British Railway Operations

[Tulyar15]

I dont know of the top of my head, but I'm sure there must be plenty of reference books on the subject. I would recommend "AC Electric Locomotives of BR" by the late Brian Webb. Failing that, why don't you e-mail the AC Electric Loco Group (http://www.aclocogroup.org.uk)? They should know, they now own three 86's.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the advice - I'll try one or other of those. I spent an interesting few minutes wandering their website in the hope of finding out this information but drew a blank. I suspect an email may be in order...

[martin.knoepfel]

A little bit of topic, but not far away from Britain geographically,

The EU plans to spend money to expand the Norwegian port of Narvik for containers. They would then move over the ore-railroad to Kiruna (Sweden) and from there through Sweden, Finnland and Russia to the Pacific Ocean. Alternative to shipping containers round Africa.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by owlsroost

QUOTE: Didn't the Ruston engine have a maximum RPM of about 1100?

The Ruston 16RK3CT in the 56 was rated at 3250hp at 900rpm (according to my stock book).

In relation to the 66's, I wonder if the modified/lightened version of the radial-steering truck doesn't work as well under a much lighter (compared to an SDxx) locomotive - in terms of keeping all wheels in good contact with the rails and minimising weight transfer between axles.

I think that the EMD wheelslip control (from memory) works at the truck or locomotive level, which is somewhat less sophisticated than the system on the Brush-built class 60's which controls each axle independantly.

Any comments Beaulieu ?

Tony

(and thanks for the clarification Simon)

Yes Tony, that is the same RPM as the 645, but I still wonder about the torque curve matching due to GM's use of a mechanical assist turbocharger on their diesels. It produces a different curve compared to diesels with free-wheeling turbos.

Regarding the Class 66 slipping problems, the HTCRs under the Class 66s
should be better than the HTCs under the Class 59s for adhesion due to better wheel to rail geometry. Both designs are bolsterless. The traction motors are not seperately exciteable like the Class 60, but then the Class 66 was not built for the same duties as the Class 60 even though it is being used for some of them. The Microprocessor controlled Wheelslip system in the Class 66 should be better than that in the Class 59 since is a development of the earlier system with faster more capable processors. The big IF is with the software. The Class 59 uses simple feedback processors with EEPROMs, the Class 66s microprocessors can be updated by just plugging in a Laptop and updating the program. Like most equipment of this type how well it works is down to how good the software and hardware engineers are. I believe that GM was skimping during from the mid eighties until EMD was sold. It shows in EMDs sales performance in North America until the recent sale. EMD was just hanging on. Suddenly in the last year they have moved back into a competitive position versus GE.

[Anonymous]

Quick in and out here before heading to the land of nod.

Murphy - I work as a Signaller (to be PC) for Net. Rail.

Generally - there are some bizarre rumours flying left, right and centre around here. The takeover of the Greater Western Franchise seems to have signed the death knell for St Blazey as the units for the Cornish Branches will now be maintained at either Long Rock or Laira - incidentally helping to secure the future of Long Rock. Par T/crew depot maybe heading the same direction as well. As for freight...well....not sure what to believe. Better wash my ears out.

[Simon Reed]

I've just come back in from a night with quite a few old lags from the Mills, Holbeck, Neville Hill and Ferrybridge...

Also heard a few rumours about the future of EWS in Britain which, like Cogload, I'll believe when I see.

To go back to an earlier observation of Tony's, in the view of several of my compadres nothing has been built yet which could beat a Peak for sure-footedness. The ETH (HEP as you guys know it) examples lost a lot of oomph with the generator on, apparently, but they were still the best hill climbers BR drivers ever had.

As a lover of the 40's, and then of the smaller Sulzers I've never been a great admirer but six objective HO/HM men gave me some compelling arguements and some scary stories!

[Tulyar15]

I know an old Cardif Canton driver who liked the Peaks - he prefered the Crompton-Parkinson motored class 45's (the 46's had generators and electrics by Brush). He agrees they were goof hill climbers. On one occassion he took a class 45 on the Edinburgh - Plymouth sleeper up the Camp Hill line in Birmingham and managed to recover from a siganl check despite having 19 passenger cars on.

Cogload - is the turntable at St. Blazey still there? I thought EWS had closed this depot a couple of years ago when they lost the Royal Mail contract. If it is to close is anyone trying to save this historic half roundhouse?

(For those not in the know, St. Blazey is a half roundhouse, the last of its kind in use in Britain; the last full roundhouse, Barrow Hill near Chesterield closed in 1991 and is now a rail museum where a number of preserved locos used on railfan trips are based).

