Information/photos wanted on MW petrol locomotives

[Ruston]

I think this may be the subject of another scratchbuild.

"This is a special 180HP armoured petrol locomotive carried on four coupled wheels 3ft. 0in. diameter. Wheel base 6ft. 0in. Capacity of petrol tank 68 gallons. Capacity of water tank about 400 gallons. Motor manufactured by John I Thorneycroft & Co. Ltd. Fitted with Westinghouse brakes and bullet proof cab windows. Painted khaki green"

 

Manning Wardle built 10 of these in 1915/16 and another 10 in 1918. The first 10 were for the Secretary of State for War, One to Longmoor, 3 for Egypt and 6 "possibly for France". The second 10 were for the Ministry of Munitions, Sandwich, Kent.

 

Apart from the above photo there are two other photos to work from. This one:

 

As you can see, both ends on the loco in the first photo slope but that in the second has one sloping end and one flat end. At the flat end there appears to be an air receiver. The question is - is the entire end flat, or just the corner facing the camera?

 

There is an Imperial War Museum photo and it shows both ends sloping but it shows the same side as the photo at the top of this post, so we cannot know if the far corner was flat or sloped. The IWM photo shows a loco at work on what appears to be a continental railway, so it would have to be one of the first batch. The loco in my second photo is from the second batch.

 

I have seen, somewhere, a photo of one of these Mannings that was converted to a steam loco, using a Sentinel engine and boiler but i can't remember where and I wonder if it can add any more information. If anyone knows anything more about these locomotives, or has any photos to add, please help.

 

Edit: I don't think the "air reciever" is that. I think it's an exhaust. Being for a munitions factory it is probably some sort of flameproofing and so if that's the case I guess there's no need for the first batch to have that and whatever other water-bath gubbins are under that flat bonnet and so they would be sloped all-round. What an idiot, eh? If I'd noticed that before posting I'd have saved some time!

Edited February 25, 2018 by Ruston

[Adam]

Hello Dave,

 

The Sentinel conversion of one of these was at Sandford Quarry, Somerset - https://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/49/Notes.htm#Note%203 (something I've always fancied modelling being one of these Sentinel conversions of other locos)

 

Rebuilt from Manning Wardle 1954 of 1916 in 1926-7, ex-Vobster Quarries - the scheme for modelling it has been stymied up until now for lack of dimensions beyond wheelbase (6') and wheel diameter (3').

 

Adam

Edited February 25, 2018 by Adam

[Ruston]

Hello Dave,

 

The Sentinel conversion of one of these was at Sandford Quarry, Somerset - https://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/49/Notes.htm#Note%203 (something I've always fancied modelling being one of these Sentinel conversions of other locos)

 

Rebuilt from Manning Wardle 1954 of 1916 in 1926-7, ex-Vobster Quarries - the scheme for modelling it has been stymied up until now for lack of dimensions beyond wheelbase (6') and wheel diameter (3').

 

Adam

Thanks, Adam.

 

Other known dimensions for the MW locos are Length over frames: 20ft. 0in. Width over buffer beams 7ft. 5in. Height (rail top to cab top) 11ft. 4in. Those are given in Harman's book. I presume the height doesn't include the radiator pipes on the roof.

[5050]

In my 'Leeds Locos' photo collection I have one of the chassis without the body but with the engine etc. fitted.  Even Ron Redman was surprised to see it and I sent him a copy.  I will PM you a copy for your use if you think it will be useful.  I think there may be some info in the David and Charles British Internal Combustion Locos book?  I have a copy if you don't.

 

I must admit that this is one of the locos on my very vague modelling bucket list along with many more oddballs!

[Ruston]

In my 'Leeds Locos' photo collection I have one of the chassis without the body but with the engine etc. fitted.  Even Ron Redman was surprised to see it and I sent him a copy.  I will PM you a copy for your use if you think it will be useful.  I think there may be some info in the David and Charles British Internal Combustion Locos book?  I have a copy if you don't.

