Does a class 47 sound similar to a class 45/46?

[TravisM]

On 06/03/2023 at 07:55, rogerzilla said:

The Metrovicks were going to get uprated class 20 engines (EE provided a quote just before BR decided to pull the plug on the smaller classes).  No idea what they would have sounded like.

Probably just like a Class 31

[adb968008]

On 06/03/2023 at 07:55, rogerzilla said:

 

The Metrovicks were going to get uprated class 20 engines (EE provided a quote just before BR decided to pull the plug on the smaller classes).  No idea what they would have sounded like.

The KTM class 22 built in 1971 for Malaysia has an uprated class 20 engine… 8CSVT Mk III. Vs 8SVT Mk II of the BR class 20.

maybe sounded like this ?

 

in Malaysia they call them Helicopter locos, can’t think why, they sound like Choppers to me 😁

 

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by adb968008

[rogerzilla]

Any idea what the output of the MkIII was?  Presumably the electrical machines could only cope with 1100hp, so it wouldn't have been much of an upgrade from the class 20 engine.  Maybe just a bit of intercooling.

[rodent279]

48 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The KTM class 22 built in 1971 for Malaysia has an uprated class 20 engine… 8CSVT Mk III. Vs 8SVT Mk II of the BR class 20.

maybe sounded like this ?

 

in Malaysia they call them Helicopter locos, can’t think why, they sound like Choppers to me 😁

 

 

Very similar to the NIR 101 class:-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIR_101_Class

 

[rodent279]

40 minutes ago, rogerzilla said:

Any idea what the output of the MkIII was?  Presumably the electrical machines could only cope with 1100hp, so it wouldn't have been much of an upgrade from the class 20 engine.  Maybe just a bit of intercooling.

1010 kW

[New Haven Neil]

14 hours ago, jools1959 said:

Probably just like a Class 31

 

No, the 20's had a V8 engine, the EE engine'd 31's a V12.

[number6]

 

Superb time capsule here and some footage of 45 110 sounding more like a sander than anything else... lots of 47s to compare to as well. 

[rogerzilla]

1 hour ago, New Haven Neil said:

 

No, the 20's had a V8 engine, the EE engine'd 31's a V12.

The EE V12 wouldn't fit in place of the Crossley engine (they thought about that), so it had to be a V8.

[matchmaker]

5 hours ago, New Haven Neil said:

 

No, the 20's had a V8 engine, the EE engine'd 31's a V12.

The main difference between the 31 and 37 is that the 37 had a 12CSVT which is intercooled. The 31 has a 12SVT with no intercooler (the C in the name stands for charge cooled). Similar to the 40 and 50. The 40 has a 16SVT, the 50 a 16CSVT.

[rogerzilla]

On 13/03/2023 at 18:12, matchmaker said:

The main difference between the 31 and 37 is that the 37 had a 12CSVT which is intercooled. The 31 has a 12SVT with no intercooler (the C in the name stands for charge cooled). Similar to the 40 and 50. The 40 has a 16SVT, the 50 a 16CSVT.

Yes, the 31 couldn't have the 12CSVT because the Brush electrical machines, being designed for the original Mirrlees engine, couldn't cope with more power.

 

Imagine the chagrin at Brush when they found out EE engines were going in their locos!

[Artless Bodger]

On 18/03/2023 at 16:50, rogerzilla said:

Yes, the 31 couldn't have the 12CSVT because the Brush electrical machines, being designed for the original Mirrlees engine, couldn't cope with more power.

 

Imagine the chagrin at Brush when they found out EE engines were going in their locos!

OT I realise, but I have seen this reason given for the derating of the 12SVT. However I've also read, not least here on RMweb, that some of the original Mirrlees engined locos were uprated to 1600HP and 2000HP, so how was the extra electrical load handled on these?

[pheaton]

19 hours ago, Artless Bodger said:

OT I realise, but I have seen this reason given for the derating of the 12SVT. However I've also read, not least here on RMweb, that some of the original Mirrlees engined locos were uprated to 1600HP and 2000HP, so how was the extra electrical load handled on these?

I think it was more of a case of the fact that you would have had 1750hp going into 4 traction motors on the 31 instead of 6 on the 37...they wernt actually de-rated as such as far as i know. The HP was lost through the lack of intercoolers.... which would have meant for a less stressed and more reliable engine....

 

In addition to this...it would have required major modifications to the load control of the main generator....so keeping it within an acceptable range of the mirlees unit was an easier and quicker option rather than going through all the testing of a new engine and load regulator setup (and thats before you look at field diversion on the motors)....especially at a time when reliability of diesel electrics was key!

