Jump to content

18B

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

Recommended Posts

Reed valves were very widely used on bigger engines, they were a cheap, simple and effective means of controlling scavenge air on large two stroke engines. While they could be a pain to clean (especially on the Sulzer RND engines, terrific engines but prone to very dirty scavenge belts) I never experienced any fail in service or cause any problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon a Warship trumps all of those power outputs - except a Deltic! 2200hp in 80 tons....that's 20.2kW/T by my reckoning

 

Phil

Yep, pretty much spot on, and a Western, slightly heavier than a Deltic at 110 tons, but with around 16% less installed power, comes out at 18.3kW/t.

Horses for courses, a lightweight, powerful engine might have a problem starting a heavy load without slipping, where a heavier, less powerful loco may have no such problem.

Reed valves were very widely used on bigger engines, they were a cheap, simple and effective means of controlling scavenge air on large two stroke engines. While they could be a pain to clean (especially on the Sulzer RND engines, terrific engines but prone to very dirty scavenge belts) I never experienced any fail in service or cause any problems.

What is a reed valve? What function does it perform, and where in the engine does it live?

 

cheers N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a reed valve? What function does it perform, and where in the engine does it live?

 

cheers N

On two stroke motorbikes it acts basically as a one way valve in the inlet tract to stop the intake air/fuel mixture being pushed back out by the piston, allowing larger piston ports. I guess similar would apply to a two stroke diesel but for air only.

 

It consists of a flexible metal 'reed' that can be flexed open by air flowing in one direction but held shut by air flowing the other way.

 

Yamaha used them widely, Suzuki went more for disc valves.

Edited by giz
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On two stroke motorbikes it acts basically as a one way valve in the inlet tract to stop the intake air/fuel mixture being pushed back out by the piston, allowing larger piston ports. I guess similar would apply to a two stroke diesel but for air only.

 

It consists of a flexible metal 'reed' that can be flexed open by air flowing in one direction but held shut by air flowing the other way.

 

Yamaha used them widely, Suzuki went more for disc valves.

 

And at the very opposite end of the size scale from most of the engines being discussed here, Cox in the USA produced about 15 gazillion tiny (from 0.02 cu.in to 0.049 cu.in) two-strokes with reed inlet valves from c1950 to the late 2000s, ttoys and models, for the propulsion of :D. And yes, I know Cox produced many other engine sizes too, but most weren't reedies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon a Warship trumps all of those power outputs - except a Deltic! 2200hp in 80 tons....that's 20.2kW/T by my reckoning

 

Phil

 

Spot of numerical inexactitude there I'm afraid Phil - a production 'Deltic' weighed 99tons 18cwt in full working order (and was a bit over 91 tons 'dry').  A D10XX was 8 tons 2cwt heavier overall in full working order (source BR diagram book)

 

Interestingly in terms of rail hp per ton in working order a re-engined Class 31 comes out as more or less the same as the most powerful engine rating used in the various versions of the Class 44/45/46 series (2,000 hp at the rail - BR official figures).  Simple reason for the Class 31s being A1A-A1A - the total weight would probably have been too restrictive if they had carried an extra traction motor on each bogie.

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot of numerical inexactitude there I'm afraid Phil - a production 'Deltic' weighed 99tons 18cwt in full working order (and was a bit over 91 tons 'dry').  A D10XX was 8 tons 2cwt heavier overall in full working order (source BR diagram book)

 

Interestingly in terms of rail hp per ton in working order a re-engined Class 31 comes out as more or less the same as the most powerful engine rating used in the various versions of the Class 44/45/46 series (2,000 hp at the rail - BR official figures).  Simple reason for the Class 31s being A1A-A1A - the total weight would probably have been too restrictive if they had carried an extra traction motor on each bogie.

 

Ah - perhaps I had paragraphical inexactitude Mr SM - intended to read as 80 tons for weight of Warship

 

Cheers

 

Phil

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/05/2017 at 13:31, The Johnster said:

 

Aside from the political and foreign exchange issues, I doubt that any US manufacturer could have provided a locomotive powerful enough to be of any use within the UK loading gauge until well towards the end of the 1950s.  

