I think the previous post says the necessary summary and the purposes for which the thread was set up, learning that removal of the diesel for even minor repairs that would have been done quickly without removal on a typical North American diesel, have been served. So the thread should be locked. Not removed, but locked so that what information is in it can still be available. Thanks
The Deltics were outstanding at the specific job they were bought for, hauling the fastest expresses from London to Edinburgh; whilst on those services, with sustained 100mph running, their performance justified their high maintenance costs. Once displaced by Intercity 125 units, they were quickly phased out. I travelled behind most of them, and had many fine runs. Apart from the noise and smoke, their other idiosyncrasy was an extremely high minimum speed for using full power, consequently they pulled away on one engine only, and it was said that they could get from 90 - 100mph quicker than from 0 - 10mph, and my experiences suggest this may well have been true.
Please stop trying to kill each other.
Regards,
Paul Tucker
Ok , M636C claims my quotation from that wikipedia site war wrong , the tunnel is at the other end of the line .
Now , can you tell me what difference it makes to the *meaning* of my concerning paragraph -
namely that :
1. a Co-Co diesel locomotive gaining several minutes on a steam Pacific through this line section - *no matter* where positioned ever over the trip's total mileage , up or down or sideways , I don't care ,
and does *NOT* gain much of anything over the entire rest of the trip
*cannot* have been sensationally more powerful than the Pacific or else the lack of evidence thereof in saved overall time would mean the diesel was intentionally not worked at 100 % - is there anything that can possibly be left unclear in this very simple statement ? M636c , if you can find something just let me know ( I guess no one else has a problem with it )
2. I did *not* ( to spell : N - O - T !!!) compare the Deltic with the A4 . Only , I noted on the above basis of schedules , the Deltic cannot have been noticeably more powerful - and consequently if it wasn't , it didn't turn up 3300 hp in traffic simply because the Pacific didn't - if you have trouble accepting (1.) this may be hard to agree (2.) , still if I may ask , would you mind to you see this very simple relation ?
You write what I find on wiki was wrong - yet at the same time you come up with wiki just the same and ask *us* to believe what *you* found there . I don't need to argue , aside from all Wiki pages , I have lived in Berlin when the 132 class was almost universal power on heavy express trains to / from West-Germany and I have seen the DR 132 class diesels rushing by not one time , not ten times but several hundred times and I can tell you *everyone* from lineside photographer to railway employee called them Taigatrommel - that's the way it was . Full stop . However you seem to want to quarrel about each and every itsy-bitsy bit you can find , so you dig out at some former times there was another locomotive given the same name . It makes no difference anyways because as the author of my own words I tell you herewith : I don't mean any other class but the DR 132 class when I write Taigatrommel and that's in accordance with contemporary German practice . So , every other class *you* attempt to claim in regards of my text represents a wilful contorting of the meaning of my paragraph , nothing more and nothing less .
It is perfectly obvious why you insist on drawing upon that older DR 120 class : simply because it was less powerful and less successful . If you would accept the obvious , i. e. what I had written and what the meaning was , then you would have to deal with the very successful 132 class and your Deltic performance would look rather dim , that's why you insist on ignoring that class .
3. As concerns first year of construction , again I noted it as I had read it up . Really it does not make a difference why or by whom introduction of these locos in service was or wasn't held up or what ever ; what matters is when did they enter service - full stop .
4. And another point you childishly ( sorry but that how it looks to me ) insist to ignore :
I
never
wrote
would
propose
to use
radial
motor(s)
in
locomotives .
If you can't find yourself to accept that simple truth , then this discussion gets completely absurd .
So , go on misinterpreting or face a few facts .
Actually , I would not propose 2 stroke motors anyways , I would propose either
one big V16 for stroke
or
2 V12 four stroke
I will *not* go into any details about turbo charging or valve train and number of valves or else this will be even more blown up and already it leads nowhere . Only thing : I *guarantee* you the specific output of these 2 x 18 cylinder Napier triangle op engines with 72 pistons , six crankshafts could very well have been met by sound design of 2 x V12 of the same mass while one big V16 would offer a lot of maintenance advantages .
But since the Deltics are you beloved pets , no doubt , anything human beings could design could never come close to the holly oil smoke and graceful 'afterburning' effects of a Deltic when emerging of what ever tunnel where ever up or down or round-about .
And , guess what I'd say ? Why not , if that's your image of heaven , so be it !
Just don't try to reason emotions by contorting . Don't twist words of others - you cannot prove truth on falsifications . What should be based on facts should be left standing and treated fair and square , don't twist my words by your wilful misassumptions and insinuations !
You word >> this no attack on Juniatha’s .. << I read , however your paragraphs are just what you claim they are not .
"Oh , sorry !" said the man after he had his hammer drop well placed on the other's head and upon the other getting a little upset he added "Well , I have excused myself - so what you want ?"
Don't try to fool me .
= J =
While we are discussing the East Coast Main Line, yesterday I picked up a book (“Mallard 75”) on the “Gathering” of the six surviving Gresley A4 class in York. I was very pleased to see the lower right hand photo taken by Robin Jones. Robin and I schemed to be the very last visitors thrown out on July 6 and we were both able to take this photo with very little in the way of the six locomotives.
Since Juniatha has compared the running of the Deltics with the A4s, I will draw on material from this book later, although I would point out again that this is just a discussion and not an “attack” on Juniatha’s proposals. These notes are for the other readers of the thread, including the originator.
I believe that I established the advantages of the Deltic design in response to the specific question from Juniatha, in particular regarding the power of a Deltic compared to a conventional engine of the same displacement and with the same number of cylinders as asked in an earlier post.
However, a number of minor errors appeared in Juniatha’s last post on this subject.
Haymarket Tunnel is in Edinburgh, between the locomotive depot (at Haymarket) and Waverley station, the terminus for trains from London. The tunnel is used by trains running to Glasgow, but not normally by trains to Kings Cross.
Juniatha said that “the first Deltic” was built in 1961. While D9000 was built in 1961, the “first Deltic”, the prototype DP1, was built by Vulcan Foundry during 1955 (as can be verified on English Wikipedia by searching for “DP1”). The design didn’t change as far as the engines and electrical gear, but the production locomotives were very slightly smaller and several tons lighter.
In fact, the British Rail engineering hierarchy thought even less of the Deltic than Juniatha seems to express, and it took a determined struggle by the Eastern Region operating authorities to get even the 22 wanted for East Coast Expresses. I recommend the book “I tried to run a Railway” by G.F.Fiennes where he indicates how hard it was to get the Deltics over the metaphorical “dead bodies” of the BR engineering establishment. They obviously thought the complex diesel engine would not work. This contributed to the delay of six years getting the Deltics into service
I have checked both the English and Russian Wikipedia entries and both indicate that “Taiga Trommel” was the nickname given in Germany to the M62 type, known in East Germany as class V200 and later class120. While the same nickname might have been used later for the 130 series, it seems likely that it was first applied to the 120 (and to the earliest built V200 locomotives with less effective mufflers) as indicated in the translated quote below from the M62 entry.
