By 1959 BRB had been happily recieving their orders for various type 4 DE power, all at this point with the 1Co-Co1 bogie arrangement. This prove to be a major fly in the ointment for the locos, adding both wieght and some mechanical issues. This would in the parallel universe seal the fate at productiion of 119 D200s and 205 LDA variant "peaks"
EE had already made it's own rather competent if ponderous d200 obsolete in terms of express passenger work, and in heavy freight. It was the deltics, and the CSVT v12 engine which spelled the early cessation of the original order for over 300of the type 4s. In 1960 EE offered BRB an upgrade to the fleet order of d319-d343 which were as good as in production, certaily as far as ration dictacted procurement and parts planning wiht sub contractors was concerned. The locos had already been modified under a change control to the then favoured split head code boxes. The further modification was as follows- the fitting of aircharged cooling, stainless piston rings, new d6700 style exhaust manifolds and a major alteration to the electrical circuits. ETH was also offered as standard. Control and automatic overload correction/prevention were also modified more in line with type 3 orders for home and foreign markets.
Whilst the power unit was rated at 2350hp @850rpm, the main electrical circuits gained a fourth field diversion, or rather had a complete change in the staging with an additional one to boot. This allowed the locomotives to lay down higher ampage for starting trains and to give better performance at the other end above 80mph. Diversion is activated at approximately 16, 35, 60 and 75 mph depending on rate of fall of ampage, with maximum ampage for which ever field at about 5% below that speed. Thus the d3xx's became known for their slogging like ability to start heavy trains, often around 1000tonnes. THe max'trac'effort was estimated at 69000lbs at 14mph, but some enthusaist recordings showed them perhaps as high as 75000 when recovering failed trains, tus having the claim as highest effort for that time in 1961.
It all rendered them most useful for these heavy friedt duties when progress above 16mph could be predicted...a desirable situation because they had a tendency to overheat- the slab plate bogies not assisting heat dissapation as much as an open format 'commonwealth' frame based bogie. On lighter trains of 200-500 tonnes it meant progress was far from pedestrian, and really inseperable from their more powerful successors the Dp2s.
In accepting the design iomprovement at the time in 1960, BRB allowed a pause in which 8 split code D200s were delivered with only the electrical modifications. The expensive engine components wer not fully fitted eg the whole aire char inercooling system. however the rest of the modified split boxes were ordered along with the final change control for the last 14 D200s which had split boxes, dual heating and dual braking from new in 1962-3. As mentioned elsewhere, the remaining 40 or so orders were diverted into Dp2 production units.
A further variant did however arise- really just the EE type 3 with the v16 CSVT at 2350hp. These were seen as being a potential frieght variant of the Dp2 wiht a lighter overall weight than their big sisters and less complicated three divert control. 32 examples were built at RSW Derby , being diversions away from the main type three fleet at the time. These were all allocatd to south wales to bolster the type 3s there and avoid the need for double heading on some trains over 600 t. They worked later from toton, immingham and grangemouth providing oil and pertrochemical deliveries due to their power and very high reliability. However, deemed non standard in reveiw of the early seventies, 1974 all examples were sold to austrailian frieght haulage Ltd with the alteration to engines being two large turbos at either end and gear driven cam system. Two such PUs were retro- fitted to the two newest "d300s" and kept them in departmental use at least until 1995.
As mentioned 8 d319-d327 had been delivered wiht only electrical and some enigne mod's. These were temporarily uprated to 2230hp by 1) increasing fuel and turbo pressure 2) adding a notch 9 which allowed the engine to rev to 1000rpm. Reliability was noticeably affected by this temporary attempt to make up towards at least an even performance between all new D300s. In 1964 the last example had been upgraded although it was alleged that D323 had an output higher than all the others at maybe 2500hp. We will never know because in 1966 it was destoyed by glancing crash with a derailed Brush t4 and burned beyond economical repair due to the resulting fuel explosion.
The rest of the order was then diverted into the Dp2 fleet, of which the first 50 locomotives have much electro-mechanically in common before the later utilisation of the KV10 load governor on the further v16 orders.
tirsdag 23. oktober 2007
onsdag 10. oktober 2007
The 'Super Deltics' 2- Performance
The power units were the heart of the new locomotives, producing the highest output relative to weight of any plus 1kw diesel engine. Being 15 cylinders they would seem in outset to be necessarily lighter than the 18, but some stronger construction features were incorporated and the turbo/cooler system weighed more. Complete power-unit, gear/clutching , coolers and main generator were a approximately a tonne and a half more than the original deltics. The loco's were originally desigend with the WCML in mind, and so in some compensation a wieght saving could be made in not having a boiler and initially not having vacuum braking.
