• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Craven's Two–Car Class 113 Spontaneous Combustion?

Chrius56000

Member
Joined
18 Aug 2010
Messages
262
Location
Walsall
In a reply to a query I posted Friday I asked about DMU Worked "Settle–Carlisle Local Services", Member @D6130 posted:–

Initially the out-and-back working from Skipton was diagrammed for Accrington-based Craven's two car class 113 diesel-hydraulic units, interworking with the Skipton-Manchester Victoria services. However, as these units became increasingly prone to spontaneous combustion, Newton Heath-allocated class 105 and 108 units frequently substituted.

I've not heard very much at all about the Cravens Class 113 diesel–hydraulic units!

I do know about the Class 114 though!

What made the Class 113 Cravens liable to Spontaneous Combustion, and are any known to have come to grief on the S & C?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
23 Nov 2023
Messages
771
Location
Grimsby
The only specific reference I can find online is the article linked below regarding a fire which destroyed a class 113 vehicle at Baxenden in 1964.
Note the comment that most of the fires were minor; I suspect the main reasons for withdrawal in 1969 were non-standard engines and transmission and a reduced requirement for units due to line closures.
As there were only 25 sets in the class amidst a much greater number of DMUs with AEC/BUT engines and mechanical transmission they would be ripe for withdrawal anyway, although the tendency to suffer "minor" fires wouldn't have helped!
 

Acathater

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2025
Messages
731
Location
NorthWest
I got it wrong - it was the driveshaft routed through the fuel tank

see https://railcar.co.uk/topic/accidents/details/sandridge-1968

Sandridge (near St.Albans), LMR - 12/06/68​

The 07:40 Bedford - St Pancras on the 12th June '68 was formed of a 4-car Class 127 (leading) and two 2-car Class 112s. The train ran normally until some time after leaving Harpenden, when running at about 65mph, severe vibration became apparent under the seventh coach. Almost at once there seemed to be a minor explosion and seconds later the vehicle became full of choking smoke and fumes, while smoke & fumes emanated from the underside of both rear coaches. As the train slowed down passengers began to jump and all had left the coaches soon after the train was stopped by the action of the driver, guard and operation of the alarm signal.

Unfortunately, two were killed and ten others injured by jumping out when the train was still moving. The report into the incident felt that there would have been no casualties had they waited for the train to stop, but not surprised that in the conditions that the passengers misjudged the earliest moment at which it was safe to jump, possibly because of the pressure of other people behind them. This was not helped by the low density layout of the Cravens vehicles.

In the investigaton afterwards, the CM&EE dept. determined that lack of lubrication was to blame, with an oil filler pipe screw cap missing. The gearbox had totally seized, causing both input and output shafts to come to a sudden stop. The engine itself was protected by the fluid flywheel, but the driving wheels continued to turn the seized output shaft. This caused the gearbox casing to tear away from the right hand side mounting brackets. The cardan shaft, thus freed at the forward end, started to flail and ruptured the main fuel tank. At the same time the output end broke away from the gearbox, spilling out the grossly over-heated internal parts; assisted by sparks from the flailing shaft, this was enough to ignite the fuel.

The investigation showed that there was no justification for locating the main fuel tank around the cardan shaft and a simple tank near the non-driven bogie would have been suffice. In fact by August '69, before the report was published, all the remaining vehicles of this type had this modification completed. The passengers critisised the absence of lower step boards, and the positioning of the alarm signal chains, none of which were located in the passenger saloons. The nine sets remaining on Kentish Town - Barking services were being fitted with these lower footsteps to one door on each side and two additional points of access to the alarm signal at the time of the report. These alterations to the fuel tanks, footsteps and alarms were done despite the Class 112 sets being withdrawn just weeks after the report.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
3,970
Location
Northampton
Wasn't it the 113s which had the exhaust routed through the middle of the fuel tank?

I thought that it was the prop-shaft - it went through a 'tunnel' in the tank.
Poor/no maintenance of the universal joints resulted in their failure and the shaft flailing around - if it was the gearbox end that gave out, the flailing had the momentum of the train.
Had a few rides on them - Skipton - Preston and up Miles Platting bank en route to Newton Heath in steam days.
Memorable - the exhaust went inside the saloon rather than outside the ends.
 