The 2000 HP 14D40 engine in the 120 is a sort of Russian version of the 567. It is simpler and heavier with a larger bore and stroke and pushrods instead of overhead camshafts. It had a lower speed blower in series with a conventional turbocharger (like a number of Detroit Diesels) rather than the clever EMD turbocharger and clutch arrangement.
I remember older 567 engines made a distinct “drumming” sound. In particular, I recall three E7s on the Peoria Rocket as they sped through Blue Island in September 1977. Something about the E7s caused them to sound louder than the by then more common E8s and E9s and their exhaust beats were more prominent. I would expect that the 14D40 would sound very similar, particularly with its lower engine speed of 750 rpm. The 130 series on the other hand has a four stroke 5D49 engine with articulated rods, and it would be expected to have a chugging sound under high power, like the GE FDL engine. I’ve certainly seen and heard 132s running in Germany but I didn’t notice much of a “drumming” sound. I haven’t heard a 120. I don’t think I’ve seen one, even shut down, but given how they work the sound of drumming seems quite likely.
But to return to unconventional engine designs, a search of the internet has revealed two more designs of “radial” diesel, built by General Motors at La Grange. Calling them “radial” is a bit of a stretch, since they are more properly “X type” engines with four inline banks of cylinders. Allison (another GM subsidiary then) built a similar gasoline aircraft engine at the same time, the X-3420 with 24 cylinders, being effectively two of the familiar V-1710s joined at the crankshaft.
The smaller diesel was the model 184 used in "Submarine Chasers", wooden patrol boats built in 1942-44. Both this and the larger 338 had sixteen cylinders in four banks of four. Both engines had a blower (type not known) on top. Because of the vertical layers of cylinders they were both called “pancake” engines.
The 184 was described as being "the size of a domestic refrigerator" and as producing about 1000HP from an X shape engine with a vertical crankshaft driving through a right angle gearbox below the engine. I have found a drawing of a cross section. It had two camshafts with three pushrods to each head, the middle pushrod driving a unit injector.
The bigger engine, model 338, looks like it had a single overhead cam on each row and different air ducting. It was used exclusively in submarines, as far as I can tell. The 338 was mounted above its generator, which encouraged oil to leak through the bottom crankshaft seal and fall on to the generator windings under power.
The following is extracted from a history of the “Tang” class submarines:
“Construction and delivery followed without significant difficulty, but when the boats went to sea in the early 1950s, the new engines did not work well. Their compact design made them difficult to maintain, and they tended to leak oil into their generators. In 1956, the Navy decided to replace the "pancake" engines with ten-cylinder Fairbanks-Morse opposed-piston diesels. To accommodate the larger engines, the boats had to be lengthened some nine feet in the engine room, and even then, only three could be installed. Accordingly, in 1957 and 1958, the first four Tangs were lengthened, while Gudgeon and Harder, still on the ways, were built to the new length, with the new engines.”
I am not saying that a working radial diesel can’t be built. However, neither EMD nor the Russians seem to have made one work as well as a Deltic yet.
However, The USN replaced theirs with opposed piston engines from Fairbanks Morse. I admit that this wasn’t a locomotive application, of course.
However, a lot of Fairbanks Morse Opposed Piston engines were used in locomotives. FM and the Canadian Locomotive Company built 1400 (or so) locomotives with these engines. But this was only a very small fraction of the engines used throughout the world. There were at least 13 000 TE-3 locomotives with the2000 HP Russian 2D100 engine, an exact copy of the ten cylinder 38D 8-1/8 engine. There were 226 TE-7 passenger versions but that doesn’t affect the total much. In China there were maybe 1000 class DF and class DF3 locomotives with their own 2000 HP FM copy, the 10E207. The Chinese even fitted a 6E207 in their Alco derived DF2 1000HP road switcher, maybe 150 of them.
So far these are just copies of FM engines. But the Russians wanted more power and produced the 3000HP 10D100, a ten cylinder 38D8-1/8 fitted with a turbocharger. They built about 11 000 locomotives, mainly class TE-10 (and derivatives) with this engine. This was in 1961, five years before EMD produced a 3000HP engine.
EMD built about 30 000 locomotives with 567 engines (I’m open to correction from anyone who has an exact figure) so with around 24 000 locomotives, the FM 38D8-1/8 must be the second most successful locomotive diesel ever built. Thousands of these locomotives are still in service in the former Soviet republics including Russia.
But to return to the East Coast Main Line, I said I’d compare aspects of A4 and Deltic performance.
The “Coronation” train which started to run in 1937 was an evening service from both London to Edinburgh and vice versa, and it was this train that made the six hour non stop run. I imagine that there were far fewer other passenger trains to avoid with a late afternoon departure than for the 10:00 departure of the “Flying Scotsman”, even in 1937 and far fewer than in the mid 1960s when the Deltics ran from London to Edinburgh in 5:55 INCLUDING a stop at Newcastle which must have taken five to ten minutes more than a through train, even if it had to slow for the sharp curve through Newcastle station.
The Gresley articulated streamlined trains were not heavy, around 300 tons with minimum drag, six cars on three trucks each and the dining car three cars with four trucks. Remember that only four A4s were built with the double Kylchap exhaust, so the train was designed to be hauled by a single stack A4. In adverse weather, not only would the train be late but the locomotive might run out of coal…
Even in 1937, the Flying Scotsman could weigh more than 400 tons and had only the three unit diner articulated. By 1962, the trains of all steel cars were even heavier, and the A4s and A3s were fitted with Double Kylchap exhausts just to keep time. The Deltics had to take these heavier trains at a substantial reduction in schedule (there had been no “six hour” through trains since September 1939).
So to say that the Deltics were no more powerful than an A4, even one that had been fitted post 1957 with a Double Kylchap, is just not correct. Also, the Deltic time of about six hours applied to many expresses through the day, not just one evening train as in 1937.
A good idea of a typical A4 run (pre 1957) is given in the movie “Elizabethan Express”, an official film about the through train introduced in 1953 which can be found on you-tube. They went to a lot of trouble to show “Silver Fox” on every shot of the train (although the coaches varied a little). Some might find the commentary in rhyming verse a bit amusing.
M636C
One thing to note was that the Class 55s were the pride of the fleet, powering the most prestigious trains on the BR, the EMCL expresses. So they naturally received more maintenance then the rest if the fleet, as a failure on a freight train is a lot less noticeable to the public.
And yes, OPs were known to burn lube oil in both F-Ms and Deltics.
Deltic smokin' it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4At4KU72Ys
Deltics also apparently often suffered exhaust fires, if the comments are to be believed (FFW to about 8:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgec5FvXloE
Well, well. I hadn't been paying much attention to this threas because the subject matter is a diesel, and most of you KNOW by now how I feel about those things!
That being said, I looked at the Wiky-Pedia link. Interesting. Seems a bit over-engineered to me, but then I operate on the John Browning school of firearms design, i.e. get the maximum amount of use out of the minimum amount of parts. (Browning had a VERY good reason for this, I'll tell the tale if anyone's interested.)
