Why did the 20s outlast other classes?

[Titan]

Refer cheeyssmith's comment below; It was just a thought, that was all. Never mind, I will refrain from making any such comments in future.

 

My mistake, I also was thinking class 20 v class 25 rather than class 17.

[caradoc]

My mistake, I also was thinking class 20 v class 25 rather than class 17.

 

No problem Titan, on reflection my reply was brusque and unnecessary, although the post to which I was responding was I thought short and sharp as well ! All I was trying to say, not very well, was that the Class 20 multi-working capability might have been one small factor, in addition to those already mentioned, in assisting their longevity.

[TravisM]

A least one type 2 group will have good springs

 

And multi sized to make sure the gap between the bogie and body is maintained lol

[AMJ]

There are quite a few of the engine components that are standard to other English Electic engines.

 

Comparable to the 4 5 6 8 cylinder Gardner engine which are a nice modular design EE will have kept a lot of commonality of parts to keep down maintenance costs.

 

As the body consisting of many easy access doors makes day to day operations easy. These doors are more robust than a stressed steel skin on other locomotives. Probably easier to replace a door than the steel skin on other locomotives.

[Titan]

I think it is rather a pity that EE were conservative with their engine ratings, whist Sulzer were optimistic. Had the follow on orders for class 40's been rated at 2,400bhp they would undoubtedly have been a better alternative to the slightly more powerful peaks and likely would have outlasted them. It would also have meant 1,200bhp for the class 20's which would have improved their usefulness too, and brought them in to line with the class 37's (more or less) the ED's and some of the DEMU's.

 

One of the reasons for the Baby Deltic was at the time EE did not want to push the 8 cylinder beyond 1000bhp, and the 12 cylinder would have been too big and too powerful. So they thought they would try a 1,100bhp Deltic. After all 'DELTIC' was a success, what could possibly go wrong?    I think a 1,200bhp type 2 "baby class 37" would have been superior to the Sulzer offerings, rather than the other way around with the Baby Deltic!

[rodent279]

I think it is rather a pity that EE were conservative with their engine ratings, whist Sulzer were optimistic. Had the follow on orders for class 40's been rated at 2,400bhp they would undoubtedly have been a better alternative to the slightly more powerful peaks and likely would have outlasted them. It would also have meant 1,200bhp for the class 20's which would have improved their usefulness too, and brought them in to line with the class 37's (more or less) the ED's and some of the DEMU's.

 

One of the reasons for the Baby Deltic was at the time EE did not want to push the 8 cylinder beyond 1000bhp, and the 12 cylinder would have been too big and too powerful. So they thought they would try a 1,100bhp Deltic. After all 'DELTIC' was a success, what could possibly go wrong?    I think a 1,200bhp type 2 "baby class 37" would have been superior to the Sulzer offerings, rather than the other way around with the Baby Deltic!

Although the Deltic concept had much to offer in greater simplicity, lack of valves, small size & weight for its power etc I don't blame them for trying, and I suspect as usual it was not properly developed. I'm sure the problems could have been ironed out, but like the Co-Bo's, there were too few of them, so they were doomed. Even if they'd been successful from the start, they'd have gone early as non-standard.

 

Imagine though, a Baby Deltic engine in a DEMU? 1200hp in a package not much bigger or heavier than the EE 6-cyl offering at 1/2 the power. Either you could run twice the train for the same performance, or have twice the acceleration.

 

EDIT:-Or, even better, a Baby Deltic engine in a class 73, allowing nearly same power on diesel as on electric!

Edited December 28, 2017 by rodent279

[cheesysmith]

The baby deltics were only half a deltic engine. The full 18 cylinder version (same as the big deltics) was rated for rail use as 2500bhp. The babies after refurb were actually reasonably reliable, but we're doomed due to non standard. The deltics (both of them) would have been better if EE had not insisted on using mechanical drive for the aux and cooling systems driven off the engine. If BR had accepted the component replacement maintenance idea of when work was needed of just swapping the engines for new ones, like they did for the HST, things might have been different.

[Titan]

If BR had accepted the component replacement maintenance idea of when work was needed of just swapping the engines for new ones, like they did for the HST, things might have been different.

 

That's exactly what they did do. If an engine failed it was swapped for a new one. Record I think was 11 hours between loco throwing a rod and being back in service on two power units. Loco continued on one unit until Doncaster where it was removed from the train and went straight in to works. Power unit swapped and back in traffic same day. Trouble was units often failed faster than Doncaster could overhaul them. Partly down to industrial action and party due to waiting parts delivery from Paxmans. So locos often waited for weeks, and in the case of 01 and 20, years for spare power units they never got. 

