• 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!

Why did First Generation DMU's have gears?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,911
Location
Cambridge, UK
Which used 'Wilson' patents. Wilson developed the gearbox/transmission originally for tanks in WW1. The technicality behind 'pre-select' compared to the semi automatic by Self Changing gears Ltd is essentially the same - on Pre-select the driver selects the gear and then pushes the operating pedal which mechanically or air assisted changes the gear, whereas on a semi-automatic the driver selects the gear and simultaneously the gear changes, directly by air assistance or an electric impulse to an electro-pneumatic valve and then air assistance. The gearbox/fluid flywheel are the same/very similar in either application. (as I understand it).
I agree.

AFAIK, the majority of BR mk1 DMUs used a 4-speed 'semi-automatic' Self Changing Gears Ltd electrically-controlled, air-operated Wilson-style epicyclic gearbox. (Wilson was one of the founders of the company that later became Self Changing Gears Ltd). Between the engine and gearbox, there was a fluid flywheel/coupling to provide the necessary 'slip' when e.g. starting from rest and a freewheel mechanism to prevent the engine from being driven by the wheels e.g. when coasting downhill. The output from the gearbox went via a cardan shaft to a final drive on the inner axle of the nearest bogie (so for the common twin-engined power cars, the two engines and transmissions faced in opposite directions and drove one axle on each bogie).

As others have said, this was a well-proven drive train, already used and proven in early railcars, buses and other vehicles by the 1950s, and compared to an electric transmission of the period, I suspect was significantly cheaper.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Big Jumby 74

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2022
Messages
2,244
Location
UK
Submarines need to have electric drive because when under water and unable to use their diesel, they use batteries. The diesel both powers them when on the surface and also recharges the batteries.
As regards the early DMU transmission choices, as I understand , the ER (East Anglia in particular) was in effect the test bed for first generation DMU use, so may be a question to pose to the GE railway society or similar perhaps? Just a thought that is all.

As for submarines, yes, they had to be on the surface to recharge the batteries, running under diesel conditions, and equally critical, to ventilate the boat from fumes and give the crew a break from the conditions below. From the German side the addition of the snorkel was a game changer (for a while) which allowed U-boats to run just below the surface on diesel power and so reserve and recharge the batteries for deeper emergency dive situations.

For those unaware of trivia, submarines (U-boats in particular back in the day) had a far faster speed running on diesel on the surface (12 knots approx) as opposed to something like 4-5 knots on batteries when submerged, hence they stayed up top unless they were under attack from the air or warships.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,457
I agree.

AFAIK, the majority of BR mk1 DMUs used a 4-speed 'semi-automatic' Self Changing Gears Ltd electrically-controlled, air-operated Wilson-style epicyclic gearbox. (Wilson was one of the founders of the company that later became Self Changing Gears Ltd). Between the engine and gearbox, there was a fluid flywheel/coupling to provide the necessary 'slip' when e.g. starting from rest and a freewheel mechanism to prevent the engine from being driven by the wheels e.g. when coasting downhill. The output from the gearbox went via a cardan shaft to a final drive on the inner axle of the nearest bogie (so for the common twin-engined power cars, the two engines and transmissions faced in opposite directions and drove one axle on each bogie).

As others have said, this was a well-proven drive train, already used and proven in early railcars, buses and other vehicles by the 1950s, and compared to an electric transmission of the period, I suspect was significantly cheaper.
And gave very good service to the secondary and suburban lines that they were intended for. They were not so good where (commercially) speeds over 70mph were required (because they could not be achieved). Hence why the longer distance/high speed services to which some were built for / allocated were converted to loco haulage relatively early and the DMUs reallocated elsewhere (Edinburgh-Glasgow and Birmingham-Carmarthen for instance).
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
3,199
Derby Lightweights with Red Triangle coupling code.

Classes 113, 125 and 127.

Those all had hydraulic transmission of a few different arrangements.

There was also a Derby Heavyweight built as a test bed for the above, using the basic Class 114 design but with 238hp engines and torque converter (hydraulic) transmission. Vehicles 50000 and 56000, it was withdrawn in 1967 and therefore never gained a TOPS type.

