How long would a diesel loco be left ticking over

[HillsideDepot]

I think we sometimes chase the wrong culprits with all this "environmental" stuff.

 

As for leaving the 59s running - it maybe not ideal, but how much pollution have they saved compared to hauling all that stone to the south-east by lorry?

 

People moan about using the diesel engines on the IETs whilst under the wires as being "a bad thing" yet the last time I visited my local station there was a row of idling diesel taxis on the rank (their drivers standing outside smoking, so not even able to say they needed the heating) without an adverse comment!

 

And thinking back to all the locos left running over the weekend years ago - many of them then spent their working week dragging coal to power stations....

[The Stationmaster]

You do like to post your opinion as if it is fact dont you, so please provide some evidence to back up the highlighted sweeping statement about "many drivers" please or withdraw it!

 

While there will always be one or two bad eggs, I find your statement of "many drivers" insulting!

 

I certainly don't think there was anything wrong with the training - I know/knew several of the people originally involved in diesel conversion training on the Western and they were all men well respected not only for their knowledge but also for the way they trained Drivers and passed on knowledge.  but there were undoubtedly some Drivers who did not like diesels in some respect or another although I can't ever recall coming across anybody who actually scared of them and I've known quite a few who definitely knew all the wrinkles needed to coax action out of or remedy certain weird faults that used to occur in the various diesel hydraulic classes (like changing gear by hand on a Hymek).

 

Yes there were some 'bad egg' Drivers just as there were some 'bad eggs' in just about every other grade on the railway and just like anybody else if they were caught or caught out they were dealt with in the disciplinary machinery.  But I agree with you entirely that 'many' is way over the top. 

 

Incidentally one point has been missed in all this discussion of shore supplies to provide pore-heat or keep coolant warm.  BR's dieselisation involved the wholesale removal of facilities which had been used in the steam age to look after locos.  The big perceived advantage of diesels

was the need for very different servicing and maintenance facilities which in reality meant concentration onto far fewer sites leaving little more than stabling sidings at many locations all.  For example in the early part of the 1970s one place where I worked had nothing more than a handful of short sidings and a container in which we kept bagged sand - and that served to stable what was officially a fleet of 16 EE Type 3s (Class 37).  When twin fuel tanks were introduced virtually all of our diagrams could go a week between fuelling so the need to visit a depot capable of fuelling, let alone exams etc was basically a week.  The only times that tended to be broken was if a loco needed brake blocks as a result of being stuck on a particular turn and not rotating through the booked diagrams - then it could be down to Canton after 4 days (and occasionally three days) for new brake blocks.  The only thing we could do - which the Drivers and Secondmen did - was top up the sands because on various of our jobs you could empty the sand boxes in a day.  So our locos lived in a set of sidings that were originally used for goods traffic and had minimal electricity supply as they didn't even have much in the way of lighting, and that was absolutely typical of numerous stabling points around the country.  If was inevitably cheaper in some respects to run engines overnight instead of paying out thousands to run in a suitable electricity feed and provide the necessary connections to hook up locos.

[The Johnster]

You do like to post your opinion as if it is fact dont you, so please provide some evidence to back up the highlighted sweeping statement about "many drivers" please or withdraw it!

 

While there will always be one or two bad eggs, I find your statement of "many drivers" insulting!

 

My 'opinion' is based on 8 years working at Canton as a freight guard, in other words 'traincrew' as it was called then.  This meant that a very large portion of my working life was spent in close contact with drivers for long periods, so I talked to them a lot.  My statement is broadly correct for BR drivers at Canton at the time; it was one of the factors that contributed to the low morale of the time and I have no intention of retracting it; you are at liberty to disagree and say so.  Many drivers did not feel confident to isolate and repair faults on the road, and it was as well that the locos were as reliable as they were.  

 

I did not insult anyone unless it was the inspectors who passed them out on locos without ensuring that they were fully conversant.  The men I worked with were highly skilled and experienced railwaymen that I admired enormously and learned much from.  I have the opinion, backed by the comments of the men themselves, that they were taught the diesels hurriedly and that passing out was more or less a foregone conclusion, and before one criticises the inspectors, it might be an idea to consider the pressure they were under to supply passed out staff during the 'white heat of technology' modernisation or bust 60s, a decade before my time.  My apologies to anyone who was involved in driver training in those days, but this is very much a view that I 'learned' from the actual drivers who were doing the job on a daily basis, not an opinion that I formed from my own resources.  The men told me this and I believed them.

