Why were the Deltics retired and not cascaded?

[43096]

The Deltics could have had one engine removed to turn them into Type 3s and sent to Eastfield to work the West Highland.

Seems obvious with hindsight.

I'm assuming that is some sort of joke.

 

[randyrippley]

I'm assuming that is some sort of joke.

I'm sure it was, but in retrospect it would have been ideal territory for the class 23 fleet - a long constant run with relatively few stops, just what they needed. The constant stops and starts on the London commuter runs killed them through thermal cycling

 

[43096]

I'm sure it was, but in retrospect it would have been ideal territory for the class 23 fleet - a long constant run with relatively few stops, just what they needed. The constant stops and starts on the London commuter runs killed them through thermal cycling

Given that there were only 10 Class 23s, they ended up in the best place for them. The bin.

 

[DB]

Almost certainly the Hunt class minesweepers that have been refitted with Cat c32 engines versus T9 Deltics (class 23) have an enormous amount of spare space in the engine room.

THe MTUs are quite big engines.

And the Deltics aren't designed for a single large power unit so the weight bearing stucture would be all wrong. I assume that DP2 would have been built completely differently in this area, despite the upper bodyshell looking superficially like a Deltic.

 

[randyrippley]

Given that there were only 10 Class 23s, they ended up in the best place for them. The bin.

there were only ever 22 55s built after the rest were cancelled, should they have been binned?

 

[DB]

If I remember correctly the story was the engines in DELTIC had steel crankcases and so were thinner walled than the alloy production ones, which were too wide to fit

Rather doubt that. As I understand it the engines in Deltic are basically cosmetic - scrap, empty shells built out of faulty withdrawn components (porous blocks, etc) which were fitted prior to it being donated to the science museum.

 

[randyrippley]

THe MTUs are quite big engines.

And the Deltics aren't designed for a single large power unit so the weight bearing stucture would be all wrong. I assume that DP2 would have been built completely differently in this area, despite the upper bodyshell looking superficially like a Deltic.

It WAS a Deltic bodyshell but heavily modded, a spare off the production line after the last ten or so were cancelled

 

[DB]

It WAS a Deltic bodyshell but heavily modded, a spare off the production line after the last ten or so were cancelled

As I say, I rather doubt it - it seems far more likely that it was purpose-built on the same production line to a modified design - changing all the weight bearing structure in the bottom of a monocoque bodyshell after it had been built would have been a really significant job.

Every report I've seen indicates that it wasn't the last off the production line either, which would indicate it wasn't due to a cancelled order.

 

[randyrippley]

Rather doubt that. As I understand it the engines in Deltic are basically cosmetic - scrap, empty shells built out of faulty withdrawn components (porous blocks, etc) which were fitted prior to it being donated to the science museum.

That maybe so - but I wasn't referring to them. EE stripped out the originals to stop the technology getting nicked, remember they were basically military engines

 

[DB]

That maybe so - but I wasn't referring to them. EE stripped out the originals to stop the technology getting nicked, remember they were basically military engines

Surely it's more likely that they were removed because they could be reused? Or had already been reused and they needed something to put in the loco?

 

[randyrippley]

As I say, I rather doubt it - it seems far more likely that it was purpose-built on the same production line to a modified design - changing all the weight bearing structure in the bottom of a monocoque bodyshell after it had been built would have been a really significant job.

Every report I've seen indicates that it wasn't the last off the production line either, which would indicate it wasn't due to a cancelled order.

From what I've read it was number seven or eight, modified on the production line. But it used a body originally intended as a Deltic

 

[DB]

Yes, a close-ish relative you might say

I've seen it mentioned on another forum (whether true I can't say) that at least one 50 had a 56 block at one point. 40 blocks in 50s, and vice versa, were apparently not that uncommon either.

 

[randyrippley]

Surely it's more likely that they were removed because they could be reused? Or had already been reused and they needed something to put in the loco?

Not sure they could be reused - if the crankcases really were steel they'd be no use to the navy, and non-standard in a loco

 

[Anonymous10]

Each to their own I guess, as much as I may like Deltics I've never considered them the best sounding.



TOPS or its predecessor?

The one being discussed in this thread whichever is easier to find a page for this thread so I can do background reading

 

[43096]

there were only ever 22 55s built after the rest were cancelled, should they have been binned?

They were as soon as something better came along. A fleet of 10 non-standard locos was of no use to anyone in terms of standardisation and that’s before you get on to their unreliability.

 

[DB]

From what I've read it was number seven or eight, modified on the production line. But it used a body originally intended as a Deltic

I've also seen it mentioned as it being the 17th - there are a lot of urban myths!

Either way it seems highly unlikely that, once they knew that they needed a bodyshell with a completely different base layout, they would choose to carry out significant modifications to an existing one when it would be easlier to just build it as required from scratch, given that unless it was one of the last ones it couldn't have been a spare left over.

Remember that these are monocoque bodyshells, meaning that the whole thing is the load-bearning structure - it's not like earlier classes such as 40s and peaks which had a separate underframe and bodyshell. Modifying it to take one large engine instead of two smaller ones would not have been a trivial job.

 

[randyrippley]

I've seen it mentioned on another forum (whether true I can't say) that at least one 50 had a 56 block at one point. 40 blocks in 50s, and vice versa, were apparently not that uncommon either.

The 50s were said at one stage to only have 49 blocks, even when you added in the one from DP2
Too many conrods going sideways

 

[DB]

Not sure they could be reused - if the crankcases really were steel they'd be no use to the navy, and non-standard in a loco

It belonged to EE - they could have used them for anything.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Aug 2020 ==

The one being discussed in this thread whichever is easier to find a page for this thread so I can do background reading

Class 55 - there's loads about them on the web, and six of them (plus the prototype) survive.

