pre BR first generation DMU railcar development (not steam)

[Echo]

Echo

 

Yes, I realise it was "only" 1000hp, but that still put it ahead of what EE could offer at the time (600-800hp?) and the Paxman (880hp?), I think. And, it worked, which the Paxman seemed to have struggled to do.

 

The more I think about H&W, the more I think they might have been a missed opportunity - they built Bo-Bo locos of c650hp in the late 1930s, using a Burmeister & Wain 2-stroke, and the few they built seem to have lasted for donkey's years. I presume they concentrated on their core business of shipbuilding before/during the war, just as Armstrong Whitworth turned to war work, but imagine if they had pursued the railway market and progressed to 1000hp......... A decent domestic competitor for EE .....

 

Still, we can't re-run history!

 

Kevin

 

PS: we aren't at cross-purposes are we? I'm trying to help the LMS with their road-switcher, 10800, not the 1600hp main-line locos, 10000/01, which were jolly good.

Agreed on the road switcher, I think!

 

As for competition, there is no point in competition if there is no market - and both pre-war and in the early BR era there was no real market for diesel locos in the UK, other than shunters and a few prototypes. Manufacturers had to gain experience overseas. 

 

H&W sold very few locos to build up any great expertise. The real opposition to EE was surely Sulzer, who attempted to get into the British and Commonwealth market through Armstrong Whitworth pre-war and then BRCW, before supplying BR's own in-house jobs. I have never quite understood who took the lead post-war though. Was it Sulzer who asked BRCW to act as a subcontractor, or did BRCW do the tendering and design work?

 

Anyway, hopefully back to DMUs!

[Nearholmer]

Might be safer, by the looks of it.

 

Has this thing of beauty been paraded here before?

 

NCC, Leyland-engined, not overly caught-up in the passion for streamlining.

 

K

 

PS: On the Sukzer thing, CIE used their Swiss-built engines in the two 113 class, introduced in 1950, and BRCW used them for the Australian NSU class in 1954, I think. After that, engine manufacture for UK/Ireland reverted to Armstrongs, but the general form of BRCW loco build from 1955 for CIE and BR closely followed the Swiss pre-war design model (see photo that I posted in the BR modernisation Plan Diesels thread of a pre-war one). So, whoever led whom, the Swiss were passing drawings round all over the place.

[Vicrail]

Hi all,

 

I have stumbled across this forum while searching for info on Walker Bros.

 

I see there was some interest in the railcars we have here in Victoria, Australia.   

 

I am a volunteer at the Daylesford Spa Country Railway in Victoria, Australia.  We specialise in the restoration and operation of railmotors and rail cars of the former Victorian Railways.   The Victorian Railways had 3 variations of Walker railcars they being 102hp, 153hp and 280hp.  

 

At Daylesford we have one of each version, however we only have a operating example of the 280hp version which has a center power unit with passenger cars articulated at either end.  We have a second one in storage awaiting restoration. 

 

91RM at Daylesford by VR_639, on Flickr

 

We are currently nearing the completion of our 153hp version after an extensive 30 year restoration process.

 

32RM Powerbogie with engine removed by VR_639, on Flickr

 

32rm by VR_639, on Flickr

IMG_2738 by VR_639, on Flickr

 

17922_839176132819559_1157245274054457318_n by VR_639, on Flickr

 

 

for more info follow us on https://www.facebook.com/daylesfordrailway/

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Vic rail

 

More please!!

 

Really interesting and heartening to see such great work going on.

 

Kevin

[adanapress]

How about that strange vehicle for the Dyke Branch of the S.R.?

[Nearholmer]

Would that be the one that we discussed in post 55 et seq,after you reminded us of it before?

 

K

[runs as required]

I promised Kevin Nearholmer I'd compile a timeline summary of the various railcars mentioned in the above posts.

It being a wet Sunday, here is a draft down to 1930. I've laid it out as a table in Word, but it didn't transfer as I'd hoped into the thread so I inserted it via PrtScr - anybody have a better way of putting it up so the links work?

dh

• Click on the above timeline frames to enlarge them
• there are notes about posts in the preceding thread where more can be found 

[uax6]

The AW power house design I would say was not of their doing. For the first two GSR orders they were just the mechanical subcontractors. The GSR chief engineer thought out the design concept.

