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

[boxbrownie]

Well I would have a listen, no idea what’s going on with Digitrains site but it’s impossible to search, find or look.....hanging and sludgy.......

[melmerby]

4 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Well I would have a listen, no idea what’s going on with Digitrains site but it’s impossible to search, find or look.....hanging and sludgy.......

Just tried the site and it is working perfectly.

The Co-Bo sound project is in stock.

https://www.digitrains.co.uk/ds28g.html

Edited May 17, 2020 by melmerby

[boxbrownie]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

Just tried the site and it is working perfectly.

The Co-Bo sound project is in stock.

https://www.digitrains.co.uk/ds28g.html

Are you using a PC or a Pad? I wondered if it’s not set correctly for iPad?

 

Thanks for the link

[boxbrownie]

Didn’t help much, sorry......costs a penny for the sound but has obviously to be with a decoder, unfortunately due to not being able to once again “cruise” the site I cannot find the decoder or price .....something odd.

[melmerby]

32 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Are you using a PC or a Pad? I wondered if it’s not set correctly for iPad?

 

Thanks for the link

Using a PC and it works fine

Just tried it on the Samsung tablet, also fine.

 

[boxbrownie]

36 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Using a PC and it works fine

Just tried it on the Samsung tablet, also fine.

 

Must be the site is not set correctly for iPad then, used it before without a problem......never mind.

[russ p]

I'm not so sure a metro vic would have spirex valves 

[PenrithBeacon]

15 hours ago, Barry O said:

 

...

They lasted a long time in service ..so with the right maintenance and know how Crossley power could work well.

 

Baz

It all depends which Crossley engines you're talking about. The ones that were designed in the thirties or the sixties. I imagine these Australian engines are the thirties ones.

Basically Crossley main product line was bus engines, the other stuff just filled out the catalogue and in the thirties AEC which was one of its major competitors made a number of errors of judgement in its behaviour towards Manchester buses (MCTD). 

 

This was one reason amongst others that caused MCTD to freeze out AEC post war in favour of Leyland and Crossley, so in order to get the lucrative bus contracts AEC bought Crossley, left the Crossley management in place and just creamed off the profits. Job done. However by the late fifties Leyland and Daimler had vastly improved their products leaving Crossley with nowhere to go with an elderly (80) chairman. He was forced out but then the senior management team resigned too, leaving AEC with a serious problem. No management and no competitive products. They tried but it was an impossible ask, one by one the bus contracts dried up and the new engine range was designed too quickly with inexperienced staff and not enough testing. Hence the issues with the Co-Bo.

Regards

Edited May 17, 2020 by PenrithBeacon
A few more words

[BrushVeteran]

I'm intrigued as to why BR kept D5705 on as the motive power for the tribology research train. There were plenty of Clayton's available at that time which Derby Research had at least three already.

One possible reason could be that D5705 had a much modified power unit in it with more of a normal fuel delivery arrangement. This information was given to me during a visit to the ELR when we were measuring up D5705 for the Heljan model, so it would be interesting to see how different D5705's differs. It would certainly explain its longevity. I remember the majority of the batch used to sound like 'Chinook' helicopters in a similar sort of way.

[giz]

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

It all depends which Crossley engines you're talking about. The ones that were designed in the thirties or the sixties. I imagine these Australian engines are the thirties ones.

Basically Crossley main product line was bus engines, the other stuff just filled out the catalogue and in the thirties AEC which was one of its major competitors made a number of errors of judgement in its behaviour towards Manchester buses (MCTD). 

 

This was one reason amongst others that caused MCTD to freeze out AEC post war in favour of Leyland and Crossley, so in order to get the lucrative bus contracts AEC bought Crossley, left the Crossley management in place and just creamed off the profits. Job done. However by the late fifties Leyland and Daimler had vastly improved their products leaving Crossley with nowhere to go with an elderly (80) chairman. He was forced out but then the senior management team resigned too, leaving AEC with a serious problem. No management and no competitive products. They tried but it was an impossible ask, one by one the bus contracts dried up and the new engine range was designed too quickly with inexperienced staff and not enough testing. Hence the issues with the Co-Bo.

Regards

I think you are confusing Crossley Brothers and Crossley Motors.

 

Crossley Motors were sold to AEC and continued to manufacture bus chassis until 1952 and bus bodies until 1958. They also built railcars as part of the ACV group.

 

Crossley Brothers continued to build stationary, marine and locomotive engines (one of which was the HSTV8 used in the MetroVic) and eventually became part of Rolls Royce via previous take overs.

[melmerby]

Birmingham City Transport was a regular purchaser of Crossley products. Some of the range around 1950 were 100% Crossley, with Chassis, Body & Engine all Crossley products.

Their very last front engined rear entrance DD bus was a Crossley "Bridgemaster" chassisless design with an AEC engine.

Registration number was 9 JML and took the fleet number 3228, it was new in Sept '56. It was the only one for BCT.

