why were the Metro-Vik Class 28s concentrated upon Barrow?

[18B]

Just wondering why were the Metro-Vik Class 28s concentrated upon Barrow? I ask as Barrow never had any other diesel allocation?

[jonny777]

Maybe because the Vickers HQ was in Barrow, and that way the management could witness the failure of their products on a daily basis...

[18B]

Argh, I remeber readng now about the Barrow HQ point, but its wasn't so BR could waft their failures under thier noses, it was so they were closer to their manufacturer for repairs.

[The Johnster]

Pretty much what Jonny777 said, as it was considered that the locos would benefit from being close to their original manufacturer where they could be more easily repaired.  As you will by now be realising, they were spectacularly unreliable even by the dire standards of Modernisation Plan diesels, and had let BR down very publicly after featuring in the launch of a new, high profile, containerised overnight goods service London-Leeds-Glasgow, the 'Condor' (CONtainers DOR to door), which they were to haul double headed.  You'd have thought 2 separate locos on a train would give bombproof reliability, but the Metrovicks couldn't cut the mustard and the Condor was quickly withdrawn to save embarrassment.

 

The basic issue was the use of a power plant originally developed for submarines, where it was by all accounts very successful, but it proved to not be suitable for the constantly changing loads of railway work, and leaked oil and 2-stroke fuel profusely; the oil mixed with brake block dust to form a highly flammable coating of clag over everything, and most of the class had met their end by catching fire within 10 years (this is a simplified version and I am sure there will be more from those of greater erudition than me in the matter).  A point often overlooked in the debacle is that they were the first BR diesels to have roof opening panels enabling the entire power plant to be craned out as one piece; the next were the HST power cars!

Edited May 5, 2017 by The Johnster

[nabit]

actually vickers armstrong Barrow had no conection with metropolitan vickers by the 1950s as they had sold off the buisness ,plenty of sources on internet to confirm this

[keefer]

The Crossley 2-stroke engines were also used in the CIE's A-class locos, but after the same problems occurred, they were re-engined with GM power units setting a trend for future Irish classes.

The 28s were only a small class in number and rather esoteric, so it probably was thought not worth the bother. (Wouldn't have been with US engines anyway)

I'm sure I've read that the electrical side of the traction package was pretty good

[45125]

Pretty much what Jonny777 said, as it was considered that the locos would benefit from being close to their original manufacturer where they could be more easily repaired.  As you will by now be realising, they were spectacularly unreliable even by the dire standards of Modernisation Plan diesels, and had let BR down very publicly after featuring in the launch of a new, high profile, containerised overnight goods service London-Leeds-Glasgow, the 'Condor' (CONtainers DOR to door), which they were to haul double headed.  You'd have thought 2 separate locos on a train would give bombproof reliability, but the Metrovicks couldn't cut the mustard and the Condor was quickly withdrawn to save embarrassment.

 

The basic issue was the use of a power plant originally developed for submarines, where it was by all accounts very successful, but it proved to not be suitable for the constantly changing loads of railway work, and leaked oil and 2-stroke fuel profusely; the oil mixed with brake block dust to form a highly flammable coating of clag over everything, and most of the class had met their end by catching fire within 10 years (this is a simplified version and I am sure there will be more from those of greater erudition than me in the matter).  A point often overlooked in the debacle is that they were the first BR diesels to have roof opening panels enabling the entire power plant to be craned out as one piece; the next were the HST power cars!

 

HSTs require two roof panels to be removed, not doors.

[jonny777]

Maybe because the Vickers HQ was in Barrow, and that way the management could witness the failure of their products on a daily basis...

 

It was a rather tongue-in-cheek comment.

[Arthur]

Metropolitan-Vickers, of Manchester, was originally the British Westinghouse Co. and had been jointly acquired by The Metropolitan Carriage and Wagon Co. and Vickers Ltd in 1919. It became separate from Vickers Ltd. In 1927 when the latter merged with Armstrong Whitworths to form Vickers Armstrong.

 

The Co-Bo's were built not in Manchester but at a new factory, the Bowesfield Works in Stockton-on-Tees, owned jointly by MV and another Manchester company, Beyer Peacock, as a locomotive building plant.

 

By then, there was no connection with Vickers at Barrow.

 

The engines were supplied by another Manchester company, the respected Diesel engine builder, Crossley Brothers. They had built engines for lorries and buses, for large stationary applications and for marine use. They specialised in 2 stroke diesels.

 

The engines used in the Co-Bo's were not submarine engines though they had been used in marine applications.