Body and Chasis
Originally EE intended to build the locos on the D600 DP3 body and chasis, but the amount of internal equipment and space needed for large radiator banks entailed a longer loco. If built to the Dp3 type the overall weight would approach 127 tonnes, which to some extent defied the point of having a gazelle like high speed, light weight loco.
In practice the 22m long deltic chasis was elongated by 1.4m and stregnthed by both additional tubing and box section, particularily around the drag box and the bogie ride-plates. The weigth in operation could therefore be held at a planned 112 tonnes, although with some extra equipment seen as desirable and the long range fuel tank filled they were almost 118t.
The body appearance was as noted very similar to a DP3 with the roof and side panels looking pretty deltic like. The two noticeable mencahincally relateddeviations from these relatives were the larger top fans and the extension of radiator grills on one panel down below the roof unit. Secondly was the addition to the otherwise clean D600 layout of a traction motor blower/extractor on the 2nd mans side of the cab/nose area. This operated as a blower on lead end and as an extractor on the trailing end. Also a larger side panel air intake and heat exchange unit and as mentioned the indicators panels being central on the front end with a horn grill and cab ventilator neatly designed on the cab roof.
Aesthetically the loco had tumble home sides which saved some more wieght in the desing, the chasis being narrower than a deltic, while allowing good internal room for access and walking throught the compartments. At a distance the loco could easily be mistaken for either the Brush type 4 or it's own cousin the DP3 (class 50). However from the side the window and cab front panel was far more raked and the lines were more streamlined in all 'joins' to the rest of the loco.
As a final aerodynamic touch, incidentally never fitted to the first two delivered, the buffer sourounds were treated in an aero surround pretty like kestrel, but with a rubber collar providing more streamlining behind the 'sawn off' buffer.
Beneath the buffer beams an aerodynamic spoiler and air feeder for the Traction motors was fitted as a prototype to the fourht delivered loco, and this was a feature either fitted or retro fitted to most of the fleet members which maintained their air brake only status. Those ordered with vacuum systems, about half way into the delivery, and those retro fitted had these 'boxes' removed and new items were not desinged until their HGR in the late 70s to 1980.
At one point 2nd men and fitters were really fed up with the system of hauling out a sliding bucket-door to release the air brake hoses and the main drag box, that they often left them open with the appendages dangling over. THis practice was 'mentioned in dispatches' as disciplinary matter if any train arrived in this state, as the pipes and drag bar damaged the 'cosmetic' light steel box in traffic. The original issue employees took with the set up, was that the box filled with grunge, oil and water thus they became hard to open, and once opened could douse the unwary 2nd man in a filty shower just at the start of a 6 hour shift!. Some simple grease-gun ports and holes drilled in the boxes lead to satisfactory operation alhtough the whole assemblies where prone to rusting.
Traction Mechanicals
As noted in part one, the bogies were the self same 'commonwealth' design as the type 3, deltic and three variants of type 4 carried. However they were the most 'modified'. Apart from being 'beefed up' in terms of corner castings, armature connections, axels and bearings, there were small concessions to aerodynamicity made on the run of no.4 to no.10. These were later removed as they attracted grime and dust, which in proxmity to brakes and traction motors was really an unwelcome side-effect.
Despite the bogies themselves being by in large unremarkable, the operation of these was far from that which had come before. Firstly 110mph tests on Deltics, DP2 and Dp3 revealed a worrying 'yaw' effect at high speed ( we can presume given a 10% error in loco speedo that some of these tests made 120mp- the targey max cruising speed of the supers') . WHen the locos met an uneven picec of track bed, a highspeed point or a change in cant to curve they had a tendency to pivot , rise and float on their bogies. Drivers knew that the loco would settle down but given the wrong type of circumstances BRB and EE reckoned this could lead to dammage to the bogies or indeed collision with platform edges or worse still another loco coincidentally 'yawing' in the opposite direction.
One approach in solving this problem came from a development from the other end of the speed range. Dp3s were fitted with a hydro-pneumatic support system for the bogie mount which overcame the tendency of locos to 'sit back' on their trailing bogie under hard acceleration. This was developed further for the supers' in provding at high speed when this effect also is apparent.
the hydropneumatic set up also assisted in dampening longdituindal and lateral rocking effects, but yawing effects were stil of concern. That is to say yawing on a loco the combination of lateral and long' ways movement pivoting in 3 dimensions around the locos high speed centre of gravity, being a little altered from suib 90mph position. To be even more safe in this respect dampening hyraulics were utilised. These controlled the rate and range of body movement relative to bogie and were speed sensative. They also found use at lower speeds however in making the ride over points and over sharp curves and cants more comfortable for the crew and less mechanically 'jarring' for the bogies, bogie mounts and the drag- bar and to some extent facilitated slight improvements in train haulage.
