Jump to content

D870 - a few questions


Recommended Posts

I've just been dipping into the "Book of the Warships" and the piece on D870 got me thinking. Maybe the collected hydraulic knowledge on this forum can help with some info.

 

D870 was intended to be fitted with ETH, although in the end it wasn't.

 

If it had been:

1. How would the electrical supply have been produced? The BOTW mentions updated engines, but a pretty substantial generator would have been needed surely. Where would it have gone?

2. This was in 1961, did BR have any ETH diesels at the time. If not, why experiment with a DH? Wouldn't a DE be much simpler?

3. Was there any ETH fitted coaching stock at the time? Maybe the WCML electric hauled stock?

 

At the end of its life D870 was sent to Derby RTC for experiments with gas-turbine hydraulic propulsion, but was found to be unsuitable because of collision damage:

1. So what happened then? Was the idea abandoned?

2. Why was D870 chosen, given the number of undamaged withdrawn Warships around at the time?

 

I'll be very interested in any info that throws any light on the above.

 

 

Cheers

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Southern's 33s were ETH fitted from new, as they switched to ETH rather earlier than most. The lack of steam heat on the 33s meant a larger engine could be fitted, better meeting their needs (the alternative was a batch of 37s which the civil engineers said were too heavy for the track at the time), they got a small loan of Class 24s between '59-'62 to cover steam heating duties and until all the 33s were delivered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

I've just been dipping into the "Book of the Warships" and the piece on D870 got me thinking. Maybe the collected hydraulic knowledge on this forum can help with some info.

 

D870 was intended to be fitted with ETH, although in the end it wasn't.

 

If it had been:

1. How would the electrical supply have been produced? The BOTW mentions updated engines, but a pretty substantial generator would have been needed surely. Where would it have gone?

2. This was in 1961, did BR have any ETH diesels at the time. If not, why experiment with a DH? Wouldn't a DE be much simpler?

3. Was there any ETH fitted coaching stock at the time? Maybe the WCML electric hauled stock?

 

At the end of its life D870 was sent to Derby RTC for experiments with gas-turbine hydraulic propulsion, but was found to be unsuitable because of collision damage:

1. So what happened then? Was the idea abandoned?

2. Why was D870 chosen, given the number of undamaged withdrawn Warships around at the time?

 

I'll be very interested in any info that throws any light on the above.

 

 

Cheers

 

Mike

The intention was to fit a donkey engine in place of the boiler in 870.

 

BR had 33s (1960) and the first 20 class 47's (1962) were fitted with ETH.

 

Whether it was intended to fit or just to see if it would fit is unclear from the Swindon drawings and quite what was about for it to supply EH too I don't know.

 

When Derby got 870 they sent it back because of the collision damage. Presumably SDN thought that RTC was going to chop it about a bit and use bits rather than a complete loco.

 

824 was also put by after withdrawal for possible use by the RTC and it was kept at Bristol for nearly a year after withdrawal. it had a defective A engine and was on one engine only for the last few days of its BR life.

 

In the end RTC took 832 after LA did a double bogie change in early 1973.

 

I guess things were constantly moving and BR was always slow to catch up so when / if the idea of gas turbine - hydraulic transmission was abolished the locos were kept just in case. D832 didn't do much for the RTC, maybe 1 or 2 trips?

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting question and responses. Given the way BR coaching stock developed from Mark 2a onwards, would there have been any great benefit having ETH-fitted locos with vacuum brakes only ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting question and responses. Given the way BR coaching stock developed from Mark 2a onwards, would there have been any great benefit having ETH-fitted locos with vacuum brakes only ?

 

There were rumours that the dynostarters were going to modified to supply the ETH with a control cabinet in place of the boiler.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were rumours that the dynostarters were going to modified to supply the ETH with a control cabinet in place of the boiler.

I've not heard that. I don't think the existing dynostarters would of been man enough to provide the output needed for ETH. And to of had bigger ones wouldn't fit in the noses..

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.