Heljan Baby Deltic

[railroadbill]

I think it was more a case of BR issuing a spec - probably a relatively broad spec in many respects - and the manufacturers submitting tenders for prototypes against that spec. BR might have been interested in seeing how various ideas worked when applied to that spec hence ordering a loco design with a Deltic configuration engine as well as considerable variations over the Pilot Scheme in respect of other features such as control equipment, generators and so on. And if it had been left at that as a proper 'Pilot Scheme' all might have come out in the wash in terms of reliability, maintenance costs, and casualties etc. But as we all know instead it turned into a mad frenzy to get rid of steam and at the same time create what I have often referred to as a 'job creation scheme' with orders going to some builders who shouldn't really have been trusted but who were located in places where loss of jobs and factory closures would have presented political headaches while all around were getting more work than they could handle.

 

Thanks, Pennine MC and Stationmaster, had the pilot scheme really been used to test prototypes rather than order untried designs off the drawing board, a lot of money would have been saved. Sadly, the rush for change was the finish for companies like North British, Beyer Peacock and so on, who couldn't adapt quickly enough.

 

Apart from the engine, the rest of the loco seems to have been conventional for its day, so perhaps it was a question of using an available engine within the E-E group for that power output, with the class 20 engine not being powerful enough and the later class 37 engine being too big for a type 2 loco.

 

When the original baby Deltics were built, they turned out to be too heavy anyway, despite the lighter engine, and had to be modified by having various holes cut in them, apparently.

[The Stationmaster]

 

Thanks, Pennine MC and Stationmaster, had the pilot scheme really been used to test prototypes rather than order untried designs off the drawing board, a lot of money would have been saved. Sadly, the rush for change was the finish for companies like North British, Beyer Peacock and so on, who couldn't adapt quickly enough.

Just to avoid the outbreak of 'truths that become accepted as fact' Beyer Peacock basically had no trouble at all in adapting to diesel loco production and were, at least in the British context, pretty good at it with good quality control and a keeness to test their output before it was delivered to the customer; their failure was not to adapt, or be able to adapt, to the changes in their core market for large articulated steam engines as it vanished in the face of a diesel onslaught.

 

North British similarly failed to adapt to the change in world markets which in reality were their backbone but beyond that the company clearly went through a period of total lack of quality control and fairly poor management as well as taking short-cuts in manufacture. Add to that a failure to buy the right licences and poor control of their diesel engine and hydraulic transmission manufacturing which only added to a poor impression of their diesels on BR and its miracle they continued for as long as they did before going completely bust.

['CHARD]

Fair one Mike. I too had the impression B-P were well thought of in terms of product quality, just the required demand turned out not to be there for long enough to sustain them. Certainly the Gorton-built Claytons were reputedly well-liked machinery, I don't hear many complaints about the Hymeks either. As for NBL, that really is a sorry story of losing the plot; it would make a fascinating case study for students of British industrial decline.

 

We've strayed way O/T here, but I confess I've found it very pleasant!

[railroadbill]

Fair one Mike. I too had the impression B-P were well thought of in terms of product quality, just the required demand turned out not to be there for long enough to sustain them. Certainly the Gorton-built Claytons were reputedly well-liked machinery, I don't hear many complaints about the Hymeks either. As for NBL, that really is a sorry story of losing the plot; it would make a fascinating case study for students of British industrial decline.

 

We've strayed way O/T here, but I confess I've found it very pleasant!

 

That sums it up nicely, the good product company whose market disappears and the other losing the plot...I've enjoyed this chat very much as well, so thanks guys, going to read up on more on NB now.

[Pennine MC]

 

... perhaps it was a question of using an available engine within the E-E group for that power output, with the class 20 engine not being powerful enough and the later class 37 engine being too big for a type 2 loco.

 

Possibly, but the principal difference between the basic type 1 and 2 specs was twin cabs and train heat capability - some type 2s (like the early NBLs) were actually 1000hp (the power ratings IIRC being type 1: 800 - 1000hp and type 2: 1000 - 1500). Added to which, the 8SVT could probably by then have been offered at a higher rating - as an aside, I recall reading that EE did actually offer to supply the last batches of 37s at 2000hp but BR declined, probably on the grounds of standardisation.

 

Again I shouldnt post too much off the cuff (I should go away and read like Bill ), but it does seem likely that the locos were a case of an engine being available and looking for an application.

