Jump to content

DP2, is someone making one?


Recommended Posts

Hello Nimbus,

 

maybe you've answered your own question about DP2. In that it was only the body shell that was used along with a new floor pan. The mounts for the single engine would have to be different, so would E.E. have used the old jigs that had been used for say  the class 37s or 40s. To build the new floor pan on? Or the jigs that they built D.P.1 on? I say D.P.1 as this loco was different to the main batch of class 55s.

 

At that time E.E. were building a lot of locos not just for Britain but for the world as well. So who can say!

 

OzzyO. 

 

Umm. That wasn't the question I had, though!

 

What I do know is gleaned from photos of locos under construction at Vulcan, and a number of EE production drawings. I haven't seen any photos of Deltics with part-erected superstructure framing, but have seen completed underframe plus superstructure framing without panelling. This supertructure framing is far too light to have been anything less than a blasted nuisance to assemble as a complete bodyshell separate from the underframe - let alone to have it stored ready to mate with a redesigned underframe as you are suggesting. Though the existence of a bodyside framing arrangement drawing suggests that the framing between the cab doors was intended to be a separate assembly. But this intent was in the minds of the Preston drawing office. Whether the Vulcan lads used to gather round for a hearty chortle whenever the latest bundle of Preston drawings arrived will never be known - unless we can track down someone who was there! It would lead to an interesting social history project in itself.

 

The only Vulcan jigs I've seen in photos are for underframes, and seem somewhat ad-hoc, being a raft of random length I-beams on the floor. I'd guess they would have been quickly broken down and recycled after a production run was complete. They're certainly not as sophisticated as the jig I've seen Brush Type 4 roof sections being welded on. 

 

The Nim.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 years later...

Was watching "Train Truckers" last night and they were collecting "Britannia" from Crewe, what was very visible next to it - this!!

 

48158135116_d6e1b9d2eb_b.jpg.57944011ff82552d6f2870ef72b5243d.jpg

 

Had me scrambling onto the net to see if this was indeed a project, but it would appear that some wag had applied these numbers as a bit of a joke, D9016 will remain D9016!

 

Jim

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
On 24/03/2020 at 09:15, luckymucklebackit said:

Was watching "Train Truckers" last night and they were collecting "Britannia" from Crewe, what was very visible next to it - this!!

 

48158135116_d6e1b9d2eb_b.jpg.57944011ff82552d6f2870ef72b5243d.jpg

 

Had me scrambling onto the net to see if this was indeed a project, but it would appear that some wag had applied these numbers as a bit of a joke, D9016 will remain D9016!

 

Jim

 

 

Indeed it did remain as D9016, and is now in much better external condition over in Margate.

D9016 Crewe TMD

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I'd like to see someone do the inverse of DP2. Deltic powertrains in a class 50 body.

 

There was a proposal - a "super deltic"  using a class 50 body, of anything from a fairly sensible 4.400bhp up to 7,000bhp...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much 50 or 55 bodies more like the cab styles. 

I believe there was a proposal for what became the 56 using the 50 as a basis rather than cramming an uprated 50 engine into a 47 shell. 

As much as I liked driving 56s they were a pain if you had to go in the engine room no room at all whereas a 50 isn't too bad 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

DP2 was better than a Deltic, though.  Didn't have the highly-strung smoky Deltic engine and, although it was a bit down on power, could keep sharper timings than a Deltic due to the anti-wheelslip control giving faster acceleration.

 

When EE built the Class 50s they took a bit of a step backward by loading them with a load of extra electronics which did nothing for reliability.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, rogerzilla said:

DP2 was better than a Deltic, though.  Didn't have the highly-strung smoky Deltic engine and, although it was a bit down on power, could keep sharper timings than a Deltic due to the anti-wheelslip control giving faster acceleration.

 

When EE built the Class 50s they took a bit of a step backward by loading them with a load of extra electronics which did nothing for reliability.

It wasn't EE that specified the electronics if I recall it was BR, DP2 was successful but BR wanted something different.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating though the idea of a replica DP2 is, what would it prove? We have 50's, we have Deltics, there isn't really a massive gap in the story is there?

Falcon, Lion, an NBL class 41 or 21/22, or LMS twins, or Bulleid trio-yes, those are gaps.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Fascinating though the idea of a replica DP2 is, what would it prove? We have 50's, we have Deltics, there isn't really a massive gap in the story is there?

Falcon, Lion, an NBL class 41 or 21/22, or LMS twins, or Bulleid trio-yes, those are gaps.