 

I must admit that this is one of the locos on my very vague modelling bucket list along with many more oddballs!

Ooh, a naked Manning Wardle. Saucy!

 

The D&C book doesn't say much and only has the same photo that I have posted.

[Beatty 139]

I am sure I have read an article on these in a copy of the Engineer via the Gracie’s Guide web site.

 

I keep hoping one day they will scan and add the Railway engineer to the list of publications they have.

[Ruston]

Paul has sent me a scan of the naked Manning Wardle loco but I can't post it.

 

I now know that the end facing camera in the first picture in the OP is the transmission end and as the exhaust can be seen in the second pic, the transmission end is on the left. I had assumed these were the engine ends and the holes in the bodywork were for engine cooling but that isn't so.

 

Paul's photo shows the exhaust on what would be the opposite side of the loco to that shown in the 2nd picture. There doesn't appear to be anything else attached to the exhaust, such as a water bath, and there is no apparent reason for the engine casing to be as high as that in the 2nd pic as the height of the engine wouldn't exceed the height of the works plate on the side of the loco in the 2nd picture - this space must have accomodated the fuel tank. Perhaps this is from the first batch and the exhaust was plated in so cannot be seen as othewise it would be visible on the far end of the loco in the first picture and that in the IWM photo?

 

The engine itself would protrude into the cab and finishes at more or less the mid point of the cab steps. There is something behind the exhuast that could be the air compressor for the Westinghouse brake. There is nothing above the transmission and I guess this is where the 400 gallons of cooling water would be under the bodywork.

 

The controls that are visible are what looks like a steam loco reversing lever but this is at the far side of the engine and is probably to set the engine revs, Next is a brake column and the last control is a tall lever in the area of the transmission but it could be anything - clutch, change gear lever or a transmission brake?

 

So I'm still non-the-wiser about the flat engine end cover on the second batch or even what that end looked like on any of them.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Ruston

[Ruston]

I've had a think about the exhaust being on the other side.

 

It can't be. What I mean is if the engine is the same type in all of the locos then the exhaust ports on the cylinder head are going to be on the same side. The engine in Paul's photo appears to have overhead valves for the inlet and side valves for the exhaust and so isn't something that can be just swapped over. So why run the exhaust silencer over to the other side for no apparent reason?

 

The photo has the same white lettering (Manning Wardle etc.) on the valance as in the photo of 1698. This is also on the first photo but on that photo it is quite clear that this has been added by an artist (or however they did these things before computers and photoshop). I think the orignal photo was a slide and whoever copied the original slide, probably not knowing what the layout of the loco actually was, put the slide in the wrong way around to make the prints, or copies, and the artist has added the lettering to what he was given.

 

So, given that the engine cooling is achieved through the piping on the roof, the holes in the end that we can see were for cooling something else. Perhaps even the crew? If this thing was bullet-proof and was running with the doors closed it would get quite hot inside, not to mention that the engine is in the crew compartment and old engines like that would breathe directly into their surroundings. And as it is a locomotive, and runs in both directions, there's no reason why the other end shouldn't look the same as the end we can see (except for the flat top but let's forget that and concentrate on the version with sloping ends at both ends).

[Sandhole]

At the risk of being shot down.

Is that a heat exchanger or radiator of some kind on the roof?

Makes sense, 'cos unless a shell drops on the beast from above, it keeps it out of small arms fire. It has gone in the Sentinel conversion photograph.

[Ruston]

At the risk of being shot down.

Is that a heat exchanger or radiator of some kind on the roof?

Makes sense, 'cos unless a shell drops on the beast from above, it keeps it out of small arms fire. It has gone in the Sentinel conversion photograph.

I'm assuming it is the radiator, or whatever it may be called in this type of set up, for cooling the engine. I can't think of any other reason for all that piping on the roof and the specification states that 400 gallons of water was carried. Also, in the photo (that I can't show) there is no radiator, or fan, installed on either end of the engine.

