Jump to content
Image restoration from pre-May 2021 continues and may take an indefinite period of time.

Class 28 "metrovick" book?


sdgs6126

Recommended Posts

Are you looking for a specific title or just any book on Metrovicks?

 

I can't say I've ever seen a book solely on them but several have the odd chapter.

 

Have you seen this website?

 

http://nicwhe8.freeh...5705/start.html

 

There is more info there than any single book I've seen.

 

Thank you! This website is very good for me! I build Silverfoxmodel's Class 28, and this site give me lot informations!

 

Merci!

 

SEb

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside

 

Does anybody know if there was any specific way to couple these when double headed.

I remember seeing some on freights around Trent when new.

 

E.g. Bo end to Bo end or Co end to Co end or didn't it matter?

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As an aside

 

Does anybody know if there was any specific way to couple these when double headed.

I remember seeing some on freights around Trent when new.

 

E.g. Bo end to Bo end or Co end to Co end or didn't it matter?

Keith

I would hope it wouldn't matter or you;d lose a benefit of diesel over steam. No doubt though they probably drove better from one cab which was preferred.

 

Hopefully we'll see a model of the class in a few years with Heljan covering the oddities slowly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I formed an impression from photos years ago, that Bo end leading might be the preference, but cannot recall any statements one way or the other.

 

If it is offered as a RTR model, since it requires more tooling than the usual bogie diesel due to the assymetric chassis with two completely different bogie assemblies, it will be interesting to see if that makes it noticeably more expensive than a comparably sized type with the normal arrangement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope it wouldn't matter or you;d lose a benefit of diesel over steam. No doubt though they probably drove better from one cab which was preferred.

 

Hopefully we'll see a model of the class in a few years with Heljan covering the oddities slowly.

 

Is it possible that initially they went around in pairs - although I didn't see them that often there always seemed to be two on a freight train!

I imagine that they were originally intended for fast freights (Condor?) but they soon seemed to start wandering.

 

A curious design that apparantly wasn't too successful.

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If it is offered as a RTR model, since it requires more tooling than the usual bogie diesel due to the assymetric chassis with two completely different bogie assemblies, it will be interesting to see if that makes it noticeably more expensive than a comparably sized type with the normal arrangement.

 

The wheelbase of the Co bogie is 5ft 11in + 6ft 2 1/2in which is within an inch or two of a Western (6ft 1in + 6ft 1in) and the Bo is the standard 8ft 6in (classes 15 and 17) so an obvious one for Heljan :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The wheelbase of the Co bogie is 5ft 11in + 6ft 2 1/2in which is within an inch or two of a Western (6ft 1in + 6ft 1in) and the Bo is the standard 8ft 6in (classes 15 and 17) so an obvious one for Heljan :)

Were these bogies existing designs from two other classes or were they special for this particular class?

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were these bogies existing designs from two other classes or were they special for this particular class?

 

Keith

 

They were commonwealth type bogies but unlike any others used on BR locos the equalising beams sit on the axle boxes outside the cast frame rather than inside, so 'specials'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of discussion over the years about the Metrovick Co-Bos, which would lead you to think they were an abject failure and an embarrassment to Metropolitan Vickers and British Railways.

The wheel configuration was certainly unique, the power unit very, well dodgy, and the power to weight ratio - puny.

 

I believe these locos were ahead of their time and the concept was actually quite sound.

 

Mainline diesel locomotive development saw the LMS twins aim to replace the big pacifics, and the SR trio to replace the Bulleid pacifics. British Railways' own entry into the smaller diesel locomotive fleet resulted in the overweight 1160hp BR/Sulzer type two. The design team struggled to get the weight down, by reducing the boiler water tanks and other weight saving "features" and the 24/1s managed better route availability than the original batch.

 

Even since then there have been struggles to squeeze four axle locomotives into the recognised R/A parameters laid out by the permanent way engineers.

 

So why not use that extra axle ?

 

Just imagine a latter day loco of around 100 tons on five axles with something like a MTU4000 in it ? The loco would have a better R/A than the current class 67 - already hampered by reduced fuel capacity compared to that designed. Increased traction and braking capabilities based ten 50p sized contact points with the railhead, instead of just eight on your Bo-Bo wheel arrangement.

 

I believe the Metrovicks were an opportunity lost, and wonder what they would have been like had they received the same transplant as the Brush type two - the "unbreakable" EE 12CSVT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I imagine that they were originally intended for fast freights (Condor?) ...

 

Not intended as such, although certainly promoted in that way at the time as both the locos and train were very much part of the 'modern image' (sic). The locos were just part of the many orders for locos of Type B (later type 2) rating, and the spec would have included mixed traffic capability and consequently a train heating boiler

 

 

So why not use that extra axle ?

...

I believe the Metrovicks were an opportunity lost, and wonder what they would have been like had they received the same transplant as the Brush type two - the "unbreakable" EE 12CSVT.

 

Intersting thought Phil. Three- and five-cylinder car engines are accepted enough nowadays, even though they naturally might feel 'wrong'. As for the 12CSVT engines, we've discussed this before (a long time back) but the electrics of the locos were considered generally OK and the EE engines for them were actually ordered, although later diverted to the Brush 2 programme

 

 

If it is offered as a RTR model, since it requires more tooling than the usual bogie diesel due to the assymetric chassis with two completely different bogie assemblies, it will be interesting to see if that makes it noticeably more expensive than a comparably sized type with the normal arrangement.

 

One thing's for certain - whatever the price is, there'll be whinges about it and they'll want Bachmann to do one cheaper ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thought Phil. Three- and five-cylinder car engines are accepted enough nowadays, even though they naturally might feel 'wrong'. As for the 12CSVT engines, we've discussed this before (a long time back) but the electrics of the locos were considered generally OK and the EE engines for them were actually ordered, although later diverted to the Brush 2 programme

 

Oops, forgot Pennine !!!

 

If it is offered as a RTR model, since it requires more tooling than the usual bogie diesel due to the assymetric chassis with two completely different bogie assemblies, it will be interesting to see if that makes it noticeably more expensive than a comparably sized type with the normal arrangement.

 

Not necessarily.

As has been mentioned earlier, the "Bo" end is a "standard" 8'6" bogie, whilst the "Co" end is basically a Western bogie. Not an engineer I assume that provided the wheels are the same size on both bogies then a fairly standard cardan shaft drive will power both bogies from a central "standard" motor/flywheel unit. Not suggesting that Heljan should particularly produce the CoBo you understand, particularly as other model manufacturers produce 8'6" bogies !!!

 

One thing's for certain - whatever the price is, there'll be whinges about it and they'll want Bachmann to do one cheaper ;)

 

Spot on Pennine

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the mechanism that makes the extra cost on a Bo-Co model: those can be drawn up economically to suit the specific dimensions using a CAD system to vary a generic design. Since it is a full width and height body there's no constraint on motor position to prevent Heljan using their proven generic 'Bo' one end, generic 'Co' the other end. So far, so Lego.

 

But if you can tool up the cosmetic frames for those Co and Bo bogies for the same money as tooling a single Bo or Co set of frames, then I am sure the RTR manufacturers will be happy to hear from you. The unique tooling cost is the sensitive point in cost control: look at Bachmann reusing the class 57 bogie frame for the class 47: that was to avoid a significant incremental cost (in producing a model which clearly they wanted to be very price competitive with the Heljan 47). There's good concensus in statements from the RTR makers: chassis are relatively cheap to tool up, most of the tooling cost is on cosmetic parts. I really would not be surprised to learn that the tooling cost increment on the Bo-Co is 15% over a symmetric class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...