NER Bevel Drive Locomotive

[Nearholmer]

It’s also possible that we are taking a concept sketch too seriously. As things progress from concept to final design, a lot can change, this sort of detail particularly.

 

Does anyone know enough about marine and industrial applications to be able to say whether epicyclic gearing of the kind that I think we are seeing here was proven at the sorts of power throughputs involved? Or, whether it’s efficiency and mass could ever have seriously rivalled an electric transmission at this size?

Edited April 6, 2023 by Nearholmer

[D7666]

15 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It’s also possible that we are taking a concept sketch too seriously. As things progress from concept to final design, a lot can change, this sort of detail particularly.

 

 

That is true.

 

If one takes that sketch literally, the engine cylinders are impossible, the cylinder centre lines of the plan and elevation do not align and seem to have a bore of about 28 inch, and with a lump like that placed towards one end I'd seriously question five exactly equal axle loads of 21 ton each on the three driver and two bogies, estimate or not. No sign of a fuel tank either unless that is what the vague lines between the driving axles are, can't decypher the text .

 

So I'd suggest attempting to determine the drive details a pointless exercise never mind how driving rods were connected or coupled.

 

If it were  not for the word "diesel" appearing on the sketch, and what look like maybe radiators, I'd even have suggested it could have been some sort of vertical steam power unit, for coupling  to a seperate boiler carrying unit. There have been many exotic ideas, Heath Robinson or otherwise.

 

One reason for suggesting vertical steam is contemporary marine practice, and NER Tyneside is nothing if not close to marine engineering. ISTR Raven's classic paper on the Newport Shildon DC scheme was to the North Eastern Institute Of Engineers And Shipbuilders or something like that.

 

And, having said that, a marine influenced direct reversing diesel engine would save much mechanical transmission clutter.

 

There are many concepts sketched out. Just look at some of E.S.Cox's writings to see that. Some parts of Locomotive Panorama have more concepts than actuals.

 

It did cross my mind if this were some sort of late April Fool too.

 

Either way, interesting drawing.

Edited April 7, 2023 by D7666

[Nearholmer]

I think it is a genuine concept sketch, but one where the design progressed rapidly from concept to bottom drawer of the filing cabinet, there to be forgotten for fifty years.

 

Taken with the 1-D-1 version shown in Webb’s book, it indicates to me that someone was trying to achieve some particular thing, within some particular constraints. One possibility that strikes me is that they were trying to confirm the feasibility of diesel motive power directly comparable to the electrics, in advance of making a cost comparison.

 

It’s a typical thing that happens, where the ultimate question is “should we?”but before answering that it is necessary to answer “could we?”.

 

My surmise is that they quickly concluded that, given the size and weight of engines available at the time, the answer to the “could we?” question in respect of ‘road locomotives’ of the power they wanted was “no, we couldn’t”. I’d bet that there were once versions of this sketch with different engines and different (electric) transmissions too, unless H-L happened to specialise in giant epicyclic gear.

 

In Clerk and Burls “Gas, Petrol and Oil Engines” 1919 there is a table of sizes and weights of four-stroke engines, and they cite an average of 325lbs/hp. Now, EE1 was rated at a very respectable 1800hp short-term and 1300ho continuous, so a four-stroke diesel engine to equal that would have come out at possibly as much as c260 tons, and that’s just the engine. A two stroke would have been lighter and smaller, but frustratingly Clerk and Burls don’t give any numbers (remiss, since Clerk invented two strokes!), so I’ll guess 200lb/hp, which still gives c160 tons for the engine alone. Now, EE1 was possibly more powerful than was really necessary, so maybe they could have gone down in power, dropping the short-term rating which seems to have been unnecessary on the NER anyway, and engine design was advancing rapidly, but they would have been really struggling to keep within the axle-weight limit without creating a great long centipede of a loco. I’d bet that the loco in the drawing exceeded the axle-weight limits shown, and we can all see that the bits don’t fit inside it properly. Bad idea!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Nearholmer