 

I've been thinking how to model this and all I can think of is making a jig of some sort to wrap wire in and out of to get the lengths and spacing right.

[Nearholmer]

400 gallons of water for cooling seems a seriously large amount.

 

A closed system with radiator surely wouldn’t need that much, and even for an open, evaporater, system it seems a huge amount.

 

If the figure is right, it makes me wonder whether the water was for ballast, or perhaps part of an exhaust scrubbing system.

 

Pity we can’t see the naked picture, because I get awfully excited by transmission arrangement in internal-combustion locos of this vintage. It was usually the transmission that made or killed a design at this juncture.

 

Kevin

[Nearholmer]

Further thought: it wasn’t sealed, and intended for use in an environment polluted by poisonous gas, was it?

 

I ask, because, it looks fairly useless as an ‘armoured’ loco, with the wheels and coupling rods exposed, let alone an exposed set of radiator coils.

 

And, all those holes in the end, and a big water bath, might be something to do with purifying the breathing air for the crew.

 

More mundanely, compressors need lots of cooling, so maybe all those holes are either for engine and compressor air intake, or compressor cooling air ...... and, if so, they could be for direct air cooling, or cooling of a water-circuit.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Osgood]

I'd guess cooling by large tank with circulation provided by thermal syphon to cooling tubes on cab roof. Large tank gives added benefit of ballast as suggested above.

The holes in ends of cab plates were a common means of admitting ambient air into loco cabs, needed here as the roof plate would run a bit on the hot side from the cooling tubes!

Edited March 4, 2018 by Osgood

[phil_sutters]

Thank you for mentioning Vobster Quarry! I lived at Coleford a couple of miles away* in the 1950s and our first model railway ran from Coleford to Vobster. I went looking for photos and found that the quarry is now a diving centre, but among loads of photos of people in wetsuits and diving kit there were a few of the working quarry. These led to the discovery of the Quarry Faces website. What a mine of information I was going to say without realising that was the wrong industry reference!

*We could hear the sirens and blasting at specific times of the day.

Edited March 4, 2018 by phil_sutters

[Ruston]

I have scanned and cropped the IWM photo.

This is the "other end". You can see the brake block in front of the wheel. Compare with the picture of 1698 and if I'm right about the photo that cannot be shown being wrongly lettered the exhaust should be at this end and near corner.

 

A close up.

The line of bolt heads suggests an access panel over the exhaust.

 

Further thought: it wasn’t sealed, and intended for use in an environment polluted by poisonous gas, was it?

I ask, because, it looks fairly useless as an ‘armoured’ loco, with the wheels and coupling rods exposed, let alone an exposed set of radiator coils.

And, all those holes in the end, and a big water bath, might be something to do with purifying the breathing air for the crew.

More mundanely, compressors need lots of cooling, so maybe all those holes are either for engine and compressor air intake, or compressor cooling air ...... and, if so, they could be for direct air cooling, or cooling of a water-circuit.

 

 

All I know about the use of these locos is that the second batch were for use here in the UK by the Railway Materials Branch of the Ministry of Munitions. That's why I thought the flat ended one could house a spark arrestor but I've never heard of locos being built with adaptations for environments with poisonous gas and if that were the case everything would have to be sealed and the holes in the front of the cab clearly count against this. The first batch went overseas.

 

Going from the well-known "armoured" Simplex narrow gauge locos, the term armoured would mean armoured against bullets and shrapel, rather than direct hits from artillery, so a hit from bullets or shrapnel wouldn't have much effect on wheels and rods but, agreed, the exposed cooling system is rather vulnerable. Then again perhaps the armour was probably intended to protect the crew and not the loco anyway. As they were said to be armoured this would be actual armour plate, rather than the usual mild steel as there was a definite difference. The British Army's MkII tanks were only ever intended for training in the UK and the hulls were made of mild steel plate, rather than armour plate but were used at Arras in 1917, where they were death traps as German rifle bullets could penetrate the hulls.