[rodent279]

The baby deltics were only half a deltic engine. The full 18 cylinder version (same as the big deltics) was rated for rail use as 2500bhp. The babies after refurb were actually reasonably reliable, but we're doomed due to non standard. The deltics (both of them) would have been better if EE had not insisted on using mechanical drive for the aux and cooling systems driven off the engine. If BR had accepted the component replacement maintenance idea of when work was needed of just swapping the engines for new ones, like they did for the HST, things might have been different.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the baby Deltic engines, the T9-29's, were not the major cause of faulures after refurb, it was the ancillaries, like the cooling system drive you mention?

 

Another thought is that a single 18 cyl Deltic engine in a class 37 would give the same power rating, for quite a lot less weight & size. Does make me wonder why the Baby Deltic bodyshell wasn't used to trial a type 3 with a large Deltic engine.

 

Getting a bit OT now, this thread is supposed to be about class 20's!

[cheesysmith]

Componet exchange maintenance of things like engines was intended to be a depot level job, but the heavy medium speed diesels used in most of the BR diesels was done at works, with only light engine maintenace done at depot. The above example for the deltics being done at doncaster is a example.The hydralics of the western region were designed for ths, with engine swaps done at depot then sent to swindon for overhaul. This means the expensive loco is out of service for the minimum time. Unfortunatly, BR stores ran down the spares it held, then ordered sporadically. This looked good on the books of the stores department, but resulted in expensive locos standing idle, awating parts, and ruined loco avaliblity figures.

[newbryford]

That's exactly what they did do. If an engine failed it was swapped for a new one. Record I think was 11 hours between loco throwing a rod and being back in service on two power units. Loco continued on one unit until Doncaster where it was removed from the train and went straight in to works. Power unit swapped and back in traffic same day. Trouble was units often failed faster than Doncaster could overhaul them. Partly down to industrial action and party due to waiting parts delivery from Paxmans. So locos often waited for weeks, and in the case of 01 and 20, years for spare power units they never got. 

 

There were stories of travelling fitters starting to disconnect things before a loco arrived at Kings Cross. It was reckoned that an engine could be changed in one shift at Finsbury Park if it was already prepped.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Titan]

There were stories of travelling fitters starting to disconnect things before a loco arrived at Kings Cross. It was reckoned that an engine could be changed in one shift at Finsbury Park if it was already prepped.

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

Finsbury park had no facilities for engine changing. All engine swaps were done at Doncaster, apart from one or two late in their lives done at Stratford.

[newbryford]

Finsbury park had no facilities for engine changing. All engine swaps were done at Doncaster, apart from one or two late in their lives done at Stratford.

 

Don'y know where that FP engine change came from - unless it was other components/repairs that could be changed/done in a shift.

 

I never really "got into" the d*lt*cs. 

[jjb1970]

I heard it was because they were designed by a Mason.

[Titan]

Don'y know where that FP engine change came from - unless it was other components/repairs that could be changed/done in a shift.

 

I never really "got into" the d*lt*cs. 

 

It was possible to change power units in a single shift at Doncaster. There was very little maintenance work that could be done at Depot level on the power units. They weren't even supposed to do injector changes, as if you did not get it just right you ended up cracking a liner. Did not always stop them though!

 

You may have read the comment about travelling fitters in Allan Bakers 'Deltics at Work'.  A suspect unit may have a fitter accompany it. If there was excessive crankcase breathing or other tell tale signs of imminent doom then the unit would be shut down and prepped for removal. Due to the poor supply of replacement power units BR had to ensure it got every last possible hour out of the operational power units. Spectographic analysis of the oil helped here too, pioneered on the Deltics in BR use. Of course there was up to 24 hours to wait before the lab could give the results. Sometimes a high copper content was recorded warning that a piston was about to let go for example, Deltic piston crowns being an alloy of copper. Trouble was the unit in question was currently working flat out on a heavy train to Edinburgh! A quick call to the signaller and the train was halted, and the driver informed to shut the power unit down, hopefully before it threw a rod through the crankcase...

Edited December 30, 2017 by Titan

[Holmesfeldian]

EE did types 1 and 3 very well, but their first type 4 (40s) were heavy and a bit under powered, 

 

 

One former BR loco engineer said to me that BR were very kind to the Class 40 - they were in effect a Type 3 and a half in all but name! 