Yes I agree - please leave Gordon Highlander as he is. It would prove nothing to re-create a DP2.

Personally I'm not a big fan of all these replicas - I would just rather the money was spent on looking after the existing locos.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/03/2020 at 17:51, russ p said:

Apparently the idea of it becoming DP2 was seriously considered. 

DP2 was supposedly the body shell that would have been 9018

I believe I read that  too, in book about EE products,  Erection of DP2 was cut into the production schedule for the fleet of Deltics and DP2 interrupted the sequence of construction taking the slot of one of the later Deltics,  would this show in the numerical sequence ( if any) of Builders plates for the fleet?   Author of the book Brian Webb?

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Pandora said:

I believe I read that  too, in book about EE products,  Erection of DP2 was cut into the production schedule for the fleet of Deltics and DP2 interrupted the sequence of construction taking the slot of one of the later Deltics,  would this show in the numerical sequence ( if any) of Builders plates for the fleet?   Author of the book Brian Webb?

 

I would think so , anyone got any builders plate details? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26 March 2020 at 19:38, rodent279 said:

Fascinating though the idea of a replica DP2 is, what would it prove? We have 50's, we have Deltics, there isn't really a massive gap in the story is there?

Falcon, Lion, an NBL class 41 or 21/22, or LMS twins, or Bulleid trio-yes, those are gaps.

Although none of these are exactly significant in terms of representing technology that didn't develop further. 

 

Working backwards, the three SR diesels are simply the pre-production versions of the EE4s, and their only claim to historical fame is the bogie design. Technically, there is not much between the production EE3 and the EE/LMS twins, other than the difference between a load bearing bodyshell and a load bearing underframe with a cover over the top. The bogies are essentially the same as those of the EM2 electrics. The NBL locomotives contain nothing that isn't covered by the other hydraulics (or diesel electrics), apart from the use of large aluminium castings in parts of the bodies.

 

Jim

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, russ p said:

 

I would think so , anyone got any builders plate details? 

It was D733 so higher than the pruduction Deltics. 9016 was D573 from EE so if the shell came from around 9016/17/18 in the production line then it seems the builders plate was only allocated when the loco was complete. 9016 entered service in 1960 and DP2 in 62 so i imagine EE could have knocked out 160 locos between 1960 and 62. 

Hope this helps

James

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

The planning work for DP2 and indeed the other prototypes LION and FALCON would have been underway in 1959 at least. BR engineers like JF Harrison were already giving the industry the heads up that the next Type 4 would be a 114 ton Co-Co. Harrison discussed FALCON with Brush when he was at Loughbrough on 26 October 1959 and Brush were told of the new Type 4 specification during a further Harrison visit to Loughbrough on 26 Feb 1960. 

 

The tender for the new Type 4 went out to manufacturers on 11th May and the deadline for submitting a response was initially Monday 4th July.  This was later extended to 12th july as the various manufacturers had problems with some of the conditions the BTC was laying down.

 

As far as I have been able to deduce EE when they responded offered several options, including a locomotive with a Deltic outline and a 2700hp EE engine. They offered the same at the next major tender exercise in 1962. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
On 26/03/2020 at 19:13, woodenhead said:

It wasn't EE that specified the electronics if I recall it was BR, DP2 was successful but BR wanted something different.

BR did not dream up the KV10 load reg, that was one of English electrics very bizarre and downright weired inventions....

 

just ask any driver or depot staff about a KV10 lock on....and they will tell you how fun they are :) anything BR designed/Alan and west or brush built had very ver simple crude but effective electronics....it was only EE who wanted to do fancy things with thyristors back in the 1960s.....

 

oh an no the 56 doesn't count before someone berates me about their electronics :)

Edited by pheaton
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
On 18/05/2020 at 13:08, pheaton said:

...it was only EE who wanted to do fancy things with thyristors back in the 1960s.....

 

 

Brush might disagree with you, Hawk was thyristor with AC traction motors :)

 

Andi 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Londontram said:

Sorry as a steam fan I know nothing of Diesels,

 What is/was DP2?

 

To be very basic a modified deltic shell with the engine that would go in the 50 in it . The forerunner if not the prototype for the 50

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 11/07/2020 at 21:44, Nimbus said:

 

I suspect the ER liked it too much for that to happen!

 

The Nim.

Wouldnt be surprised if the ER got their way they may had more DP2s/50s instead of 47s. Would have been great!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.