 

I am sure thing have improved greatly in the modern industry in this respect;  my footplate grade colleagues were mostly small c conservative steam engine men and of that mindset, with a very small number of what were called traction trainees and younger secondmen who had cut their teeth on diesels.  I imagine the level of training is much higher and of a higher standard nowadays, or at least I hope so; the expansion of rules, signalling changes, and so on mean there is a lot more to learn, and drivers, especially on freight trains, are much more on their own and expected to cope.

[pheaton]

Out of interest, how much fuel would a class 37 use if left idling overnight for say 12 hours?

Not sure about 37s but a 12 cylinder ETH fitted sulzer will burn about 10-15 gallons an hour idling......so in the case of a class 45/1 after 10 hours thats an 8th of your capacity.

 

59s as far as im aware are fitted with priming pumps.....to the best of my knowledge only class 50s and 08/09s have manual hand priming pumps. Also the 59s are bit of an odd case as royaloak touched on because they don't use lead acid batteries, they use NIMH (or they did when they were delivered) which have a much much lower capacity and are very very sensitive to cold temperatures under load and you can also only charge them within a specified temperature range. Which probably one of the reasons they are kept running in cold weather...

 

Someone mentioned its just a case of a couple of 415v sockets....well its not just that you need to have the site supply and infrastructure to deal with the 6kw+ output requirement of each socket.....and thats a lot of money to spend when it should only be required when your locos have been stopped for more than a day in very cold weather....

Edited January 4, 2019 by pheaton

[jjb1970]

But the 59s were not built in this day and age were they.

 

Power management systems with auto-stop and start, load management etc pre-date the delivery of the class 59s, let alone auto LO priming. And the technology was applied to engine platforms with roots going back to the 40's and 50's.

[jjb1970]

 

 

Someone mentioned its just a case of a couple of 415v sockets....well its not just that you need to have the site supply and infrastructure to deal with the 6kw+ output requirement of each socket.....and thats a lot of money to spend when it should only be required when your locos have been stopped for more than a day in very cold weather....

 

It's not just very cold weather, large engines should be kept at a stable temperature which means keeping them hot when not running. When they do go cold (such as during major maintenance) then they should follow a temperature ramp to heat them up slowly to avoid thermal stress.

[pheaton]

and nobody is disagreeing with that but as history has shown with the contemporary english electric and sulzer engines which as we all know made up the bulk of british railways, the cons outweigh the pros, which is why it was and still is seldom done, it seemed to be only maybach MAN and MTU that had and have enforced the pre-heat method. Even the more exotic napier and crossley engines were not pre-heated.  and these idled at a similar speed to the German counterparts compared with the sedate 250rpm of a sulzer or an EE.

 

Even the standby generator versions of the 6lda and EESVT series were not pre-heated and as far as i know there was no manufacturers mandate to do so in the temperate climate of the UK.

 

you will also find that by deleting the radiator bypass valve (which was done on most if not all locomotives) you still have a slow climb in temperature, and you avoid the rover k series conumdrum of cold water suddenly enter a hot area.... if i start 45149 on a very cold day its not up to temperature for a good 2 hours at least if i leave it idling.....or about an hour if its in service, because the the water is continuously circulating through the radiators....a lot of stress related fractures seen in cylinder heads on EE engines (and that includes 58s and 56s) is due to the design of the flame face which allows for fractures between the valves, the same fractures were comparatively rare on the 2 valve heads of the sulzers.  and you could argue that with the increased combustion of the fuel at a similar temperature they took more of a pounding......Ok with preheating you isolate the issue of block or heat exchanger or radiator or secondary water tank.... related failures, but this in turn is resolved by anti-freeze. In a class 20 the heat rise is even slower because the fan is permanently engaged.

 

If you are trying to meet strict emissions or reliability figures which only may be achieved under certain temperatures then yes i agree fully pre-heating is the way to go....but BR reliability figures were always a target....nothing else...

 

On the preservation side the primary reason for pre-heating is to reduce oil dilution from the unburnt fuel, and to reduce the stress on the batteries caused by a hunting AVR, plus the various reasons you mentioned... but its restricted to EE based engines, im not aware of any sulzers because most of the issues are negated by the higher compression ratio of the engine, which reduces greatly unburnt fuel and misfire, and the stresses related to it....

Edited January 4, 2019 by pheaton

[GeoffAlan]

Well the Fuel thing - now Arriva units have  5 - 8 minute idle max then in case of the 220/221 a controlled shut down - but battery life still an issue. If engines only shutdown and not a full shutdown then batts can last just 2 hours and then no start up is a risk , the work around known as Apollo 13 !