[Murphy Siding]

beaulieu: Would you please e-mail me? I have a small question for you, and have no e-mail address. Thanks

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: As a lover of the 40's, and then of the smaller Sulzers I've never been a great admirer but six objective HO/HM men gave me some compelling arguements and some scary stories!

Yes, the noise a pair of 25's could make was something to behold.....

Maybe it was growing up in the Birmingham area in the 1970's (where anything EE powered was rare at the time - it was Sulzer/AC electric land with occasional Western visitors), but the class 40's and 50's have never really 'moved my needle' that much compared to a 45/46 - or a Western. The 33's were fun too on Reading - Poole trains - they were underpowered for those trains so they had to be thrashed over the LSWR main line.

Tony

(and Merry Christmas to everyone - especially to Murphy Siding for starting this topic and keeping it going [:)] )

[Murphy Siding]

Merry Christmas to you too, Tony. Always interested in learning something new.

I've read (sometime back, so the details are fuzzy) about a British steam engine that toured parts of North America, sometime around W W II. Perhaps a *coronation*(?) series locomotive? It made me wonder if a British Locomotive could do that now? Are our two systems similar enough that it could be done, or are they different enough that it couldn't be done?
Thanks

[owlsroost]

The 'Flying Scotsman' steam loco (LNER 4472) also toured parts of the US and Canada during 1969-1972 - it was fitted with an US type headlamp, bell, whistle, cowcatcher and front buckeye coupling for the trip.

The track gauge is the same in Britain and the US (and the locos are smaller and lighter) so the main issues are the couplings and safety equipment - so yes, it should be possible to do it now.

Tony

[beaulieu]

All of the Class 66 locomotives for Britain have moved to the ports on their own wheels. Two modern British Steam locomoves have visited the US, in 1927 the Great Western Railway sent the "King George V". More recently privately owned ex- LNER "Flying Scotsman" toured the US. Also Murphy the A4 locomotive "Dwight D. Eisenhower" is preserved at the National Railway Museum in Green Bay, WI.

[Simon Reed]

I've just finished 29 consecutive days at work! Lynne and I have forgotten what each other look like so I'll be busy doing domestic stuff for the next few days.

That being the case - happy christmas to all the contributors to this thread. I'm wary of internet forums normally but this has been a truly enjoyable, though provoking, educational and stimulating thread. Thanks to all.

Murphy..to my knowledge at least four UK steam engines have operated in the US. I can't give precise dates but they are:-

1 - Flying Scotsman, as mentioned by Tony, in 1972/3. This was a disastrous trip as it's then owner went bankrupt whilst the loco was in the US, and it sat on Fisherman's Wharf in San Fransisco for many months before being bought by another British businessman.
2 - LMS 6100 "Royal Scot." A steam-shrouded sister of this 4-6-0 is the centrefold in this months "Trains." I'd guess this was in 1929/30. Interestingly the actual 6100 was in poor condition when the time came to ship her out, so 6152 was used instead and the identity swap was permanent.
3 - GWR 6000 "King George V". This went to the US for the B&O Centenial, so 1929. It was fitted with a bell (British loco's don't have bells) which it has carried ever since, having been preserved at the end of steam in Britain.
4 - LMS 6220 "Coronation". Another identity swap - what you got was 6229 "Duchess of Hamilton" dressed for the occasion, although the original identities were restored when 6229 returned to the UK. As Murphy observed, this was under wartime conditions, so post September 3rd 1939.

I'm not in the mood to research further but I'm sure there'll have been earlier examples. Off the top of my head I think the first few B&O locomotives were Stephenson built.

Is it possible today? Yes - how many 66's do you want?!

Happy Christmas, Folks.

[Simon Reed]

Just read Beaulieus' comments. I forgot about LNER 4496, ("Dwight D Eisenhower") which he mentions.

If you're including preservation SR 926 "Repton" and SR (ex LSWR) M7 class 53 were also preserved in the US for a while. Both have been repatriated and "Repton" has been a regular - and very loud - performer on one of my local preserved railways, the North Yorkshire Moors.

In Canada are LNER 4489 "Dominion of Canada" and SR (ex LBSCR) "Terrier class 654 "Waddon."

These are all steam locomotives, and I've just thought of a diesel!

BRE-Leyland RE004, a prototype RDC, went to the US as a demonstrator in the 80's although I can't remember where.

Did the prototype Deltic ever go to Canada? Any offers before I have to look it up?