On the other hand, it worked fine for the British, so who am I to judge?
Juniatha, just a few points...
IIRC the Class 42/43 Warships (which were cousins to the DB 221s) were built more as a result of continuing sector rivalry, with the Western Region (GWR) always being different, and so they needed different diesels too...
The Deltics did last longer than the Warships, not because of the Warships' reliability but because BR wanted to standardize their fleet on a small number of classes, and the vast majority (all the regions but the Western) were diesel electrics.
Another victim of this purge were the Class 23 Baby Deltics, which had so many mechanical defects with the engine (and were overweight). The ten locomotives barely lasted ten years...
An interesting thing to note is that the Class 43 HSTs, the Class 55s' successors, used the Paxman Valenta, a V12 engine.
@ M636C
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "specific" output in this case....<<
That’s an engineering term describing power output per unit of mass ( of machinery in question , be that motor unit in this case of bet that engine plant total or locomotive total or whatever is the point )
>> If you mean based on the power per unit displacement it might be possible but there are difficulties as will outline.<<
Nope , however , that’s another possible relation used with the term : power output per unit of piston displacement ; often used in motor racing formulae – less so in diesel locomotives
>> possibility of building a V-18 of the same displacement that is as short as the Deltic which is only six cylinders long.<<
I beg your pardon – if one motor of 18 cyl’s each has three rows while the other has but two ..
I have to put one thing straight : I did defined the number of cylinders to be used as 16 or 20 – not 18 ; 18 is only logical with three banks not two . So , ok , to make it easier for you , in this comparison I will choose 16 cylinders – ain’t I nice . In reverse I want basis of ‘same to same’ size to be based on gross mass of motor , i.e. with all auxiliaries included , that’s fair if you come to think of total locomotive mass always being the determining value .
Real question is : what was supposed to be gained by putting a short and bulky motor into a long and tight interior ? Nothing but inaccessibility and all sorts of ensuing trouble !
>> A longer class 55 would have weighed more.<<
The DB 221 series B-B diesel has two V12 motors of approximately the same output total ( each ) and is much shorter – btw , the Brits saw that , too and built a license version – why ? sure not because they so liked the Kauts and their Messerschmitt . On the other hand the Krauts , in same desperate asking for a diesel that could replace Pacifics on 1:1 power output basis , why didn’t they ask for letting drawings of the British triple wonder ?
>> To be fair, we have to consider building your theoretical engine using the technology available in 1955 when the D18-25 Deltic was first installed in the "Deltic" prototype.<<
1955 technology for my engine when the first Deltic was realized in 1961 – fair indeed if you look at it from your angle .
>> Since you have specified a two stroke engine, we will not use a turbocharger.<<
Why not ? as you mention yourself EMD did in 1959 . Having space and accessibility for topping motor with turbo charger is one advantage of a V-type concept over a delta concept , I even wanted to go for supercharging ! Superchargers were being used in the 1930s even ! However , ok , we may play without turbo-/ super-charging to let another advantage of my engine concept slip by .
>> A V-18 of 5300 cu in will have about 294 cu in per cylinder. <<
Who says that I want to use 5300 CID ? I have chosen a V 16 for comparison and I will freely choose bore x stroke and for CID to suit to fully exploit my available engine mass .
>>This is about half the size of the 567 (a bit bigger because of the extra two cylinders).<<
This is non relevant because I will not have my engine designed by EMD nor with parts off the shelf from EMD – yours isn’t neither or do you want to claim the Napier did use EMD parts ? I guess not .
>>To get the same power from an engine of half the displacement with all other things being equal, it would need to run twice as fast, say 1600 rpm.<<
Non relevant , neither . Oh , I can see why you would want to keep my motor down to a small CID , you seem to have some doubts if you need to turn to unfair restraints for my engine ( that would be the third one now !) and you forgot all about compression ratio and degree of free flow of gas !
>>A big advantage of the opposed piston engine is that each piston travels only half of the swept volume, allowing the Deltic to run at 1800 rpm. Even with a significantly larger cylinder bore on the V-18, the stroke is likely to be significantly longer than that on each piston on a Deltic.<<
Again : Vee-sixteen , if you may want to accept that now . The rpm ceiling an engine can reach , was – still is and always will be – a matter of factor of acceleration , mass reduction and sturdiness of design . A large CID engine does not have to have proportional mass acceleration if suiting bore and stroke is chosen . A V 16 likely can be designed for at least a high rpm ceiling as a V 20 because of more sturdy crankshaft ( sorry my freely withdrawing to a V 16 was not as thoughtless as it may have appeared ) In the 1940s aviation IC engines of over 4000 hp reached decidedly higher rpm than you mentioned . In the end it all boils down to how much you want to invest in design , development , testing and finally series construction . The railways obviously didn’t want to invest much – that’s why British Railways gladly took the opportunity of using that given Napier motor , marine , yet readily available ; instead of having to go the arduous and stony path of developing a suiting engine plant of their own they handed it over to English Electric and even had the resulting locomotives serviced and maintained by them complete with ample supply of spare motors because it was clearly seen from the very beginning this would become a race between engine failure and engine replacement .
>>So I feel that the laws of physics are not in favor of the V-18 in this case, since the engine would be longer and heavier than the Deltic and would be on the very limit of acceptable rpm if not beyond it.<<
V 16 again . Not at all – or if there was an overall principal advantage in the opposed piston concept it would still be there today and then all of the rest of the diesel engineers would be but numbskulls .
That reminds me of the old joke of one car driver entering the highway at night and hearing a breaking news in the radio :
“ Attention on highway #22 between Dieselburgh and Steamcastle there is a car oncoming ! Keep to the far right , don’t overtake ..”
Mumbles the man : “ Just one car ? Thousands !”
I think that describes the situation you’re in with your 22 Deltics against thousands of V-type diesels invariably chosen for application in locomotives since over half a century and continuing .
>> In my previous post I indicated that the Zvezda M503 was mainly used in Soviet Navy Osa class missile boats. The 500 hour changeout time was that applied by the Soviet Navy in these missile boats.<<
I must perhaps explain that since we are here in a RR forum and the initiator of this thread asked about a diesel *locomotive* ( not marine vessel , less so about Russian Navy ) , and since I’m not a wandering catalogue of Russian diesel loco types and the motors used therein at each and all the various times , I assumed for granted these notors were put to work in a diesel locomotive .
Since now M636C has now revealed it wasn’t a diesel loco *at all* but a Navy vessel , now that means the whole comparison was misleading from the onset and must be disqualified since it does not compare diesel locos with diesel locos at all , but ships with locos and as I had previously pointed out comparisons of naval and railroad engine plants are not at all edifying . Or , you could compare the relative sea-going qualities of locomotives and find them disgusting if not downright precipitous .