 

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
2,400
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
Also to come at this for the other direction, would it have been possible to put a 200hp ish diesel engine, dynamo, controls etc. in an underfloor configuration using late 1950's technology, and staying within UK loading gauge?. The SR DEMUs lost about 1/2 a carriage to the engine dynamo and controls. In which case it was more a case that mechanical transmissions were the only way to engineer a 2 car without losing 25% space to an engine compartment.

Coming forward 25 years the Class 210 was not developed, and the first successful DEMU was I think the 22x series (I dont want to get into the 'Is the HST a DEMU or top and tail loco hauled' arguement)

Edit, I suppose if you say internal combusion, rather than diesel, then the NER 1903 petrol electric railcar was an early attempt, and was reasonably successful, but again a section of capacity was lost to engine and dynamo.
 
Last edited:

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,397
Location
The Fens
As regards the early DMU transmission choices, as I understand , the ER (East Anglia in particular) was in effect the test bed for first generation DMU use
The Eastern Region in general, and the Great Eastern part of it in particular, had a lot of willing to try out new things. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that getting Derby Lightweight DMUs was in the same entrepreneurial spirit as grabbing a fleet of Britannias for the Norwich service.

Classes 113, 125 and 127.

Those all had hydraulic transmission of a few different arrangements.

Other transmissions were an enforced choice for higher power because the practicalities of mechanical transmission were exceeded.

The class 125 Derby suburban DMUs were to meet a specific Great Eastern requirement. Each 3 car unit had 4 Rolls Royce 238hp power units, and hydraulic transmission. A 6 car train had about 1900hp, which was needed for fast schedules in the Lea Valley, performance that could not be achieved with mechanical transmission.

The simplest answer is that they had a mechanical drive, not a million miles away from a truck or bus set up.
Furthermore lots of men had gained relevant maintenance experience with military vehicles during World War 2.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,301
Also to come at this for the other direction, would it have been possible to put a 200hp ish diesel engine, dynamo, controls etc. in an underfloor configuration using late 1950's technology, and staying within UK loading gauge?. The SR DEMUs lost about 1/2 a carriage to the engine dynamo and controls. In which case it was more a case that mechanical transmissions were the only way to engineer a 2 car without losing 25% space to an engine compartment.
The 1930s GWR worked with their longstanding contacts at bus and lorry makers AEC on their first railcars. The time coincided with AEC buses making a pioneering transition from the engine up front and upright to the first ones with the engine back in the middle, positioned between the frame members and the floor above. One of the things if you put an existing engine sideways is you have to redesign the lubrication, as the oil sump at the bottom now needs a different orientation. The few GWR railcars will have benefitted from the research put into this for buses.

The Southern Region going instead for a big single engine with electric drive has been given various reasons, but I think the principal one is underfloor engines, accessed from ground level, are incompatible with 3rd rail installations.

The overall concept of "multiple unit" is not particularly about engines and where they are situated, or even controls within a fixed unit, but about being able to couple up two or more together and control them all from the front. The challenges here, with even setting which direction the vehicles are to go, when they may have been coupled up approaching from either direction to either end of the formation are readily apparent. Long established for electric stock, having mechanical gearboxes and keeping them all 'singing from the same hymnsheet' was a further issue. Apparently when the first pioneer Class 20 diesel locos were coupled together at the works, they set off (or tried to) in opposite directions! The BR dmu arrangements were principally devised by the Walker Brothers company, of Wigan, building on what the GWR had got them to do with their first 3-car diesel unit, the last of their AEC streamlined cars built, power cars at each end with a regular carriage in the middle. This gave the 'Yellow Diamond' connections, and the various improvements needed on this, such as engine starting issues when in multiple, became the 'Blue Square' standard.

The Northern Ireland Railway had some dmus with larger engines and automatic gearboxes, where each engine in a multiple formation made its own changes, which on a steep gradient could lead to some cars changing down at different moments to others, with shocks being felt up and down the train as they did so.

Any who have experienced the 1930s-era semi-streamlined railcars, often French bus builder (like Renault) design, that were common on French/Spanish/Italian etc narrow gauge lines for several decades, with the engine up inside the bodywork, considerable noise back at the seats and somehow not entirely fume-free, will know the poor features of doing it this way.
 