Unlike the later class 50s, in which these sytems were either not fully fitted or under used, the system ont he SDs was in everyday use and well liked by crews- so much so that any unusual movement or the hydraulic fault light on the panel woudl lead to report of this. Good inspection cycles and regular maintainance kept these somethwta complex systems on the go, and later modifications in the 79-80 HGR rendered them a 3500 hour inspection to fall in line with the PUs.
Traction Electro-mechanicals
We are of course talking about the following:
(And lastly you can include rheostatic braking, although how effective this was is still a matter of debate!)
Main Generator ( and necesistated seperate starting system)
The main generator was a new development to take 1.5-2kw range mechanical oututputs and convert this as efficiently as possible into direct current. The units were smaller than those for the other EE type 4s, being the same legnth as the deltic predecessors but fatter. It was considered the use of the emerging alternators but Brush and GE of the USA had several patents and pending which meant at this point EE persisted with generators.
The new design did not lend itself to being used as a starter motor, which meant the PUs required a solonoidal engage/disengaged starter motor and further to succesful, prompt starting fromt he rather small battery bank available, the engines were initially co-started with compressed air from the locos own air brake reservoir. The latter was subsequently abandoned because the locos actually started undr just the motor only given full batteries-also the air being drawn from a critical supplywas seen as hazardous and it was designed out under the first D,E and F exams and all were finnalyy removed by 1980. In concession to the need for alternative starting, the starter circuti could take a feed from the ETH circuit if attached to a live loco or platfrom/depot connection. This it must be said has often been the saviour of a superdeltic on a far flung diagram with poorly maintained batteries!
Power Regulations and Field Diversion
The Power was managed thorugh the main circuit by load regulation in two ways..that is to say amps and voltage ratio are controlled in relation to engine output, driver demand and traction motor electro-magnetic feedback. Firstly as is standard on all DE locos there is field diversion circuits. These are switchable sub circuits which allow for several different increments of voltage to be supplied across / from the main generator circuit to the traction motors. As TM rpm increases, so the efficiency of delivering power in a certain voltage range deminishes by the effect of EMF and the amps begin to fall off sharply as the peak is suprpassed. Hence the circuit is switched to a new voltage/amps ratio for reaplication of engine power. These field diverts are a some what crude means alone fo delivering power and require that the generator be put out of circuit. This usually requires the PU to completelyt back down, as is notable on the brush type 4 and the EE type 3 and 4s.
Due to the high speed design spec of the type 6 passenger loco brief, the systems chosen were based on 4 main field diverts.
However the latter order of DP2s and their substituted D600s were fitted with a KV10 load regulator system which manages the circuit better within each field divert allowing the PU to work at or within 80% most effecient mechanical rpm/torque. This was also employed in the supers' in a pair of KV12 regulators with the KV11 load balancer actuially controlling hte main circuit and providing 'demand and balance' criteria to the twin KV12s for each of their own generator circuits.
Engine RPM Control in Respect of Power Demand
In effect this allows the turbo charged deltic engines to work between a minimum 60% and 80% of their rpm range upon demand from the handle, greatly increasing reliability by avoiding excessive thermal cycling. There are though desptie the clever KV systmes, usually two notable field diverts as heard by engine note backing down to near idle. Also the thermostatic shut down which often occurs when the loco has worked under high ampage for prolonged periods i.e lower speed, stop-starting and hill climbing.
A balancing act....
The engines back down when a full swithc to the next higher voltage circuit at it's minimum amps is stipulated by the 'software' (originally all valve and heavy transistor sold state stuff) inside the Kvs. The Kv12 detects the acceleration, the fall in amps, the TM temperatures and the main circuit condition in light of driver demand handle position and then determines if the engine mechancially should be slightly backed off or if they should be shut to notch zero. It then instructs the KV12s to control their engine rpm and circuit according to the lowest amps now required and then switchedss the main circuit over to the new field divert, then modulating the new voltage/amp start thereafter balancing in the two circuits with feedbakc to each KV12 to prevent large misblanace or overload.
Complex Weak Field, Haulage and Traction Motor Temperature Management
In effect when there are 'hot' or rapidly heating TMs the KV12 always chooses to back engine power down and allow for extended cooling for five or ten seconds before then allowing a lower amp/ higher voltage environment to be applied and even this more cautiously, in terms of demand for rpm.