 

lack of intercoolers is one of the reasons why....the 26s outlasted all the other sulzer type 2s in scotland...(excluding the 24s but they were vac only)

Edited March 20, 2023 by pheaton

[Artless Bodger]

On 20/03/2023 at 12:32, pheaton said:

lack of intercoolers is one of the reasons why....the 26s outlasted all the other sulzer type 2s in scotland...(excluding the 24s but they were vac only)

Thank you. Still OT, presumably the 33s also lasted so long as their engines were not intercooled? If I understand it correctly their engines were an 8 cylinder version of the 6 in the 26s.

[D9020 Nimbus]

I always thought one of the reasons the class 26 survived so long was down to the Crompton Parkinson electrical equipment — class 27s had GEC. The class 24 had the same engine as the 26, but didn't survive anything like as long, nor did it outlast the 25. Also, I doubt their use on the Edinburgh – Glasgow services helped the 27s involved.

[keefer]

Only 24 cl.27s were on the push-pulls and most went back to the standard 27/0 afterwards - very useful on secondary passenger workings where they could keep up to linespeed  (well, 90mph max).

However once the passenger trains went over to Sprinters etc., cl.26 were a better bet going forward as although they had slightly less power, they were geared for a 75mph max and so were better for freight work. (indeed the first 8 or so cl.26 were early converts to dual brake/no heat/SSC for MGR coal trains).

ISTR cl.26 being used on Edin-Dundee stoppers in the '80s alongside cl.27 but for some reason the 26s developed a knack for catching fire - presumably as they would have to be thrashed to keep to time on the 'Fife' ECML

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by keefer

[pheaton]

24s are the odd ball, they were never selected for dual breaking even though it would have been possible after the elimination of the steam heat boilers (but this would have required removal, and although isolated im pretty certain they retained them to the end, they lost the water tank but the steam heat boiler was left in situ....However.....24s remained on the A series engine whereas 26s were updated to the B series later on (nothing spectacular a slightly enlarged water jacket on the turbo and bigger pumps and higher pressure and volume fuel injectors) But....what this did mean is that they could share heads and turbos with 27s and 25s and 33s also fuel pumps and injectors with 25s 27s 33s 45s and 47s...plus a multitude of other engine components between the classes like...liners and pistons..

 

ergo the 24 remained on the a series engine...and effectively that made them non standard....and if you squinted as a result...a prime candidate for withdrawal. Thats conjecture...it could well be they were surplus to requriements and the reasons above made them a prime target...

 

CP equipment......its true that CP equipment was phenomenally more expensive than the equivalent brush/GEC/BTH/AEI ive also been told many a time by a driver that CP equipment generally takes anything you throw at it...however ive not seen anything in the manuals that shows CP kit is better in reliability aspects in terms of its design over the others....and indeed CP kit still suffers from the same failures as the other kit... From experience most of the CP equipped locomotives however seem to have (if 45149 and 26043) is anything to go by...vastly simplified electrical systems...and its my belief this contributes greatly to electrical reliability...

 

@Artless Bodger mentioned about 33 reliability...and longevity in terms of longevity you could look at the fact that the 33 is the southern regions 37....mid power go anywhere machine.....so the usefulness of them could never be underestimated...reliability.....there is some conjecture...that they were "mollycoddled" and subject to far more care attention by the southern region so this may skewed the reliability figures somewhat.

 

@D9020 Nimbus mentioned about the 26s longevity....and the cp equipment...class 26s were given a massive investment and life extension program during the HGR in the mid-80s this program included a full rewire.....which was unusual...bear in mind there are 47s and 37s currently running about on the mainline that have not been rewired! The unusual decision is further compounded that under the original specification from the BTC to BRCW the class 26s by this time were life expired! However the intention was...to keep them in service until ~2000 but the massive downturn in freight traffic resulted in a surplus of higher powered locomotives (37s) being available. Considerable investment would have been required to get them through another overhaul, particularly on the cylinder blocks and tyres, corrosion was major issue also. Sprinterisation was the final nail in the coffin as they had also lost passenger traffic also.

 

by this point 26s were the only 6 cylinder mainline diesel left on BR, the component pool had shrunk drastically with the withdrawal of the other type 2s, and as a result heavy engine components...such as  liners, which by 1990s were unique to a 26 and pistons which could only come from a 33, meant effectively...they too had become non standard.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by pheaton

[25901]

pheaton is correct about the 26 power units, we bought two class 26 units for D5054 and 25262