Spares for preserved diesels

[Titan]

It might not be as dire as that, with all the technical advances in cheap programable computers like raspberry pi etc (other cheap options available no doubt). it should be possible to build an emulator that in conjunction with other suitable off the shelf components. is perfectly capable of replicating whatever the original electronics did.

[Steven B]

Rebuilding the control electrics/electronics is possible but who's going to pay for it for a handful of preserved diesels. I'd guess the early diesels like class 37/0s will still be plodding along long after the likes of classes 60 and 66 have been retired to a plinth. Not unlike the Vulcan being grounded whilst the Lancaster flies on.

 

Steven B.

[russ p]

The electronics in the HGR 37s and 56s aren't really that complicated I don't think there are any chips in them. Main problems if they haven't been used for a while is damp and dirty connector plugs .

If I had one I would take the cards out for the winter and put vaceline on the multi plugs.

 Late build 20s and 25s give more problems as their electronics are quite primitive 

[SR71]

A problem that has been solved in the aftermarket car modification sector for many years. There are many replacement ECU's that cover needs from replacement of obsolete tech to replacement of manufacturer locked ECU's. You can get turn key right through to a bag of components you build yourself. It's a different skill set but problems that have been solved many times particularly if you only want to replicate previous functionality.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Whilst in preservation do these locos actually need all the fancy electronics? I'm sure someone could design simplified circuitry.

 

Mike.

[russ p]

3 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Whilst in preservation do these locos actually need all the fancy electronics? I'm sure someone could design simplified circuitry.

 

Mike.

 

Would be a big job as the load regulators and automatic voltage regulators are solid state and completely different wiring 

[pete_mcfarlane]

Replacing the control systems is perfectly possible, but you'll need to find a load of electronics engineers and computer programmers who can do the work and, more importantly, document it so that you can fix the next set of problems in 5 years. 

[jjb1970]

There are multiple issues with supporting electronically controlled engines.

It's not just the ECU software, though that's difficult. Yes by software standards it's very basic, even crude, but there are still an awful lot of parameters and as well as controlling engine operation they are part of the engine safety system. Assuming that the manufacturer shares the software it is probably the easy bit to find a replacement ECU, however even if the manufacturer still has the software it is worth noting that it is still their IP and they're not obligated to share it with anyone (something third party engine upgrade companies constantly whinge about).

Assuming you have a new ECU, and all the PLCs with embedded software dotted around a typical modern engine, then there are probably several hundred transducers, sensors etc. Although things like fuel valves are not electronic per se they have sensors and transducers and have to be compatible with the software, combustion sensors which tend to be engine specific etc. And these aren't automotive engines built by the million.

With an electro-mechanical camshaft controlled engine it was usually perfectly doable to get the engine to run if all you needed was a running engine, with electronic controlled engines the system either works or it doesn't work.

And that's before touching the matter of emissions certification, I honestly don't know how that works for museum engines but if engines have to retain certification to be operated then you will need deep pockets. I don't know anything about rail but in maritime there is no waiver or derogation in emissions regulation for heritage engines which do not have grand father rights by pre-dating entry into force of the regulations.

 

[Nick C]

18 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Replacing the control systems is perfectly possible, but you'll need to find a load of electronics engineers and computer programmers who can do the work and, more importantly, document it so that you can fix the next set of problems in 5 years. 

and document it to a standard that it can be certified - locomotive control systems are safety-critical!

[russ p]

1 hour ago, Nick C said:

and document it to a standard that it can be certified - locomotive control systems are safety-critical!

 

I don't think they are on preserved railways I've seen some push pull conversations that didn't look documented 

[jjb1970]

I find the attitude to software based control systems quite interesting. I am not aiming this at preserved railways, it's a much wider observation. If you suggested getting rid of crankcase explosion relief valves, air start flame arrestors, oil mist detectors, overspend shut downs and low low lube oil shut downs people would look at you like you were nuts and a Darwin award in waiting. Yet it's not unusual to find the same people arguing in favour of half baked replacement engine control systems despite the fact these systems are critical for engine safety. Anyone can provide a replacement software system for an engine, the problems are cost, followed by costs of software conformity assessment and certification followed by issues around legal liability. And whether or not the original engine builder is willing to cooperate is crucial, most of them sell their own upgrade packages and so have no reason to help anyone else.