So , it now turns out M636C had not only twisted my mentioning of a theoretical possible radial engine to mistake it as an actual proposition which it wasn’t , he had also drawn to an example not just rare and untypical enough but totally disconnected from railroad traction power – plus ! he now reveals the 500 hrs ratio doesn’t even bespeak frequent need of servicing of the power unit itself but simply was a procedure the Russian Navy found suitable for reasons off actual demands of that power unit ! In other words that’s like comparing potatoes with lemons or isn’t it ? And all that contorted void of basis fake comparison offered only to put up a most disfavorable example in order to ‘prove’ wrong in misleading way what I hadn’t proposed in the first place – now , what is one supposed to think of such an intricate scheme ? how mindboggling is that , if I may ask !?
>> In any vertical or near vertical opposed piston engine stopped or at idle, lubricating oil builds up in the upper pistons<<
Aah-ok , congrats ! now , here we are ! thanks putting that straight at last ! however I’m sure to M636C this is but another point to prove efficiency : lube oil is being burnt and so it doesn’t have to be changed , it suffices to just add up rather sooner than later . Also , the heat content in the lube oil burnt , I’m sure helps to keep fuel oil consumption down - *g* .
>> By the mid 1970s, most fast express trains were air conditioned, and this would be much less of a problem.<<
That dealt with the fumes penetrating the train – or should have done so . It did nothing to improve efficiency of the delta diesel in the Deltic which allegedly was so sparing on fuel – zero points .
>> The Class 55 Deltics weighed 99 tons while the DR class 120 weighed nearly 115 tons, so at least 15% heavier for 2/3 of the power.<<
Who mentioned the DR 120 class ? ( not me , in my time the diesel colloquially addressed as the Taiga Drum was the 232 class [DBAG numbering system] *g* )
Btw – you are yet again comparing mint chocolate with Vodka ! The Russian-built 120 class was 20 % heavier not because it missed two crankshafts but because of simpler qualities of steel used in framework and a completely different design and attitude to design and construction between British and Russian locomotive works .
I have a better comparison : DB diesel series 221 : 2700 motor hp on ~ 81 t (http://www.privat-bahn.de/V200DB_Daten.html )
They were rated 140 km/h service speed – however that does not bespeak lack of power , instead , DB simply did not then have track allowing higher speeds .
Again zero points on proving superiority of the delta diesel in the Deltic – sorry .
>> The DR class 120 were limited to 100 km/h.<<
Now I’m impressed ! So it was lack of two crankshafts that limited service speed !? And everybody believed it was slow DR track speeds or because they were intended for freight service !? Turn it around and you would simply want to drop a bunch of more crankshafts into a diesel loco and it should be at least as fast as any TGV or Shinkansen , no ? ( that’s like saying the dinosaurs with the most bones in skeleton ran the fastest - *g* )
>> The Deltics ran trains at 160 km/h on a daily basis and this high speed was critical to the success of the East Coast service, particularly after the West Coast electrification opened as far as Crewe. <<
Oh-yeah – I can see how ! When I rode the rails in Britain in the 1990 it was at times reminiscent of stormy sea travel – what then about the 1960s !? Competition East / West Coast ? and I thought it was all British Rail by then comprising *both* mainlines up and down . ( ok , right : London is always ‘up’ )
>> the 22 class 55s replaced 55 Pacifics and ran the main expresses with great success for more than twenty years.<<
.. more than 20 years ? Wiki : Built in 1961 – 62 / scrapped in 1981 “ .. In the late 1970s the Deltics began to be supplanted by the next generation of express trains “ Seems , you are again being slightly carried away by your enthusiasm for these Deltics .
22 class 55 replaced 55 Pacifics : oh , come on that old story again ! Look , my Chrysler Viper outperforms your Jag XK120 in a way that’s offending , my Ferrari 512 runs circles ‘round your Jag E type 4.2 litre six in line ( one crankshaft , each ) – those steam locomotives were run by crews assigned fixed , they were serviced in the ‘good old-fashioned’ way ; really the Deltics didn’t compete with monthly mileage that is documented for the oil-fired DB 01.10 class three cylinder Pacifics ( up to ~ 7700 mls / month at Osnabruck ) – and they didn’t live up to their performance neither , since an 012 [post 1968 DB system] when extended beyond what had earlier been cautiously been put down as ‘nominal’ output could actually sustain 3300 ihp as against ( nominal ) 2750 and did so in the arduous runs Osnabruck – Bremen – Hamburg and after 1968 Hamburg – Westerland . One Duchess class Stanier Pacific , 6234 Duchess of Abercorn , on a special run in 1939 did perform the highest ever indicated power output of a British Pacific , 3330 ihp at 63 mph when attacking Beatock Bank – brave as this was and a highlight of steam no doubt , it was but a transient output . Yet , no Gresley or Peppercorn Pacific ever came near to it .
>> They were an outstanding commercial success for the East Coast, even if they cost more to maintain<<
I guess that redefines the term ‘commercial success’ especially when taking into account this type of motor concept afaik was never repeated in a diesel locomotive .
Really , to my thinking , the Deltic came into being by way of different considerations : at that time it was a major challenge to diesel traction to come up with a locomotive – even Co-Co – to compete with performance established by the Pacifics .
Drawing upon given design of the Napier motor was a quick way to realize such an engine plant – that it was a triple crankshaft design probably was then rather bought with the package than it was believed to be an ideal engine . After all – inside the body shell of a diesel locomotive , inevitably being long and narrow , what good is it to have an especially short but bulky motor with partly inaccessible components that has to be lifted for most any repairs ? even if you need two of them , which again has since come to be considered second choice – mind how many pistons are at work in a triple crankshaft double motor Deltic : 2 motors x 18 cylinders x 2 pistons each makes 72 pistons !! A longer , sleeker V concept motor is much better accessible and fits into the space easier leaving space all around for access and servicing . So the Napier triple crankshaft motor was an engine available and offering instantly to realize the desired power output rather than being a motor designed to an optimum concept as likely would have been put up had design have to start from scratch .
>> The engines were extended to 5000 hours between overhaul in the class 55 without reduction in availability.<<
That’s less than 1/3 of a year , in other words a classified overhaul every 4 months , grant ample stand still time and make it five to six months – still not impressive at all , not even for a 1960s diesel .
Excerpt from Wiki , German language :
>>Die Klasse 55 wurde mit dem besonders leistungsfähigen Gegenkolben-Motortyp Napier Deltic ausgestattet, der sonst nur auf kleinen, schnellen Marineschiffen installiert war. Sie wurden zudem im Rahmen eines Dienstleistungsvertrages mit English Electric beschafft, wobei EE auch die Wartung der Motoren und Generatoren übernahm. In diesem Rahmen wurden zusätzliche Austauschmotoren produziert und bereitgestellt, um auch bei aufwändigen Wartungs- und Reparaturintervallen einen durchgängigen Betrieb aller Lokomotiveinheiten zu ermöglichen. … In der Folge blieben diese Lokomotiven zunehmend mit Maschinenproblemen liegen. Sie wurden bis 1981 zu den Doncaster Works für die Verschrottung überführt.