 

Interestingly those power houses were 1600HP, two 800HP sulzers were mounted side by side in the body, being 5'6" gauge there being enough room to do this.

 

Andy G

[Nearholmer]

Useful summary RaR, thanks.

 

There was so much going on in different places 1900-1914, that it would be hard to summarise it all, but it probably would be worth adding theSwedish DEVA diesel-electric railcars of 1912/13, http://www.svenska-lok.se/materiel.php?bid=17825 because, so far as I can work out after much delving, they were the first successful application of the Diesel engine to rail traction.

 

Pre-1896, there were several strands, stretching back to c1880, which seems to be when the first internal-combustion engined rail vehicle ran, although there are tantalising hints going back to c1827 (yes, I did type that correctly).

 

Kevin

[runs as required]

The AW power house design I would say was not of their doing. For the first two GSR orders they were just the mechanical subcontractors. The GSR chief engineer thought out the design concept.

Interestingly those power houses were 1600HP, two 800HP sulzers were mounted side by side in the body, being 5'6" gauge there being enough room to do this.

"Not of their doing" is a bit unfair. Though Engineer Pedro Saccaggioa was the procurer who chose A-W to build his 'Mobile Power Houses' after touring European manufacturers, A-W with their licenced Sulzer engine production and dedicated diesel-electric rail traction facility in Scotswood were like Jesuit converts to the 'pre-electrification' cause, trying hard to win over UK railways.  Herbert Walker and the Southern were their best bet (the LNER being cash strapped) but the Hastings DEMUs did not come about until BR days; EE having offered sanctuary to A-W traction engineers with the Scotswood plant's switch to tank production after Munich.

Having commuted on those thumpers in the 1960s - they too might have benefitted by having separate generator cars a la .Saccaggioa.(and the HST?)

dh

[PhilJ W]

There was also the Wolseley-Siddeley predecessor to the model T Fords operated by Col. Stevens and the Shefflex railcars that came later. The body of the Wolseley-Siddely still survives and efforts are being made to have it restored and operating again using a chassis of similar type and age  with a modern engine/transmission.

[runs as required]

It has been really engrossing to collate into a timeline matrix (post #107 above) all the information contributed in the preceding thread - and the earlier thread on the Coventry railcars.

Interesting aspects have flagged up.

One is the search for innovative ways of of reducing costs:

• Colonel Stephens's stark minimalism,
• the Irish pioneering of diesel railcars through the interwar years to serve rural districts in political turmoil.

On the other hand there is the GWR programme of diesel railcars that become victims of their own success:

• businessmens' demand for the diesel railcar expresses that required multi-car trains to cope (overtaken by WWII) and
• branchline diesel cars that grow their traffic well beyond their 70 seat capacity .

The thinking that really appealed to me was the "pre-electrification" strategy devised by Engineer Pedro Saccaggioa and applied successfully to the expanding suburbs of Buenos Aires. This was taken up and prosletised enthusiastically by Armstrong-Whitworth. The "Mobile Power House" diesel generating sets were to develop the traffic of a new commuter line to the point where receipts justified electrification then move on to grow the traffic on another link in the network. It so ought to have worked in Britain - out into inter-war SW Essex for example.

 

One aspect not clear to me was the fuel consumption of the various diesel systems. Leyland were proud of the 13mpg of their £1850 4 wheel LMS 40 seater railbuses with torque converters.

A-W reported 11mpg for their 60 seater Saurer diesel/electric sold eventually to the LNER for £2500 (half its original build cost).

The GWR cars' streamlining "reduced fuel consumption by 20%", and the later application of fuel-injection further improved economic running. But I couldn't find an actual figure - for example of the parcel cars geared to 40mph

 

dh.

[PhilJ W]

RaR, diesel engines all rely on fuel injection. The principal innovation in diesel engine design in the 1930's was the Ricardo head where the fuel was injected directly into the cylinder. This proved to be far more efficient than the earlier separate combustion chamber, the price was noisier engines but this was more than offset by even greater economy. AEC, who provided the engines for the GWR railcars were at the forefront of diesel engine developement in the 1930's including turbo-charging (for use at high altitudes).