(and 40s are my favourite class before anyone has a go!)

[cheesysmith]

Totally OT, but if the EE V16 engine had been used at it`s intercooled setting, and fitted into a body of the class 45, you could have had a 2400bhp loco for 120 tons*. BR at the time had a ready made design in the southern trio and basically said build us more of these.

 

*The 40s and the 45 had the same weight, but the suler engine as about 10 tons heavier. The LMS twins came in at 133 tons, but the EE bits used had already been made 3 tons lighter when installed into the 3rd of the southern trio.

[Scottish-Exile]

Confused as to whether this thread is about Class 20's or Deltics

 

I'll just leave this here

 

 

 

[18B]

Ulitimately the Class 20s lasted because they were ideal for the job. A pair of 20s on 42 HAA's ex Bentinck, Silverhill, Sutton, etc etc, had enough power, abilitiy to put it downa nd stop etc. A single 25 was underpowered, a pair over powered. Even a 47 and certainly a 56 and 58 were more rthan sufficient for "most" MGR working.

 

The 20s were solid, dependable and reliable........

[slilley]

There was a very senior BR engineering manager called Freddie Harrison who had an unreasonable dislike of English Electric diesel products, and did his very best to prevent orders going to them.

He's certainly to blame for the vast numbers of class 47s with their too-highly-stressed Sulzer engines, instead of at least a proportion of DP2s. You can see the battles he lost when non-EE products failed to live up to expectations - additional Class 20 orders when the Claytons were such a disaster; the Class 50s, when the 47s had to be de-rated; and the re-engining of class 30 to class 31 with EE engines,

 

Mr Harrison and his rationale for Sulzer over EE engines for the Standard Type 4 ie Class 47 is laid out in detail in Class 47 50 Years of Locomotive History.

[jonny777]

Ulitimately the Class 20s lasted because they were ideal for the job. A pair of 20s on 42 HAA's ex Bentinck, Silverhill, Sutton, etc etc, had enough power, abilitiy to put it downa nd stop etc. A single 25 was underpowered, a pair over powered. Even a 47 and certainly a 56 and 58 were more rthan sufficient for "most" MGR working.

 

The 20s were solid, dependable and reliable........

 

 

I think it would be more accurate to say the 20s were ideal for *a* job, not *the* job. They certainly were not designed for pulling 42 HAAs anywhere on the system. 

 

Why would a pair of class 25s be overpowered for 42 HAAs? If that was the case, why build the 56s (which by implication were 1250hp more powerful than a pair of 20s) and withdraw 25s?  A lot of money could have been saved; and even more if you count the 58s as well. After all, very few 25s worked for BR beyond their 20th birthday, and some didn't even manage 15. 

 

 

 

There is a strange sentence on the Wikipedia page (yes I know it is not sacrosanct) for the class 17s. It states - "Forward visibility, which had dictated the whole design of the type, was not as good as had been hoped, the long noses meaning that the crew could not see the area immediately in front of the locomotive".

 

If this was really a problem, how did drivers manage when shunting with 08s radiator first? After all, it is not as if the 350hp shunter was a rare beast on BR. 

[stovepipe]

The reason for the class 56 was increased continuous tractive effort at a lower speed (240kN @ 16.8mph) compared to the slow speed fitted class 47s (133kN @ 26mph). On MGRs the 47s were not able to sustain a road speed at their continuous rating over the whole journey, leading to occurances of overloading the generator/traction motors, and flashovers etc. For comparison a pair of 20s are 222kN at 11 mph continuous, and RA5, making them ideal for collieries with poor track, where an RA6 or RA7 locomotive couldn't go. A pair of 25s were less suited, despite the nominally higher power, having TE of 186kN at 17.1 mph continuous, and also I believe the AEI traction motors weren't the most highly regarded in any case.

[D854_Tiger]

Why did the 20s outlast other classes

 

 

Perhaps it was their looks.

 

One of my old neighbours used to be a driver at Bescot depot, he told me that an important item of equipment in the winter was a bin liner to wrap around your legs in order to keep out the cold draughts.

 

I never did find out which particular type he was referring to but it was around the time Bescot had a plentiful allocation of class 25s so always assumed it must have been them.

 

[russ p]

20s especially the ones which originally had tablet catchers and no cabside heaters were not the warmest locos

[Foden]

I hear that 47s also had a very draughty cab.

 

This thread has provided some very interesting reading indeed, it’s great to hear of various peoples thoughts and experiences of traction from the 90s, both 20s and others.