 

As has been said, whilst successful in marine applications, they were found not to be suited to the vibrations, the stop start, and constant changes in power demand associated with rail use.

 

The electrical components and general standard of build were highly regarded. When BR considered fitting new engines, MV assured them that the electrical equipment would readily handle the output from a larger engine than the original 1200hp Crossley. In the event, a class of twenty was doomed anyway.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Arthur

[nabit]

remeber reading somewhere that the fitters in Barrow had, for some reason, more success at keeping them in service. dont remember where i read this but a possible explanation as to why they all ended up here. vickers armstrongs claim to fame with BR was as the license holder for sulzer diesel engines built on "The golden mile"

[18B]

so still kinda begs the question of why then were they concetrated on barrow if vickers had no connection with them by that time?

[Arthur]

remeber reading somewhere that the fitters in Barrow had, for some reason, more success at keeping them in service. dont remember where i read this but a possible explanation as to why they all ended up here.

That's correct but the reasoning is the other way round. They didn't end up there because the Barrow fitters had success with them, it was because they were concentrated there and consequently the Barrow fitters soon built up a lot of experience with them and learned how to get the best out of them.

 

As to why Barrow. Presumably The LMR were looking to concentrate them, for simplification of maintenance, at a depot which could use a small class in that power rating and from which there were diagrams which would see them out and back in a day. Barrow fitted that requirement, they became pretty much confined to the Lake District and on passenger turns to Manchester Victoria (and possibly Liverpool).

 

.

 

.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Arthur

[nabit]

Thanks for the clarification Arthur, been a long day and hadnt thought of it that way round !

[vitalspark]

Pretty much what Jonny777 said, as it was considered that the locos would benefit from being close to their original manufacturer where they could be more easily repaired.  As you will by now be realising, they were spectacularly unreliable even by the dire standards of Modernisation Plan diesels, and had let BR down very publicly after featuring in the launch of a new, high profile, containerised overnight goods service London-Leeds-Glasgow, the 'Condor' (CONtainers DOR to door), which they were to haul double headed.  You'd have thought 2 separate locos on a train would give bombproof reliability, but the Metrovicks couldn't cut the mustard and the Condor was quickly withdrawn to save embarrassment.

 

The basic issue was the use of a power plant originally developed for submarines, where it was by all accounts very successful, but it proved to not be suitable for the constantly changing loads of railway work, and leaked oil and 2-stroke fuel profusely; the oil mixed with brake block dust to form a highly flammable coating of clag over everything, and most of the class had met their end by catching fire within 10 years (this is a simplified version and I am sure there will be more from those of greater erudition than me in the matter).  A point often overlooked in the debacle is that they were the first BR diesels to have roof opening panels enabling the entire power plant to be craned out as one piece; the next were the HST power cars!

 

 

But unfair really as the Condor was discontinued due to the fast changing face of the rail freight industry with the phasing out of 4 wheel wagon loads with Freightliner being the way forward in containerisation nothing to do with the Co-Bos in fact when they arrived in

 

Glasgow after the overnight trip they were often split and the individual locos used on coal trains between Oakley in the Central belt to the local power stations and on local passenger work until the evening return to Hendon. 

 

The 'Condor' itself continued after the Co-Bos with Class 24 haulage then Peaks before Freightliner swept it away.

 

On the use of a marine 2 stroke diesel the application seemed to work well enough in the Deltics whose power units I believe were also lifted out through removable roof panels in fact was it not the case that English Electric in convincing BR to buy their product gave an

 

undertaking that an engine change could be effected within an 8 hour shift.

 

There was a suggestion of replacing the power units but they were a small unique class and offered nothing over the now ubiquitous Type 2 Sulzers so that was that.

 

As has already been mentioned apparently they were well built machines with high quality electrics.

 

I remember them at Upperby and saw most of the class..certainly unique and a change from the usual designs.

 

Dave. 

[TravisM]

I read somewhere that Barrow had really good track (forgive the pun) in keeping the class running.  I think that the work they were finally relegated to was hardly taxing them along the Cumbrian coast.  I think their availability towards the end was actually pretty good and because the build quality and the electrical package was better than loco's built buy other builders.  

 

There was serious consideration in rebuilding and re-engine them but as it had been pointed out, they were small in class and had a obsolete MU system.  I also read that the Crossley power units were resold by Cashmore's into the marine industry.

 

Julian Sprott

[Arthur]

 

Yeah, it should be remembered that MV had, by the early 50s, a good reputation and plenty of experience in supplying electrical generation and traction equipment for rail applications.