To translate : “Class 55 were equipped with the Napier Deltic opposed piston motor especially powerful which otherwise was only found on small , fast Navy ships . They were ordered in connection with a maintenance service contract with English Electric , whereby EE also took over servicing of motors and generators . The contract also comprised production of additional motors and keeping them readily available for exchange in order keep locos running in spite of high expense work-intensive service and repair intervals . ..
In the following these locos increasingly suffered breakdowns by engine failures . Until 1981 they were delivered to Doncaster Works for scrapping .
The English language version Wiki doesn’t mention maintenance difficulties , on the other hand it mentions the following :
>> By the mid 1960s the Deltic hauled Flying Scotsman was achieving a 5-hour 55-minute time from King's Cross to Edinburgh with one stop at Newcastle[5] and this was the fastest ever timing, beating the pre war A4 hauled "Coronation" service's 6 hours, and without the priority over other traffic accorded to the earlier LNER train.<<
Now , while the last part of the paragraph turns to myth building ( no amount of loco performance could make up for a long enough delay at stop signal for traffic jam ahead ; priority *needed* to be given to symbol express trains and this was one of them ; any railway system of some reasonable organization did – still does – give priority to passenger trains over freight trains and then again to most important express trains over lesser ranking ones ) the beginning of the paragraph is revealing : no more but 5 min were gained over the Pacific’s timing in a total of six hours – and that in spite of diesel-typical *much* faster get-away and lower speed acceleration , especially when starting out of King’s Cross directly into climb through Haymarket tunnel which with steam traction had always been a borderline case of laboring around the very limit of ( lacking ) adhesion with frequent slippage and but slow sustained speed all the way through because a Pacific simply had but half the number of drive axles of a Deltic and not even half the tractive effort at tender draw bar . Going through Haymarket tunnel any reasonable Co-Co diesel should have easily gained a couple of minutes on a Pacific already – meaning time gained by a Deltic over the rest of the trip was almost within timing tolerance and quite surely within tolerance of varying conditions . That again means , upper speed power output at drawbar must have been hardly any larger than that of a pre-war A3 / A4 Gresley Pacific , and further , since these did not exceed about 2500 – 2600 ihp continuous output ( 1 hour or longer ) that in turn means drawbar output can hardly have exceeded some 1800 – 1860 hp with Pacific or Deltic – that again is pretty much what a DB 221 did put up and on 81 t and with but one crankshaft per V12 .
Regards
Interesting question.
The UA Turbotrain was a development of the Chessie's diesel motor train design, which used a pair of in-line diesel's at each end (DD 6-92's???). The Deltic might have been a good choice for the Train-X or NH Speed Merchant design, the latter using a small OP.
- Erik
I wonder if the Deltic was proposed as a prime mover for any lightweight passenger trains in the US/Canada?
I do note that by the early to mid 1960's a lot of the Aerotrain/Train of Tomorrow/etc. buzz had largely died down but the United Aircraft Turbotrain was on the drawing boards and I can imagine something like a precursor to the Bombardier LRC could make use of the Deltic's relatively light weight and high power-to-weight ratio..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
M636C If you mean power from an engine of the same size and weight I don't think there is any possibility of building a V-18 of the same displacement that is as as short as the Deltic which is only six cylinders long. This was a specific design aim of the Deltic as intended for small naval warships, but it was also critical in building the twin engine class 55 within the weight limits required by 100 mph operation. A longer class 55 would have weighed more.
If you mean power from an engine of the same size and weight I don't think there is any possibility of building a V-18 of the same displacement that is as as short as the Deltic which is only six cylinders long. This was a specific design aim of the Deltic as intended for small naval warships, but it was also critical in building the twin engine class 55 within the weight limits required by 100 mph operation. A longer class 55 would have weighed more.
Another data point with respect to the Deltic engine is that the NYFD's "Super Pumper" built in the mid-1960's used a Deltic engine. Engine size and weight were critical as the pumper needed to be driven on the streets of New York City and no conventional 2,000HP diesel engine of the time would fit the bill.
The slogan, "There are no correct choices, there are only trade-offs" applies here as the Deltic trades-off ease of maintenance for small size and weight for a given power output. The Deltic would most certainly not be my first choice for a general purpose freight locomotive, where the size and power to weight ratio' of conventional diesels are adequate.
Ok , this goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...
and whenever I post ‚I’d prefer to drop it for good now‘ then that only fuels it the more and
it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on …
it maybe comes as near to a perpetuum mobile ( running on nothing / reproducing what it consumes to re-chew and re-chew ) as can be ...
not that there’s something in it , after all it’s like cranking a rusty , left-alone scrap yard piece *gee* however so let’s just do some mad-mechanic's , shucks , why not .
Paul:
>>the opposed piston has more crankshafts but it eliminates the cylinder head and those thermal losses.<<
if it would eliminate thermal losses' then that would mean it was superior to the 'conventional' layout with cylinder head .
Then consequently that would mean it had a lower specific fuel consumption .
Then tell me why aren't *ALL* Diesel locomotives powered by deltic crossectional delta triple crankshaft motors ? Why on the contrary have these Deltic locos not been repeated ?
Ok , it eliminates the cylinder head and if that was a design aim per se for some reason or other then it did just that . However : what was gained by that ? Avoiding cylinder head seal ? Oh my goodness - that would be like avoiding a flat tire by using steel wheels on cars !
If you ask me you have become trapped in that same logical error that I had already pointed out and explained earlier : alledgedly boosting power and efficiency by 'exploiting' that pressure otherwise 'lost' on the cylinder head !
That 'theory' or myth , rather , does not stand the test . The Deltic , I betcha , was no better on 1:1 specific fuel consumption than any other diesel ( for sure that will prompt M636C to come up with some fraction of a fuel consumtion list of undefined basis 'proving' the Deltic consumed significantly less than any other Diesel while at the same time performing much harder - just as one would expect of a real wonder machine !)
I spent all of yesterday morning in a presentation from MTU. As well as the usual local salesman, we had two engineers from Germany anxious to sell my employer 4000 series engines for new patrol boats and submarines. They were more concerned than usual because new Customs boats upon which the Navy patrol boats are expected to be based have Caterpillar 3516C engines. MTU felt, but couldn't prove, that their engines would run longer between overhauls than the Cats. Meanwhile our people mainly complained about the MTU fuel pumps in our present Patrol boats failing and spraying fuel all over the engine room. I was trying to find out more about their new and as yet untested submarine version of the 4000.
Juniatha Two simple questions , if 'M636C' might care to answer : 1. - Did you ever consider any of the vast difference between running conditions in Britain ( easy : low train loads , mild weather , best fuel best lub oil , best maintenance ) and Russia ( hard : high - extreme train loads , extreme weather conditions , just available fuel of dubious quality , lub oil of uncertain quality as available , used until sludged , simplest maintenance by simplest means , patch-up repairs with minimum of parts replacement preferably re-installation of re-repaired-rre-epaired-re-repaired parts if at all useable ) and inevitable consequences on incident free running hours ?