Last edited:

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,315
Location
Glasgow
Also to come at this for the other direction, would it have been possible to put a 200hp ish diesel engine, dynamo, controls etc. in an underfloor configuration using late 1950's technology, and staying within UK loading gauge?
Ultimately yes, because it was done as a test in about 1956.

The BR Davey-Paxman experimental set proved the theory and was capable of some 90mph.
 

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
2,400
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
The BR Davey-Paxman experimental set proved the theory and was capable of some 90mph
I wasnt aware of this, was it a case of being more expensive, or were there other problems? 2 x 450hp units in a two car unit would have been 'rapid' by the standards of the day. Reading the section about it on the RailCar website it never entered passenger service.

The other unit which comes to mind is the blue pullman, again it could be considered a 'DEMU'
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,315
Location
Glasgow
I wasnt aware of this, was it a case of being more expensive, or were there other problems? 2 x 450hp units in a two car unit would have been 'rapid' by the standards of the day. Reading the section about it on the RailCar website it never entered passenger service.

The other unit which comes to mind is the blue pullman, again it could be considered a 'DEMU'
I think cost and lack of experience, the cost issue obviously came up again with the experimental 210 sets and ultimately we ended up with the cheaper 150s instead.

Yes, I'd consider them DEMUs, though I'd argue the Blue Pullmans were effectively a beefed-up Thumper, at least in the mechanical sense. A larger, more powerful engine and slightly altered motor arrangement but otherwise the same really.
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,892
I agree.

AFAIK, the majority of BR mk1 DMUs used a 4-speed 'semi-automatic' Self Changing Gears Ltd electrically-controlled, air-operated Wilson-style epicyclic gearbox. (Wilson was one of the founders of the company that later became Self Changing Gears Ltd). Between the engine and gearbox, there was a fluid flywheel/coupling to provide the necessary 'slip' when e.g. starting from rest and a freewheel mechanism to prevent the engine from being driven by the wheels e.g. when coasting downhill. The output from the gearbox went via a cardan shaft to a final drive on the inner axle of the nearest bogie (so for the common twin-engined power cars, the two engines and transmissions faced in opposite directions and drove one axle on each bogie).
I believe first generation DMUs were supposed to be put into 'neutral' when braking.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,301
The Blue Pullmans were actually proper DEMUs later, when the two 6-car sets were given MU connections and operated as a 12-car set on the WR on Paddington to Bristol.
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
5,772
Location
SW London
Coming forward 25 years the Class 210 was not developed, and the first successful DEMU was I think the 22x series (I dont want to get into the 'Is the HST a DEMU or top and tail loco hauled' arguement)
Arguably a 755 is a DEMU with an above floor engine. Or is it like an HST but with the loco in the middle?

Voyagers successful? - Commercially yes, but they are widely disliked - although the underfloor engines are not the main reason.
 

computerSaysNo

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2018
Messages
1,668
Apologies if mentioned elsewhere, I've just skim read.
As others have said, this was a well-proven drive train, already used and proven in early railcars, buses and other vehicles by the 1950s, and compared to an electric transmission of the period, I suspect was significantly cheaper.
Can you expand on this? Any mechanical transmission is going to have a significant number of moving parts to maintain and lubricate and cool, whereas an electric transmission would have just a generator/alternator, motors and maybe one permanent gear set, so I would have thought would have had many fewer moving parts to maintain and therefore be cheaper?
 

alistairlees

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2016
Messages
4,412
As regards the early DMU transmission choices, as I understand , the ER (East Anglia in particular) was in effect the test bed for first generation DMU use, so may be a question to pose to the GE railway society or similar perhaps? Just a thought that is all.

As for submarines, yes, they had to be on the surface to recharge the batteries, running under diesel conditions, and equally critical, to ventilate the boat from fumes and give the crew a break from the conditions below. From the German side the addition of the snorkel was a game changer (for a while) which allowed U-boats to run just below the surface on diesel power and so reserve and recharge the batteries for deeper emergency dive situations.