1954 the first a Danish MY was completed, known colloquially as the Nohab, which uses a GM engine. It has cult status across Europe. European gauge is on the whole quite close to UK gauge

http://www.ravnsbak.dk/Articles/Danish diesel locomotives MY and MX class.html

on this page is pictures of the cab and engine room... there’s a very generous amount of space there, more so than UK gauge, so I wouldn’t say it was space constrained by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 08/05/2017 at 10:42, Arthur said:

 

GM were also averse to supplying just components. They wanted to sell the entire locomotive and spares package.

When CIE approached them to re-engine the A class GM were reluctant and initially offered to supply an engine/generator/traction motor package. CIE did not want the expense of replacing perfectly good electrical components. GM eventually relented and supported them as an existing customer.

 

So whether or not they would have just sold engines to a UK builder is a moot point.

 

.

Maybe for CIE, but as mentioned above, GM set up with Nohab to build a 1950’s “class 66” Supplied across Europe... that could have been in the UK, but politically that would have never flown.
 

Perhaps Deltic could have been that catalyst.. had EE teamed up with GM, British locomotive building history in Europe could have been very different. I’d imagine the British arrogance and prestige of trying to take on the US for influence in European railways meant partnering up would never work, so instead competed and failed, becoming solely dependent on British Rail for business. This and collapse of empire handed GM global business on a platter, replacing UK built steam across the world... but the UK did the same in Shipping, Aviation, Cars and Motorcycle industries too.

Edited by adb968008
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

1954 the first a Danish MY was completed, known colloquially as the Nohab, which uses a GM engine. It has cult status across Europe. European gauge is on the whole quite close to UK gauge

http://www.ravnsbak.dk/Articles/Danish diesel locomotives MY and MX class.html

on this page is pictures of the cab and engine room... there’s a very generous amount of space there, more so than UK gauge, so I wouldn’t say it was space constrained by any means.

How heavy was it?  The prime mover is comparable to a 75ton Hymek (which also probably couldn't have been built in the early or mid 50s) but it is on 6-wheel bogies which suggest it was a lot heavier.  It's in the Ivatt twin ball park for hp, but they were 127tons, or nearly 2 coaches, heavier.  The BRCW type 3 (class 33) was another pocket rocket; 72 tons with an electric transmission and only slightly less horses than a Hymek.  Second generation diesels were a big improvement on the 1955 plan locos.  My definition of 'useful' power output for BR's needs is type 3.  One (not the only) drawback of the 1955 plan locos is that BR were too slow to react to the changing demand for freight locos and failed to order ones that were powerful enough, while they ordered type 1s and 2s to replace steam 0-6-0s which, in the event, never needed replacing anyway as their local pickup traffic was circling the drain.  

 

I would contend that any ordering of type 1 or 2 diesels after 1960 and arguably 1958 was superfluous, yet  20s, 25s (the D75/6xx series), 26s, 27s and 31s (the D58xx series) were still being churned out, some of the 20s in 1966/7 (though to be fair these had found a type 4 niche on mineral work by then). But 25s were still coming out of what was left of Beyer Peacock's in 1965!

 

I am a fan of Nohabs from the aesthetic viewpoint, btw.

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

How heavy was it?  The prime mover is comparable to a 75ton Hymek (which also probably couldn't have been built in the early or mid 50s) but it is on 6-wheel bogies which suggest it was a lot heavier.  It's in the Ivatt twin ball park for hp, but they were 127tons, or nearly 2 coaches, heavier.  The BRCW type 3 (class 33) was another pocket rocket; 72 tons with an electric transmission and only slightly less horses than a Hymek.  Second generation diesels were a big improvement on the 1955 plan locos.  My definition of 'useful' power output for BR's needs is type 3.  One (not the only) drawback of the 1955 plan locos is that BR were too slow to react to the changing demand for freight locos and failed to order ones that were powerful enough, while they ordered type 1s and 2s to replace steam 0-6-0s which, in the event, never needed replacing anyway as their local pickup traffic was circling the drain.  