Two simple questions , if 'M636C' might care to answer :
1. - Did you ever consider any of the vast difference between running conditions in Britain ( easy : low train loads , mild weather , best fuel best lub oil , best maintenance ) and Russia ( hard : high - extreme train loads , extreme weather conditions , just available fuel of dubious quality , lub oil of uncertain quality as available , used until sludged , simplest maintenance by simplest means , patch-up repairs with minimum of parts replacement preferably re-installation of re-repaired-rre-epaired-re-repaired parts if at all useable ) and inevitable consequences on incident free running hours ?
In my previous post I indicated that the Zvezda M503 was mainly used in Soviet Navy Osa class missile boats. The 500 hour changeout time was that applied by the Soviet Navy in these missile boats. Given that the SSN-2 was a liquid fueled missile which would have required quite a lot of servicing and the cost of frequent engine changes would not have been significant compared to the costs of fielding the weapon system, it was probably considered that early replacement provided the greatest availability of the missiles.
Similarly, the Royal Navy applied the 3000 hour changeout time to Deltic engines in similar but smaller fast attack craft, as well as the minesweepers I described earlier. I would expect the duty cycle for Royal Navy and Soviet Navy engines to be similar, although maintenance standards might well have been lower in the Soviet Navy since their crew would largely have been conscripts while the Royal Navy in this period was virtually all volunteers.
During this cold war period, I would assume that both navies used the best quality fuels and lubricants available to them..
Juniatha 2. - Would you mind to explain how a design with three crankshafts will yield a higher specific h.p. than a V design with a single crankshaft - on a basis of same CID , same number of cylinders and compression ratio plus same fuel , two stroke type each , to note (!!) - and do so in spite of inevitably higher friction losses in the triple crankshaft design and more compromised gas flow ?
2. - Would you mind to explain how a design with three crankshafts will yield a higher specific h.p. than a V design with a single crankshaft
- on a basis of same CID , same number of cylinders and compression ratio plus same fuel , two stroke type each , to note (!!) -
and do so in spite of inevitably higher friction losses in the triple crankshaft design and more compromised gas flow ?
I'm not sure what you mean by "specific" output in this case....
If you mean based on the power per unit displacement it might be possible but there are difficulties as will outline.
To be fair, we have to consider building your theoretical engine using the technology available in 1955 when the D18-25 Deltic was first installed in the "Deltic" prototype.
Since you have specified a two stroke engine, we will not use a turbocharger. EMD did not use turbochargers on 567 engines until 1959 in regular production. The D18-25 uses only an engine driven centrifugal compressor.
The D18-25 is 5300 cubic inches total and produces 1650 BHP.
Conveniently the almost contemporary EMD 567B produces the same 1650 BHP at 800 rpm.
A V-18 of 5300 cu in will have about 294 cu in per cylinder.
This is about half the size of the 567 (a bit bigger because of the extra two cylinders).
To get the same power from an engine of half the displacement with all other things being equal, it would need to run twice as fast, say 1600 rpm.
I think this rpm would exceed allowable piston speeds for a conventional two stroke engine of the period for any cylinder dimensions that would work.
A big advantage of the opposed piston engine is that each piston travels only half of the swept volume, allowing the Deltic to run at 1800 rpm. Even with a significantly larger cylinder bore on the V-18, the stroke is likely to be significantly longer than that on each piston on a Deltic.
So I feel that the laws of physics are not in favour of the V-18 in this case, since the engine would be longer and heavier than the Deltic and would be on the very limit of acceptable rpm if not beyond it.
Juniatha As to experiencing the Deltic : a friend of mine who had taken an 'Up' evening train from London to attend a technical meeting described them as incredibly loud in the station hall , painfully filling the whole place with blue smoke and raising hell out on the line without making anything like proportional progress ; to quote him : "it was as sluggish at speed as any Russian 'Taiga Drum' Co-Co of about equivalent service mass - only much louder and a pain for fumes shrouding and penetrating the train" - and that didn't even take into account coaches are much lighter built in Britain than on any continental European railway , so ten coaches are not ten coaches in train mass each , mind it . That's my last word to that matter and with that I will leave it alone . Anyone who still wants to 'believe in miracles' is of course free to do so . Good luck = J =
As to experiencing the Deltic : a friend of mine who had taken an 'Up' evening train from London to attend a technical meeting described them as incredibly loud in the station hall , painfully filling the whole place with blue smoke and raising hell out on the line without making anything like proportional progress ; to quote him : "it was as sluggish at speed as any Russian 'Taiga Drum' Co-Co of about equivalent service mass - only much louder and a pain for fumes shrouding and penetrating the train" - and that didn't even take into account coaches are much lighter built in Britain than on any continental European railway , so ten coaches are not ten coaches in train mass each , mind it .
That's my last word to that matter and with that I will leave it alone . Anyone who still wants to 'believe in miracles' is of course free to do so .
Good luck
In Britain, by definition, an "Up" train is headed towards London, a train away from London is a "Down" train.
The blue smoke is burning lubricating oil. In any vertical or near vertical opposed piston engine stopped or at idle, lubricating oil builds up in the upper pistons. This is burnt off in the first few minutes of running at full power. This would of course fill the overall arched roof at Kings Cross if the locomotive was under the roof. Most express trains hauled by Deltics were long enough that the locomotive was outside the roof at Kings Cross before departure.
The "Gas Works" tunnels at Kings Cross are about half a train length from the platform, and the smoke would still be be being produced through these tunnels. It would cease shortly afterwards. By the mid 1970s, most fast express trains were air conditioned, and this would be much less of a problem.
The Class 55 Deltics weighed 99 tons while the DR class 120 weighed nearly 115 tons, so at least 15% heavier for 2/3 of the power.
The DR class 120 were limited to 100 km/h. The Deltics ran trains at 160 km/h on a daily basis and this high speed was critical to the success of the East Coast service, particularly after the West Coast electrification opened as far as Crewe.
While your colleague was not impressed, and may have encountered a locomotive not operating to full capacity, the 22 class 55s replaced 55 Pacifics and ran the main expresses with great success for more than twenty years. They were an outstanding commercial success for the East Coast, even if they cost more to maintain than the classes 40 and 44 of two thirds the power. The engines were extended to 5000 hours between overhaul in the class 55 without reduction in availability.
I recall riding behind a Deltic in the summer of 1968 from Kings Cross to York. I didn't notice any particularly loud engine noise or smoke, but when i got off in York, i walked toward the front to see. When it started pulling out, the roar began like no other diesel. And then the smoke. But overall, a unique and pretty successful engine in terms of years in service.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Tell us how you really feel!
OK, in all seriousness, what I think the Deltic arrangement is about is Opposed Piston, which in turn means a 2-stroke Diesel.
Yes, the opposed piston has more crankshafts but it eliminates the cylinder head and those thermal losses. In the Fairbanks-Morse OP, you had two pistons per cylinder and two crankshafts. In the Deltic, you added one more crankshaft but got three times as much Opposed Piston goodness.
