Tornado fails on ECML

[Pacific231G]

Blimey! That takes me back!

It'll be Callander's Steam Tables in British Thermal Units next. I understood entropy but was always a bit hazy about enthalpy.

The fact remains that a railway is a very harsh engineering environment for any machine, as almost everyone who has thought that putting a bus on railway wheels is a good way of building a passenger train has soon discovered.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Titan]

The fact remains that a railway is a very harsh engineering environment for any machine, as almost everyone who has thought that putting a bus on railway wheels is a good way of building a passenger train has soon discovered.

 

Indeed. it goes something like this:

 

Fragile < Robust < Indestructible < Will last about 5 mins when fitted to a train...

[RJS1977]

I wouldn't say crude-simple is perhaps more accurate. Woefully inefficient yes, outdated yes, but not crude. There's a lot of clever engineering science involved in boiling water and using the vapour to drive mechanical systems.

 

Indeed, I was chatting to one of the other operators of a layout I sometimes help out with. He's a freelance engineer who occasionally makes parts for Formula One teams, particularly Ferrari. On one occasion one of his contacts at Ferrari mentioned a particular problem they were having. My colleague thought about it for a while, tinkered in his workshop and produced a part which solved the problem - based on steam locomotive technology! (Sadly I can't remember either what the problem was or exactly how he solved it).

 

Ferrari put in an order for a dozen of these devices and they were so impressed with them that the Chief Engineer offered him a contract. Unfortunately the Team Principal vetoed it on the grounds that my colleague despite being in his 50s, didn't have any experience of F1. Which of course was precisely why the Chief Engineer had wanted to hire him....

Edited May 23, 2018 by RJS1977

[Coryton]

 as almost everyone who has thought that putting a bus on railway wheels is a good way of building a passenger train has soon discovered.

 

Although in the case of Pacers, the "bus part" has lasted a lot longer in service than the bodies that got put on a real bus chassis.

[Orion]

Although in the case of Pacers, the "bus part" has lasted a lot longer in service than the bodies that got put on a real bus chassis.

 

Except that Leyland Nationals were of integral construction, no chassis as such.

[LMS2968]

Latest update:

 

https://www.a1steam.com/2018/06/05/repair-progess/

[roythebus]

It'll be Callander's Steam Tables in British Thermal Units next. I understood entropy but was always a bit hazy about enthalpy.

The fact remains that a railway is a very harsh engineering environment for any machine, as almost everyone who has thought that putting a bus on railway wheels is a good way of building a passenger train has soon discovered.

 

Or putting marine diesel engines into trains.

[Pacific231G]

Or putting marine diesel engines into trains.

I'm not sure what other sorts of diesel engines in the required power range, designed for a cramped environment with a lot of movement and vibration would have been available back then to British manufacturers.   

[jjb1970]

Some of the problems suffered by marine diesels in trains appear to have been less because they were marine engines and more because they weren't properly set up for the appropriate duty cycle.

[Oldddudders]

Fairbanks-Morse built quite a number of locos with their opposed-piston marine engine, but these seem to have been viewed as tougher to maintain than contemporaries from EMD and Alco. Perhaps marine installations are in a more spacious environment? The US Navy had happily bought considerable numbers of F-M prime movers over decades.

[jamie92208]

Fairbanks-Morse built quite a number of locos with their opposed-piston marine engine, but these seem to have been viewed as tougher to maintain than contemporaries from EMD and Alco. Perhaps marine installations are in a more spacious environment? The US Navy had happily bought considerable numbers of F-M prime movers over decades.

 

AFAIK the F-M unit was designed for submarines and powered most of the USN big fleet boats.  EMD, IIRC, actually used a design that was made for the rail environment from the start, particularly with a stiff engine bed to cope with the G forces.

 

Jamie

[Sheffield]

Some of the engine blocks for EMD engines were cast in Leicester.

[rodent279]

Some of the engine blocks for EMD engines were cast in Leicester.

Really? Where in Leicester? Presumably they were for Irish GM engines?