[Joseph_Pestell]

The LMS Michelin units are not "Picassos". That is the nickname of the much later X3800 series of SNCF railcars.

 

The confusion comes from commonplace use of the word "Micheline" in French to mean any diesel railcar.

[Nearholmer]

The other thing to think about is that fuel-economy probably wasn't the big issue in overall cost terms.

 

Staff wages, number of vehicles in the fleet to maintain a given train service etc were all probably much bigger factors. Diesel railcars had the potential to be so overwhelmingly cheaper than steam traction to do the same job that a few mpg either way probably didn't make much difference.

 

As a side issue, does anyone know whether diesel fuel was cheap in the 1930s? Presumably it wasn't taxed to the degree that it is today, but, also presumably, the supply chain was much less efficient than it is now.

 

K

[PhilJ W]

Diesel fuel was far cheaper than petrol in the thirties coupled with greater economy made them desirable for heavy road haulage. Within the decade they had displaced petrol almost completely for heavy road haulage and made inroads into the medium haulage market. Morris Commercial had begun offering a diesel alternative c. 1938, it was only the war that stopped further developements.

[runs as required]

RaR, diesel engines all rely on fuel injection. The principal innovation in diesel engine design in the 1930's was the Ricardo head where the fuel was injected directly into the cylinder. This proved to be far more efficient than the earlier separate combustion chamber, the price was noisier engines but this was more than offset by even greater economy. AEC, who provided the engines for the GWR railcars were at the forefront of diesel engine development in the 1930's including turbo-charging (for use at high altitudes).

Yes I've always understood about diesel fuel pumps, the pipes and the expensive injector nozzles. Re-reading what I wrote in post #112 above I agree that "the later application of fuel-injection" has somehow lost the word "improved".

I lifted this info about the 1938 cars Swindon built in house from here:

The arrangements for this batch of 20, the order for which was placed in September 1938, differed from all the previous railcars, with AEC only providing the engines, this time 105 BHP, 9.25L direct injection units (chosen for greatest possible fuel economy), and transmissions while the under frames, bogies, brakes and bodies were built at Swindon.

http://www.totally-transport.co.uk/gwr-aec-railcar.html

 

 

My query about fuel consumption arose from it being explicitly stated in the Leyland, A-W and EE technical data but not in the GWR/AEC technical info - apart from the oft repeated claim about a 20% saving in fuel consumption due to streamlining - which seems like a publicity department claim.

 

The LMS Michelin units are not "Picassos". That is the nickname of the much later X3800 series of SNCF railcars.

The confusion comes from commonplace use of the word "Micheline" in French to mean any diesel railcar.

 I confess learning of the particularity of the 'Picasso' label to be rather a disappointment.

I first laughed at hearing the name from my sister's French exchange family in the early fifties. By pulling grotesque faces, they all demonstrated how the little 'eyes' that projected above the roofline of seemingly most 'autorails', like the expressively re-arranged facial features of a Picasso portrait, were a Gallic trait.

 

  dh

[Nearholmer]

Two thoughts:

 

- the injection question might have been a late rumbling of the progress from air-injection, to solid-injection;

 

- 20% fuel saving on a GWR railcar by streamlining .......Pffft! Definitely marketing department creative use of figures, I would say.

 

K

[PhilJ W]

Two thoughts:

 

- the injection question might have been a late rumbling of the progress from air-injection, to solid-injection;

 

- 20% fuel saving on a GWR railcar by streamlining .......Pffft! Definitely marketing department creative use of figures, I would say.

 

K

Solid injection does not 'cool' the charge as air injection does giving greater RPM. Some applications such as marine diesels that are slow reving still use air injection. I note that the HP rating of the later GWR railcar engines was quoted as a 105 hp, the earlier indirect injection engines only managed 95 hp.

[62613]

Solid injection does not 'cool' the charge as air injection does giving greater RPM. Some applications such as marine diesels that are slow reving still use air injection. I note that the HP rating of the later GWR railcar engines was quoted as a 105 hp, the earlier indirect injection engines only managed 95 hp.

