KR Models announce the Clayton DHP1

[adb968008]

On 31/10/2021 at 09:01, Michael Hodgson said:

Looks like a good way of producing wood effect.

teak effect….

If the LNER had built DHP1..

 

[adb968008]

EP appeared on their facebook page…

 

[PieGuyRob]

There is a pre production DHP1 on Jenny Kirk's channel tonight at 7 PM if anyone is interested.

[Trainshed Terry]

That is going to a interesting sound project as it had four engines and hydraulic transmission.

 

Terry.

[Jenny Emily]

I’ve just had the EP on loan for filming. These are a couple of photos. 
 

It ran quite well on DC, but none of the electronics were present so it wasn’t possible to run it on the main layout as that is DCC. 
 

 

[jjb1970]

I have to admire KR for doing this one as it must be the ultimate niche subject short of going into unbuilt projects. I hope they do well with it. 

I must admit I find it an ugly machine, the proportions are all wrong and it looks horribly bloated. Which is odd seeing how the class 17 was such a good looking machine.

[adb968008]

I wonder how much better this machine would have been if it had had class 17 style bonnet fans and side grills to cool it down. The RR class 17’s were supposedly not as bad.

[The Stationmaster]

21 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I wonder how much better this machine would have been if it had had class 17 style bonnet fans and side grills to cool it down. The RR class 17’s were supposedly not as bad.

Cooling would definitely have been improved but would it have resolved the other issues?  Quite what value, and longer term maintenance costs, a four engined loco would have had compared with one with fewer engines would be interesting to know but.   BR, and British industry, history of the modernisation era seems to have been littered with a succession of multi engined loco designs none of which had a long life while DHP 1 seems never to have progressed beyond a few desultory trial runs while by the time it was designed BR's traction engineering upper echelon were coming out very firmly against diesel hydraulics.  To come up with the idea of diesel hydraulic with four engines in view of the transmission problems being encountered by those with two engines seems strange to say the least - and I suspect those in charge at Derby thought the same as they placed ever more orders for diesel electric EE Type 3s.

[PMP]

8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

To come up with the idea of diesel hydraulic with four engines in view of the transmission problems being encountered by those with two engines seems strange to say the least - 

Probably a very good night at the pub

[cctransuk]

3 minutes ago, PMP said:

Probably a very good night at the pub

 

More likely the Colonel Fell legacy - he was not going to drop the multi-engine theory just because 10100 had a bit of a 'reputation'!

 

CJI.

[adb968008]

I take it most people here have never ridden a DMU then…

 

even the Virgin Voyagers today have 4 engines… 1 per car.

 

I’d imagine the cost of running a loco, say light engine or a trip working on 1 engine would be cheaper than most other stuff of comparable standing… something which BR Type2’s would have done a lot of in the 1960’s… (I know DHP was a type 3 but at 1200 hp i’d not give that much standing), but class 25’s were a new thing at this time and most were not yet built. The 4 engines of this would have easily lifted an 8 coach train, and anything less would have been quite an exciting departure..  the class 127 BedPans for example ran for 30 years from St Pancras on 2 very similar engines, hydraulic transmission moving 4 coaches at speed on high speed start stop commuter routes.
 

heres the 127 DMU with its C8NFLH

 

 

heres the same C8TFL as DHP1.

 

… 

imagine 4 of these inline… but back to my point of cooling it, especially the inner one… Bed Pans were notorious for overheating.
 

Similarly the purchase cost of a light weight bus/truck engine would be cheaper than a much larger single power unit.

 

I dont think it's all down to madness, eccentricity and conning the government out of a few quid… dont forget the Buy British element of this… Sulzer, Maybach…were not British.

 

A designed loco that optimises engines at scale to its job even today would be considered very efficient…i’d imagine DHP1 doing ROGs scrap EMU drags would be much more efficient than the 37’s currently being used, and would definitely beat a 25 on this job.

The conundrum of course is what happens if 1 engine goes pop.. how long to run it on 3, how that affects logistics/scheduling and economics of downtime if 1 pops the day after the other was fixed etc… 

 

on that note maybe a ROG liveried DHP1 ?