[Murphy Siding]

beaulieu: I recieved a package in the mail today-thanks. What do you mean, "Don't open until Christmas"?[:)]

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

Yes Tony, that is the same RPM as the 645, but I still wonder about the torque curve matching due to GM's use of a mechanical assist turbocharger on their diesels. It produces a different curve compared to diesels with free-wheeling turbos.

Regarding the Class 66 slipping problems, the HTCRs under the Class 66s
should be better than the HTCs under the Class 59s for adhesion due to better wheel to rail geometry. Both designs are bolsterless. The traction motors are not seperately exciteable like the Class 60, but then the Class 66 was not built for the same duties as the Class 60 even though it is being used for some of them. The Microprocessor controlled Wheelslip system in the Class 66 should be better than that in the Class 59 since is a development of the earlier system with faster more capable processors. The big IF is with the software. The Class 59 uses simple feedback processors with EEPROMs, the Class 66s microprocessors can be updated by just plugging in a Laptop and updating the program. Like most equipment of this type how well it works is down to how good the software and hardware engineers are. I believe that GM was skimping during from the mid eighties until EMD was sold. It shows in EMDs sales performance in North America until the recent sale. EMD was just hanging on. Suddenly in the last year they have moved back into a competitive position versus GE.

I agree with you that the power/torque characteristics of the Ruston and EMD engines would be different (although I have seen comments that the later - more powerful - 57's are quite good with the sleeper trains over the gradients in Devon and Cornwall).

The higher gearing (and lower capacity electrical equipment) of the 66's versus 59's limits their maximum tractive effort in comparison, but if the problem is lack of adhesion (i.e. wheelslip) then surely this must be essentially a mechanical problem - truck design, weight distribution etc. ?

Computerised wheelslip control helps to get the most out of what adhesion is available, but it won't "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

Tony

[Murphy Siding]

If it's 9:00 p.m. where I live, it's got to be allready Christmas in Britain. I'd like to say Merry Christmas to our friends on that side of the Atlantic, and this side too! Thanks for providing some interesting conversation. Cogload: hope you didn't get worked too hard over the holiday.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by owlsroost

I agree with you that the power/torque characteristics of the Ruston and EMD engines would be different (although I have seen comments that the later - more powerful - 57's are quite good with the sleeper trains over the gradients in Devon and Cornwall).

The higher gearing (and lower capacity electrical equipment) of the 66's versus 59's limits their maximum tractive effort in comparison, but if the problem is lack of adhesion (i.e. wheelslip) then surely this must be essentially a mechanical problem - truck design, weight distribution etc. ?

Computerised wheelslip control helps to get the most out of what adhesion is available, but it won't "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

Tony

Ok, what I am going to talk about is based upon the modern US diesels type EMD SD70s, GE Dash9s, and especially their AC traction counterparts. I don't know if the same applies to NA export locomotives as this is optional according to customer desires.

Since, except for Amtrak, North American Railroads are oriented towards bulk or heavy haul transportation, the manufacutrers are offering the current microprocessor equipped locomotives with the control systems set up to produce a fixed amount of tractive effort for each throttle position rather than a fixed amount of horsepower. With this system the Engineer (Driver) does not have direct control of diesel engine speed, rather he sets a target and the locomotive control computer system attempts to find the most effiecient combination engine power output, Traction Generator Field Strength, and Traction Motor effort, to produce the desired results. This results in what was formerly a wheelslip control system becoming instead a portion of the of the Traction Management System. Instead of just being a system to stop a spinning wheel by reducing power it will transfer the power from the slipping wheel to the other wheels in an attempt to maintain total locomotive tractive effort, also since the first wheel to spin is most commonly the lead axle the systems will typical apply slightly less power to that axle to prevent problems. Further with both EMD and GE now using creeping traction control both companies have the systems setup to run the lead axle run at a slightly higher creep rate to "dress" the rail surface. With 3-phase AC traction motors the system works even better with more precise control of motor speed.

With regard to Class 66 versus Class 59 wheelslip, the Class 66 should have less problems with weight transfer and similar mechanical problems due to lower motor torque until the Class 66 reaches its minimum continuous rated speed, which since the power available for traction is the same will be a higher speed than for the Class 59. BTW do you have the gear ratio for the various subclasses of Class 59s? Somewhere I read that there was no difference between the Class 59/2s and the earlier subclass inspite of the fact that they are rated at 75 mph versus 65 mph. for the earlier subclasses. Reportedly it is just where the overspeed is set.

[Murphy Siding]

From a non-mechanical mind: Couldn't the Class 66's be upgraded with new anti wheelslip technology?

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

From a non-mechanical mind: Couldn't the Class 66's be upgraded with new anti wheelslip technology?