[Titan]

The Baby Deltic was a design disaster from the start. I believe that it arose due to EE not having an power unit in the type two, or type B power range as I think it was at the time, the current range having 125 bhp per cylinder, giving 500bhp, 1,000bhp, 2,000bhp, and presumably 1,500bhp for a V12 version if there was one. After the success of DP1, EE was keen to promote further use of the deltic engine, and being asked to provide 10 type B locomotives for evaluation under the pilot scheme decided that it was a good opportunity to demonstrate the 9 cylinder 1,100bhp turbocharged Deltic unit. However, the tiny deltic engine weighed about as much as an empty crisp packet compared to a conventional engine, so EE deliberately beefed up the superstructure to give added weight to compensate. Embarrassingly they got their sums wrong, and consdiderably over did it! The result was that it was several tons overweight and completely unacceptable to BR.

 

The Baby Deltic had to go on a serious Diet. The most obvious was all the holes drilled in the bogies, particularly the equalizing beams and headstocks. However there was an awful lot of weight to shed and that was just a small part of it. Other measures included replacing the buffers with lighter oleo units, replacing auxilliary equipment with smaller units, replacing steel roof panels with aluminium, steel electrical control cabinet doors replaced with aluminium, and ripping up the engine room floor and replacing with thinner steel. All this effort knocked a couple of tons off, but it was still overweight. EE managed to persuade BR to weigh it with 2/3 fuel and sand rather than the usual full tanks, and without the gangway equipment (of course the doors wre left on, it would have been a bit draughty otherwise!). It was then grudgingly accepted, although restricted from some of the routes BR wanted to use it on.

 

So EE had created a loco with all of the disadvanteges of a high speed highly stressed engine, with all the disadvantages of a conventional loco, and having the advantages of neither!

 

But that alone was not enough to make it the truely poor loco it was. For some reason, EE decided that all of the auxilliary equipment should be mechanically driven from the engine, rather than having separate electric motors as was the case in most other locos. Thus there was a drive shaft from the engine to a gearbox with several outputs. One vertically up to drive the radiator fan, and others for traction motor blower, exhauster, compressor etc. It was this area that contributed towards the unreliabilty. One example was that it was found that the natural frequency of this drive shaft was within the operating speed range of the engine. It would thus vibrate excessively causing failure. When it broke the flailing shaft would take out all the nearby cooling pipes. The highly stressed engine would then overheat so rapidly that it would boil and sieze up before the coolent level in the header tank fell to the minimum mark which would trip the automatic engine shutdown. Similarly the high engine temp would not trip since there was no coolent for it to measure the temperature of!

 

It was this reason that BR insisted on the fitting of coolent flow switches to class 55, so that the engine was shut down as soon as cooling ability was was lost.

 

This was one of the areas which the refurbishment program concentrated on, and the results were that afterwards they were much better, although still a little behind other diesel types, and of course still saddled with the high maintenance requirements of a deltic engine.

 

As a side note, during the refurbishment one of the Baby Deltics was selected for a test bed for a new type of four stroke high speed diesel engine from English Electric. The conversion work was almost complete, with new engine mountings, relocation of equipment and some external changes to grilles IIRC. The engine was just days away from being installed when the project was cancelled. The loco was then refitted with the deltic engine but a lot of the other modifications including those to the grilles were not reversed. I cannot remember the number of the loco concerned, but I think as a result it was the last loco to be refurbished. It was speculated that had the project continued, it may well have produced a better alternative to the paxman valenta for use in the HST. Now, I am almost willing to bet that if this loco is produced in model form the subtle differences won't be depicted!

 

Most of the above is recalling what I have read from Brian Webbs 'Deltic locomotives of British Rail', a book which I would consider essential reading if you are serious about these little locos.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Titan

[railroadbill]

 

Possibly, but the principal difference between the basic type 1 and 2 specs was twin cabs and train heat capability - some type 2s (like the early NBLs) were actually 1000hp (the power ratings IIRC being type 1: 800 - 1000hp and type 2: 1000 - 1500). Added to which, the 8SVT could probably by then have been offered at a higher rating - as an aside, I recall reading that EE did actually offer to supply the last batches of 37s at 2000hp but BR declined, probably on the grounds of standardisation.

 

Again I shouldnt post too much off the cuff (I should go away and read like Bill ), but it does seem likely that the locos were a case of an engine being available and looking for an application.

 

Good point about the type 1 (single cab no train heat), classes 20, 15, 16, 17 bear this out.

As part of my reading B) I have a book called "the Diesel impact on British rail" by RM Tufnell which was given to me by an old friend who died some years ago but who was working at North British when it folded, sadly I can't ask him all the insider questions I'd now like to!

The book does have a diagram showing combinations of engines, transmissions and locos used in main line diesel classes 15-55 and 73-74. There are 9 makes of engine, 9 makes of transmission, and 8 locomotive builders, the mixing and matching being enough for a topic on its own

 

Going back to Baby Deltics, one outcome of tonight's fascinating delve back into the engineering past is that I've bought a mug from the Baby Deltic Project's web site. It has a picture of D5905 at Hitchin on it.