For those unaware of trivia, submarines (U-boats in particular back in the day) had a far faster speed running on diesel on the surface (12 knots approx) as opposed to something like 4-5 knots on batteries when submerged, hence they stayed up top unless they were under attack from the air or warships.
Really there were no submarines in WW2 - they are more properly thought of as submersibles. Submersibles were boats that could operate underwater for a limited time, but their primary operation was on the surface. True submarines operate most effectively underwater, and are expected to do so for the vast majority of the time. Hence the differences in hull shapes, and the presence of a deck gun (or two) and surface launching torpedo tubes on submersibles.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
13,018
Location
Up the creek
Really there were no submarines in WW2 - they are more properly thought of as submersibles. Submersibles were boats that could operate underwater for a limited time, but their primary operation was on the surface. True submarines operate most effectively underwater, and are expected to do so for the vast majority of the time. Hence the differences in hull shapes, and the presence of a deck gun (or two) and surface launching torpedo tubes on submersibles.

This is well off the subject, but I would disagree. A submarine is capable of independent operation at sea, including periods submerged. A submersible is capable of submerging, but is not capable of prolonged independent operation and is dependent on either a mothership or a shore base.

But, as said, we are getting off the subject.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,583
Apologies if mentioned elsewhere, I've just skim read.

Can you expand on this? Any mechanical transmission is going to have a significant number of moving parts to maintain and lubricate and cool, whereas an electric transmission would have just a generator/alternator, motors and maybe one permanent gear set, so I would have thought would have had many fewer moving parts to maintain and therefore be cheaper?
Unlikely as need load regulators to maintain constant power output as motors generate a back emf along with field diverts so not as simple as it may first seem.
The engines and gearboxes were fairly standard bus parts, which were built in high numbers so expect were significantly cheaper than a bespoke electric transmission.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

The Southern Region going instead for a big single engine with electric drive has been given various reasons, but I think the principal one is underfloor engines, accessed from ground level, are incompatible with 3rd rail installations.
Probably more likely could use parts already common on Southern Region EMUs such as EE 507 motors so some commonality of spares to a certain degree.
Also used air braking rather than the vacuum used on DMUs.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,911
Location
Cambridge, UK
Apologies if mentioned elsewhere, I've just skim read.

Can you expand on this? Any mechanical transmission is going to have a significant number of moving parts to maintain and lubricate and cool, whereas an electric transmission would have just a generator/alternator, motors and maybe one permanent gear set, so I would have thought would have had many fewer moving parts to maintain and therefore be cheaper?
Remember that in a pre-power-electronics age, we're talking about DC generators and motors with commutators and carbon brushes, plus switchgear and control circuits using electro-mechanical devices like relays and contactors. All slung underneath a carriage and exposed to high levels of shock and vibration (in addition to having to keep the electrical equipment dry while cooling some of it effectively).

While a mechanical transmission has more moving parts, most of them are inside basically sealed casings also containing the lubricating fluids (which also serve as coolant).

Another aspect in the 1950s was that the DMUs were being introduced on what was largely a steam railway, with staff used to maintaining mechanical things. We're looking back at this 70 years later, but at the time BR was replacing most of its secondary and branch line passenger rolling stock with DMUs over a fairly short timespan - it was a revolution at the time.
 
Last edited:

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
2,400
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
whereas an electric transmission would have just a generator/alternator, motors and maybe one permanent gear set, so I would have thought would have had many fewer moving parts to maintain and therefore be cheaper?
Easier to maintain, probably yes, not sure about cheaper (capital cost). I suspect the use of engines and transmission components in DMUs which were used in other forms of transport would have brought an ecomonmy of scale, as well as ensuring that development issues were ironed out before the railway used them. Really the only significant build of DEMUs in the UK up until the 22x units were the SR units, and its well documented that these were DEMU for reasons of compatibilty with other stuff on the SR network at that time rather than any other reason.

I wonder what the transmission efficency of a 1950s DMU v a DEMU built using components from the era. I also suspect weight was another issue, I reckon a mechanical transmission of some sort would be lighter than an electric transmission and traction motors in the sort of power ranges that were applied to DMUs (70mph, 200hp ish), again obviously using components from that era, so no power electronics.
 

alistairlees

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2016
Messages
4,412
This is well off the subject, but I would disagree. A submarine is capable of independent operation at sea, including periods submerged. A submersible is capable of submerging, but is not capable of prolonged independent operation and is dependent on either a mothership or a shore base.