 

And over in the States, GM 2 strokes had a proven track record, so the idea of fitting a British made 2 stroke into an MV locomotive wasn't without merit.

 

.

[vitalspark]

Around the same time Polmadie in Glasgow withdrew the first 5 Clans and you could draw a comparison with the Co-Bos in that they were poorly regarded and nobody wanted them however Kingmoor looked at them in a different view and used them effectively until more or less the end of steam getting another 5 years good work from them.

There was a lot of prejudice around and one depots 2nd best were anothers star performers..the Brits being classic example.

 

Dave.

[JeremyC]

An interesting article here (the part about the actual diesel engine starts about half way down the page)

http://nicwhe8.freehostia.com/d5705/australia/australia.html

It would seem the engine was in fact a new design and the story that the engine had successfully been used in submarines is a myth.

Edited May 5, 2017 by JeremyC

[Barry O]

They were used on oil trains (from Heysham) when shedded at Barrow so their life there did have some honorous duties.

 

Baz

[Titan]

An interesting article here (the part about the actual diesel engine starts about half way down the page)

http://nicwhe8.freehostia.com/d5705/australia/australia.html

It would seem the engine was in fact a new design and the story that the engine had successfully been used in submarines is a myth.

 

Ironically in the third paragraph after the first photo it states:

 

'the X-class was fitted with a marine-type diesel engine, this one being a Crossley eight-cylinder HSTVee-type used in submarines."

 

before going on to strongly refute it later in the article! I suspect it was edited to correct the myth and someone forgot about that bit. Lesson - always proof read the whole thing, not just the bit you are changing!

[Arthur]

I'd take issue with two points on that article.

 

Firstly, it expresses 'incredulity', that an order was placed with a manufacturer who had never before 'knocked out' a diesel locomotive.

Yes, but somebody has to place a first order or no new manufacturers ever enter any arena and it completely ignores the point I made earlier,

 

Yeah, it should be remembered that MV had, by the early 50s, a good reputation and plenty of experience in supplying electrical generation and traction equipment for rail applications.

And over in the States, GM 2 strokes had a proven track record, so the idea of fitting a British made 2 stroke into an MV locomotive wasn't without merit.

 

It was a perfectly reasonable choice. Good price, proven suppliers of the main components. It talks about buying from suppliers with a track record. GM aside, there were no builders with extensive track records in building large diesel locomotives in 1954.

 

Secondly. What is a 'new' engine design? Crossley were not just going to supply a standard marine engine for the job, the engine supplied was built with rail use in mind. The HST V8 was almost certainly a development of existing marine designs which is why some of the problems developed. It had, at least, a marine heritage.

 

.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Arthur

[durham light infantry]

Just wondering why were the Metro-Vik Class 28s concentrated upon Barrow? I ask as Barrow never had any other diesel allocation?

Was it so that the rain could put the fires out! (Barrow can be a bit damp...)

 

Mike

[Arthur]

I wonder, I wonder, I wonder....

 

The Submarine Engine Myth.

 

 

Until this thread I'd had never before heard of this submarine engine heritage.

 

I've long had a bit of an interest in these locomotives, partly through the old Dublo model. Featured previously, my 'improved' Dublo Co-Bo.

 

 

 

And also from the fact that my dad worked for MV, not in traction but in high voltage switchgear, nonetheless it piqued my interest as a kid. An uncle worked as a fitter at Beyer Peacock and Crossleys were well known in the Manchester area.

 

So, musing on the myth overnight (yeah, I know, get a life).....

 

Mention of submarine engines in locomotives leads on to one definite application. A US manufacturer who had supplied opposed piston, 2 stroke diesels for submarine use in WW2. Post war versions of these engines were fitted into rail locomotives. One locomotive class had the unusual feature of a two axle truck at one end and a three axle truck at the other.....

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Fairbanks Morse C Liner from 1950;

 

 

 

These were actually Bo-A1As. Freight versions were Bo-Bos but, in order to carry the weight of the train heating boiler, passenger versions had an extra, unpowered, weight carrying axle in the rear truck.

 

So, I'm wondering if there has been some confusion between the MV Co-Bo and the 'submarine engined' Fairbanks Morse passenger C Liner.

 

.

[nabit]

Very nice improvement Arthur

[Arthur]

 

Thanks Nabit.

 

For an old model the body shell and the bogie sides do capture the essence of the Co-Bos rather well and though, being metal, they're tough to work with I was pleased with the end result.

 

.