 

[43096]

The 50s were said at one stage to only have 49 blocks, even when you added in the one from DP2
Too many conrods going sideways

Which was disproved as an urban myth.

 

[Richard Scott]

Which was disproved as an urban myth.

Possibly another myth but rumours went around 50010 had a 56 block?

 

[DB]

Possibly another myth but rumours went around 50010 had a 56 block?

Yes, that was the one I've seen mentioned.

As regards 40 blocks, 50017 allegedly currently has one.

 

[edwin_m]

there were only ever 22 55s built after the rest were cancelled, should they have been binned?

I believe 22 was the number someone came up with to replace all the Pacifics on the top-flight ECML expresses - I seem to remember there were 35 A4s and some of the later classes would have been similarly employed, but diesels have better utilization. In their prime they were kept very much to those duties.

10 locos, not dedicated in that way, is essentially just an awkward microfleet.

 

[Taunton]

I'm sure it was, but in retrospect it would have been ideal territory for the class 23 fleet - a long constant run with relatively few stops, just what they needed. The constant stops and starts on the London commuter runs killed them through thermal cycling

The Class 27s that ran the West Highland for 20 years were known for surviving being "hammered" on the West Highland, unlike some other types. Driven uphill principally on the ammeter being up against its upper mark for extended periods, these quite small locos with full length trains did notably well. The comparable Class 25, with a different electrical equipment supplier, did not do as well and although also allocated to Eastfield depot were not used there; likewise the later rebuilt North British D61xx Class 29, supposedly a bit more powerful, did not last long on the route either.

 

[Stathern Jc]

I'm sure it was, but in retrospect it would have been ideal territory for the class 23 fleet - a long constant run with relatively few stops, just what they needed. The constant stops and starts on the London commuter runs killed them through thermal cycling

An interesting thought.
One of the proposals for re-engining the Class 23s following their difficulties was to fit a D18-25 Deltic engine / generator as per the Class 55s, obviously with electrical mods and radiators that also matched the Class 55s. Seems logical and it would have eased the impracticalities of maintaining small fleets a little. Is it cynical to speculate that it probably stumbled as they wouldn't then have fitted the "Type 2" classification?
That could have been useful for the West Highland Line, or the Highland Main Line if geared up to 90mph (Class 40 Gearboxes off the shelf?).
A parallel is the re-engining of the NBL Class 21s with the 1350hp Paxman engines, and only 20 of them were re-worked.

 

[43096]

An interesting thought.
One of the proposals for re-engining the Class 23s following their difficulties was to fit a D18-25 Deltic engine / generator as per the Class 55s, obviously with electrical mods and radiators that also matched the Class 55s. Seems logical and it would have eased the impracticalities of maintaining small fleets a little. Is it cynical to speculate that it probably stumbled as they wouldn't then have fitted the "Type 2" classification?
That could have been useful for the West Highland Line, or the Highland Main Line if geared up to 90mph (Class 40 Gearboxes off the shelf?).
A parallel is the re-engining of the NBL Class 21s with the 1350hp Paxman engines, and only 20 of them were re-worked.

There’s no logic at all for that plan with the 23s. Class 55 was a specialist design needing specialist, high cost maintenance but was justified for the duties they performed. There would be no reason for doing the same for 10 Type 2/3 locos that would have needed similar amounts of attention and offered no benefits over a standard Type 2 or 3. The West Highland was far better off with 27s (and later 37s).

 

[paul1609]

THe MTUs are quite big engines.

And the Deltics aren't designed for a single large power unit so the weight bearing stucture would be all wrong. I assume that DP2 would have been built completely differently in this area, despite the upper bodyshell looking superficially like a Deltic.

The weight difference of a 18 cylinder deltic v MTU engine fitted in the 73/9 is around 2 tonnes given that you would have to completely design the engine mounts I wouldn't have thought that was insurmountable. Im a marine Engineer rather than Rail but couldn't you just fit 2 MTUs?

 

[hexagon789]

would a deltic engine fit into an HST power car?
I guess the problem would have been range though

Not sure, but Paxman offered a 3,000hp engine which would have, to be retro-fitted into the HST power cars but BR decided not to take then up on the infer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2020 ==

I've seen it mentioned on another forum (whether true I can't say) that at least one 50 had a 56 block at one point. 40 blocks in 50s, and vice versa, were apparently not that uncommon either.

I've not heard about that but I wouldn't doubt it

The one being discussed in this thread whichever is easier to find a page for this thread so I can do background reading

"Class 55" would be the best known, the older system is not widely used.

 

[DB]

The weight difference of a 18 cylinder deltic v MTU engine fitted in the 73/9 is around 2 tonnes given that you would have to completely design the engine mounts I wouldn't have thought that was insurmountable. Im a marine Engineer rather than Rail but couldn't you just fit 2 MTUs?

Those are smaller MTUs - half the size of the HST ones, which I thought was what were being discussed here?

 

[Richard Scott]

Those are smaller MTUs - half the size of the HST ones, which I thought was what were being discussed here?

But they're probably equal on power to original Deltic engine? Around 1600hp in a 73/9, I believe. Expect they can be made to produce more? Purely hyperthetical conversion anyway but with modern electronic control and alternators would be quite a machine? Fuel consumption would be much less also?

 

[talltim]

I think it's interesting how quickly technology developed. At the time they were introduced, for the power output and performance, they were the only game in town, unless you chose to double head every train. By the time they were withdrawn, the HST was a great step forward in performance and comfort, and the class 87 was cruising up Beattock and Shap with ease.

The HST wasn't double headed per se, but essentially the equivalent