 

cheers all,

Bill

[railroadbill]

 

As a side note, during the refurbishment one of the Baby Deltics was selected for a test bed for a new type of four stroke high speed diesel engine from English Electric. The conversion work was almost complete, with new engine mountings, relocation of equipment and some external changes to grilles IIRC. The engine was just days away from being installed when the project was cancelled. The loco was then refitted with the deltic engine but a lot of the other modifications including those to the grilles were not reversed. I cannot remember the number of the loco concerned, but I think as a result it was the last loco to be refurbished. Now, I am almost willing to bet that if this loco is produced in model form the subtle differences won't be depicted!

 

Most of the above is recalling what I have read from Brian Webbs 'Deltic locomotives of British Rail', a book which I would consider essential reading if you are serious about these little locos.

 

The locomotive was D 5901. This was the loco that was later transferred to the BR Research Centre at Derby in August 1969 and was therefore the last surviving 23.

 

The new diesel engine that was earlier going to be tested in D5901 was the English Electric U type, a 12 cylinder high speed engine (1500rpm) 216mm stroke by 197 mm bore, rated at 226 HP per cylinder. I quote from "Diesel Impact on British Rail" by R M Tufnell - "This engine was developed from 1958 to 1963 at a cost of £1.2 million and was then killed off, having run at 2200HP....D5901 was prepared for initial rail testing at 1550HP but the engine was never actually installed".

 

Hope this helps.

[D605Eagle]

I've read several stories to why The U was killed off, all of them a bit bizarr to be honest. One a side note I saw D5901 at Eggington Junction in 74 or 75 with bits of APT-E. I think they had been testing the hydro-kinetic braking (if that the right terminology!) on the Mickleover test track. I was only 7 or 8 at the time so its only a dim memory.

Jim

[Pennine MC]

Most of the above is recalling what I have read from Brian Webbs 'Deltic locomotives of British Rail', a book which I would consider essential reading if you are serious about these little locos.

 

Cheers, I thought there's be something in that but you have better recall of it. We have discussed 5901 and the U-type before, methinks.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Pennine MC

[Phil Bullock]

Evening folks

 

Was about to make the same points as Titan re mechanically driven auxillaries but as already said no need to repeat.

 

Pennine MC said "I recall reading that EE did actually offer to supply the last batches of 37s at 2000hp but BR declined, probably on the grounds of standardisation" - now if I remember correctly a re-engined Brush Type 2 - D5835 I think - was tested with an uprated engine at both 1600 and 2000 bhp. Not sure what electrical changes had to be made to handle that but presumably it was the test bed for this exercise?

 

And was it therefore the only loco to operate as a Type 2, type 3 and type 4?

 

Kind regards

 

Phil Bullock

[Pennine MC]

 

Pennine MC said "I recall reading that EE did actually offer to supply the last batches of 37s at 2000hp but BR declined, probably on the grounds of standardisation" - now if I remember correctly a re-engined Brush Type 2 - D5835 I think - was tested with an uprated engine at both 1600 and 2000 bhp. Not sure what electrical changes had to be made to handle that but presumably it was the test bed for this exercise?

 

I doubt it Phil - at that time, the Brush locos still had the Mirrlees lumps in them, it was that that was uprated. Not sure about electrics, but 5835 was unique in having the big cooling grilles at both ends, which it kept until the end, viz:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5813358008/

 

There were also other class members rated at 1600hp for a time, I can never trouble to remember which ones

 

And was it therefore the only loco to operate as a Type 2, type 3 and type 4?

 

 

Unless you count 47s with duff traction motors

Edited December 11, 2011 by Pennine MC

[mark54]

D5835 had a Mirrlees JVS12T engine as did all Brush Type 2's originally.

[bluex5]

I'm pretty sure EE offered the final batch of type 4's to BR with 2500bhp but BR said no.

[Phil Bullock]

Thanks for pointing out the error in my suggestion chaps - sounds like that exercise may have been part of the Mirlees demise then?

 

Hadnt sussed the larger grills as a Brush 2 variant either - cheers for pointing that out too!

 

Phil

[Oldddudders]

There were also other class members rated at 1600hp for a time, I can never trouble to remember which ones

Was D5545 the first of these? I think I was shown through the engine compartment while it was idling at Liv St, must have been 1961.

[Baby Deltic]

The more powerful Brush type 2's had different ammeters for obvious reasons.

[Brian D]

 

Please elucidate - what specifically was OTT in what I wrote?

 

I try and maintain an evenhanded approach to what I read and how I respond here - but when such a radical view is taken of normal trading practices I feel constrained to to try and bring a little reality into the discussion - nothing more.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Sorry, transfer retailer - just got back to this. The words that particularly disappointed where...

 

How very patronising of you.