Conversely when the driver has selected the 'start-on-gradient' or 'heavy load' buttons the KV12 will allow for maximum amps to be laid down relative to speed at each field divert and will switch out of divert one either very early or very late depending on acceleration, thus controlling a shut to near idle state at "diversion".
Drivers and enthusasits a like notcie very much when a locomotive is in 'heavy load' and 'gradient' control if there is a lot of stop and starting or 'slacks' for yellow signals. Usually this resulted in maximum engine rpm in both divert one and two, followed by sluggsih progress in 3. This is in part due to thermostatic detection of warming TMs but was also seen as weakness in 'software' execution and overcome in the last full class HGr of 79-1980.
To stand further apart from Deltics, the supers have one major difference in normal operation. The design brief was to haul slightly heavier trains on steeper gradients with more stops and hence better acceleration than deltics, which had been trialled on the route (and continued on the Edinburgh adn Aberdeen to SW services through to Plymouth at the same time and for years after SDs worked the WCML, all be this with a timetable slower in pickups and with fewer planned stops.) The draw back of the deltic on the route was that they engage only one 1650hp engine and this at lower tractive effort than the comparable type 3 due to the higher voltage cirvuits. The second engine usually is felt after 12 to 18 mph and on trials of statring various loads on shap showed this to be the achilles heel for fast WCML use of the older deltics, despite their being a suprluss of them in relation to ECML duties.
In addition EE now had the experience to be able to better design systems to keep power at an efficient 80% + of max rpm and to feed mechanical power into electrical systems in a mutually optimum way. The issue with the turbo deltic engine was that it produced a somewhat sudden acceleration when the turbo boost range was established. In effect this meant that torque loads across the generator and subsequent voltage/amps delivery was problematic on the first test-bed set ups. To overcome this and also to increase overall fuel efficiency, the novel idle injection supression was utilised to maintain a slightly higher idle rpm on 'engine only' select on the main controller. This meant when required to come into power the injectors were swithced in, exhaust mainfold pressure peaked up and the turbo system came in to efficiency immediately...therewith could the clutching system engage the generator and modulate the initial torque rpm delivery. this meant that power was available fast and also too fast for the second engine to be phased in if it were to be operated like a traditional deltic loco.
Characteristically the idle drone of the SDs is replaced by the 'calling whilstle' as the turbo band engages and the locomotive makes progress on both engines. The KV circuits then feed in the power progressively at least as far as first divert, when they either give back dwon to 60% of range or full back down to idle depending on the circumstanes. When the PUs themselves, their electircal and control KV12 system are working then both engines progress within about 5% of rpm from each other and often less than 2% variance. If on the other handone goes astry a little the the KV11 load balancing function detects too much or too little power and insttructs the Kv12s accordingly. It will first try to make a lagging engine catch up, then reduce the other healthy engine to a lower difference and then finally if this new acceleration in harmony fails, it will throw the lagging engine out of circuit and continue with a single unit. All this with no intervention from the driver so far. The driver will however 'see' a warning light appear. However no sound was initially coupled to this, a fact which lead to a bit of head scratching when progress was poor. Usually a glance at the twin circuit ammeter to the right of the displays would reveal the problem, even if they still did not glance alittle further to the fault display panel. In 79-80 not alll ocos where fitted with a repositioned fault panel, but also with a diagnostic programme which will control the eletromechanicals of the 'lagging' or failed engine. For example it firstly allows the engine to rev freely out of connection with the generator to spot fuel, turbo or mechanical failure which all have their own 'footprint' on response.
The KV11 tolerates quite a wider maximum misbalance as it marries in the two ciruits onto the 'main board' as it it refered to by fitters. However in operation those drivers who were Deltic convverts would keep a close eye on the twin needle display to look for misbalances and also to take advantage of spotting each presumed weak field area. Some even placed pieces of tape on the speedo dial and amps needle to show them both when it should cut out and how hard to push the amps needle on the main circuit.
Prior to the 1973 fuel crisis, enquisitive drivers and inspectors would select 'single engine operation' or switch off the actual weaker of the two on the 'main panel' in a station such as penrith or at a slack like over beattock summitt may permit, and see how the loco would perform. Speeds of 112 mph were someetimes noted, and often this was as fast as the "diagram" ( the timetable- the slot in air traffic control terms) would allow before they would be catching up the preceeding train. Under the oil crisis and indeed up to the end of their operations ont he WCML, superdeltic training envouraged the utilisation of single engine running amd a slight modification was made so that the shut down could be operated under notch zero rather than the more time comnsuming 'engine only' . Also as part of this "mod' " the second engine would be switched off under the new circuit upon selection of single engine only- sometimes not to actually produce again due to fault or neglect of the driver to deactivate single running ! This facility extended the use of SDs beyond their initial withdrawal from WCML north area services, allowing them to work Inverness, Ft William, Stranraer and Aberdeen services where 2200hp was enough to deliver timings to a fine diagram, in fact as good as the supposedly more powerful brush type 4.