 

In 1970s on a night visit to Buxton with 110s banging away my dad asked about antifreeze - fitter joked and said heard about leaks !

hot engines and hoses sealed nicely, when cold a bit of a colander ..

 

Soghtly  OT noting now WM buses non hybrid are being shutdown on arrival at terminal stops in central Brum.  The Hybrids depending on how driven may or not start up when leaving first stops - but seem to be a diesel restart more often than not so not sure all is as high tech as it might or drivers not trusting yet.

 

Robert        

 

We have an Hybrid car. If the battery is more than 50% charged the car whines off the drive in electric mode, putting your foot down more than a little immediately starts the Petrol Engine. I suspect the buses are the same.

Edited January 4, 2019 by GeoffAlan

[royaloak]

My 'opinion' is based on 8 years working at Canton as a freight guard, in other words 'traincrew' as it was called then.  This meant that a very large portion of my working life was spent in close contact with drivers for long periods, so I talked to them a lot.  My statement is broadly correct for BR drivers at Canton at the time; it was one of the factors that contributed to the low morale of the time and I have no intention of retracting it; you are at liberty to disagree and say so.  Many drivers did not feel confident to isolate and repair faults on the road, and it was as well that the locos were as reliable as they were.  

 

I did not insult anyone unless it was the inspectors who passed them out on locos without ensuring that they were fully conversant.  The men I worked with were highly skilled and experienced railwaymen that I admired enormously and learned much from.  I have the opinion, backed by the comments of the men themselves, that they were taught the diesels hurriedly and that passing out was more or less a foregone conclusion, and before one criticises the inspectors, it might be an idea to consider the pressure they were under to supply passed out staff during the 'white heat of technology' modernisation or bust 60s, a decade before my time.  My apologies to anyone who was involved in driver training in those days, but this is very much a view that I 'learned' from the actual drivers who were doing the job on a daily basis, not an opinion that I formed from my own resources.  The men told me this and I believed them.

 

I am sure thing have improved greatly in the modern industry in this respect;  my footplate grade colleagues were mostly small c conservative steam engine men and of that mindset, with a very small number of what were called traction trainees and younger secondmen who had cut their teeth on diesels.  I imagine the level of training is much higher and of a higher standard nowadays, or at least I hope so; the expansion of rules, signalling changes, and so on mean there is a lot more to learn, and drivers, especially on freight trains, are much more on their own and expected to cope.

So your post was about the 1970s and not the modern day even though it read as if you were talking about the present?

Maybe you should make that clear that you are posting about the good old days and not the modern railway so as to avoid misunderstandings.

[Talltim]

I think the bit where it says

drivers in the 1970s

is a big clue...

[Titan]

I would say that the main consideration with the modernisation plan diesels (and the slightly later 37s, 47s, and 50s) was getting the loco into service in time for it's duty, and that the cost of fuel or effect on maintenance schedules were secondary to that.  Drivers in the 70s were frightened to shut locos down out on the road in case they wouldn't start, and many were frightened to death of anything going wrong that they were supposed to identify and rectify, which lead me to question the effectiveness of diesel driver training and passing out on different classes.  Men yearned for steam locos that would usually get you home whatever went wrong with them, and considered that the new-fangled diesels had too much on them to go wrong.  All those warning lights were not in themselves re-assuring; if it needed a warning light, surely it was just trouble waiting to happen, wasn't it?

 

If the loco was running and not causing any problems or suffering any issues, the general opinion was that it should be kept running lest issues be induced in some way...

 

 

So your post was about the 1970s and not the modern day even though it read as if you were talking about the present?

Maybe you should make that clear that you are posting about the good old days and not the modern railway so as to avoid misunderstandings.

 

He did make it absolutely clear. But you were so busy being insulted, and failing to even consider that there are others with good knowledge out there you did not notice... Why don't you just reel it in a bit? 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Titan

[Davexoc]

Regarding the 59’s, the engines and tech is a lot older, I think some may forget this, they have been here since the mid 80’s and the engines had been around some time, mid 60’s I believe the series was first introduced.

The block dates from 1938 IIRC from the tech who rode the 59/0s when they were first delivered.

 

Dave

[Davexoc]

Someone mentioned its just a case of a couple of 415v sockets....well its not just that you need to have the site supply and infrastructure to deal with the 6kw+ output requirement of each socket.....and thats a lot of money to spend when it should only be required when your locos have been stopped for more than a day in very cold weather....