 

I think I have solved the question of why the second batch had one end flat and what was under that higher bonnet. In Industrial Railway Record 42 (Apr. 1972) entitled "Manning Wardle PetrolLocomotives" there is an article on these locomotives that gives more information than in Harman's book. In the article, by Ken Plant, it says that the second batch had increased water and fuel capacities - 143 and 600 gallons respectively.

 

Other extra information is:

 

Tractive effort at 75% of the rated HP was 10,125lb. at 5mph (1st gear) 3894lb. at 13mph (2nd gear) and 1974lb. at 26mph (3rd gear). "No weights are given in the Manning Wardle records but as each spring had a static load of 25 tons, the overall weight of each locomotive would have been in the region of 28 to 30 tons".

 

The most interesting and confusing is that despite the quote (in my first post) from the MW Engine Book about "68 gallons of petrol" being carried is that both Harman and the article in the IRR say that the Thornycroft engine was a (Type S6) reversing marine oil engine.

 

I have always taken the term oil engine to mean what we now commonly refer to as a diesel engine. I know some "petrol" engines, spark-ignition engines that is, were adapted to start on petrol and switch over to paraffin once warm. Paraffin was also known as Tractor Vapourising Oil in this use

 

So were they diesels or petrol? Either way, wouldn't they have to be two-stroke to be reversing engines because I don't think a 4-stroke can run in reverse.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Ruston

[Nearholmer]

An oil engine meant anything that used ‘heavy’ fuel, and there were several competing engines technologies that fit that description. I’d be quite surprised if it was a diesel, but it isn’t impossible, a hot-bulb engine is the more likely, I think, but there were others too, including spark (sometimes pilot-flame) ignition.

 

Small diesels were around at this date, notably the Atlas from Sweden, and the Germans tried a diesel in an eight-wheel 60cm Gauge loco that seems to have been intended as a replacement for the well-known brigadelok 0-8-0 steamers, but I’m not aware of a British multi-cylinder compact diesel at this date.

 

I’d need to check, but I think reversing marine engines are four-strokes, and work by changing all the valve events ..... I think the camshaft has two sets of cams, and is slid one way or the other to engage each set. I’ve got a contemporary textbook that I will need to delve into.

 

Does it not have a reverse in the transmission, then?

 

I accept what you say about it not being ‘gas proof’ ...... that was a bit of a kite, really.

 

Kevin

[Ruston]

Thornycroft S6 Paraffin engine. You'll have to take my word for it but this looks like the engine in the Manning Wardle, only from the inlet side.

And it was 4-stroke.

 

From The Marine Oil Engine Handbook 3rd Edition (1914)

 

Thornycroft paraffin-petrol engines are built in standard powers from 7 h.p. to 150 h.p., although larger sizes have been made for special purposes, such as the 350 h.p. sets for the Italian Navy. All are of the four-stroke single- acting enclosed type with forced lubrication, and are non- reversible with the exception of the six-cylinder 150 h.p. direct reversing motor, which we propose to deal with as the most interesting. The makers are Messrs. John I. Thornycroft and Co., of London and Basingstoke. The inlet valves are arranged over the exhaust valves and are operated by push rods and rockers, while the exhaust valves are operated by tappets. The usual vertical ex- haust-heated paraffin vaporizer is adopted, with float feed. To change over from petrol to paraffin there is a three- way fuel cock, and a by-pass valve for the exhaust gases. The fuel consumption is guaranteed at 0.9 pint per b.h.p. per hour ? but in actual service is considerably less, whilst the running speed is 550 r.p.m. * Reversing is carried out by compressed air from storage tanks kept charged by a small air compressor driven off the forward end of the camshaft by a friction clutch.

 

[Nearholmer]

Fascinating. Presumably spark-ignition, with some sort of vaporiser.

 

A bit about reversing here http://www.brighthubengineering.com/marine-engines-machinery/60584-reversing-of-marine-engines/

 

I will try to find the old book later.

[Ruston]

There was more but I didn't post it but I may as well...