Edited July 10, 2022 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

But a DMU is not a loco and is doing very different work.  Starting (and stopping) 1200 tons of freight is rather different from staring a relatively light passenger train with the power units distributed over its length and the operating cycles are very different.  Incidentally the total engine hp of DHP1 was 1500 (4x 375hp) which put it in the Type 3  band While the Class 25 only had an engine hp of 1275 - so Type 2.

 

According to allpublished data - and what we used for planning purposes - the fuel consumption of all BR mainline diesel locos up to the Class 60 (excluding Deltics which I have no experience of) was an average of 1gallon per mile.

 

DHP1 reportedly weighed 56 long tons against the 73 tons of a Class 25 - and they had problems with loads in some situations while the EE type 3 weighed in at 108 tons so had plenty of adhesion weight which apart from its reliability helped explain its success in a wide variety of roles particularly on freight work.  The quoted DHP weight sounds very light - a Class 17 was nearly 70 tons but it really stood little chance in everyday working conditions of the time against any of the established Type 3 designs.

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

But a DMU is not a loco and is doing very different work.  Starting (and stopping) 1200 tons of freight is rather different from staring a relatively light passenger train with the power units distributed over its length and the operating cycles are very different.  Incidentally the total engine hp of DHP1 was 1500 (4x 375hp) which put it in the Type 3  band While the Class 25 only had an engine hp of 1275 - so Type 2.

 

According to allpublished data - and what we used for planning purposes - the fuel consumption of all BR mainline diesel locos up to the Class 60 (excluding Deltics which I have no experience of) was an average of 1gallon per mile.

 

DHP1 reportedly weighed 56 long tons against the 73 tons of a Class 25 - and they had problems with loads in some situations while the EE type 3 weighed in at 108 tons so had plenty of adhesion weight which apart from its reliability helped explain its success in a wide variety of roles particularly on freight work.  The quoted DHP weight sounds very light - a Class 17 was nearly 70 tons but it really stood little chance in everyday working conditions of the time against any of the established Type 3 designs.

We agree by disagreeing, I don’t consider it a type 3 either, but a type 2, i’m not sure i’d buy 1500hp capacity in 4 engines, without any loss, especially in a single failure situation. Basically saying its like a 1550hp class 33, which incidentally is also 73t.. though pairs of 33’s achieved some notable feats on freight, inc recent memory. Yes a 37 is better no doubting that, but was that really dhp1’s competitor ?..

 

A bit like the 74 (also with a similar Paxman engine) the DHP1 imo was too under powered, as was the 17. Equally BR should never have built so many type 2’s, but that was a decision of this time.

 

DHP1 was however considered for passenger work, the best thing about Clayton’s was the steam heating boiler, which it was apparently fitted with. I doubt it would lift stone out of Buxton, but Ive no doubts trip freight, branch work it would have been useful and economical… just complicated…

 

We ultimately dont know why it was built, theres no real use case… everything discussed already existed, except D8586/8587 which were the Rolls Royce 17’s that only appeared in Christmas 1964… so what else emerged after 1962?….
The class 14 and YEC Taurus.. maybe thats where the thought track lay ?

After all the 14 and Taurus are Hydraulics and Taurus is also using twin Rolls Royce engines too, which could be individually powered a-la-fell.

Clearly Rolls Royce sales guys were looking for business here, and at least YEC was looking a Branch Pick up freight / passenger loco option for BR, perhaps Clayton were too and the idea was instead of using a pair of pickup freight locos like a 14,17,Taurus.. use an all in 1… an uprated class 17, which wasnt yet the known basket case it was…

I do also wonder if Politics comes into this too, the government changed in 1964.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by adb968008

[jjb1970]

Multi-engine diesel locomotives are quite common and it is true that running a small engine at full load will be more efficient than running a big engine at low load, hence the genset concept. 

