Jump to content
 

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


18B
 Share

Recommended Posts

Metropolitan Vickers had a high reputation for producing EMUs, electric locomotives and electrical railway components going back to pre-WW2 - usually for export to places like India and South America, but also on the London Underground. It is not surprising that the basic loco shell, chassis and electrical components were of good quality.

 

See http://www.taringa.net/posts/info/4397091/Ferrocarriles-Argentinos---Metropolitan-Vickers.html for just one example

 

Concentrating a small class of problematic locos in one place must have made sense from a maintenance perspective, not to mention the benefits of driver familiarity that could build up over time. The Barrow district was near enough a self-contained region, so an ideal place to send them - and (the cynics would say) if they did break down, the main network would not be greatly affected.

Edited by £1.38
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And don't forget the Manchester-Sheffield 1500v Classes 76 and 77. Both equipped with MV electrics and with final assembly of the 76's at the MV Dukinfield works. Both with reputations for solid build and reliability.

 

.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The sole surviving Co-Bo is fitted with an improved crankcase, as during use the originals started to crack, which, along with the broken reeds in the combustion chamber inlets/exhaust gave them there bad name. The stronger crankcase seemed to have improved the life of the engine, but by the time this had been proved the National Traction Plan had emerged signing their death.

It's interesting that she was selected for use by the RTC, so she must have been reliable by this time, and indeed she survived along time in use and then on carriage heating duties.

Which then begs the question, what spares were kept for this one loco, and is there still a cupboard full of them somewhere?

 

Also I believe that a particular driving style was noted in producing failures.

 

Andy G

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Not sure that the RTC got hold of the loco because she was reliable, more likely because she was a runner and of no value to anyone else!  Nonetheles they got a good few years worth of work out of her.  RTC locos were not so much selected as much as they were o other people's palm offs...

 

Can't resist asking if the driving technique that resulted in failures was that of, um, starting the thing up...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I always had a soft spot for the Co-Bo, there was something rather endearing about its appearance.

 

On engines, the engine builders will set up the engine for a particular duty cycle, set up and components will be adjusted accordingly. Most of the time a common platform can be utilised for any duty cycle but it is rather important to get that bit right. Many engines with terrible reputations were perfectly good engines if used in accordance with their design intent. That said, engine technology in the 1950's isn't what it is today, neither are typical duty cycles. In railway circles it is an accepted truism that marine engines have an easy life compared to rail engines. That is true if considering engines installed on conventional cargo and passenger carrying vessels but if looking at offshore vessels and certain other more specialised vessel types then the reverse is probably true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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."

 

It all hinges on the definitions of "extensive" and "large", of course, but I would argue, as I have done previously on RMWeb, that EE and Sulzer (with several different partners) had more than sufficient good track record, and that some of the German engine/transmission pairings had enough record to be worthy of consideration, by 1950. Reaching out to the US, ALco, of course also had a very solid record.

 

There was definitely a need to find a third decent engine (any competent electrical house could provide a good electric transmission), in order to maintain competition during a broad 'dieselisation', and a great deal of grief all-round resulted from the LMS, then BR, trying to "grow" or find a third supplier. The LMS loco 10800 was the start of this process (Paxman engine), and the Metrovicks were another of the many iterations ...... one might say that it didn't really come good until the HST, the Deltics being a money-eating aberration.

 

Kevin

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

UK Submarines of that era had Admiralty designed engines, IIRC.  I like the Fairbanks-Morse theory though, feels credible.  Oh, here's one now!

 

attachicon.gifP1000677 (Small).JPG

 

The Type 41 & Type 61 frigates also had Admiralty designed diesel engines, the ASR1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 The Barrow district was near enough a self-contained region, so an ideal place to send them - and (the cynics would say) if they did break down, the main network would not be greatly affected.

And, of course, one managed to escape to the Island of Sodor.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

"some of the German engine/transmission pairings had enough record to be worthy of consideration, by 1950"

But more recently it has become evident that some of the German offerings were not as good as they were being painted when they were trying to sell them to us. If course things were not helped by the German designs being made here under licence to avoid "buying German".

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

And of course the deltic engine was originally designed for marine applications and is still in use in a derated form in the Hunt class

 

I think all the Hunt class ships now have CAT C32 ACERT engines. They were re-engine a while ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

UK Submarines of that era had Admiralty designed engines, IIRC.  I like the Fairbanks-Morse theory though, feels credible.  Oh, here's one now!