And yes, to replace cylinder liners you have to do a complete engine tear-down of a Deltic, and maybe your wheezing (the loco, not you) and headache-inducing BR locomotive was due for same.
So maybe the Deltic joins sleeve-valve gasoline engines, the Bristol Brabazon propeller airliner, and many other Glorious Failures to come out of the country that started the Industrial Revolution. The Deltic may have failed in the arena of maintenance requirements, but there was a scientific explanation behind pursuing that particular design that should not be dismissed out-of-hand.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
It amazes me how time and again there are some guys coming up with a strong believe in using a certain concept of design or a certain application to make all the difference in power output or hours of incident free running or what have you - completely ignoring the fact each and every item and component of any power producing machinery first has to be properly designed and will inevitably fail or stand to demands according to the quality designed into it - *no matter* what the concept or type of .
That's what I wanted to illustrate with my *theoretical* (!!!) example of what I mentioned as a virtual reversial of the delta shaped delta triple crankshaft concept , namely a concept where not the cylinders are positioned between crankshafts but the one crankshaft is positioned between and in the center of surrounding cylinders : *About any* reasonable concept of an engine layout can be made to succeed by scrutinizingly sound engineering involving all the known processes from CAD to manufacturing prototypes and testing to series production . Likewise *any* but absolutely any concept of an engine layout can be made to fail if there are flaws in the above mentioned line of processes .
There is no single one concept which would safeguard against failure or which would guarantee success disregarding quality of work from design to manufacture to maintenance .
It just does not exist , folks , and because of that anyone claiming all it takes is to use something like three crankshafts instead of one and - zzing ! - there is performance , there is running hours abounding or anything you want , simply tells tall tales belonging to the realms of myths and wizzardry .
Other 'unconventional concepts and videos of Deltic diesels
JayPotter Anyone interested in additional information about the marine application of Deltic diesel engines might do an Internet search for "PTF-Nasty Class Boats". The primary site contains a "technical" section with detailed discussions of the engines.
Anyone interested in additional information about the marine application of Deltic diesel engines might do an Internet search for "PTF-Nasty Class Boats". The primary site contains a "technical" section with detailed discussions of the engines.
link:
http://www.ptfnasty.com/
I think I should say that I was not intending to attack Juniatha.
Since she raised the subject of a radial diesel engine, I thought I would give an example of an existing engine of that type.
As far as I know the Zvezda M503 was never used in a locomotive. Three M503s were used in the Soviet "Osa" class guided missile patrol boats. As Dave probably recalls one such boat in Egyptian service sank the Israeli destroyer "Eilat" with an SSN-2 "Styx" missile, the first example of this type of warfare. Ironically I understand the Egyptian boat was stationary in Alexandria harbour when it fired the missile.
But to return to the Deltic.
One thing to remember is the need for a high power to weight ratio.
This engine was designed by Napier at Admiralty request during World War II specifically to power motor torpedo boats which had previously used gasoline engines with the attendant risk of fire resulting from battle damage.
The production Deltic class 55 locomotives weighed only 99 long tons (111 US tons) and were carried on six axles. They were introduced at a time when British Rail were discovering that damage to track increased dramatically when high axle loads and high speeds were combined.
Remembering that the prototype DP1 was introduced in 1955, 3300 BHP (3000 HP into the generators in USA terms) this was an outstanding power to weight ratio. Before turbocharging, this power could only be obtained by using two 16 cylinder 567 engines which could not be installed in a 99 ton locomotive.
In 1962, when the production class 55s were introduced, two turbocharged 12 cylinder 567D3 engines could have been used but they'd still be too heavy.
The Deltic T18 was the only engine that could provide the power within the weight limit.
There were only ever 33 locomotives with Deltic engines. 22 class 55s and the prototype named "Deltic" and ten class 23 1100 HP units with a single 9 cylinder turbocharged Deltic.
Strangely, a 34th is being rebuilt from a class 37 using a former Class 23 engine and generator since no class 23s survive. Six class 55s, more than one quarter of the class, are preserved in working order with three available for main line operation, these occasionally being used for commercial freight as well as special passenger trains.
In the special conditions that prevailed in the UK, the class 55 were a success and successfully ran virtually all important express trains from London to Edinburgh for more than 20 years.
The truck design was used on more than 300 class 37 and 50 class 50 locomotives.
The class 50 was the same basic structure with a 2700 HP 16SVT Mk II engine (much like an Alco 251 but a bit larger) and it was a success, being used on the West Coast until electrification and on the Western region and London Salisbury Exeter until the 1990s.
All these locomotives might not have succeeded in the conditions in the USA where weight and clearance limits are quite different as are commercial considerations.
I agree. I think so do most contributors to this thread. But in a Deltic London - Newcastle was a great ride, cannot be repeated.
To get back to the Deltic topic, it is interesting to note that it apparently the DP1 was almost tested in Canada. If produced, I think the powerplants would not have stood up considering North American maintenance, and they might have found themselves with a 567 rather quickly...
Ok , so I drop the >> headache << point . However to explain the >> nothing << I got ever so slightly annoyed about : The user I commented on wrote
>> Juniatha spoke of radial engines. The best known of these is the Russian Zvezda M503 (42 cylinder seven row radial) and M520 (56 cylinder seven row radial).
These are described at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSC_Zvezda_M503
That's in German but Google gives a reasonable translation.
These engines required overhaul at 500 hours, six times as often as the original recommendation for the Napier Deltic. Having no valves as compared to 224 for the M520 must help. <<
That *was* an abusive contorsion of my concerned paragraph in that the commenting user twisted what I clearly had marked as --> a theoretical example to explain nothing else but 'any' concept of motor can be made a success or can be made to fail <-- into a serious proposal . Against that faulty interpretation the user put up his aberrant idea the Deltic with their delta shaped engine was superior *because* of that unique triple crankshaft motor . Or in straight words : 3000 hrs because of three crank axles , suggesting the three axles are essential for success of these locomotives suggesting a conventional V type motor with but one crankshaft will only stand 1000 hrs and a radial one will relate to that with but half the hrs again . In reality there is no such relation at all .
He draws that from totally crocked comparison by pointing at certain Russian diesel locos had but 500 hrs scheduled - and these happened to have a radial motor . It is a totally wrong conclusion to attribute these wanting running hrs to the fact these were radial motors and to (ab)use my theoretical example to let on I was actually suggesting to use radial motors - which I did not propse ! Further , the conculsion drawn from Russian - Bitish comparison of token locos , namely : a radial Diesel would by default be inferior to the delta shaped delta type motor is without any real basis . More crankshafts don't necessarily add reliability or increase working hours , however they add friction and increase number of bearings , inhibit access to pistons etc .
The comment *is* an abuse and inversion of what I wrote to glorify a questionable and never repeated type of Diesel and to compromise my words .