Acathater

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2025
Messages
731
Location
NorthWest
I thought that it was the prop-shaft - it went through a 'tunnel' in the tank.
Poor/no maintenance of the universal joints resulted in their failure and the shaft flailing around - if it was the gearbox end that gave out, the flailing had the momentum of the train.
Had a few rides on them - Skipton - Preston and up Miles Platting bank en route to Newton Heath in steam days.
Memorable - the exhaust went inside the saloon rather than outside the ends.
yes on checking you're right - I made a second post while you were posting
 

Sun Chariot

Established Member
Joined
16 Mar 2009
Messages
6,697
Location
2 miles and 50 years away from the Longmoor Milita
In a reply to a query I posted Friday I asked about DMU Worked "Settle–Carlisle Local Services", Member @D6130 posted:–

I've not heard very much at all about the Cravens Class 113 diesel–hydraulic units!
In addition to the accident report linked in post 5, more about Cravens' Rolls Royce engined DMU is on Railcar's site (link):
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
5,788
Location
SW London
In a reply to a query I posted Friday I asked about DMU Worked "Settle–Carlisle Local Services", Member @D6130 posted:–



I've not heard very much at all about the Cravens Class 113 diesel–hydraulic units!

I do know about the Class 114 though!
What was the issue with he (quite unrelated) 114s - or did you mean 112s?
 

thesignalman

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2012
Messages
163
It is actually quite difficult to ignite diesel fuel with heat alone, so the presence of an exhaust pipe close to the fuel tanks is unlikely to be a significant fire risk. The original fire issues with the torque-converter Cravens units was caused by converter fluid accidentally flowing back into the fuel tanks if the engine overheated, making it rather more ignitable. After transfer from country branches to the Midland Main line, they spent a lot of time working under the converter and not in direct drive. This was the primary cause of the fire issues and they were subsequently replaced by those with conventional drive (the 112s). The incident at Sandridge therefore had nothing to do with the reputation for fires on the torque-converter ones (the 113s) and was an isolated incident.

John
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,313
Feel they were something of an experiment, though an expensive one with 100 cars built, and also towards the end of the dmu build programme, that instead of two 150hp engines as in the majority of these trains' power cars, symmetrically mounted and driving both bogies, they had a single 238hp Rolls-Royce engine, and both cars so powered. More power than a power-driving trailer 2-car set, without the four engines of a power twin. Half with hydraulic transmission and half with standard mechanical gears. They appear to have been designed somewhat poorly, bearing in mind that the conventional arrangement had many years of development, in particular they upset the established weight balance and symmetrical driving to both bogies, which then led to certain compromises to maintain a balance while keeping weight on the driven bogie. It's the sort of combination that unless you get it right you can too readily get vibration, which did happen.
 

Chrius56000

Member
Joined
18 Aug 2010
Messages
262
Location
Walsall
What was the issue with he (quite unrelated) 114s?

I've read quite a lot on this Forum and in "RAIL" Magazine about the Class 114 with references to Class 105 Cravens–built units in Lincoln, Suffolk, Norfolk and Essex so mistakenly assumed Class 114 was similar to the Class 113, that's all!

(I now know the Class 114s were B.R. Derby–built!)
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
3,970
Location
Northampton
The problem with being twin power cars but with a lower horsepower than the power car in a conventional 2 car set was that they couldn't - as far as I know - be in any other formation than within the class. I don't remember ever seeing them mis-formed. They were Blue Square so theoretically possible but would be underpowered if combined with a trailer.
On the subject of Cravens - does anyone know the reason for the three Cravens Motor Parcels Vans being Yellow Diamond and lightweight (30 tons)? That was the coupling code for the early lightweights by Derby and Met-Cam delivered in 1954/5 but these MPVs weren't delivered until 1958.

It is actually quite difficult to ignite diesel fuel with heat alone, so the presence of an exhaust pipe close to the fuel tanks is unlikely to be a significant fire risk. The original fire issues with the torque-converter Cravens units was caused by converter fluid accidentally flowing back into the fuel tanks if the engine overheated, making it rather more ignitable. After transfer from country branches to the Midland Main line, they spent a lot of time working under the converter and not in direct drive. This was the primary cause of the fire issues and they were subsequently replaced by those with conventional drive (the 112s). The incident at Sandridge therefore had nothing to do with the reputation for fires on the torque-converter ones (the 113s) and was an isolated incident.