 

I would contend that any ordering of type 1 or 2 diesels after 1960 and arguably 1958 was superfluous, yet  20s, 25s (the D75/6xx series), 26s, 27s and 31s (the D58xx series) were still being churned out, some of the 20s in 1966/7 (though to be fair these had found a type 4 niche on mineral work by then). But 25s were still coming out of what was left of Beyer Peacock's in 1965!

 

I am a fan of Nohabs from the aesthetic viewpoint, btw.


you shouldn’t put hindsight to the equation, but focus on what was the state of mind and state of technology in the 1950’s.

 

18t axle load. It was an A1A-A1A.

It was less weight than a class 31 and more powerful than both the NBL Warship and Class 31. It also had a proven reliable power unit.

it didn’t need GM to sell it, compared to our primitive knackers it was a no brainer for Europeans, we didn’t have a reliable product.


Don’t forget Germany had already built its first V200 in 1953 (basis of the UK class 42 Warships)... though few in Europe were thinking to buy German then.

It too was vastly superior in 1953 than UK offerings.

 

why BR would take onboard German technology, but not US technology ?  
 

If One of our manufacturers had considered wrapping their product around a proven technology, coupled with their previous order books, established connections and considerable manufacturing base could have offered greater export abilities... instead we put fishing boat engines in garden shed manufactured designs and wondered why they didn’t work, then watch the industry shrink.

 

The model works successfully today, look at Stadler with their Euro4000 series (class 68 to us).
 

 

 

Edited by adb968008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  There was political criticism at the time of the WR's choice of product from a recently defeated enemy, a choice which was in the event ill advised in any case, as the Germans were using their V200s (which were too big for the British loading gauge and the loco had to be completely redesigned; a production Warship is not just a 'britishised' V200) for secondary main line work where traffic was insufficient to justify electrification, and timetables were much easier, and loads lighter, than on the WR's Plymouth or Wolverhampton services. 

 

This is not hindsight, but the result of a failure of communication between the WR and Germany at the time.  The Germans hadn't understood the extent to which the Warships would need to be hammered to keep time, and we didn't point it out, or they might have said something.  The WR didn't have a completely free hand; they were told that steam had to go asap and that diesels had to replace them.  The only other diesels available to be planned to replace the Kings in 1955 were DP1, with maintenance committments the region wasn't prepared to undertake (how would a deltic had managed on the South Devon banks?), the Ivatt twins in multiple (which is more like the route I think BR in general should have taken, but not with a double headed power unit weighing 254tons, as much as a 7 coach main line express train, or the EE type 4, class 40, developed from the Southern's diesel electrics.  This proved not up to the job on the regions it was allocated to, and the chairman of the board commented that it wasn't as good as a Britannia on D200's press run from Norwich to Liverpool Street, which did not stop it being the go to replacement for class 8 pacifics on the WCML and ECML until better locos were available.  Next in line was the Peak family, the most powerful single unit diesel owned by BR when they were introduced, but by this time the prime movers and the generators had been improved and emsmallened enough to fit onto the massive Southern 1Co-Co1 frame.  One can regard them as the transition to 2nd generation diesels that could undertake 7P steam work without being overloaded, just (the 47s had to be down rated).  The WR, with the South Devon banks influencing their thought processes, reckoned none of the 1955 diesel electrics were suitable and they may have had a point.

 

They were not beyond their own short sightedness, though.  The 1955 plan had highlighted the future need for air brakes, eth, and airconditioning, and the hydraulics would have been taking out of service in the 70s anyway for these reasons without the board stipulating electric transmission and hydraulics to be 'no longer overhauled'.  The Westerns lasted a bit longer because they could be fitted with air brakes.  

 

This is not hindsight either; the WR knew full well as did everyone else in 1955 that air braking and eth/airco were coming, but in their enthusiasm for the best power/weight ratios they could manage left no room on board the bodyshells to install it.

