose it was working hard at that time. It was certainly a surprise as nobody knew it was coming down. Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted April 26, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 26, 2017 Is there any sound footage of anywhere? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 Turbines also use nearly as much fuel whilst idling as they do under full load, that may also have influenced the use of the diesel engine for light engine movements. The most successful user of them was the Union Pacific in the US where they were used on long hauls of heavy frieight. Running at high outputs for hours on end suited them well. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted April 26, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 26, 2017 Didn't the UP turbines use bunker C oil where the WR ones used aviation fuel which was more expensive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 The UP ones did use bunker C Russ, so yeah, that was cheaper. No idea what the WR one used. Wasn't it nicknamed 'Kersosine Castle' soit may well have been aviation fuel. As to sound, the UP ones just 'roared'. A pretty continuous monotone as you might expect. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted April 26, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 26, 2017 Didn't the UP turbines use bunker C oil where the WR ones used aviation fuel which was more expensive The WR one used cheap heavy oil which was quite sooty and was the same as the stuff supplied to the oil burning steamers. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted April 26, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 26, 2017 Apparently the exhaust was pretty fierce on both the WR gas turbines, and they were very useful for cleaning soot from tunnel roofs by blasting it off... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted April 26, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 26, 2017 I'm not exactly sure that the loco under discussion used the same fuel as the metrovic one,but as Artur says the first one was nicknamed kerosene castle so one would assume used a fuel similar to aviation fuel The UP turbines used to flush the bunker C fuel pipes with kerosene before shutting the turbine down and a vast amount of clag was emitted from the exhaust Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted April 26, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 26, 2017 I have a vague feeling that both GW turbines used kerosene (paraffin as we call in here!), but that Metro-vick tried to convert 18100 to burn bunker C oil and failed. I maybe wrong, but will check at some point tomorrow when I get Robertsons book off the shelf... Andy G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 I think the biggest problem isn't the overhead wires, but the modifications to the lower body done whilst the loco was in Switzerland acting as a test vehicle. It's now out of (UK) gauge. Hi All, No. 18000 was built to just under 13' 4" and therefore is too tall for the modern network and it would not be looked on kindly by the modern authorities as a result. The lower body modifications are a major headache - quite right Pete - but the locomotive was give a special one way trip into DRC despite this. It was a slow, specially routed job with lots of eyes on the ground equipment all around as it came through, but, there were no wires up at the time. What was a "yes, just this once if you are really careful" then might well have been be a "no" now. Never say never, but whichever way you cut it, it's a pain as non standard things are always a bit difficult on the big railway. Funnily enough, cutting it up and loading it into some wagons might well be the easy way to get it out again...* I suppose you could put a new bogie in and undo the other external modifications. The problem with the height is that she is just under 13' 4" for almost her full length. The King and Castles at DRC can be cut down to fit but its just cab roof / spectacle plate and chimney capuchon for the Castle and add to that the upper boiler fittings and the chimney itself on the King. Can you imagine the level of surgery required to get No. 18000 down to nearer 13'?! I suppose you could machine 8" off the wheel diameters? Hat, coat, gone... By the way, my first ever project chronicled on RMWEB on my Little Didcot thread (link below) was my Little No. 18000 if anyone is interested. I thought that building this would be a sure fire way of promoting someone like Heljan to immediately make an RTR model of her but apparently not this time! All the best, Castle * I am kidding here! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted April 27, 2017 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted April 27, 2017 Whilst we're on about gas turbine engines, here's a shot of 18100 at Mutley. This and 18000 would make handsome models particularly if 18100 was made available in both incarnations! 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted April 27, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 27, 2017 18000 used bunker c oil. 18100 used diesel fuel at first, and was then later removed from service to convert it to run on heavy fuel oil ( bunker c?) but never ran again before being converted to 25kv. Andy g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arun Sharma Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 In a previous existence, I regularly wandered on board the RN's "Through Deck Cruisers" which as most know, were powered by RR Olympus gas turbines. Because of the wear and tear caused to the combustion chambers by aviation kerosene, these engines [when used on board ships] were run on "marinised diesel" which burns at a lower temperature and thus markedly prolongs the life of the engine components. I would have thought that such a modification would have improved availability of the turbine on a rail vehicle. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't heavy fuel oil need pre-heating to get it to flow through injectors? If so, it seems an unnecessary complication to add to an experimental installation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 I have a vague feeling that both GW turbines used kerosene (paraffin as we call in here!), but that Metro-vick tried to convert 18100 to burn bunker C oil and failed. I maybe wrong, but will check at some point tomorrow when I get Robertsons book off the shelf... Andy G Weren't these called 'kerosene Castles' at some point? Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted April 28, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) Weren't these called 'kerosene Castles' at some point? Brian. See post 17 Edited April 28, 2017 by The Johnster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tractionman Posted April 30, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 30, 2017 A good in depth article (8 pages) on 18000 in today's 'Rail' magazine. There is a very good book on the gas turbines of the Western called 'Great Western Railway Gas Turbines: A Myth Exposed', by Kevin Robertson, on amazon currently for less than a tenner. Well worth the money! Cheers, Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now