It has the same system as EMD's newest DC motored power. A bigger problem is the fact that the locomotive is quite light by US standards. However it is as heavy as the British network is designed to accomodate. I still feel that it is the software for the Wheelslip system that is to blame. Remember that these were built when EMD was owned by GM who were very weak in customer service. As I recall the BN SD70MACs went through 40 or so variations of their software before finding an acceptable level of performance. EMD is still tweaking the system under the need to compete with the performance of GE's locomotives which are unanimously considered stronger pullers.

[Anonymous]

tul. 15 - the roundhouse at St Blazey itself is now Industrial units; however the turntable is still in use.

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

Ok, what I am going to talk about is based upon the modern US diesels type EMD SD70s, GE Dash9s, and especially their AC traction counterparts. I don't know if the same applies to NA export locomotives as this is optional according to customer desires.

Since, except for Amtrak, North American Railroads are oriented towards bulk or heavy haul transportation, the manufacutrers are offering the current microprocessor equipped locomotives with the control systems set up to produce a fixed amount of tractive effort for each throttle position rather than a fixed amount of horsepower. With this system the Engineer (Driver) does not have direct control of diesel engine speed, rather he sets a target and the locomotive control computer system attempts to find the most effiecient combination engine power output, Traction Generator Field Strength, and Traction Motor effort, to produce the desired results. This results in what was formerly a wheelslip control system becoming instead a portion of the of the Traction Management System. Instead of just being a system to stop a spinning wheel by reducing power it will transfer the power from the slipping wheel to the other wheels in an attempt to maintain total locomotive tractive effort, also since the first wheel to spin is most commonly the lead axle the systems will typical apply slightly less power to that axle to prevent problems. Further with both EMD and GE now using creeping traction control both companies have the systems setup to run the lead axle run at a slightly higher creep rate to "dress" the rail surface. With 3-phase AC traction motors the system works even better with more precise control of motor speed.

With regard to Class 66 versus Class 59 wheelslip, the Class 66 should have less problems with weight transfer and similar mechanical problems due to lower motor torque until the Class 66 reaches its minimum continuous rated speed, which since the power available for traction is the same will be a higher speed than for the Class 59. BTW do you have the gear ratio for the various subclasses of Class 59s? Somewhere I read that there was no difference between the Class 59/2s and the earlier subclass inspite of the fact that they are rated at 75 mph versus 65 mph. for the earlier subclasses. Reportedly it is just where the overspeed is set.

Thanks for the info Beaulieu.

From the information I have, there is no difference between the Class 59/2s and the earlier subclass in tractive effort - just allowed top speed, so I presume the gearing is the same (but I don't have a definitive answer).

Do modern DC-drive EMD locomotives have individual power control to each axle (for wheelslip control) ? - I thought the class 60's were relatively unusual in having DC-drives with separate excitation for each motor.

Out of interest, do GE and EMD locomotives with AC-drives have per-axle or per-truck invertors ? - I read somewhere that one manufacturer uses one invertor per truck, the other one per axle.

(apologies for getting a bit techy - I design (non-railway) electronics for a living, and hence have an interest in the engineering side of railways).

Tony

(Off to Canada for 2 weeks in a few hours - hope to get in a bit of railfanning along the way - so Happy New Year to everyone!)

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: [i]Originally posted by owlsroost[

Thanks for the info Beaulieu.

From the information I have, there is no difference between the Class 59/2s and the earlier subclass in tractive effort - just allowed top speed, so I presume the gearing is the same (but I don't have a definitive answer).

Do modern DC-drive EMD locomotives have individual power control to each axle (for wheelslip control) ? - I thought the class 60's were relatively unusual in having DC-drives with separate excitation for each motor.

Out of interest, do GE and EMD locomotives with AC-drives have per-axle or per-truck invertors ? - I read somewhere that one manufacturer uses one invertor per truck, the other one per axle.

(apologies for getting a bit techy - I design (non-railway) electronics for a living, and hence have an interest in the engineering side of railways).

Tony

(Off to Canada for 2 weeks in a few hours - hope to get in a bit of railfanning along the way - so Happy New Year to everyone!)

Separate motor excitation is no longer unusual all modern US locomotive have that what the Class 60 introduced is separate excitation of the field windings from the stator. Normally the field and stator are wired in series. With regard to the AC locomotives GE uses one invertor per axle, while EMD uses one invertor per truck.

[owlsroost]

OK, thanks for the info.

