Rails Announce OO 18000 Gas Turbine Locomotive

[Pteremy]

The picture in Last Look Forward - which is a reprint of the 1947 GWR publication 'Next Station' - is labeled 'Preliminary Design, 1946'. The lineage is clear but it is not what was built. There is another 'artists impression' on page 184 of the 1949 Railway Magazine (the May/June edition) showing both gas turbines in the black and silver BR livery. These are only side views but look like they may have been based on the actual designs (or photographs). The 1950 Railway Magazine has a number of photos, including one similar to the one above, while 18000 was on trial in Switzerland (p67).  Then it arrives (p249) and starts trials (p352, 608, 832). Between the trial and service it acquired the lower side fairing which gives the buffers the rather angular styling reminiscent of the later GWR diesel railcars.

 

The contemporaneous interest in the potential of gas turbine technology at this time is clear from the book/articles, evidencing the 'historical significance' of the prototype(s), even though the potential was not realised.

[Devo63]

On 17/11/2019 at 20:30, Pteremy said:

The contemporaneous interest in the potential of gas turbine technology at this time is clear from the book/articles, evidencing the 'historical significance' of the prototype(s), even though the potential was not realised.

This was also the era of the Rover JET1 gas turbine car. It managed to top 150 mph in 1952 and is now in the Science Museum.

[7013]

There is a Rover Gas Turbine at Gaydon motor museum which looks a bit like a Rover 90 on steroids. Also there was the famous Rover BRM Le Mans car in which Graham Hill finished a creditable 10th. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by 7013

[royaloak]

5 minutes ago, 7013 said:

Also there was the famous Rover BRM Le Mans car in which Graham Hill finished a creditable 10th. 

After stopping to refuel 58 times. 

[Wickham Green]

1 hour ago, royaloak said:

After stopping to refuel 58 times. 

In-flight refuelling was in in its infancy in them days.

[7013]

Hence the average speed of 98.8 mph for 24 hrs, which is way down on winning speeds but still a good achievement. I wonder how many times 18000 refuels in a day.

[Bert Cheese]

This represents my biggest single investment in a loco so far, but after some brief agonising and a scan through my treasured Kevin Robertson tome yet another green late crest commitment has been made.

 

To be fair I haven't bought anything railway related in recent times while I await the correct spec Merchant Navy and Lord Nelson releases I'd like...

I've also justified this to myself by thinking of it as compensation for the disappointment of the cancelled DJM Class 74 I committed to, and perhaps foregoing a bottle of Islay single malt in the meantime...

[dibber25]

18 hours ago, 7013 said:

Hence the average speed of 98.8 mph for 24 hrs, which is way down on winning speeds but still a good achievement. I wonder how many times 18000 refuels in a day.

18000 was designed to burn heavy fuel oil which was the same as that being used in the oil-fired steam locos at the time. It was one of the reasons she worked a lot between Bristol and London as both depots had oil-fuelling facilities. Brunels' billiard table also offered the best environment in which to obtain fuel economy with the gas turbine operating at its best. The Achilles heel of 18000 was the combustion chamber lining, there simply being no material available at the time that was capable of withstanding the heat. (CJL)

[The Stationmaster]

On 18/11/2019 at 16:31, 7013 said:

Hence the average speed of 98.8 mph for 24 hrs, which is way down on winning speeds but still a good achievement. I wonder how many times 18000 refuels in a day.

Well it definitely managed Paddington to Plymouth without intermediate refuelling.  Fuel  consumption appears to have been very much related to the sort of work the engine was used on.  On test it burnt 31.05 lbs of fuel oil per mile run hauling a 436 ton trailing load.

 

The in-traffic consumption was is measured in gallons.  In the four weeks ending 17 June 1950 the engine ran 3,855 miles and consumed 8,960 gallons of heavy oil but in the following 4 weeks it ran only 1,455 miles and consumed 5,512 gallons of heavy oil.  The 1950 figures suggest a consumption of broadly 2.5 - 3.5 gallons per mile on heavy oil and that remained the case in records for the following three years.  It was of course also using gas oil (basically ordinary diesel) for starting purposes and the boiler which would make the overall consumption rate a bit nearer to average of 1gallon per mile we used to work on when diagramming mainline diesels on BR.