But, as said, we are getting off the subject.
I agree that it's off topic and also your points about (relatively) independent operation. Submarines of WW2 were not really submarines in the sense that we think of them today though.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,911
Location
Cambridge, UK
I also suspect weight was another issue, I reckon a mechanical transmission of some sort would be lighter than an electric transmission and traction motors
Me too - especially unsprung mass on the axles, assuming the use of (cheaper) axle-hung motors.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,301
Probably more likely could use parts already common on Southern Region EMUs such as EE 507 motors so some commonality of spares to a certain degree.
Also used air braking rather than the vacuum used on DMUs.
At the time hauled rolling stock generally was vacuum braked, and electric MU stock was air braked. DMUs had both air and vacuum supplies, the air drove things like the throttle motors and the vacuum did the brakes. Reason for this choice was so they could take vacuum braked stock as trailers. Not done a lot but it was in early times, then tailed off. Taking a van on some routes happened, and the WR would add a hauled coach on the back if necessary for passenger loads. These were then of course a nuisance at the terminus, where the whole dmu formation would need to run round what they had hauled, unless there was a shunting locomotive.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,493
I find this suggestion that German railways developed diesel hydraulics because they were not allowed to develop submarines somewhat questionable as I cannot imagine which bodies would have been responsible. The Allied Powers controlled the country until the Bundesrepublik was created in 1949 and would not have been interested in building submarines. The first post war U-boat was built in 1960 with design studies starting in the mid-1950s. It took time for the German people to accept the idea of re-armament and even getting the Army set up in 1955 created huge political unrest, building submarines any earlier would not have been politically difficult if not impossible.

This was also the period of Marshall Aid which ran for four years, from 1948 to the end of 1951. It dispensed a total of $12,500 billion to 16 participating members. To manage the funds, it required the establishment of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which insisted that recipients increase production, expand trade, and make 'counterpart contributions' of their own. Although one quarter of Marshall Aid was earmarked for Britain and one-fifth for France, it was available to allies, neutrals, and ex-enemies alike. It seems to me to be very unlikely that that any agreement to restrict trade would have been acceptable during this period.

After Stalin dropped the Iron Curtain across Europe, and right through Germany, the German railways had to be re-orientated to run North-South rather than East-West as the routes to Berlin through East Germany had effectively lost their commercial raison d’etre. At the same time the decision had been made to electrify the new North-South connections as many main lines were already electrified. Diesel traction was limited to secondary routes.

German industry restarted electric locomotive construction soon after the war. It had all the technology available to build diesel-electric locomotives if it had wanted to but the railways had a history of using diesel hydraulic locomotives pre-war which meant that industry and staff were already used to the technology. The company Voith in Heidenheim manufactured, among other things (and still does), paper making machinery, turbines for use in hydro-electric power stations and hydraulic transmissions for various applications including rail. For the power levels required for secondary route use all the components already existed, the more powerful electric Einheitsloks were built for the electrified routes.

It seems to me that the suggestion is far-fetched.
I wouldn't like to comment either way, but it's worth bearing in mind that Allied policies were heavily influenced by the Morgenthau Plan before more sense kicked in with the Marshall Plan. Allied policy, which was genuinely four power in the early days, was also significantly influenced by how the post WWI Reichswehr had exploited dual use technologies as a way of mitigating the restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. I don't find it shocking, therefore, that policies would have been introduced to prevent a repeat - even if the chances of such dual use were actually non-existent.
 

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
2,386
Remember that in a pre-power-electronics age, we're talking about DC generators and motors with commutators and carbon brushes, plus switchgear and control circuits using electro-mechanical devices like relays and contactors. All slung underneath a carriage and exposed to high levels of shock and vibration (in addition to having to keep the electrical equipment dry while cooling some of it effectively).
Of course the other option was to put all that inside the carriage as with the Thumpers, but then you're taking up space that could be filled with paying passengers...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top