Which ones, Phil? Blast injection (assuming that's what you mean by 'air injection,) went out, generally, before WW2. All the main engine diesels I was on, even 35 years ago, used solid injection. What usually keeps the engine cooler, IIRC, is the excess air from the turbo.

[runs as required]

Another variable in K's  'overall cost terms' seems to have been the weight (or mass) of the railcar. 

 

Right down to the Derby 'lightweight' DMU and the APT, weight saving seems to present a mech. eng. quandary - at its most elemental: balanced against safety.

Safety seems to have been the main reason for early withdrawl of the LMS pair of Coventry built Michelines (track side safety for workers and the rubber tyre and track circuit issue could easily have been addressed - c.f. the retrofitting of AWS to GW cars.)

 

Early promotional justifications for railcar weight saving were the steam railcar engineers, the light railway lobby esp. Col Stephens, then the machines covered in Timeline 1 above.

 

Articulation and the saving of bogie weight seemed to be the first idea transferred to railcar development by CMEs, but like mainline coaching stock was dropped because  of sidelining an entire set due to a running fault.

In the succession of 1930s Micheline trials in Britain 'lightweight' was always stressed as a virtue (together with reduced braking distance).

The 3 LMS Leyland railbuses, the sole A-W LNER diesel electric railcar, lastly the LMS 1938 set, were all promoted as 'lightweight'.

 

Interestingly the GWR never sold their streamlined railcars as ‘lightweight’. The GWR was HEAVYWEIGHT in every sense – a Broadgauge legacy.

 

Their railcars actually grew heavier and heavier, first with buffets and toilets for the businessmens’ expresses, then the addition of buffers and trailer couplings, later the corridor connections for the single end cars. The weight of the robust Swindon built underframe implied passenger safety in the days before integral construction. 

 

The only design that continues to deliver weight-saving as a priority using aluminium aircraft style integral construction coaches allied to a minimalist articulation system seems to me the Spanish Talgo. Double deck HS Talgo trains are now being bought by Indian Railways to run on their existing lines.

 

dh

[Welchester]

Diesel fuel was far cheaper than petrol in the thirties coupled with greater economy made them desirable for heavy road haulage. Within the decade they had displaced petrol almost completely for heavy road haulage and made inroads into the medium haulage market. Morris Commercial had begun offering a diesel alternative c. 1938, it was only the war that stopped further developements.

 

L.T.C. Rolt mentions somewhere that in 1930 diesel oil was 3d a gallon, as opposed to 1/3d for petrol, so a quarter of the price.

[PhilJ W]

Which ones, Phil? Blast injection (assuming that's what you mean by 'air injection,) went out, generally, before WW2. All the main engine diesels I was on, even 35 years ago, used solid injection. What usually keeps the engine cooler, IIRC, is the excess air from the turbo.

Sorry, went back and read the article again, air was used for starting some engines

[Nearholmer]

RaR

 

I have a feeling that some of this "light weight" business was a case of making a virtue out of a necessity, at a time when the power to weight ratio of Diesel engines was still pretty poor, so that keeping the required power down, by having a light vehicle was important.

 

As engine power/weight ratio grew, for the most part it wasn't a case of keeping the same vehicle weight, while retaining engine rating, and decreasing engine size, it was a case of taking advantage of greater power to add vehicle weight (comfort and safety) and speed.

 

Rather the same as has happened with cars more recently, whereby a modern "mini car" probably has 100hp+ under the bonnet, and is a lot faster, and a lot less "mini", than its predecessor. If one took a 1937 Austin 7, and fitted a modern 7hp engine to it, the engine would probably be teeny-tiny, running very fast, with fuel efficiency far better than the 1937 engine ......... But nobody would want the slow, cramped, flimsy car! (Except perhaps in emerging economies)

 

Kevin

 

PS: just for fun, I googled to find modern 7hp petrol engines that we might fit into an old Austin, and a good one looks to be the Honda GX200, which is a 200cc machine used to power garden machinery and pressure washers.

[Zomboid]

So this is going way too far, but would that Honda have the necessary torque to shift the Austin?

Not that I imagine the Austin engine was overburdened with it, but torque is at least as important as power when assessing the output of a mechanical transmission.