[Pacific231G]

Fairbanks-Morse built quite a number of locos with their opposed-piston marine engine, but these seem to have been viewed as tougher to maintain than contemporaries from EMD and Alco. Perhaps marine installations are in a more spacious environment? The US Navy had happily bought considerable numbers of F-M prime movers over decades.

Wasn't there also an effectively "Buy British" policy in force at the time of the Modernisation which would have made simply buying fairly tried and tested US diesels unacceptable for BR (It's a moot question whether they could have been adapted for locos built to British loading gauge though obviously the current "sheds" were)

 

It's curious though that the 250 strong French 63000 class of diesel electric oriignally using Sulzer engines were introduced in 1953 and remained in SNCF service until 2011, the SNCF 66000s first came into service in 1960 and about 25 of this class of 318 locos are still working, and so on with the other early diesels. Why was it that from very early on SNCF, not always the best managed European state railway, carried out almost all of the dieselisation of non-electrified lines with a relatively small number of large classes that stood the test of time when BR, a generally very well managed railway, thrashed around so much? Was it simply the flickleness of governments alternating between starving the railways of investment and throwing short-term money at them. 

 

I happen to be familiar with the situation in France but understand that DB in West Germany handled dieselisation equally rationally with an even more orderly retreat from steam.   

[rodent279]

Wasn't there also an effectively "Buy British" policy in force at the time of the Modernisation which would have made simply buying fairly tried and tested US diesels unacceptable for BR (It's a moot question whether they could have been adapted for locos built to British loading gauge though obviously the current "sheds" were)

 

It's curious though that the 250 strong French 63000 class of diesel electric oriignally using Sulzer engines were introduced in 1953 and remained in SNCF service until 2011, the SNCF 66000s first came into service in 1960 and about 25 of this class of 318 locos are still working, and so on with the other early diesels. Why was it that from very early on SNCF, not always the best managed European state railway, carried out almost all of the dieselisation of non-electrified lines with a relatively small number of large classes that stood the test of time when BR, a generally very well managed railway, thrashed around so much? Was it simply the flickleness of governments alternating between starving the railways of investment and throwing short-term money at them.

 

I happen to be familiar with the situation in France but understand that DB in West Germany handled dieselisation equally rationally with an even more orderly retreat from steam.

The cynic in me says a large part of the failings with BR's early dieselisation plans were down to government interference, and eagerness to see private industry get large orders.

I've said before that I reckon given the choice, BR would have been content with a fleet of 20's, 37's and 40's. That would have dealt with 90% of BR's non-electric, non-dmu traffic requirements.

[Colin_McLeod]

When NIR purchased GMs in 1981 Maggie herself demanded to know why we did not buy BREL.

Reasons given by NIR Chairman;

 

1)GM price was 50% of BREL

 

2)GM fixed price. BREL had inflation clause ( so the longer it took them the more expensive it would be)

 

3)GM guaranteed 11 months to delivery. BREL two years or more (with inflation clause)

 

4)GM off the shelf proven design. BREL to design a new loco.

 

 

The formal wrist slapping was mitigated by the contemporary purchase of 2nd hand BR Mk 2 coaches.

 

Regarding delivery GM contacted us after 10 months to apologise that they would be sending the two locos one month early. When NIR paid one month early GM invested the payment and refunded NIR the interest for the month.

 

GMs response to a teething problem a few weeks later resulted in them air freighting a replacement radiator and the also flew over a fitter to install it.

 

A great company to work with. Interest in our locos resulted in visits to Belfast by some of the aggregate companies in UK shortly before they too insisted on GM.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Colin_McLeod

[jim.snowdon]

The cynic in me says a large part of the failings with BR's early dieselisation plans were down to government interference, and eagerness to see private industry get large orders.

I've said before that I reckon given the choice, BR would have been content with a fleet of 20's, 37's and 40's. That would have dealt with 90% of BR's non-electric, non-dmu traffic requirements.