 

Incidentally the previous bus in the fleet (3227) was the last of the Birmingham Standard buses with a Daimler CVG6 Chassis, Gardner engine and Crossley body.

AEC carried on with the Bridgemaster design and BCT trialled a front entrance variant a few years later.

 

[Pandora]

1 hour ago, BrushVeteran said:

I'm intrigued as to why BR kept D5705 on as the motive power for the tribology research train. There were plenty of Clayton's available at that time which Derby Research had at least three already.

One possible reason could be that D5705 had a much modified power unit in it with more of a normal fuel delivery arrangement. This information was given to me during a visit to the ELR when we were measuring up D5705 for the Heljan model,.

 

Is the reference to fuel delivery a nod to the Clayton problem of "failure to start"  I was told by a member of the DE Group,  the Clayton had poor fuel lifting pumps and undersized narrow bore fuel pipes, the cause of  engine starting problems,  recall how D8568 in Industrial service had an oil drum mounted on the bonnet (assumption diesel fuel inside)

[Mike 84C]

I have the Digitrains  Crossley sound file in my CIE A class. Very happy with it and when all is back to normal will get the the same sound file in a C class. And I do know the C had a smaller engine.

[kevinlms]

On 17/05/2020 at 03:17, The Johnster said:

Because the WR and NB persuaded the government that the Maybach engines would be built under licence in the UK, which GM wouldn't allow with theirs.  As it turned out, you can see GM's point.  GM were willing to build locos to the British loading gauge and axle loading, but only on condition they were built in the US and shipped complete ready to run, like the 59s and 66s, and that BR would agree to buy the quantities GM wanted to sell them in order to make re-tooling for the BR product profitable.  

Not exactly true about GM EMD. They allowed some locomotives to be built in Australia under licence, as early as 1950. Presumably not the engines though.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Engineering

 

 

[Holmesfeldian]

On 16/05/2020 at 22:36, Barry O said:

The late Colin Massingham (MTK) bought the Departmental (then carriage heating unit) Co-Bo. It is now at East Lancs Railway being restored.

it was Colin Massingham, Chris Guntripp and a chap from South Wales called Richard (whose surname escapes me). Mike Jacobs then came on the scene when the loco moved (by rail) to Matlock in 1986 which was when I got involved plus a few others.

[PenrithBeacon]

17 hours ago, giz said:

I think you are confusing Crossley Brothers and Crossley Motors.

 

Crossley Motors were sold to AEC and continued to manufacture bus chassis until 1952 and bus bodies until 1958. They also built railcars as part of the ACV group.

 

Crossley Brothers continued to build stationary, marine and locomotive engines (one of which was the HSTV8 used in the MetroVic) and eventually became part of Rolls Royce via previous take overs.

I think I have, thank you

Cheers

[The Johnster]

23 hours ago, giz said:

 

Crossley Brothers continued to build stationary, marine and locomotive engines (one of which was the HSTV8 used in the MetroVic)

Their use in marine applications may explain the story I was told that part of the origin of the Metrovick tender to build a type 2 diesel for BR was that the prime mover and transmission combination had been used in a class of diesel-electric submarines for the RN which had been successful and well regarded by the customer.  When BR invited tenders in the aftermath of the infamous 1955 Plan, Vickers, who had been the builder of the submarines at Barrow in Furness and experienced with Crossley Bros diesels, had already formed a consortium with Metropolitan, who had experience of of building railway vehicles as a result of their association with Cammell Laird and had provided locos to the CIE and elsewhere, realised that a diesel locomotive was not dissimilar in size to the submarines, and went for it.

 

The loco's failures in service were due to the difference in the way the diesel engines were being used; the constant changes of power setting were very different from the constant cruising of a marine application.  Another difference is that the submarines' engines had the constant attention of Royal Navy ERAs, Engine Room Articifers, to keep them running sweetly, so any issue was dealt with immediately and effectively, largely without even informing the officer in charge, who reported that the engines were very satisfactory to the Admiralty, who expressed their positive opinion.  Metrovick were, on the strength of this, under the impression that their marine power unit was suitable for railway work, when actually it wasn't, and they weren't the only ones to fall foul of this.  More than one company touted marine or industrial generating unit for railway work, rarely with success, though Sulzer made the cut.

 

How much actual truth there is in this story, the source of which was a WR locomotive inspector via a driver I was in conversion with back in the 70s, is another matter.  I suspect the gist of it is not far off what really happened, but the details are not.  The subject under discussion was the failure of the 1955 Plan and that we at Canton were lucky to have avoided the worst of those locos; at the time we had Hymeks, Westerns, 37s, 45s  and 47s.  Our luck was soon to run out with 31s and 25s; hopelessly inadequate replacements for Hymeks, 1st generation diesels for 2nd.  

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by The Johnster

[BrushVeteran]

On 17/05/2020 at 16:15, BrushVeteran said:

I'm intrigued as to why BR kept D5705 on as the motive power for the tribology research train. There were plenty of Clayton's available at that time which Derby Research had at least three already.