Traction Motors and Related Systems
The traction motors were specially prepared as a complete divergence fromthe fairly standard units to be found on the later re-classified class 37, class 38, class 50, class 52 and class 55. They were slightly larger and had better ventilation design. Also they had some advanced electircal capacities which are really beyond the scope of this book, but that is to say they would better tolerate the power amp/volt fluctuations of the KV set up, the harsh route and the higher eventual voltage at max speed than the predecessor type. Patents were licensed in from both the GE and GM companies of the USA and siemens of Germany. Despite any complexities, they prove to be pretty much as sturdy as their cousing with better outright performance.
The only weakness in the TMs is being really related to the design brief- to accelerate trains hard and achieve high top speed and rapid pick up from slacks due to signaling. The TMs had a tendecny to overheat when worked hard from standstills or very slow slacks on heavier trains and would often do so upon any signal haults on the steeper gradients of the route north of preston. In fact the control equipment could have been designed to be a lot more conservative in not responding to 'notch 8, gradient on, heavy train on, let's go!! ' driver styles but EE did not want to disappoint in presenting a clean set of heals to both their own deltic build, the committed order for type 4 DP3s and 'super syphons' and the brush/BRCW type 4s and type 5. Also their experience with how hard the EE type 3 was being driven lead them to a falso sense of security of how much 'red zone' amps their new, improved, beefed up TMs would tolerate. In fact it was only when the loco undercarriage and TMs were very dirty or when there was superhumid weather that overheating resulted in flahs overs or incorrectible over-heats. Otherwise EE had been careful to include TM blower start up tests and failure as 'mission critical' to the loco's progress and incorporated auto isloation of the whole affected bogie and appropriately restricted power delivery
Body and Chasis
Originally EE intended to build the locos on the D600 DP3 body and chasis, but the amount of internal equipment and space needed for large radiator banks entailed a longer loco. If built to the Dp3 type the overall weight would approach 127 tonnes, which to some extent defied the point of having a gazelle like high speed, light weight loco.
In practice the 22m long deltic chasis was elongated by 1.4m and stregnthed by both additional tubing and box section, particularily around the drag box and the bogie ride-plates. The weigth in operation could therefore be held at a planned 112 tonnes, although with some extra equipment seen as desirable and the long range fuel tank filled they were almost 118t.
The body appearance was as noted very similar to a DP3 with the roof and side panels looking pretty deltic like. The two noticeable mencahincally relateddeviations from these relatives were the larger top fans and the extension of radiator grills on one panel down below the roof unit. Secondly was the addition to the otherwise clean D600 layout of a traction motor blower/extractor on the 2nd mans side of the cab/nose area. This operated as a blower on lead end and as an extractor on the trailing end. Also a larger side panel air intake and heat exchange unit and as mentioned the indicators panels being central on the front end with a horn grill and cab ventilator neatly designed on the cab roof.
Aesthetically the loco had tumble home sides which saved some more wieght in the desing, the chasis being narrower than a deltic, while allowing good internal room for access and walking throught the compartments. At a distance the loco could easily be mistaken for either the Brush type 4 or it's own cousin the DP3 (class 50). However from the side the window and cab front panel was far more raked and the lines were more streamlined in all 'joins' to the rest of the loco.
As a final aerodynamic touch, incidentally never fitted to the first two delivered, the buffer sourounds were treated in an aero surround pretty like kestrel, but with a rubber collar providing more streamlining behind the 'sawn off' buffer.
Beneath the buffer beams an aerodynamic spoiler and air feeder for the Traction motors was fitted as a prototype to the fourht delivered loco, and this was a feature either fitted or retro fitted to most of the fleet members which maintained their air brake only status. Those ordered with vacuum systems, about half way into the delivery, and those retro fitted had these 'boxes' removed and new items were not desinged until their HGR in the late 70s to 1980.
At one point 2nd men and fitters were really fed up with the system of hauling out a sliding bucket-door to release the air brake hoses and the main drag box, that they often left them open with the appendages dangling over. THis practice was 'mentioned in dispatches' as disciplinary matter if any train arrived in this state, as the pipes and drag bar damaged the 'cosmetic' light steel box in traffic. The original issue employees took with the set up, was that the box filled with grunge, oil and water thus they became hard to open, and once opened could douse the unwary 2nd man in a filty shower just at the start of a 6 hour shift!. Some simple grease-gun ports and holes drilled in the boxes lead to satisfactory operation alhtough the whole assemblies where prone to rusting.
