Imaginary Locomotives

[Northmoor]

15 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The Deltics were also opposed piston 2-strokes. They managed to fit two such engines in a locomotive and keep it within the British loading gauge.

That's more to do with being high-speed engines, the power density of fast-revving diesels is naturally higher than medium or low-speed ones.  The trade off is the reduced operating life between overhauls.

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

The Deltics were also opposed piston 2-strokes. They managed to fit two such engines in a locomotive and keep it within the British loading gauge.

The Baby Deltics were closer to the F-M configuration, but as above, because they were high speed engines, they could be smaller. That said, when the Baby Deltics were first built, there were problems with them being overweight!

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

The Baby Deltics were closer to the F-M configuration,

 

No, they used the same triangular configuration as the bigger engines, just fewer triangles.

[rodent279]

Did they? I always thought they were just one bank of the bigger engines. Thanks.

[rodent279]

So if a Deltic engine has 3 banks/triangles of 6 cylinders, totalling 18, how does a Baby Deltic have 9 cylinders? Surely it must either have one bank/triangle, 6 cylinders, or two, 12 cyls?

[AlfaZagato]

Three banks of three cylinders.

[PhilJ W]

This shows how the Deltic engine works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic

[Zomboid]

Makes me wonder how a Sulzer 18LDA (3 banks of 6) would work. Or probably wouldn't. No chance one would fit in a locomotive (maybe for the North American market?), but perhaps in a boat or stationary generator application...

[PhilJ W]

51 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Makes me wonder how a Sulzer 18LDA (3 banks of 6) would work. Or probably wouldn't. No chance one would fit in a locomotive (maybe for the North American market?), but perhaps in a boat or stationary generator application...

There were 18-cylinder Deltics used in marine applications.

[simon b]

In recent years a couple of generator sets with Napier T9-59 engines have turned up for sale, how different these are to the T9-29 in the class 23 I've no idea but certainly an interesting thing to listen to.

[Zomboid]

57 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

There were 18-cylinder Deltics used in marine applications.

EMD built 20 cylinder versions of their 645 engines for the SD45, but that was just a V20.

 

The Sulzer 18 cylinder triple bank would be an entirely different matter, and would probably not work at all. The twin bank only just fits in a class 45, so a triple bank version would be too wide for UK railways.

[Flying Pig]

13 hours ago, rodent279 said:

So if a Deltic engine has 3 banks/triangles of 6 cylinders, totalling 18, how does a Baby Deltic have 9 cylinders? Surely it must either have one bank/triangle, 6 cylinders, or two, 12 cyls?

 

The big Deltic engines have 6 triangles, each of three cylinders, making 18 cylinders in total (and the locos have two engines of course).  The word 'bank' is often used when talking about Deltics, but I find it confusing.  Glad I'm not the only one.

 

BTW, the original Junkers design that was licensed by Napier before WW2 was a single row of cylinders with two crankshafts, intended for use in aircraft.  They were used by Junkers in early models of the Ju 86 bomber and again in the high-altitude Ju 86P variant.

[PhilJ W]

Austin were developing an opposed piston two stroke diesel engine with Junkers in the late 30's. They fitted a two cylinder one in a K2 lorry as a test bed but development ceased at the outbreak of war.

[rodent279]

9 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The big Deltic engines have 6 triangles, each of three cylinders, making 18 cylinders in total (and the locos have two engines of course).  The word 'bank' is often used when talking about Deltics, but I find it confusing.  Glad I'm not the only one.

 

BTW, the original Junkers design that was licensed by Napier before WW2 was a single row of cylinders with two crankshafts, intended for use in aircraft.  They were used by Junkers in early models of the Ju 86 bomber and again in the high-altitude Ju 86P variant.

Yes, I realise now I'd got confused on two things-Deltics (as in Class 55) have 6 banks and 18 cylinders, not 3 banks and 9, and I was confusing cylinders with pistons. I understand now.

So that's 36 pistons per engine, 72 in total. For the 22 Deltics, that's the same number of pistons as in 132 class 47's.

That's also 72 sets of piston rings, gudgeon pins, big ends and bearings, and presumably crankshaft main bearing surfaces. No wonder they needed a lot of TLC!

Edited May 11, 2021 by rodent279

[Flying Pig]

26 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

That's also 72 sets of piston rings, gudgeon pins, big ends and bearings, and presumably crankshaft main bearing surfaces. No wonder they needed at lot of TLC!

 

A fork and blade big end on a shared crank was used for the two con-rods meeting at the corner of the triangle: see http://www.delticsounds.com/engines.html

 

Sadly, while I love the Deltics and believe the Class 55s were still the right choice for the ECML in 1960, IMO none of the other traction applications schemed for them by EE, including the Baby Deltics actually built, makes any sense.

 

Going back to a scenario where the early type 4s were not built and BR decided to buy a straightforward DP2-derived design for at least part of the high-power requirement, how far do people think EE 16CSVT power might have advanced as the 1960s wore on?  Could we have seen a 3000+hp loco in service?