Edited November 20, 2019 by The Stationmaster
Fuel consumption figures corrected - thanks CJL

[dibber25]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Well it definitely managed Paddington to Plymouth without intermediate refuelling.  Fuel  consumption appears to have been very much related to the sort of work the engine was used on.  On test it burnt 31.05 lbs of fuel oil per mile run hauling a 436 ton trailing load.

 

The in-traffic consumption was is measured in gallons.  In the four weeks ending 17 June 1950 the engine ran 3,855 miles and consumed 8,960 gallons of heavy oil but in the following 4 weeks it ran only 1,455 miles and consumed 5,512 gallons of heavy oil.  The 1950 figures suggest a consumption of broadly 2.5 - 3.5 mpg on heavy oil and that remained the case in records for the following three years.  It was of course also using gas oil (basically ordinary diesel) for starting purposes and the boiler which would make the overall consumption rate a bit nearer to average of 1mpg we used to work on when diagramming mainline diesels on BR.

Has your finger slipped on the keyboard, Stationmaster? 1,455 miles on 5,512 gallons. I make that 3.78 GALLONS per MILE, not miles per gallon, or am I missing something? I was never much good at maths. (CJL)

[luke_stevens]

On 16/11/2019 at 13:16, No Decorum said:

Ben said in his first post on the previous screen, “We are not planning to offer sound fitted ...”

Ben has been careful in his use of language!

 

Ben said "we (as in Heljan) are not..." which doesn't mean Rails are not, either installed by them or as an after market extra. The two sentences are completely compatible 

 

Luke

[No Decorum]

2 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

Ben has been careful in his use of language!

 

Ben said "we (as in Heljan) are not..." which doesn't mean Rails are not, either installed by them or as an after market extra. The two sentences are completely compatible 

 

Luke

“We” might mean Rails and Heljan. “Not planning”; plans can be changed. Fine analysis can make the statements mean almost anything.

[truffy]

12 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

Ben has been careful in his use of language!

 

Ben said "we (as in Heljan) are not..." which doesn't mean Rails are not, either installed by them or as an after market extra. The two sentences are completely compatible 

 

Luke

Or it simply mean that, because there are no functioning prototypes, reliably accurate sound files cannot be created. Hence absence from the plan. Why reinterpret it?

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, dibber25 said:

Has your finger slipped on the keyboard, Stationmaster? 1,455 miles on 5,512 gallons. I make that 3.78 GALLONS per MILE, not miles per gallon, or am I missing something? I was never much good at maths. (CJL)

Correct Chris - sorry about that folks.  I knew darned well that it was gallons per mile so am correcting the trypo/brain f*rt.  Thanks for pointing it out. 

[7013]

1 hour ago, truffy said:

Or it simply mean that, because there are no functioning prototypes, reliably accurate sound files cannot be created. Hence absence from the plan. Why reinterpret it?

No Decorum has posted on Nov 12 (page two) a perfectly good sound file supplied by wheeltappers (no links to them). I don’t know when that one was installed but it sounds very good, and with speaker technology evolving all the time there is scope to tailor it to your liking. I have little doubt that others will create sound files when the model is released. 

[Roy Langridge]

3 minutes ago, 7013 said:

 I have little doubt that others will create sound files when the model is released. 

 

And therein lies the problem. There are too many sound offerings these days that have no likeness to reality, yet are marketed as if they do. Given that there are many who have no first hand knowledge of prototypes this is a bad path for the hobby*. Why it just can't be said that sounds are generic where they are not of the prototype or clearly state what they are recorded from, I do not know.

 

We have some fantastic sounds offerings from people that go to great lengths to record reality or to recreate as close as possible a lost prototype. I just wish all the providers went to these lengths, rather than this foolish rush to get sound out first, no matter how poor it is.

 

* I listened to a offering claiming to be a 4-VEP a while ago - having spent many years travelling on them it was all wrong. Even the classic Mark 1 door slam was not right.