 

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.  EE had already beaten this with a 100 ton loco at 3,300hp, and North British, not normally thought of as the cutting edge in diesel terms, managed a 120 ton hydraulic only 3 years later with the same power output as the best GM.  GM's idea of a loco for the British market was their 1.200hp 120 tonner with A and B units, backed up by a fleet of 800hp road switchers.  We could do that on our own, thanks, and already had a pair of main line diesels in service at 1,600hp apiece and only 7 tons heavier.  To do 8P work would have required a GM A-B-A triple header of 3,600hp, weighing in at 360 tons; BR made some bad decisions in that era but not that stupid!

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.  

 

Sorry but NB had nothing to do with Maybachs - that was Bristol Siddeley. NB built MAN engines and Voith transmissions - and Stones built Mekydro transmissions. 

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyway.. why were they all in Barrow? well the fitters there may have talked to their mates in the Yard who were used to "fixing" diesel engine..(look at all the Sulzers they built). Concentrating a particular type in one location generally helps with maintenance. It wasn't a large class so putting them in one place may just have been teh making of them .

 

At least they didn't have their own travelling fitter which certain locos from overseas did when allocated to Immingham.

 

Baz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barry O said:

anyway.. why were they all in Barrow? well the fitters there may have talked to their mates in the Yard who were used to "fixing" diesel engine..(look at all the Sulzers they built). Concentrating a particular type in one location generally helps with maintenance. It wasn't a large class so putting them in one place may just have been teh making of them .

 

At least they didn't have their own travelling fitter which certain locos from overseas did when allocated to Immingham.

 

Baz

As I said earlier in the thread, it would help if they were concentrated at one shed because it would also concentrate expertise, these were not reliable machines. It was also intended, I think, to be a very temporary expediant as BR was going through a temporary shortage of Type 2 power. As new Type 2 engines of later design were built they were withdrawn and scrapped. I believe one survives.

Although Crossley was a Manchester firm, it had been owned since the late 1940s by AEC.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 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

Though the Australian Crossleys perhaps didn't get quite the pounding that they did on BR, especially on long overnight freight runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Though the Australian Crossleys perhaps didn't get quite the pounding that they did on BR, especially on long overnight freight runs.

Actually, I would suggest that those long overnight runs were better for the engines than lots of start/stop operation. Diesels, and 2-strokes in particular, run better at high loads for long periods, so the likes of the Condor service would have been ideal. Unfortunately, by the time the problems with the Crossley engines, primarily cracking, were resolved, it was too late for the class.

 

Mark

Edited by MarkC
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Barry O said:

anyway.. why were they all in Barrow? well the fitters there may have talked to their mates in the Yard who were used to "fixing" diesel engine..(look at all the Sulzers they built). Concentrating a particular type in one location generally helps with maintenance. It wasn't a large class so putting them in one place may just have been teh making of them .

 

At least they didn't have their own travelling fitter which certain locos from overseas did when allocated to Immingham.

 

Baz

Which locos are these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, rka said:

Which locos are these?

Original Class 66 at Immingham. 

 

A driver there asked if they could get something that worked. They sorted them out eventually.

 

Baz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MarkC said:

Actually, I would suggest that those long overnight runs were better for the engines than lots of start/stop operation. Diesels, and 2-strokes in particular, run better at high loads for long periods, so the likes of the Condor service would have been ideal. Unfortunately, by the time the problems with the Crossley engines, primarily cracking, were resolved, it was too late for the class.

 

Mark

Yes, fair point. Maybe being in Barrow, used on short haul passenger & local freights, didn't do them any favours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barry O said:

Original Class 66 at Immingham. 

 

A driver there asked if they could get something that worked. They sorted them out eventually.

 

Baz

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting and informative thread........so why do I still love the ugly duckling looks of the 28? :D

 

Now what I need is a reasonably accurate sound file for mine......hmmm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boxbrownie said:

A very interesting and informative thread........so why do I still love the ugly duckling looks of the 28? :D

 

Now what I need is a reasonably accurate sound file for mine......hmmm

the one from Digitrains isn't bad. It does sound like a Crossley engine.

Baz

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Barry O said:

the one from Digitrains isn't bad. It does sound like a Crossley engine.

Baz

Thanks, shall go and have a listen right now :good_mini:

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.