Traction Mechanicals
As noted in part one, the bogies were the self same 'commonwealth' design as the type 3, deltic and three variants of type 4 carried. However they were the most 'modified'. Apart from being 'beefed up' in terms of corner castings, armature connections, axels and bearings, there were small concessions to aerodynamicity made on the run of no.4 to no.10. These were later removed as they attracted grime and dust, which in proxmity to brakes and traction motors was really an unwelcome side-effect.
Despite the bogies themselves being by in large unremarkable, the operation of these was far from that which had come before. Firstly 110mph tests on Deltics, DP2 and Dp3 revealed a worrying 'yaw' effect at high speed ( we can presume given a 10% error in loco speedo that some of these tests made 120mp- the targey max cruising speed of the supers') . WHen the locos met an uneven picec of track bed, a highspeed point or a change in cant to curve they had a tendency to pivot , rise and float on their bogies. Drivers knew that the loco would settle down but given the wrong type of circumstances BRB and EE reckoned this could lead to dammage to the bogies or indeed collision with platform edges or worse still another loco coincidentally 'yawing' in the opposite direction.
One approach in solving this problem came from a development from the other end of the speed range. Dp3s were fitted with a hydro-pneumatic support system for the bogie mount which overcame the tendency of locos to 'sit back' on their trailing bogie under hard acceleration. This was developed further for the supers' in provding at high speed when this effect also is apparent.
the hydropneumatic set up also assisted in dampening longdituindal and lateral rocking effects, but yawing effects were stil of concern. That is to say yawing on a loco the combination of lateral and long' ways movement pivoting in 3 dimensions around the locos high speed centre of gravity, being a little altered from suib 90mph position. To be even more safe in this respect dampening hyraulics were utilised. These controlled the rate and range of body movement relative to bogie and were speed sensative. They also found use at lower speeds however in making the ride over points and over sharp curves and cants more comfortable for the crew and less mechanically 'jarring' for the bogies, bogie mounts and the drag- bar and to some extent facilitated slight improvements in train haulage.
Unlike the later class 50s, in which these sytems were either not fully fitted or under used, the system ont he SDs was in everyday use and well liked by crews- so much so that any unusual movement or the hydraulic fault light on the panel woudl lead to report of this. Good inspection cycles and regular maintainance kept these somethwta complex systems on the go, and later modifications in the 79-80 HGR rendered them a 3500 hour inspection to fall in line with the PUs.
Traction Electro-mechanicals
We are of course talking about the following:
- Main Generator
- Starting system
- Power Relay and Field Diversion Systems
- Demand Control Systems
- Governing Systems
- Traction Motors
- Traction Control
- Monitoring and Display
(And lastly you can include rheostatic braking, although how effective this was is still a matter of debate!)
Main Generator ( and necesistated seperate starting system)
The main generator was a new development to take 1.5-2kw range mechanical oututputs and convert this as efficiently as possible into direct current. The units were smaller than those for the other EE type 4s, being the same legnth as the deltic predecessors but fatter. It was considered the use of the emerging alternators but Brush and GE of the USA had several patents and pending which meant at this point EE persisted with generators.
The new design did not lend itself to being used as a starter motor, which meant the PUs required a solonoidal engage/disengaged starter motor and further to succesful, prompt starting fromt he rather small battery bank available, the engines were initially co-started with compressed air from the locos own air brake reservoir. The latter was subsequently abandoned because the locos actually started undr just the motor only given full batteries-also the air being drawn from a critical supplywas seen as hazardous and it was designed out under the first D,E and F exams and all were finnalyy removed by 1980. In concession to the need for alternative starting, the starter circuti could take a feed from the ETH circuit if attached to a live loco or platfrom/depot connection. This it must be said has often been the saviour of a superdeltic on a far flung diagram with poorly maintained batteries!
Power Regulations and Field Diversion
The Power was managed thorugh the main circuit by load regulation in two ways..that is to say amps and voltage ratio are controlled in relation to engine output, driver demand and traction motor electro-magnetic feedback. Firstly as is standard on all DE locos there is field diversion circuits. These are switchable sub circuits which allow for several different increments of voltage to be supplied across / from the main generator circuit to the traction motors. As TM rpm increases, so the efficiency of delivering power in a certain voltage range deminishes by the effect of EMF and the amps begin to fall off sharply as the peak is suprpassed. Hence the circuit is switched to a new voltage/amps ratio for reaplication of engine power. These field diverts are a some what crude means alone fo delivering power and require that the generator be put out of circuit. This usually requires the PU to completelyt back down, as is notable on the brush type 4 and the EE type 3 and 4s.