Tony

(and lots of snow here in Canada - just come back from a long snowshoe walk - no trains up here in Algonquin Park though......Happy New Year ! )

[Anonymous]

Happy new year to you all on here as well. Finished 8:30Am on New Yrs day after a run of highly entertaining night turns.

Having a few beers and back to work tomoorow afternoon; so no rest for the wicked.

[Simon Reed]

No work for me until Friday 6th, but to make up for that I've just got myself out of bed after a delightful bout of food poisoning!

A question maybe best answered by Beaulieu. I've read somewhere recently (don't recall where) that SP had some U25B's re-engined by Sulzer in the 1970's. Actually it's three questions:-

1 - Were these the standard 12LDA28 units as applied to classes 44-47 in the UK?

2 - What was the outcome of the experiment? Obviously Sulzer never became a major player in the US Railroad market but are we talking failure or abject failure?

3 - Why? I know that the U-Boats never scored highly on the reliabilty stakes but re-engining a batch with an untried product (in the US) seems a little drastic.

[Murphy Siding]

Hi Simon Reed! I just read something about those units,but had to do some looking to find where. Morrison-Knudsen rebuilt 4 U25Bs in 1978 for Southern Pacific. About the best thing that any book says about them, is that they were painted in a snazzy adaptation of SP's orange "Daylight" colors, and refered to as "posicles".
According to " The Diesel Spotters Guide", they were repowered with 8-cylender turbocharged 8asl 25/30 engines, rated at 2800 h.p. They did not hold up under U.S. operating conditions, and were soon retired. Another source GE Locomotives / 110 Years of GE motive Power, notes that they served out their days on a flat section of track in Oregon. Perhaps, there is a clue there about what didn't work?
From what I gather, it appears that M-K was trying to get into the business of rebuilding non-EMD locomotives with engines from a source other than EMD.

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Simon Reed

No work for me until Friday 6th, but to make up for that I've just got myself out of bed after a delightful bout of food poisoning!

A question maybe best answered by Beaulieu. I've read somewhere recently (don't recall where) that SP had some U25B's re-engined by Sulzer in the 1970's. Actually it's three questions:-

1 - Were these the standard 12LDA28 units as applied to classes 44-47 in the UK?

2 - What was the outcome of the experiment? Obviously Sulzer never became a major player in the US Railroad market but are we talking failure or abject failure?

3 - Why? I know that the U-Boats never scored highly on the reliabilty stakes but re-engining a batch with an untried product (in the US) seems a little drastic.

The engine used in the US rebuilds was the Sulzer AS type, a much more recent design than the LDA which dated back to the mid 1930s. I think the SP rebuilds used a 12 cylinder, and a 16 cylinder was used in some AT&SF SD45 units. I understand that they worked well enough but the maintenance costs were too high, partly due to the high cost of spares. These engines were similar to the LVA type used in the Brush class 48 and the Kestrel (they were a vee-type rather than the twin crankshaft LDA), but were somewhat heavier.

The GE FDL engine tends to develop cracks in the crankcase after a long period of service and needs to be replaced either by a new engine of the same type (or a different type if so preferred). This is one reason so few U series locomotives are still around, while 40 year old SD40s are very common.

M636C

[Murphy Siding]

beaulieu: I finally got time to watch the DVD you sent me. Many thanks. My only regret was that there wasn't more narration. The countryside looked a lot like eastern S.D. It appears that German freight trains run at a pretty good clip.

British Railway question: If freight trains run in the same blocks as passenger trains, what type of speeds do they run, in order to stay *out of the way*?

Thanks

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Simon Reed

Just read Beaulieus' comments. I forgot about LNER 4496, ("Dwight D Eisenhower") which he mentions.

If you're including preservation SR 926 "Repton" and SR (ex LSWR) M7 class 53 were also preserved in the US for a while. Both have been repatriated and "Repton" has been a regular - and very loud - performer on one of my local preserved railways, the North Yorkshire Moors.

In Canada are LNER 4489 "Dominion of Canada" and SR (ex LBSCR) "Terrier class 654 "Waddon."

These are all steam locomotives, and I've just thought of a diesel!

BRE-Leyland RE004, a prototype RDC, went to the US as a demonstrator in the 80's although I can't remember where.

Did the prototype Deltic ever go to Canada? Any offers before I have to look it up?

Alas No! English Electric tried to drum up interest in Canada, but did not get sufficient interest to justify shipping it out there. So it ended up in the Science Museum in London; it is now on display at "Locomotion" the National Railway Museum's outstation at Shildon, Co. Durham.

Cogload - thanks for the update re St. Blazey

Happy New Year to everyone, I'm back at work to-day having been on leave since 23rd December.