 

Reversing is carried out by compressed air from storage tanks kept charged by a small air compressor driven off the forward end of the camshaft by a friction clutch. The air is supplied to the cylinders via a six -port rotating distributing valve, the latter being driven by a spiral wheel off the camshaft. When it is desired to reverse, the camshaft is moved fore and aft, which operation brings a duplicate set of cams into action under the inlet and exhaust valves. For ignition a single magneto is adopted, and an arrange- ment allows it to run in the same direction of rotation as the engine with correct timing. The shaft that operates the starting valves is extended across the back of the en- gine to drive the magneto by a double bevel wheel^ and pinion device, which, by means of the gear provided, rotates the magneto with the engine. This is carried out by means of a free wheel, so mounted that a pawl upon a plate keyed to> the reversing shaft engages with a " laced ;; recess in the boss of the wheel. A duplicate pawl and recess are fitted to another plate that drives the magneto through a bevel pinion when the engine is running astern, and this pawl and recess are arranged for en- gaging in the opposite direction. The four*cylinder 100 h.p. non-reversing engine has a somewhat similar inlet valve control device as the 150 h.p. m®tor, the difference being that instead of the swinging support (G) there is a pulley running between two wedge-shaped surfaces, so it is only another method of obtaining the same results.

 

I never knew that 4-strokes could run in reverse, let alone how. Every day's a school day, eh?

 

Do you think a hundred year old Manning Wardle petrol/paraffin loco counts as modern image?

Edited March 4, 2018 by Ruston

[Nearholmer]

One of the earliest (not as some books say ‘the first’) internal combustion loco built in GB was by the Priestman brothers, using their ‘oil engine’ which was the grandad of that Thorneycroft. There was a German equivalent, again developed by two brothers, and used in a proto-locomotive, but I’m having a pre-senior moment, and have forgotten their name.

 

So, did your MW have a reverse in the transmission, or not?

 

If not, it would have seriously annoyed the crews!

[Ruston]

I would guess not. There is a scrappy sketch of the layout of the transmission in Harman's book and if taken literally there appears to be no reversing gearbox. It shows a bevel gear from the 3-speed gearbox going to a single crown wheel on the axle. To have a reverse it would need a second crown wheel and a sliding dog clutch to engage/disengage the crown wheels.

[Nearholmer]

One of the things that held back use of ic locos for shunting in the early years was the ponderous nature of the reverse gear-change, compared with the snappy action of lever reverse on a steam loco, which could be used as a brake too, so one where you had to reverse the engine was probably much disfavoured. It’s got quite a high top speed too, so maybe it was envisaged as being for ‘haulage’, rather than shunting, or maybe they got it mixed-up with a trawler.

 

Anyway, thank you for bringing this one out. I’ve seen brief details of it before, but not all the interesting subtleties.

[uax6]

Paraffin is not the same as TVO, TVO is a mix of all sorts of fractions and seems to be a home brew mix these days, consisting of both paraffin and diesel and other stuff (As a friend once described it to me). Indeed they must burn differently too, as in the '50s Tom Rolt was in charge of an international car rally, where a Stanley steamer came over (in amongst other exotic yanky cars) and when Tom enquired with Shell about having paraffin available for it, they said that surely he meant TVO. In became obvious fairly quickly that TVO produced far more carbon than paraffin, and blocked the burner up. Paraffin was then the fuel of choice...

 

Andy G

[Nearholmer]

I don’t think TVO had been developed at the date of this loco anyway, I have a feeling it was slightly later, maybe even post WW2.

 

How much carbon you get depends on the combustion process, and I think TVO was specifically devised to reduce carbonisation and valve seat damage in internal combustion engines engines that were primarily designed to use petrol, but which would run on paraffin that had been passed through a vaporiser. I guess that burning it as an open flame wasn’t such a good idea!

[Beatty 139]

Don’t forget the Stephenson Crossley used a direct reversing engine, so why not at this early stage in internal combustion loco design ?