Due to the high speed design spec of the type 6 passenger loco brief, the systems chosen were based on 4 main field diverts.
However the latter order of DP2s and their substituted D600s were fitted with a KV10 load regulator system which manages the circuit better within each field divert allowing the PU to work at or within 80% most effecient mechanical rpm/torque. This was also employed in the supers' in a pair of KV12 regulators with the KV11 load balancer actuially controlling hte main circuit and providing 'demand and balance' criteria to the twin KV12s for each of their own generator circuits.
Engine RPM Control in Respect of Power Demand
In effect this allows the turbo charged deltic engines to work between a minimum 60% and 80% of their rpm range upon demand from the handle, greatly increasing reliability by avoiding excessive thermal cycling. There are though desptie the clever KV systmes, usually two notable field diverts as heard by engine note backing down to near idle. Also the thermostatic shut down which often occurs when the loco has worked under high ampage for prolonged periods i.e lower speed, stop-starting and hill climbing.
A balancing act....
The engines back down when a full swithc to the next higher voltage circuit at it's minimum amps is stipulated by the 'software' (originally all valve and heavy transistor sold state stuff) inside the Kvs. The Kv12 detects the acceleration, the fall in amps, the TM temperatures and the main circuit condition in light of driver demand handle position and then determines if the engine mechancially should be slightly backed off or if they should be shut to notch zero. It then instructs the KV12s to control their engine rpm and circuit according to the lowest amps now required and then switchedss the main circuit over to the new field divert, then modulating the new voltage/amp start thereafter balancing in the two circuits with feedbakc to each KV12 to prevent large misblanace or overload.
Complex Weak Field, Haulage and Traction Motor Temperature Management
In effect when there are 'hot' or rapidly heating TMs the KV12 always chooses to back engine power down and allow for extended cooling for five or ten seconds before then allowing a lower amp/ higher voltage environment to be applied and even this more cautiously, in terms of demand for rpm.
Conversely when the driver has selected the 'start-on-gradient' or 'heavy load' buttons the KV12 will allow for maximum amps to be laid down relative to speed at each field divert and will switch out of divert one either very early or very late depending on acceleration, thus controlling a shut to near idle state at "diversion".
Drivers and enthusasits a like notcie very much when a locomotive is in 'heavy load' and 'gradient' control if there is a lot of stop and starting or 'slacks' for yellow signals. Usually this resulted in maximum engine rpm in both divert one and two, followed by sluggsih progress in 3. This is in part due to thermostatic detection of warming TMs but was also seen as weakness in 'software' execution and overcome in the last full class HGr of 79-1980.
To stand further apart from Deltics, the supers have one major difference in normal operation. The design brief was to haul slightly heavier trains on steeper gradients with more stops and hence better acceleration than deltics, which had been trialled on the route (and continued on the Edinburgh adn Aberdeen to SW services through to Plymouth at the same time and for years after SDs worked the WCML, all be this with a timetable slower in pickups and with fewer planned stops.) The draw back of the deltic on the route was that they engage only one 1650hp engine and this at lower tractive effort than the comparable type 3 due to the higher voltage cirvuits. The second engine usually is felt after 12 to 18 mph and on trials of statring various loads on shap showed this to be the achilles heel for fast WCML use of the older deltics, despite their being a suprluss of them in relation to ECML duties.
In addition EE now had the experience to be able to better design systems to keep power at an efficient 80% + of max rpm and to feed mechanical power into electrical systems in a mutually optimum way. The issue with the turbo deltic engine was that it produced a somewhat sudden acceleration when the turbo boost range was established. In effect this meant that torque loads across the generator and subsequent voltage/amps delivery was problematic on the first test-bed set ups. To overcome this and also to increase overall fuel efficiency, the novel idle injection supression was utilised to maintain a slightly higher idle rpm on 'engine only' select on the main controller. This meant when required to come into power the injectors were swithced in, exhaust mainfold pressure peaked up and the turbo system came in to efficiency immediately...therewith could the clutching system engage the generator and modulate the initial torque rpm delivery. this meant that power was available fast and also too fast for the second engine to be phased in if it were to be operated like a traditional deltic loco.