If BR had been able to stick to the Pilot Scheme, the duds would have been quietly weeded out and sanity, at least in engineering terms would probably have prevailed. That wouldn't automatically have meant nothing but EE products, although they have proved very reliable, as many of the "duds" we're good in parts, but bad in others. EE just happened to be the only supplier that could build everything in house; for the rest it was a combination of one supplier's mechanical parts, allied to another supplier's engine and another supplier's electrical equipment.

 

Jim

[JeremyC]

The cynic in me says a large part of the failings with BR's early dieselisation plans were down to government interference, and eagerness to see private industry get large orders.

I've said before that I reckon given the choice, BR would have been content with a fleet of 20's, 37's and 40's. That would have dealt with 90% of BR's non-electric, non-dmu traffic requirements.

The report on the transformer explosions on the Glasgow electrics (http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_EMUFailures1962.pdf) makes the following statement: " ....  Design restrictions were kept to a minimum to allow full scope to the Contractors to develop their technical knowledge and initiative to the best effect."

To me this suggests government often saw BR more as a test bed for British Industry rather than a transport entity requiring reliable equipment.

[jjb1970]

AFAIK the F-M unit was designed for submarines and powered most of the USN big fleet boats.  EMD, IIRC, actually used a design that was made for the rail environment from the start, particularly with a stiff engine bed to cope with the G forces.

 

Jamie

 

The F-M OP engines had a superb reputation in the USN and were still being specified for the Seawolf SSN. Especially in naval applications an opposed piston design can be very nicely balanced for vibration control. Certainly submarine engine rooms are very constricted, particularly the old diesel electric boats and it was a very hostile operating environment with a particular requirement for very high shock rating for some reason I've never been able to figure out.......

One big innovation of EMD with their own engines (as opposed to the older Winton engines) was very heavy use of welding in preference to casting.

[jjb1970]

When NIR purchased GMs in 1981 Maggie herself demanded to know why we did not buy BREL.

Reasons given by NIR Chairman;

 

1)GM price was 50% of BREL

 

2)GM fixed price. BREL had inflation clause ( so the longer it took them the more expensive it would be)

 

3)GM guaranteed 11 months to delivery. BREL two years or more (with inflation clause)

 

4)GM off the shelf proven design. BREL to design a new loco.

 

 

The formal wrist slapping was mitigated by the contemporary purchase of 2nd hand BR Mk 2 coaches.

 

Regarding delivery GM contacted us after 10 months to apologise that they would be sending the two locos one month early. When NIR paid one month early GM invested the payment and refunded NIR the interest for the month.

 

GMs response to a teething problem a few weeks later resulted in them air freighting a replacement radiator and the also flew over a fitter to install it.

 

A great company to work with. Interest in our locos resulted in visits to Belfast by some of the aggregate companies in UK shortly before they too insisted on GM.

 

Going back to their earliest days EMD (or EMC as was) built their reputation and business pretty much on the back of first class customer service, product delivery and spare parts support. As an enthusiast I've never been the biggest fan of EMD locomotives and even though North American diesels are one of my biggest interests I prefer F-M, Baldwin, Alco and GE locomotives it would be absurd to try and deny that EMD's market dominance up until the mid 80's was based on merit and fully deserved. Put simply they designed and built a superior product, offered great customer service and enviable spare parts support.

[roythebus]

Do they have any spare parts for Tornado?

[LMS2968]

Latest Update:

 

https://www.a1steam.com/2018/06/22/repairs-update/

 

I just hope this doesn't start another discussion on European Steam, American diesels or bird watching!

[shortliner]

Why does the cynic in me put the problem down to Mazac rot?  

 

Sorry - just leaving.....

Edited June 22, 2018 by shortliner

[AndyID]

Would stamp collecting be OK?

 

Do they know why it failed and they are just not saying, or is it still a mystery?

[rodent279]

Latest Update:

 

https://www.a1steam.com/2018/06/22/repairs-update/

 

I just hope this doesn't start another discussion on European Steam, American diesels or bird watching!

Innocent, m'lud....