[jjb1970]

The upgrade packages are actually what infuriates a lot of operators. Engine builders can't support not especially old engines, but they are willing to charge $$$$$$$$$s for a full upgrade package. If I was an owner I think that would annoy me too.

[Blandford1969]

1 hour ago, russ p said:

 

I don't think they are on preserved railways I've seen some push pull conversations that didn't look documented 

Simply put 'if' something were in use, were not documented and there were an incident, the ORR would be looking for all the documentation. Maybe in some places things are not documented, however change is in the air and the failure to have safety critical things properly documented would weigh heavily against any operator where ever they are. 

 

In terms of spares this is similar to conversations that took place in the 70s, 80s, 90s about steam spares and what will happen when part x,y,z needs replacing. I do not work on diesels, however colleagues that do have talked about how they are now getting spares made.  

[Northmoor]

On 02/08/2022 at 12:28, phil-b259 said:

The biggest problem with diesel preservation is actually the control systems - particularly anything electronic!

 

Just as steam preservationists ca get new cylinders etc cast then making parts for an internal combustion engine shouldn't be a problem - they are both machined metal at the end of the day.

 

However once electronics start appearing then it becomes a whole new ball game, especially if they feature integrated circuits in any form...

Welcome to the profession of the Obsolescence Manager.

[roythebus1]

The bus preservationists will certainly have their work cut out in about 10 years time when all their 1990s ECU-controlled buses start to give serious problems, if they don't have the problems already.

 

In my view anything that can't be fixed with a big hammer or a can of oil isn't worth preserving.

[roythebus1]

We're having enough problems with Routemaster bus gear control panels; the early ones are electro-mechanical with basic electronics, the later refurbished buses use a similar panel but full of 1980s electronics. Very reliable so I'm told by the people who repair them. Most common cause of failures is dry joints!

[rogerzilla]

Hopefully the ORR would assess the risk appropriately for a line speed of 25mph.  If a diesel catches fire, the danger to passengers is a lot lower than from a steam boiler explosion, although it would make a right mess.  A surging engine is a safety problem but I assume there is a mechanical fuel cut-off button on all of them.

 

Main line certification is another thing, of course.

[H2O]

21 minutes ago, rogerzilla said:

Hopefully the ORR would assess the risk appropriately for a line speed of 25mph.  If a diesel catches fire, the danger to passengers is a lot lower than from a steam boiler explosion, although it would make a right mess.  A surging engine is a safety problem but I assume there is a mechanical fuel cut-off button on all of them.

 

Main line certification is another thing, of course.

I get where you are coming from, however AFAIK the preserved railway do the risk assessment. If there is a big change, after an accident or if they decide to do a spot check the ORR will review the railways safety case and a suspension or prosecution could follow if something is amiss.

 

For a replacement loco control system (which could link into braking too) the electronics / software element would have to be documented to be safe - proving that electronics and software is fail safe (and not possible to run away uncontrollably) in ALL conditions is very difficult indeed.

 

In terms of code PLC type controllers apparently are more predictable and hence testable. For safety critical systems the skills and/or costs required may be akin to boiler specialists (different skills obviously!)

 

If the electronics/software issues are a problem then perhaps, long term, some present day stock may be 'unpreservable' as running stock :-( I'm thinking of the ones where power and braking are controlled from the same lever. We could have static displays for such stock but end up with increasingly static museums such as the NRM site.

 

For diesels we must try to keep the 1st generation locos and DMUs running, hence the OP concerns.