Roy

[7013]

1 hour ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

And therein lies the problem. There are too many sound offerings these days that have no likeness to reality, yet are marketed as if they do. Given that there are many who have no first hand knowledge of prototypes this is a bad path for the hobby*. Why it just can't be said that sounds are generic where they are not of the prototype or clearly state what they are recorded from, I do not know.

 

We have some fantastic sounds offerings from people that go to great lengths to record reality or to recreate as close as possible a lost prototype. I just wish all the providers went to these lengths, rather than this foolish rush to get sound out first, no matter how poor it is.

 

* I listened to a offering claiming to be a 4-VEP a while ago - having spent many years travelling on them it was all wrong. Even the classic Mark 1 door slam was not right.

Roy

Agree with you entirely Roy, there are a lot of shocking sounds especially when it comes to steam, I have yet to hear a decent GWR steam sound. To be fair though many producers of sound files do say that they are generic or gathered from sound bites and extrapolated. I do not know where the Wheeltappers sound profile was recorded from, however it does sound rather good and having the diesel motor as well is in keeping with the prototype. Sadly unless there are comprehensive recordings of 18000 then sound is going to be a compromise; it is then up to the buyer if they are willing to accept that compromise. I saw 18000 a couple of times in my youth and remember it being very noisy and smelly, however others who saw it may have different recollections.

[truffy]

3 hours ago, truffy said:

Or it simply mean that, because there are no functioning prototypes, reliably accurate sound files cannot be created. 

 

2 hours ago, 7013 said:

No Decorum has posted on Nov 12 (page two) a perfectly good sound file supplied by wheeltappers (no links to them). I don’t know when that one was installed but it sounds very good, and with speaker technology evolving all the time there is scope to tailor it to your liking. I have little doubt that others will create sound files when the model is released. 

I didn't say sound files cannot be created. If a generic is "perfectly good", then no one's stopping you from installing it. It's your model, after all.

 

But, and here I'm speculating wildly, perhaps Rails/Heljan didn't want to be seen to be going generic.

[dibber25]

Bearing in mind the interest in, and novelty of, a 'jet' powered locomotive at the time, I'd be very surprised if there isn't some newsreel or BTF film footage of the actual locomotive with sound. Whether it is commercially viable to spend many hours researching, finding it, paying the fees to use it, and extrapolating it into a form that can be used in the model, is a different matter. The market for this model is not expected to be large, the market for a DCC version will be less, and the market for a DCC sound version, less still. Nevertheless, there's something very evocative about the thought of an 'EM-gauge version fitted with sound, and a smoke unit that pumps out kerosene fumes, running through Pendon's Vale scene! If I had that, I could stop building the De Lorean time machine...... (CJL)

[Wickham Green]

Anyone know where Peter Handford's recordings are ? - remember Argo Transacord ? - He may have been too late for this or he may have treated non-steam with disdain, of course.  

[No Decorum]

11 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

Anyone know where Peter Handford's recordings are ? - remember Argo Transacord ? - He may have been too late for this or he may have treated non-steam with disdain, of course.  

“The Transacord Digital download store is currently unavailable.

It will return later this year.”

http://www.transacord.co.uk/

That message has been up for a while. Before unavailability, I downloaded some good stuff very cheaply.

[woodenhead]

25 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

“The Transacord Digital download store is currently unavailable.

It will return later this year.”

http://www.transacord.co.uk/

That message has been up for a while. Before unavailability, I downloaded some good stuff very cheaply.

How disappointing, I meant to purchase some recordings myself but didn't get around to it.

 

Although he did do diesels (changing trains) nothing obvious for 18000 on any Great Western themed recordings.

[Wickham Green]

Hmmm ......... later WHAT year ?  -  the site seems to be date 2015-18 !

[gwrrob]

I picked up a couple of photos of her at Old Oak in 1952 from Roger Carpenter's stand at Warley.

[oleander]

On 15/11/2019 at 09:04, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

hmmm, next project?  or a source for the sound files?

 

 

Hello
can I ask what the name of that loco is and were in the world it is please.
many thanks
John