 

attachicon.gifP1000677 (Small).JPG

 

Fairbanks-Morse were builders of marine engines, especially those for the US Navy submarines who jumped on the band wagon in the rush to eliminate steam from US and Canadian railroads in the early 50's.  They were in favour at first because they offered high horsepower to weight ratio's but like the Napier engine with it's opposed piston arrangement, they were designed to run at speed for long periods of time, not the stop start conditions of railway use and suffered from a high failure rate so soon fell from favour.

 

Julian Sprott

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt know that but when built they had the derated deltic engine which can trace its linage back to ww2 junkers aero engines, as with lots of engines they are designed for one application and then adapted, with differing results!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Not entirely so on the histories I have read, Jools.  They were fairly good engines, but their overhaul costs were very expensive and so they were disposed of.  The NYC didn't like them for sure, and re-engine units with EMD's, but the NH ran them until they fell - and also bought some F-M hood units of course after the covered wagons.  That they also bought some GP9's at the same time that were much better is part of history!  The F-M's weren't the disaster area many British prime movers were.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, to be clear, the Fairbanks Morse engines were used in USN submarines.

 

 

"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."

It all hinges on the definitions of "extensive" and "large", of course, but I would argue, as I have done previously on RMWeb, that EE and Sulzer (with several different partners) had more than sufficient good track record, and that some of the German engine/transmission pairings had enough record to be worthy of consideration, by 1950.

They may have been worthy of consideration but the numbers of main line diesel electric locos in service from the European/British manufacturers were numbered in their tens by 1950. Small classes scattered across the globe. Crossley had built hundreds of diesel engines albeit for non rail applications. So, yes, depends on what you mean by extensive. And by large, I meant non shunting engines.

 

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Not entirely so on the histories I have read, Jools.  They were fairly good engines, but their overhaul costs were very expensive and so they were disposed of.  The NYC didn't like them for sure, and re-engine units with EMD's, but the NH ran them until they fell - and also bought some F-M hood units of course after the covered wagons.  That they also bought some GP9's at the same time that were much better is part of history!  The F-M's weren't the disaster area many British prime movers were.

 

I didn't say they were a disaster, but as you said, expensive to maintain and became fragile over time.  There is a urban myth that EMD wanted to get a foot in the door when BR starting the modernisation plan and with experience of rebuilding and re-powering minority builders in the US, approached BR to put a 567 series engine into a Class 28 as a engineering exercise.

 

Julian Sprott

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Didnt know that but when built they had the derated deltic engine which can trace its linage back to ww2 junkers aero engines, as with lots of engines they are designed for one application and then adapted, with differing results!

 

The re-engining is relatively recent, 6 or 7 years ago if memory serves. The Deltic engine was available with a certain attribute that was rather desirable in a mine counter measures vessel, the main reason the RN abandoned them was that they were becoming so difficult to support in service, not because they weren't good engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

One of the issues of the immediate post-war era through into the 1950s overlooked in this thread is the political need to support home industry and manage foreign exchange. It would not have been politically expedient to buy the whole diesel fleet from the US even if their suppliers had been considered and been able to supply the kit. If my memory is correct it is not that long since the UK paid off the last of the war debts to the US and I very much doubt we could have afforded more debts back in the day. Perhaps an economic historian could amplify this aspect.

Edited by john new
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Carnforth-Barrow line was also operated by pairs of Clayton class 17s in the late 1960's according to photos from the period, so there was other suboptimal motive power in operation. The line was a lot busier then than now with iron & steel traffic.

 

Dava

Link to post
Share on other sites

The submarine engine myth also persists amongst those who should know better. A former colleague of mine had been an engineer with the WAGR and was involved with the X Class in their later days. He still claimed sub heritage for the Crossley.

 

On the subject of the X Class, I'm given to understand that the Metrovick folk in the UK have previously obtained engine spares from WA, where the engine remained in use much more recently. Although 1988 is still a worryingly long time ago :D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard from (elderly!) railway colleagues that the Co-Bos were actually a very good engine, i.e. very strong for a Type 2, I can't vouch for this one way or the other as they were taken out of traffic around the time I was conceived... 

 

I do recall reading that there was a proposal to repower them as per the abominable Brush Type 2, but as there were only twenty of them the standardisation mantra killed them off (also I doubt if the red circle MW did 'em any favours).

 

Speaking of red circle MW, Co-Bos and Peds, I think I'm right in saying that it's only D5705 and D5500 that can multi with each other these days. 

 

If that ever happens the train will be full and standing... first off, every man and his dog needs D5705 for haulage (including at least one of the resto team) and most ped neds also need that obnoxious contraption. 

I predict brawls in the vestibules....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They had a high tractive effort for their size 50,000lbs, compare that to 35,000 for a Brush Type 2 (31) and 52,000 for an EE type 4 (40), so yes, when working they were a strong machine.

 

.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...