[H2O]

17 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I find the attitude to software based control systems quite interesting. I am not aiming this at preserved railways, it's a much wider observation. If you suggested getting rid of crankcase explosion relief valves, air start flame arrestors, oil mist detectors, overspend shut downs and low low lube oil shut downs people would look at you like you were nuts and a Darwin award in waiting. Yet it's not unusual to find the same people arguing in favour of half baked replacement engine control systems despite the fact these systems are critical for engine safety. Anyone can provide a replacement software system for an engine, the problems are cost, followed by costs of software conformity assessment and certification followed by issues around legal liability. And whether or not the original engine builder is willing to cooperate is crucial, most of them sell their own upgrade packages and so have no reason to help anyone else.

Agree with above.

 

The typo/spell check correction (I asume it is meant to be 'overspeed') is amusing: I think quite a few people on the fundraising side of preserved railways would love an 'overspend shutdown' on locos :-)

[willjam39]

Although a very different area I've been having issues with a 90s lighting desk for the local theatre due to electronic chips dying. Even with the oem supplying the software for the chip, full diagrams and a father in law who is an electronics engineer/designer it still not behaving. The idea of trying to keep a large loco going if its standing 70-80% of the time isn't a fun one.   

[Steven B]

The solution for diesel-electric's long term future is perhaps a little different - rip out the engine, generator and existing control systems. Replace with batteries and modern motor control electronics. Then add a sound system to make it sound like it should - end result giving you the sound of 100mph Deltic thrash whilst running at 25mph on renewable energy. Win-win! 🤪

 

Steven B

[MarkC]

20 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

The upgrade packages are actually what infuriates a lot of operators. Engine builders can't support not especially old engines, but they are willing to charge $$$$$$$$$s for a full upgrade package. If I was an owner I think that would annoy me too.

Mmm, my present ship is now in need of a full (scheduled) Main Engine overhaul. 13 years old, so not that ancient. We have a Company policy of no "Ali Baba" parts - and rightly so. However, the makers have an upgrade in place - different design pistons & cylinder liners. No old type piston rings now available as OEM parts, so we're having to go with the upgrade, at huge, unexpected cost. Our Vessel Manager is not a happy chappie...

[jjb1970]

3 hours ago, MarkC said:

Mmm, my present ship is now in need of a full (scheduled) Main Engine overhaul. 13 years old, so not that ancient. We have a Company policy of no "Ali Baba" parts - and rightly so. However, the makers have an upgrade in place - different design pistons & cylinder liners. No old type piston rings now available as OEM parts, so we're having to go with the upgrade, at huge, unexpected cost. Our Vessel Manager is not a happy chappie...

 

I had something similar in electricity generation when I had two 16.5MW gas diesels in my little empire. I upset the OEM by asking them why, when the engines had been hideously unreliable and were becoming impossible to support, would I recommend paying the same OEM ££££££££s for an upgrade which basically was being sold on the back of the same promises as the original contract which had never been delivered? Especially when there were alternative engines with a good service record which would cost no more than the proposed upgrade. That was one of the biggest engine builders, they paint their engines a rather nice dark blue.

[MarkC]

7 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I had something similar in electricity generation when I had two 16.5MW gas diesels in my little empire. I upset the OEM by asking them why, when the engines had been hideously unreliable and were becoming impossible to support, would I recommend paying the same OEM ££££££££s for an upgrade which basically was being sold on the back of the same promises as the original contract which had never been delivered? Especially when there were alternative engines with a good service record which would cost no more than the proposed upgrade. That was one of the biggest engine builders, they paint their engines a rather nice dark blue.

Nice one - did the purveyor of said nice dark blue engines back down?

[jjb1970]

4 minutes ago, MarkC said:

Nice one - did the purveyor of said nice dark blue engines back down?

 

I think by that point they had got the message I was only agreeing to let them make their proposal as a courtesy. Things were that bad that the head of the UK operation of a major multinational company said that not only would he make sure that they would never buy anything from said company again on his watch but that if it was down to him they'd never buy gas diesels again and go for small gas turbines instead.