One possible reason could be that D5705 had a much modified power unit in it with more of a normal fuel delivery arrangement. This information was given to me during a visit to the ELR when we were measuring up D5705 for the Heljan model, so it would be interesting to see how different D5705's differs. It would certainly explain its longevity. I remember the majority of the batch used to sound like 'Chinook' helicopters in a similar sort of way.

 

It is actually in Robert Tufnell's book 'The Diesel Impact on British Rail' published by Mechanical Engineering Publications in 1979 where he mentions that D5705 received a modified crankcase just before the whole class started to be withdrawn due to the National Traction Plan. Thus the reason for it's retention by Derby Research. It would be good to read a follow-up as to how the power unit performed and whether the previous problems were solved but I suppose it was not really used in hard revenue earning service so comparison maybe unfair. Nevertheless very interesting in my opinion and would be of great benefit to the preservation guys at the ELR who are restoring D5705.

I did find these locomotives fascinating when I used to go around the old Cricklewood (West) depot where a work colleague of my paternal grandfather used to work in the offices. There were usually about five or six about and I would say the summer of 1960/1.

I think I've answered my own question!

[adb968008]

On 16/05/2020 at 18:17, The Johnster said:

 

 

In 1955 the best GM could do was 1,800hp in a single unit of 150tons, and there is no way they could have incorporated that into a British loco.  

Already proven to be inaccurate twice:

 

I. demonstrated that the 108 ton Nohab with a GM power unit was available in 1954.
ii. It was built in Europe... 

iii. Pictures on my above post show the oodles of engine room space spare.. at least 60cm engine room walk space each side.. I have walked straight through the Hungarian ones,.. and I’m quite “round” in shape... the overall width isn’t that far from UK spec.
 

Do you have a source that says GM refused to supply power units to the UK, as opposed to whole locos.. ? As it was counter to what they have done in several countries for several decades, indeed look at our very own class 57’s and 69’s today. The EMD 567 was an engine sold by quota since WW2, for all material uses, indeed as GM didn’t build ships, they had no choice but to supply power units separately for those. In addition they were supplying 1750hp 567’s to Spain for locos built there... BR wasn’t building 1750hp+ diesels in the 1950’s...except 22 Deltics.

 

i find that spurious to think they would spite themselves that way, on such a large potential customer.. that’s very unAmerican..It is however quite British to find an excuse not to spend money, and go with the cheapest solution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by adb968008

[Mark Saunders]

If you remember those were the days when ‘balance of trade’ was a political point!

 

 

[MidlandRed]

51 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

If you remember those were the days when ‘balance of trade’ was a political point!

 

 

 

Indeed - which is why Fender musical instruments were not generally imported until after 1960 - there was a ban on general imports from the US prior to that - Hank Marvin's first fiesta red Stratocaster was privately imported by Cliff Richard. 

 

It it was also a matter of reducing debt and improving the balance of payments by exporting rather than importing. 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by MidlandRed

[MidlandRed]

Post duplicated so deleted 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by MidlandRed
Duplicated post - not sure why

[Stevebr]

Just finished reading this book. An excellent resource like the earlier book by the same author on the class 21/29’s

[PatB]

On 17/05/2020 at 05:36, Barry O said:

The late Colin Massingham (MTK) bought the Departmental (then carriage heating unit) Co-Bo. It is now at East Lancs Railway being restored.

 

There are Crossley powered locomotives preserved in Australia albeit narrow gauge. (and they are a 2-D-4!)

 

They lasted a long time in service ..so with the right maintenance and know how Crossley power could work well.

 

Baz

The X Class and its derivatives had a lot of problems. Maybe as much as the Co-Bos. But halfway round the world was a long way to post them back under warranty. Add that to an inability for Australian state government organisations to ever admit error, and you end up in a situation where persistence will trump good sense. I worked with a bloke who'd been involved with them in the 70s, and, whilst they were workable by then, they still couldn't be classified as good. 

[TravisM]

On 18/05/2020 at 08:35, kevinlms said:

Not exactly true about GM EMD. They allowed some locomotives to be built in Australia under licence, as early as 1950. Presumably not the engines though.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Engineering

 

 

As I’ve pointed out several occasions, EMD as well as other US diesel builders would have built loco’s for BR, but and it’s a big but, they were swamped with domestic orders with the dash to replace steam and couldn’t give a time frame of delivery.  As for building under license, you have to remember that part of the production costs will be paying for said licensing.

 

I also think that British manufacturing thought they were better than the colonial’s at building diesel locomotives.  My cousin who used to work for EMD told me years ago that Beyer-Peacock were in discussion with EMD to build a “anglicised” GP9 and I believe jigs were in the process of being built but it was too little, too late as the expected 300+ order of Class 35 Hymek’s failed to materialise and B-P made a loss on the 101 they built.