 

It's all part of life's rich pattern - perhaps precipitated this time by a delayed decision to purchase a Baby Deltic that revealed an increase in price when the decision was eventually made?"

I really don't believe that increasing the price of an item by 24% in a fortnight can be desribed as (your words) "normal trading practice" .

 

Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not true, perhaps some evidence to support your dismissal of others claims would be well served here

 

Yeah - totally familar with "life's rich pattern" and was seriously thinking about streatching to the earlier price (which I thought was steep for a bo-bo deisel probably based on well tried Heljan bo-bo technology - I've already got three Heljan OO types and they are beautiful runners) but certaily not the new price - much too steep. And Hattons also say..."32-430B Bachmann UK Class 24 diesel D5061 in BR Plain Green. OO Gauge (1:76th scale)

£52

"...for goodness sake!!!

 

At the risk of repeating myself, I am a consumer - I buy model railway stuff - I don't sell it, as I am becoming to think quite a number of RMwebbers do.

 

The fact you seem unable to grasp is as a consumer you have the choice of purchasing or not, you do not have the right to dictate the price

 

Royaloak's comment "Or maybe we have all been around a bit longer than you Brian and understand better how the retail world works especially in a "global" sense" is also a "tad" distasteful from my end but, hey ho, such is life. As someone said earlier, you really need to know who you are talking to on here.

 

Thinly veiled threats are not received too well here, if you would care to share with us your vast experience we would welcome it, otherwise WIND IT IN.

 

this is my final input here.

 

There are quite a few members who will be pleased to here that, you have already come to the attention of the admin team far too many times for a newcomer, please take the advice you have been given.

 

Regards,

Brian.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Mod3
Inflammatory comments (mostly) removed

[Pennine MC]

Was D5545 the first of these? I think I was shown through the engine compartment while it was idling at Liv St, must have been 1961.

 

So anyway, back to the plot. Yes Ian, I think it was - numbers in the D5655 - 70 range also ring a bell now I think on.

[cctransuk]

... I am a consumer - I buy model railway stuff - I don't sell it, as I am becoming to think quite a number of RMwebbers do. I am full time employed as a Chartered Engineer in the railway (not model railway) industry, not far off retirement ...

 

You'll be joining the club soon then - I am a very recently retired local government civil engineer who has no interest in a second career selling model railways - or anything else for that matter.

 

I'm too busy modelling, and supplying the transfers that I produce FOR MY OWN USE to other modellers who can find a use for them.

 

There's no commercial motivation behind my views, just pragmatism.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[The Stationmaster]

 

So anyway, back to the plot. Yes Ian, I think it was - numbers in the D5655 - 70 range also ring a bell now I think on.

If in doubt consult the trusty old IA ABC - and you are spot on Ian as it shows D5655 - 70 as 1,600hp (uprated Mirrlees JV512T running at 950rpm instead of 900 rpm on the 'cooking' version on production locos).

[Phil Bullock]

 

I doubt it Phil - at that time, the Brush locos still had the Mirrlees lumps in them, it was that that was uprated. Not sure about electrics, but 5835 was unique in having the big cooling grilles at both ends, which it kept until the end, viz:

 

http://www.flickr.co...ews/5813358008/

 

There were also other class members rated at 1600hp for a time, I can never trouble to remember which ones

 

 

 

Unless you count 47s with duff traction motors

 

 

Hang on - dont they all have Duff traction motors? :no:

[railroadbill]

If in doubt consult the trusty old IA ABC - and you are spot on Ian as it shows D5655 - 70 as 1,600hp (uprated Mirrlees JV512T running at 950rpm instead of 900 rpm on the 'cooking' version on production locos).

Evening all. Back to the plot again. My Ian Allan ABC for winter 62/63 shows Brush A1A-A1A as being both type 2 and type 3. The Mirrlees Bickerton and Day 12 cyl JVS12T engines are variously rated as 1,250 HP at 850rpm (D5500 to D5519), 1365 HP at 900 rpm (most of them) 1600 HP at 950 rpm (D5545 and D5655 to D 5670) and temporarily uprated to 2000 hp D5835. So that ties in with what has been posted above (presumably 2000hp would have really made that loco a type 4 as Phil suggested.)

 

Not long before they would all be re-engined by English Electric. Another pilot scheme non-sucess story. But wasn't Mirrlees Bickerton and Day a wonderful name, though?

[railroadbill]

Back to Baby Deltics. D 5901, as discussed above, is one of the next releases, according to Hatton's web site, as used at Railway Technical Centre - no picture yet, alas! Still £96 for pre order.

 

http://www.ehattons....tockDetail.aspx

Edited December 11, 2011 by railroadbill

[Michael Delamar]

nice roof shot here..

 

http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/

 

and here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40263244@N04/5722012151/in/photostream/

Edited December 14, 2011 by michael delamar