John

Does that mean that the torque converter used diesel fuel, with auto top-up from the fuel tank? If it used the usual oil (as used in 'Fluid Flywheels') I can't see how that could feed back into the fuel tank.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
13,030
Location
Up the creek
On the subject of Cravens - does anyone know the reason for the three Cravens Motor Parcels Vans being Yellow Diamond and lightweight (30 tons)? That was the coupling code for the early lightweights by Derby and Met-Cam delivered in 1954/5 but these MPVs weren't delivered until 1958.

According to .railcar.co.uk they were originally intended to operate in West Cumberland alongside the Derby Lightweight, but by the time they were delivered plans and requirements had changed. I have read that when the Lightweights were introduced in West Cumberland they had to put on steam-hauled parcel specials to avoid knocking the speeded up DMU timetable to pieces. This immediately reduced the the financial gains produced by the DMUs.
 

Stathern Jc

Member
Joined
30 Nov 2019
Messages
417
Location
Inverness
Reference has been made to the combination of the Rolls-Royce 238hp engines and hydraulic transmissions on certain (stop / start?) duties increasing the occurrence of transmission oil overheating.
Was this ever an issue with the Class 127s?
On the BedPan commuter services they wouldn't have had the luxury of steady runs for a reasonable distance in direct drive.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,324
Location
Glasgow
The problem with being twin power cars but with a lower horsepower than the power car in a conventional 2 car set was that they couldn't - as far as I know - be in any other formation than within the class. I don't remember ever seeing them mis-formed. They were Blue Square so theoretically possible but would be underpowered if combined with a trailer.
On the subject of Cravens - does anyone know the reason for the three Cravens Motor Parcels Vans being Yellow Diamond and lightweight (30 tons)? That was the coupling code for the early lightweights by Derby and Met-Cam delivered in 1954/5 but these MPVs weren't delivered until 1958.



Does that mean that the torque converter used diesel fuel, with auto top-up from the fuel tank? If it used the usual oil (as used in 'Fluid Flywheels') I can't see how that could feed back into the fuel tank.
It used diesel as the transmission fluid, yes.

The 127s were the same, but were changed to a special transmission oil instead after some years due to perceived fire risk.

Reference has been made to the combination of the Rolls-Royce 238hp engines and hydraulic transmissions on certain (stop / start?) duties increasing the occurrence of transmission oil overheating.
Was this ever an issue with the Class 127s?
On the BedPan commuter services they wouldn't have had the luxury of steady runs for a reasonable distance in direct drive.
It was an issue on the 127s, so they changed the transmission fluid to a specialist one designed for use specifically as a transmission fluid.
 

Stathern Jc

Member
Joined
30 Nov 2019
Messages
417
Location
Inverness
It used diesel as the transmission fluid, yes.
The 127s were the same, but were changed to a special transmission oil instead after some years due to perceived fire risk.

It was an issue on the 127s, so they changed the transmission fluid to a specialist one designed for use specifically as a transmission fluid.
Thank for that fascinating and enlightening insight.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,695
Location
Nottingham
Using diesel seems an odd thing to do. Perhaps the idea was that any contamination would just be sucked into the engines and burned, so there was no need to replace the fluid. Doesn't sound good for the engine though!
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,324
Location
Glasgow
Using diesel seems an odd thing to do. Perhaps the idea was that any contamination would just be sucked into the engines and burned, so there was no need to replace the fluid. Doesn't sound good for the engine though!
As far as I can make out, while the transmission used diesel oil taken directly from the main tank as transmission fluid, there's no mention of any feed back from the transmission into the fuel tank.

I suppose it's also possible there was some sort of a filter too, if there was any back feed from the transmission.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
3,970
Location
Northampton
It used diesel as the transmission fluid, yes.

The 127s were the same, but were changed to a special transmission oil instead after some years due to perceived fire risk.


/snip/

Thanks for that, but it does seem strange. Bus 'fluid flywheels' (on semi-automatics) which are similar have a special high-spec oil.

According to .railcar.co.uk they were originally intended to operate in West Cumberland alongside the Derby Lightweight, but by the time they were delivered plans and requirements had changed. I have read that when the Lightweights were introduced in West Cumberland they had to put on steam-hauled parcel specials to avoid knocking the speeded up DMU timetable to pieces. This immediately reduced the the financial gains produced by the DMUs.

Thanks for that. I did see them all in my hectic spot everything days but have zero memory of where. Also explains why they didn't have end gangways as, generally, lightweights couldn't haul much trailing - certainly not, I would have thought, a BG (the most likely gangway vehicle)
 

Top