 

I seem to recall reading that EE were working on a new design for a traction diesel in the 1960s which was abandoned before reaching production.  Does anyone know more about this?

 

 

[rodent279]

I guess the Baby Deltic engine was just too complex for a light duty type 2. Maybe it would have made more sense as a power unit in a medium-long distance demu, a sort of Hastings unit on steroids, but the Swindon Trans-Pennine units already filled that role.

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

I guess the Baby Deltic engine was just too complex for a light duty type 2. Maybe it would have made more sense as a power unit in a medium-long distance demu, a sort of Hastings unit on steroids, but the Swindon Trans-Pennine units already filled that role.

Or perhaps in the class 43's, Deltic powered IC125 anyone?

[The Johnster]

On 09/05/2021 at 23:51, Cunningham Loco & Machine Works said:

From my understanding, the nose was and is intended to protect the engine crew in case of accident.

I can confirm that the locomen I worked with in the 70s considered a nose to be an extra level of protection, though I didn't reckon much to it except in fairly low speed collisions.  It was not the same as having a steam boiler or even the bunker of a tank loco ahead of you in a colllision, but it was better than nothing, which is what you got on 21s, 22s, 23s, 24s, 25s, 26s, 27s, 28s, 29s, 31s, 35s, 41s, 42s, 43s, 47s, and 52s, and on the electrics and of course mulitple units.  The collision between D6958 and D1671 Thor at Bridgend East in 1965 was recent memory at Canton in those days, though, and the 37's crew survived while Thor's, sadly, did not.  The 47 had been derailed from the up main by a failed retaining wall which had collapsed after heavy rain, and was run into by D6958 approaching on the down with a freight.  Both locos were so badly damaged as to be scrapped despite each being only a few months old. 

 

One of my regular drivers was killed shortly after I left the job aboard a 46 at an occupation crossing near Awre Jc on the Gloucester road with the 08.35 Cardiff-Newcastle, in a crossing collision with a loaded skip lorry which, IIRC, had been abandoned by it's driver after 'grounding'.  The loco's nose simply folded into the rear cab wall with the impact; the train was braking but still probably doing the best part of 80mph when it hit the skip.

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

A fork and blade big end on a shared crank was used for the two con-rods meeting at the corner of the triangle: see http://www.delticsounds.com/engines.html

 

Sadly, while I love the Deltics and believe the Class 55s were still the right choice for the ECML in 1960, IMO none of the other traction applications schemed for them by EE, including the Baby Deltics actually built, makes any sense.

 

Going back to a scenario where the early type 4s were not built and BR decided to buy a straightforward DP2-derived design for at least part of the high-power requirement, how far do people think EE 16CSVT power might have advanced as the 1960s wore on?  Could we have seen a 3000+hp loco in service?

 

I seem to recall reading that EE were working on a new design for a traction diesel in the 1960s which was abandoned before reaching production.  Does anyone know more about this?

 

 

 

The situation 1960/1 was in a state of flux, with the 1955 Plan locos entering service and, for express work, proving more or less universally unsatisfactory; it had been determined by work at the Rugby Testing Plant that 8P steam power equated to about 2.000hp from the prime mover of a diesel powered loco, and in fact this proved to be hopelessly inadequate.  Sir Brian Roberston, the board chairman, stated on D200's intitial run that a 7MT Britannia was better; in the event, about 3khp was needed to equal 8P performance with the same loads, never mind imprvove them, which is what the railway was going to have to do to compete with the new motorways and internal air services.  Trouble had been encountered finding suitable generators that could handle more than about 2khp from the engine whilst being small and lightweight enough for the British loading gauge.  This was the rationale behind the WR hydraulics.

 

The ER got it's sums right to replace the pacifics, and the 3.3khp Deltic was the only choice available, not the best.  It was 5 years old as a locomotive design, while the D200s were based on a 10 year old Bullied/Raworth loco.  As well as the Rugby errors, it was generally accepted that, in order to conform to the Plan's spec. that the engines and generators should be of proven reliability and performance (not to mention British, dammit it all Carruthers, power plant that had been designed for marine or land based power generator units would be used; not all of these proved adaptable to the railway environment where loads and engine speeds are constantly being changed.  So, a power unit such as used in the Metrovick Co-Bos which had been highly successful in Royal Navy submarines, where the speed and load tended to be constant and they had a team of highly skilled Engine Room Artificers on tap to mollycoddle them, was a complete disaster in a locomotive.

 

The 3.3khp Deltic only makes sense on the ECML, where the high fare, high profile, service generates enough ticket sales to justify the expensive maintenance regime, and BR wisely did not buy the locos outright without EE intensive aftercare.  The only comparable economic situation is the WCML, which is wigglier and has steep banks that do not play to the Deltic's strength (that said, DP1 had proved successful on the 10.00 Liverpool-Euston, the heaviest passenger job in the country)

 

By 1962 we were being dug out of a hole by the 2.7khp Westerns and Brush/Sulzer Type 4s to some extent, joined by the more or less equivalent D400s based on DP2 in 1966; these were an LMR response to the cancellation of the electrification between Weaver and Motherwell and had to be double headed to implement a new timetable that needed 5khp plus.  These locos took advantage of more powerful, smaller, lighter generators and the increased horses from supercharged diesel engines running at high rpm, equipment not available in 1960. 

