The British Railways thread

[johnmckenzie]

Guys - as has been recently discussed elsewhere, I read a lot here but post little, simply because I don't know that much about US trains.

However I realise that there are a few of us brits here, and there are a few of you Americans who like our trains.

So I got to thinking, what harm would it do to open up a British railways thread and see how it goes?

[johnmckenzie]

There has been mention of British locos being smoky and noisy...

Hell, yes!

And diesels never got more smoky and noisy than this strange loco-
http://nicwhe8.freehostia.com/d5705/start.html

The Metrovick Co-Bo!!

In 1955 the British Transport Comission decided that steam had to go. Britain needed new, clean, modern, reliable diesel locos. A selection of small batches of locos were comissioned both from external train manufacturers and also BR's own workshops, none of whom had much real experience of diesel locos. The results were mixed, to say the least, and whilst the plan managed to produce a few of the best designs to run in Britain, it also managed to give us a few howlers, too.

Probably the worst to be designed was the Co-Bo.

The idea wasn't all that bad - BR wanted one type with a two stroke engine to compare with all the four stroke designs they were being offered. However Metropolitan-Vickers had a slight problem - their design was a tad overweight for a four axle loco, and a tad under their target for a six axle loco. Their answer? Distribute the engine more towards one end of the design and have one three axle bogie and one two axle bogie!

The resulting loco was bizarre looking, even to eyes unfamiliar with diesel locos. Metrovick built 20 of them.

If ever there was an argument to counter the phrase "Handsome is as handsome does" then this was it- from the moment it took to the rails it was an utter dog!! Fires were frequent, as were crankshaft seizures. The noise was deafening and the ride quality from having two different wheel arrangements (and uneven weight distribution) has been reported as "lively". In fact the ride was so rough that the original cab windows (which had wraparounds to the side of the loco) tended to shake out whilst working; arriving at your destination to find the loco had one or even two less windows than it left with was not uncommon!!

British Railways, in their wisdom, decided not to order any further examples and ongoing remedial work was eventually cancelled. All the locos were sent to Barrow-in-Furness shed where they couldn't do much damage to the local timetables.

The beginning of the end came in December 1967. One of the locos caught fire (again) but this time it was inside Barrow locoshed. It burned itself out, burned Barrow shed down and destroyed 5 of its sisters at the same time!

BR's patience had run out, and the rest of them were withdrawn within a year.

This would have been the end of the story but the Research Department needed a loco to haul test trains occasionally. The duties would not justify taking a mainline loco out of service, so the Technical Centre comandeered a recently withdrawn loco in operational condition every so often and ran it until it needed replacing. One Co-Bo, D5705, was used in this way and eventually ended up dumped in a scrap line where it sat for several years. Some poor souls then bought it for preservation and the rebuild is still underway 30 years later!

The Metrovick Co-Bo is an unmitigated disaster, a heroic failure, a complete flop. Yet somehow I love the story and the locos, and the fact that despite the odds one still exists today!

[Samwolf]

Thanks johnmckenzie. Sounds like the UK railroads version of our Edsel.

[Chock]

Sounds like the UK railroads version of our Edsel.

Nah, that would be this thing: http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCO ... tsonst.htm

Al

[styckx]

I'm sure other locos have this, but first noticed it on the Class 31.

John, what was the advantage of having the idling wheel on the 31 a full inch less in diameter then the driving wheels?

[johnmckenzie]

I have heard this asked before, never heard a satisfactory answer though.

My own guess is that if the wheel diameter is less and the sprung axle height is the same then this would place an emphasis on the sprung compression of the driven axles i.e. reduce the relative load on the undriven axle with regard to the driven ones. Maybe.
(And if this isn't the reason then I have absolutely no idea whatsoever!)

There was a French A1A-A1A (68000) design which could adjust the load on the undriven axle thus increasing the axle load and therefore the tractive effort of the driven ones. However this certainly wasn't the case with the British class 31!

[Kali]

I would assume it's just to lower the axle & leave more space, the bogie is attached to the body just above.

There was a whole raft of failed first generation main-line diesels here ( which is odd, because the UK had been exporting main-line diesels for about 30 years by the time the pilot scheme started ). So many well established builders went under because they just couldn't grasp diesel construction - North British were probably the worst, everything they built was a disaster even when they didn't design it. Even relatively successful designs like the 31 and the 47 had problems - the 31s had to be re-engined ( and there were a lot of them, it wasn't cheap ), the 47s had to be de-rated so they lost about 100bhp.

Talking of unmitigated disasters, even English Electric had one: the baby Deltic. For starters it was too heavy to run the routes it was ordered for - despite enormous efforts at lightening it - and a 9cyl Deltic engine was absolutely needlessly complicated for an 1100bhp engine. For the first three years they ended up being stuck on ECS and other services that didn't really matter when they broke down, and then shunting, and finally after 4 years all 10 had broken down completely... so they got totally rebuilt. 5 years later they were all gone again! total waste of effort.

One is being rebuilt out of a 37 with class 20 bogies, I have no idea what engine they're going to use... one can hope it's more reliable than the original though. Edit - it is actually an original; stick "baby deltic" into youtube sometime, it's an interesting sounding beast.

And it does actually look like a 37 crossed with a 20:

[johnmckenzie]

I would assume it's just to lower the axle & leave more space, the bogie is attached to the body just above.

I don't think that's the reason, Kali - attaching the bogie doesn't take up that much space that it's necessary to shrink the centre wheels, and the wheels which cause most clearance problems due to their size are those furthest away from the centre pivot - increasing the minimum turning radius. I could be wrong, often am!!

[Kali]

Well, it was just a guess.

Today's effort is this amazing device. The maintenance cost must have been hilarious, and the noise!

[styckx]

Well, it was just a guess.

Today's effort is amazing device. The maintenance cost must have been hilarious, and the noise!

Wow.. That looks a cash vacuum with no off switch.

The locomotive had four main engines. Each engine was connected to the gearbox via a hydraulic coupling,

Good lord man.. What were they thinking?

[Kali]

Did you find the bit where it has auxiliary engines to drive the roots blowers? :)

[johnmckenzie]

Ah, the Fell Diesel!

If ever there was a daft idea, that was it!

[Chock]

Is it me, or does that driver in the pic of the Baby Deltic on this thread look like he is giving someone 'the finger' as he drives past?

Al