I can't see 6kW keeping a 2500kW prime mover anywhere near running temperature for long. Not only that but the oil is still going to cool even if you keep the water warm.

 

Dave

[rodent279]

It's all a bit academic really, and not worth arguing over.

• If you leave engines idling for extended periods, fuel is used unproductively, and engines incur wear and tear and consume oil over and above when they are used under load.
• If you shut engines down, you then have to start them from cold, which also has a cost in wear and tear, and has potential reliability implications.
• If you keep engines warm via some sort of shore supply, you have to install and maintain installations of sufficient capacity for multiple engines at diverse locations, which may not be suitable, and you have an energy cost.

Someone, somewhere, probably high up in the food chain, hopefully armed with all the facts, and with knowledge of the whole picture, has to trade off these costs against each other.

 

I don't know whether these costs were/are included in balancing the overall energy, maintenance or running costs of diesel traction against steam or electric-but it sounds like they should be.

 

There is no perfect answer, it is a compromise as with most engineering problems.

[rodent279]

I can't see 6kW keeping a 2500kW prime mover anywhere near running temperature for long. Not only that but the oil is still going to cool even if you keep the water warm.

 

Dave

Really all it has to do is keep an engine block, oil and water hot. Not necessarily at running temperature, but hot enough to keep thermal stresses to a minimum, and the oil viscous enough to flow easily and do its job of lubricating, cooling and cleaning the engine.

 

A 2500kW engine will dissipate at least that in waste heat when it's developing 2500kW, but it won't need that amount of power to keep it hot enough reduce wear and tear on starting, and make starting easier.

[The Johnster]

So your post was about the 1970s and not the modern day even though it read as if you were talking about the present?

Maybe you should make that clear that you are posting about the good old days and not the modern railway so as to avoid misunderstandings.

 

Reading earlier posts would have established the context, but to be fair it is wrong of me to assume that everybody does this, so I will happily take this point 'on board' and try to remember to repeat that I am discussing an earlier period to avoid further misunderstandings.

[raymw]

 

Someone, somewhere, probably high up in the food chain, hopefully armed with all the facts, and with knowledge of the whole picture, has to trade off these costs against each other.

Most likely decisions are made based on entirely different parameters, both by manufacturer and purchaser

[kevinlms]

"Men yearned for steam locos that would usually get you home whatever went wrong with them, and considered that the new-fangled diesels had too much on them to go wrong. "

 

Not so sure that a steam loco would get you home regardless. There were many places where a spare steam loco was kept in steam 'just in case'. So a loco that was not steaming properly, for example, might be able to limp along, to a place where it could be replaced.

 

This capacity was no longer required with diesels, but if need be a loco could be taken off a 'lesser' service.

 

 

[Titan]

I am not sure why there is such emphasis on a shore supply. It is much more common to have diesel powered pre-heaters that don't need a shore supply. All MTU fitted HST's had a diesel powered pre-heater when introduced, and an interlock preventing starting until the coolant temperature reaches 40 degrees centigrade, which takes about 40 mins from cold.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Titan

[The Stationmaster]

"Men yearned for steam locos that would usually get you home whatever went wrong with them, and considered that the new-fangled diesels had too much on them to go wrong. "

 

Not so sure that a steam loco would get you home regardless. There were many places where a spare steam loco was kept in steam 'just in case'. So a loco that was not steaming properly, for example, might be able to limp along, to a place where it could be replaced.

 

This capacity was no longer required with diesels, but if need be a loco could be taken off a 'lesser' service.

 

That reminds me of a trip  on the Up 'Bristolian' a former Old Oak Fireman (and later Traction Inspector) told me (and others) about many years ago.  His Driver was known as a 'Hard runner' but the first engine got them as far as Swindon where it had to be replaced by a 'Hall'.  But the "Hall' didn't last too long and had to come off at Didcot where a mogul took over as far as Reading where it was in turn replaced by the Up Pilot (which I think was, as usual, a 'Hall').   A steam engine could get you home if it meant putting up one side of the motion and running with just one side but some failures could be far worse than that and they meant an engine change and such things were easy to forget when new diesels were breaking down all over the place.