 

The 16CSVT had probably been developed to the limit of it's railway potential in the 40, a simple, robust, reliable, but not particularly efficient plodder that sounded wonderful.  It's performance was to all intents and purposes equalled by the supercharged 12CSVT Type 3 that followed it in 1961, which was a coach and a half lighter.   Deltics were to the limit of the loading gauge and restriced in terms of RA, very much specialists prima donnas, and the future was clearly in the AL series 3.3khp 25kv electrics; the board was intending to electrify all trunk routes by 1980 so they accepted what were probably thought of as short term solutions at around the 2.7khp mark.  These held the fort until the HSTs were in service, by which time it was obvious that the further electrifications were not coming any time soon and Serpell had had his say, but only because the loads were reduced to cope with the lack of power, and then further reduced by eth and air conditioned stock designed to be used under the wires.  The cancellation of electrification schemes that beset the railway and for that matter still do is the reason for the power shortfall of the 2nd generation diesels, and the HST was the ultimate answer, at the cost of high fuel consumption and loads down to 8 bogies.

 

1957; Cardiff-Paddington, Britannia and 16 bogies (assisted STJ-Stoke Gifford or Badminton if over 14 on), 3 hours 10 mins.  1962; Cardiff-Paddington, Hymek and 14, 3 hours 10 mins but struggling(!) (assisted STJ-Badminton), 1967; Cardiff-Paddington, Western or 47 and 11 bogies, 2 hours 40 mins, 1972; Cardiff-Paddington, 47/4 and 10 bogies, 2 hours 10mins with junction speed restrictions eased, 1977; Cardiff Paddington HST, two power cars and 8 bogies, 1 hour 43 mins, half hourly service equates to 1957 Britannia bums on seats.  KIngs were used during 1961; these and the HSTs being the only traction really capable of the job without being stretched and the Hymeks that replaced them were hoplessly overloaded.  The 1977 HST timetable has only recently been restored by the 800/801s, and at the moment these are out of service!

 

This sort of pattern was probably repeated for most main line services that were not electrified between 1957 and 1977, i.e. most main line services.  In general, steam hauled longer heavier trains, but diesels appeared to be more of an improvement than they actually were because of limited loads and junction slewings, enabled by the drop in passenger footfall between 1960 and 80 resulting from increased car ownership and the advent of the motorways.  To compare a HST timing to a Brit timing, you need to halve the Brit load to 8 bogies, and factor in what what a Brit might have been able to achieve with the junction relayings (STJ, Patchway, Stoke Gifford, and Wootton Bassett, all up from 40 to 70mph.  I would estimate the Brit to be capable of the 1972 timetable with 8 coaches, and a King could probably have taken 10 minutes off it, but not for long as the frames were cracking up by then.

 

This is of course a very simplistic overview, but it shows that the LMR 25kv electrification was the best replacement of 8P steam.  This is not far off what Riddles envisaged in 1950, though he was probably thinking about 1.5kvdc, and what happened on mainland Europe.  While I am criticising the 1955 Plan's emphasis on diesel traction over electric, it has to be said that it was not all their fault, and that many of the principles it outlined, such as air brakes, the belated eradicication of loose coupled freight, eth, airco and so on, have proven highly successful and effective, alongside improvements already under way such as CWR and MAS panel signalling with AWS.

 

 

[Flying Pig]

7 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The 16CSVT had probably been developed to the limit of it's railway potential in the 40, a simple, robust, reliable, but not particularly efficient plodder that sounded wonderful.  It's performance was to all intents and purposes equalled by the supercharged 12CSVT Type 3 that followed it in 1961, which was a coach and a half lighter.  

 

The 40 didn't have a 16CSVT, but the non-charge-cooled 16SVT.  That was developed into the 16CSVT which gave 2700hp in DP2 by 1962, very reliably by all accounts, and I believe subsequently into the Ruston 16RK3 which was rated at 3250hp in the Class 56.  

 

The EE V12s and V16s were of course all turbocharged from the 1940s onward and never supercharged in UK traction applications.

[John Besley]

8https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-Die-Cast-Kit-Built-BR-Brightlingsea-4-6-0-Locomotive-Tender-340-/303972613635?_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286

 

 

[John Besley]

So we know what it's based on... but what kit was it... you could take an Airfix Battle of Britain and create something along these lines  

[BernardTPM]

The damaged bufferbeam appears to be green plastic under the paint, so I'd suggest either an original Kitmaster or possibly Airfix Battle of Britain kit. Outside third rail pick-up is unusual, though I suppose kind of appropriate for Southern...

Edited May 13, 2021 by BernardTPM

[Johnson044]

I reckon that's a Dublo 0-6-2 mechanism in there. Love it! Imagination and fun! 

 

[Johnson044]

...and it somehow convinces.