Under the service conditions prevailing on Russian railways , the Deltic Diesels with their wonderfully complex triangle motor with a crank shaft at every corner would not even have lived up to 500 hrs ! It did reasonable service *only* but *only* on specially careful and extensive maintenance conditions they were given by British Railways : There was a decided will to make these locos succeed and they did carry through with it .
Vice versa , the user misleadingly links disadvantage of ‘having valves’ to radial concept and claims advantage of ‘no valves’ for delta shaped motor concept in the Deltic named after the shape of a triangle – as we all know but always love to be reassured of by an extra-learned spirit . This linking of valves and number crank axles is totally aberrant and has no logic basis . Valves or no valves is a question of two stroke or four stroke type of IC motor , not of the number or arrangement of crank axles .
The user's writes his view is based on a single trip's impression and legends told to him by proud operators . Also I don't make that user's major mistake of mixing success of same engine in marine application and in rail traction .
I wonder how a simple enough sentence clearly defining my comment and clearly posted in the text gets totally and *persistently* ignored and the rest of the text misinterpreted .
I appreciate discussion , I appreciate exchange of arguments .
However , I do *not* appreciate exchange of ignoring and misinterpreting texts obviously not properly read !
Still , I agree to leave it to each one's own decision either to read a text intending to understand ., or not to read , or to half-half read and deny understanding a text – that’s one thing left to a person's free will ..
However a valuable , straight forward contribution to a topical discussion can only be made upon the first case . It is annoying having to re-correct alleged corrections really containing major logical flaws and in this case as I feel : willful misinterpretations !
I must think twice before posting any comment if only it leads to controversy , contortions and negative misinterpretations by a user just wanting to prove me wrong no matter how . That is neither edifying nor enjoyable . Perhaps it was preferable if I kept away from commenting so this user has his peace of mind - and me too !
Hoping this will answer remaining questions and we can agree to drop this annoying matter .
Juniatha wrote the following post at 10-15-2013 7:51 AM: I think user M636C has some personal headache with my postings and therefore strongly recommend he should not even click on headline when seeing one , let alone read posting
I think user M636C has some personal headache with my postings and therefore strongly recommend he should not even click on headline when seeing one , let alone read posting
Juniatha,
Once again, you are getting all blown up over nothing! Nowhere in M636C's post does he say anything like you think and I do not read anything in his post that would even slightly suggest that he has "some personal headache with your postings". I think you are the one who is way off base and suggest that you offer an apology to him and the forum for your comments.
BTW, the only time that I see that the word "always" was used in this entire thread is when M636C said "I would often hear a northbound Deltic heading upgrade and I'd always wait to watch it go by."
Your insights can be very educating to the forum, however, I would suggest that you leave the paranoia on your desktop.
.
It wasn't my intention to say a radial engine would be a bad idea, but more of what would have to be changed from aviation practice, where weight is far more critical than locomotive practice. A related example would be the Liberty engine of 1918, a 45 degree V-12 that had torsional vibration problems with the crankshaft, while the Alco 251 V-12 engine was seemingly free of these problems even though it shared the 45 degree angle between cylinder banks with the Liberty engine.
As for radial engines in locomotives, it's probably not the best arrangement, but not necessarily a bad arrangement.
While the engine was of Delta form, it was called "Deltic" as an adjectival form of "Delta"
A good description of it is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic
In 1968 I was fortunate enough to spend a day at sea in HMAS Snipe, a former Royal Navy minesweeper powered by two 18 cylinder Deltic engines, with a third nine cylinder generator for the magnetic sweep. While the locomotive engines could be started by motoring the generator, the marine engines were started by discharging a cartridge into the engine (a shotgun cartridge minus the shot). On this occasion we had four cartridges and it took three attempts to get the starboard engine running. I had all my fingers crossed literally when we fired the last cartridge in the port engine but it fired up straight away.
We spent the day towing a gunnery target for HMAS Brisbane (a DDG-2 class destroyer with 5"54 calibre guns). It was standing off at fifteen nautical miles and the projectile had splashed down before we heard the gun fire.
Later I spent a week in the Deltic maintenance shop. The engines were overhauled at about 3000 hours although I was assured that they were generally in perfect condition, showing no wear on any components.
Later still, in 1973, I was living in London, in Cockfosters, and my street led down to the Great Northern main line. When leaving or arriving, I would often hear a northbound Deltic heading upgrade and I'd always wait to watch it go by.
The engine was, as D K Brown wrote in "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" "the size of the First Sea Lord's desk", although quite a bit heavier and it was very easily removed for overhaul, either from ships or locomotives.
The parts were small and light and easily handled (the engine "block" was aluminium) and there were few parts that could be serviced in place anyway.
Juniatha spoke of radial engines. The best known of these is the Russian Zvezda M503 (42 cylinder seven row radial) and M520 (56 cylinder seven row radial).
These engines required overhaul at 500 hours, six times as often as the original recommendation for the Napier Deltic. Having no valves as compared to 224 for the M520 must help.
The EMD Pancake radial diesel engines were not successful and were replaced in at least one class of USN submarine by FM OP engines.
I appreciate both of the above answers, and both are valuable. The thread on "locomotives that modelers prefer" has a posting that says that all repair on the Deltas and major overhauls meant simply removing the diesel, putting in one ready for service, and then working on the diesel outside the locomotive. That was the service routine that kept the locomotives in reliable service. Does anyone think that doing this as a routine proceedure would be possible on a North American railroad?
The "multi-row radial engine" sounds a bit like the description of the "pancake" engines used on some post-WW2 USN ships and "boats", with the Albacore being the prime example of the latter. I would assume that a locomotive engine would use a somewhat more rigid crankshaft than typical for aircraft radials, as the Wasp Major had rather severe problems with torsional vibrations at reduced engine RPM's that weren't present in the Double Wasp or Wright turbo compound.
Dave
I my view the most remarkable thing about the Delta diesels was : they succeeded in making them work reliably and at an appreciable high power output rate - although when in England I have heard sturdy steam buffs say a Coronation Pacific in good shape and run by a determined crew *was* a tantamount competitor - at least in the upper speed range , I understand .
What it didn't prove was it should *inevitably* take a delta concept of IC piston engine to do that . You might also have chosen a multi-row radial engine - such as , say a six row pack of nine cylinders , water cooled for improved and more leveled cooling of the dense cluster of 54 cylinders and pistons ; six rows in order to keep overall diameter more concise to allow for inspection galleries both sides within loading gauge and to better comply to principally longitudinal extension of space in a locomotive . I'm sure with duly careful design and testing , with decent degree of care and maintenance it could be made to succeed and would be a really *bad* power pack , *just great* to hear and see working at full cry on its elevated engine foundation while the loco speeds along at ..
Or , in the end when it comes to *rational* - not radial least radical - design I would shake off dreams of wild clusters of cylinders all working on a central crank shaft in a complex assembly of an all hot engine block with intriguing network of intake and exhaust lines .. and design a big bullish V 16 or V 20 with power to spare which will do daily work mostly just humming contently along , only raising its grim howling when fully extended on rising grade ..
Juniatha
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.