Any power package is a collection of compromises, assuming a designer has been given a set of performance requirements then there are usually several options, and in most fields this will include one which has become a 'default' by virtue of the majority of designs following it. In railway traction case this was a diesel electric power package using a medium speed or in some cases high speed engine, but Germany stood out with their adherence to hydraulic transmissions. Some of the influencing factors include:

• Power and torque characteristics
• Fuel efficiency
• Weight
• Size (volume, shape)
• Service/maintenance demand
• Durability
• Cost

How a designer juggles it all and whether it will appeal to the operator will depend to some extent on what they have in their cupboard, both manufacturers and operators tend to like using experience, equipment and concepts already in their toy box. Germany made hydraulic transmissions work but most of the rest of the world decided that on balance the lighter weight didn't offset the advantages offered by electric transmission. On engines, small high speed engines can offer much better power/weight than a larger medium speed or even the larger high speed types, but they're also a lot less durable, use more fuel and tend to be expensive to operate. However if weight is critical then treating them as throwaway engines may not be a crazy solution.

So there is nothing inherently 'wrong' with a multi-engine arrangement but I'm not sure the DHP-1 made a lot of sense. The clever thing about the Fell which is why I often defend it against people who deride it as a joke is the use of engine driven super charging which alters the power - torque characteristic of the engine and makes it much more suitable for a mech-drive.

Edited July 11, 2022 by jjb1970
typo

[No Decorum]

5 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Multi-engine diesel locomotives are quite common and it is true that running a small engine at full load will be more efficient than running a big engine at low load, hence the genset concept. 

Any power package is a collection of compromises, assuming a designer has been given a set of performance requirements then there are usually several options, and in most fields this will include one which has become a 'default' by virtue of the majority of designs following it. In railway traction case this was a diesel electric power package using a medium speed or in some cases high speed engine, but Germany stood out with their adherence to hydraulic transmissions. Some of the influencing factors include:

• Power and torque characteristics
• Fuel efficiency
• Weight
• Size (volume, shape)
• Service/maintenance demand
• Durability
• Cost

How a designer juggles it all and whether it will appeal to the operator will depend to some extent on what they have in their cupboard, both manufacturers and operators tend to like using experience, equipment and concepts already in their toy box. Germany made hydraulic transmissions work but most of the rest of the world decided that on balance the lighter weight didn't offset the advantages offered by electric transmission. On engines, small high speed engines can offer much better power/weight than a larger medium speed or even the larger high speed types, but they're also a lot less durable, use more fuel and tend to be expensive to operate. However if weight is critical then treating them as throwaway engines may not be a crazy solution.

So there is nothing inherently 'wrong' with a multi-engine arrangement but I'm not sure the DHP-1 made a lot of sense. The clever thing about the Fell which is why I often defend it against people who deride it as a joke is the use of engine driven super charging which alters the power - torque characteristic of the engine and makes it much more suitable for a mech-drive.

No joke. The Fell (loco) was so ingenious that I can’t help admiring Fell (the man) for designing it. Reportedly, the mechanical drive was very efficient. Nowadays, computer control can be used to monitor the amount of work engines do and when they need to be serviced but in those days, six engines of two types must have been very difficult to maintain. I believe what finished it off was a boiler fire, nothing to do with its unusual design. After all, it far outperformed Bulleid’s Leader.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, No Decorum said:

No joke. The Fell (loco) was so ingenious that I can’t help admiring Fell (the man) for designing it.

 

Not to be confused with Fell who designed the Fell rail, as used for braking on the Snaefell Mountain Railway and the Fell locomotives used by various overseas lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fell_Locomotive_Museum

[jessy1692]

4 hours ago, No Decorum said:

No joke. The Fell (loco) was so ingenious that I can’t help admiring Fell (the man) for designing it. Reportedly, the mechanical drive was very efficient. Nowadays, computer control can be used to monitor the amount of work engines do and when they need to be serviced but in those days, six engines of two types must have been very difficult to maintain. I believe what finished it off was a boiler fire, nothing to do with its unusual design. After all, it far outperformed Bulleid’s Leader.