 

Thinking back I worked, in a managerial role, at 6 different WR locations on the WR in the 1970s and at four of them I was directly responsible for traincrew management and at one of them I regularly (usually 5 days a week) rode with my Drivers while at two other depots I rode with them occasionally - on a wide variety of jobs ranging from shunting pilots to freight work on really steep gradients to 90+mph loco hauled passenger trains and HSTs.  As it happens three of those depots were in South Wales.  I never had a Driver - and the vast majority of them were ex steam men in one grade or the other - complain about the  traction training they received or the far shorter conversion training they received to go onto other types of mainline locos.  Now you could perhaps say 'well you were management' but there were always plenty of other moans (sometimes wholly justified) about all sorts of things and inevitably at every depot you went to the first staff, in any grade, you usually go to know - apart from staff representatives - were the 'professional moaners'.  In fact at one depot the Drivers always spoke in fairly glowing terms about the training they had received on initial conversion to diesels (diesel hydraulics).  

 

On one occasion I did however have to take issue with a Traction Inspector when were were involved in Route Learning and I was conducting/tutoring whiel he was doing teh same for Drivers and had not properly studied the line speeds for the branch we were working on (the new section from Hapsford to Whatley Quarry).

 

In South Wales in the early '70s the Divisional Traction Superintendent was certainly a man you could talk to and I would say exactly the same of his collegues in that era in the Bristol and London Divisions (both of whom, as it happens, had been involved in initial diesel conversion training on the WR from the late 1950s in one case and from the early '60s in the other case).  I have somewhere a set of course notes for initial diesel training and they definitely do not lack in any detail while the Preparation and Fault guides were generally well prepared although obviously a lot more would be learnt from everyday practical experience.

 

Edited to correct some typos in the first paragraph - no change of meaning or information

Edited January 5, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[67A]

Hi all,

 

Been on an enforced absence due to technical issues and been trying to post a comment since the topic was aired.

 

When I was a fitter at Toton during the 1970's yes during the fuel crisis BR 'management' placed posters around the depot detailing how much is terms of money several but not all classes of loco' cost to idle and advised all concerned to 'SWITCH OFF YOUR ENGINE' I can recall the 08 being the cheapest at the top of the list with the Deltic coming out at the bottom being the most thirsty, no surprise there eh! I wonder if any of those posters survive anywhere?

 

Needless to say like most orders it went mainly ignored for fear of starting problems.

[peterfgf]

Irrespective of anything else (availability in cold weather, coolant leakage, etc), running diesel engines at no-load for hours on end does nothing for oil film thicknesses in the bearings.  The locomotive engines are are all very likely to have had an undue number bearing failures soon afterwards.  It is a short term solution, understandable, which caused expensive failures and engine overhauls in the long term.  Diesel engines are designed to be worked hard, preferably at something like 85% maximum continuous rating. Rail traction is one of the hardest diesel engine applications with the continuous changes in load.  Marine diesels have an easy life in comparison.

Peterfgf

[w124bob]

Canton used to have 3 shifts of drivers and secondmen on Xmas and Boxing day for 'engine warming', which was basically to avoid freezing in cold weather and run the engines for a period each to ensure they'd start when needed on the 27th.  Until I think 1972 there was a train running on both days, the Marshfield Milk clearance.  The men were given a choice, IIRC, of double time and a half and a day off in lieu, or triple time and a half, the usual rate for bank holiday working.  The same regulars used to apply each year.

A certain driver at Manchester Victoria would always keep a close eye on the Christmas weather forecast, any sign of a frosty Christmas and he'd be first name on the volunteer list. Apparently he'd always want the day turn so he could use BR gas to cook the family christmas dinner!

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

If I may. At Kings Cross, if we were keep in the Milk Dock to long we would shut our engines down, (never had one not start) but starting a class 31 at 4 am, made more noise than an idling one.

 

In winter, we had a 4.10 am start, to work trains from Welwyn GC or Hertford North, (to Moorgate) we would ride out to Finsbury Pk, walk out to the Depot, see the depot Foreman, who would give us our loco no. to work. we would then walk out to 'Lines' of loco's standing in the freezing cold, frost, snow or sleet, climb aboard, and start up, Never once did we have a class 31 that wouldn't start, I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but not to me, ( Some of those Class 31's had been sitting there since Friday night, if it was a Monday morning) then it was a nice little light engine ride to either W-G-C or H-North, where we would sit for a couple of hours, steam heating the train.

 

manna

[russ p]

Don't think I've ever had a EE or a sulzer fail to cold start but had a 57 and a 66 in the last ten years and both after following the correct pre- lube procedures, mind the 66 did it itself and still wouldn't start.

EE engines tend make quite a song dance and pyrotechnics display of a very cold start but normally fire up despite how cold it is.

Edited January 6, 2019 by russ p