Colonel Fell was as also involved with DHP1 too. As to why it was built the only thing I have found was it was a RR test bed for engines and their hydraulic torque converters and perhaps the last chance for Fell to test his multi engine concept? Hydraulics perhaps enabling greater flexibility over gearing etc?

 

[ColinK]

In Germany DB introduced the class 245 in 2012, a single loco powered by four diesel engines.

[jjb1970]

The genset concept has been applied in a few countries and was the next big thing in the US in the mid-2000's with switchers leading the way. These are diesel electric so fundamentally different from the Fell and DHP1. US experience doesn't seem to have been great and some were converted to single engine configuration, though that might be because switching/shunting is not the best application for the concept.

Edited July 12, 2022 by jjb1970
Auto spell correction

[Mike Harvey]

7 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

The gender concept has been applied in a few countries and was the next big thing in the US in the mid-2000's with switchers leading the way.

 

A gem from predictive text I suspect. 

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, ColinK said:

In Germany DB introduced the class 245 in 2012, a single loco powered by four diesel engines.

And then put one at each end of a push-pull train with engines powering on both locos.  I wonder why they do that?

[Les1952]

20 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

And then put one at each end of a push-pull train with engines powering on both locos.  I wonder why they do that?

 

Not enough cab coaches for push-pull and to avoid run-round manoeuvres cluttering up busy terminals, many of which have rationalised track plans with only just enough approach tracks for the traffic they carry, and in some cases not enough meaning nowhere to run round.

Can't be that economically unsound, though not good environmentally.

 

Les

 

[Pandora]

An account of DHP1 which reveals the connection between 10100 " The Fell locomotive",   Lt Col Fell, Rolls Royce and Clayton. The name Rudston refers to Lt Col Louis Frederick Rudston-Fell.  In addition we of his  connection to the Yorkshire Engine Co 0-8-0 Taurus trip locomotive 

Quote

https://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/fell/fell11.htm

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Pandora

[Pandora]

On 10/07/2022 at 20:04, adb968008 said:

We agree by disagreeing, I don’t consider it a type 3 either, but a type 2, i’m not sure i’d buy 1500hp capacity in 4 engines, without any loss, especially in a single failure situation. Basically saying its like a 1550hp class 33, which incidentally is also 73t.. though pairs of 33’s achieved some notable feats on freight, inc recent memory. Yes a 37 is better no doubting that, but was that really dhp1’s competitor ?..

 

A bit like the 74 (also with a similar Paxman engine) the DHP1 imo was too under powered, as was the 17. Equally BR should never have built so many type 2’s, but that was a decision of this time.

 

DHP1 was however considered for passenger work, the best thing about Clayton’s was the steam heating boiler, which it was apparently fitted with. I doubt it would lift stone out of Buxton, but Ive no doubts trip freight, branch work it would have been useful and economical… just complicated…

 

We ultimately dont know why it was built, theres no real use case… everything discussed already existed, except D8586/8587 which were the Rolls Royce 17’s that only appeared in Christmas 1964… so what else emerged after 1962?….
The class 14 and YEC Taurus.. maybe thats where the thought track lay ?

After all the 14 and Taurus are Hydraulics and Taurus is also using twin Rolls Royce engines too, which could be individually powered a-la-fell.

Clearly Rolls Royce sales guys were looking for business here, and at least YEC was looking a Branch Pick up freight / passenger loco option for BR, perhaps Clayton were too and the idea was instead of using a pair of pickup freight locos like a 14,17,Taurus.. use an all in 1… an uprated class 17, which wasnt yet the known basket case it was…

I do also wonder if Politics comes into this too, the government changed in 1964.

 

 

 

 

There is a hint as to the reason for building of DHP1 in the biography for Lt-Col Fell,   being Rolls Royce in seeking export markets for their range of diesel engines in rail traction applications , required the presence of a locomotive in service with BR as an example of  their products.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Pandora

[russ p]

On 11/07/2022 at 21:36, ColinK said:

In Germany DB introduced the class 245 in 2012, a single loco powered by four diesel engines.

 

Do they power a single transmission or are they like those awful stadlers where four engine generator  sets combine power for four traction motors