Characteristically the idle drone of the SDs is replaced by the 'calling whilstle' as the turbo band engages and the locomotive makes progress on both engines. The KV circuits then feed in the power progressively at least as far as first divert, when they either give back dwon to 60% of range or full back down to idle depending on the circumstanes. When the PUs themselves, their electircal and control KV12 system are working then both engines progress within about 5% of rpm from each other and often less than 2% variance. If on the other handone goes astry a little the the KV11 load balancing function detects too much or too little power and insttructs the Kv12s accordingly. It will first try to make a lagging engine catch up, then reduce the other healthy engine to a lower difference and then finally if this new acceleration in harmony fails, it will throw the lagging engine out of circuit and continue with a single unit. All this with no intervention from the driver so far. The driver will however 'see' a warning light appear. However no sound was initially coupled to this, a fact which lead to a bit of head scratching when progress was poor. Usually a glance at the twin circuit ammeter to the right of the displays would reveal the problem, even if they still did not glance alittle further to the fault display panel. In 79-80 not alll ocos where fitted with a repositioned fault panel, but also with a diagnostic programme which will control the eletromechanicals of the 'lagging' or failed engine. For example it firstly allows the engine to rev freely out of connection with the generator to spot fuel, turbo or mechanical failure which all have their own 'footprint' on response.
The KV11 tolerates quite a wider maximum misbalance as it marries in the two ciruits onto the 'main board' as it it refered to by fitters. However in operation those drivers who were Deltic convverts would keep a close eye on the twin needle display to look for misbalances and also to take advantage of spotting each presumed weak field area. Some even placed pieces of tape on the speedo dial and amps needle to show them both when it should cut out and how hard to push the amps needle on the main circuit.
Prior to the 1973 fuel crisis, enquisitive drivers and inspectors would select 'single engine operation' or switch off the actual weaker of the two on the 'main panel' in a station such as penrith or at a slack like over beattock summitt may permit, and see how the loco would perform. Speeds of 112 mph were someetimes noted, and often this was as fast as the "diagram" ( the timetable- the slot in air traffic control terms) would allow before they would be catching up the preceeding train. Under the oil crisis and indeed up to the end of their operations ont he WCML, superdeltic training envouraged the utilisation of single engine running amd a slight modification was made so that the shut down could be operated under notch zero rather than the more time comnsuming 'engine only' . Also as part of this "mod' " the second engine would be switched off under the new circuit upon selection of single engine only- sometimes not to actually produce again due to fault or neglect of the driver to deactivate single running ! This facility extended the use of SDs beyond their initial withdrawal from WCML north area services, allowing them to work Inverness, Ft William, Stranraer and Aberdeen services where 2200hp was enough to deliver timings to a fine diagram, in fact as good as the supposedly more powerful brush type 4.
Traction Motors and Related Systems
The traction motors were specially prepared as a complete divergence fromthe fairly standard units to be found on the later re-classified class 37, class 38, class 50, class 52 and class 55. They were slightly larger and had better ventilation design. Also they had some advanced electircal capacities which are really beyond the scope of this book, but that is to say they would better tolerate the power amp/volt fluctuations of the KV set up, the harsh route and the higher eventual voltage at max speed than the predecessor type. Patents were licensed in from both the GE and GM companies of the USA and siemens of Germany. Despite any complexities, they prove to be pretty much as sturdy as their cousing with better outright performance.
The only weakness in the TMs is being really related to the design brief- to accelerate trains hard and achieve high top speed and rapid pick up from slacks due to signaling. The TMs had a tendecny to overheat when worked hard from standstills or very slow slacks on heavier trains and would often do so upon any signal haults on the steeper gradients of the route north of preston. In fact the control equipment could have been designed to be a lot more conservative in not responding to 'notch 8, gradient on, heavy train on, let's go!! ' driver styles but EE did not want to disappoint in presenting a clean set of heals to both their own deltic build, the committed order for type 4 DP3s and 'super syphons' and the brush/BRCW type 4s and type 5. Also their experience with how hard the EE type 3 was being driven lead them to a falso sense of security of how much 'red zone' amps their new, improved, beefed up TMs would tolerate. In fact it was only when the loco undercarriage and TMs were very dirty or when there was superhumid weather that overheating resulted in flahs overs or incorrectible over-heats. Otherwise EE had been careful to include TM blower start up tests and failure as 'mission critical' to the loco's progress and incorporated auto isloation of the whole affected bogie and appropriately restricted power delivery
tirsdag 9. oktober 2007
The 'Super Deltics'
In the mid 1960s EE and the ECML fleet management embarked on several experiments with uprating the deltic PUs and loco running equipment. These utlitametly led to the development of a new 4000hp+ variant as discusses here, but it's creation was very much informed by these experiments and those with DP2 and subsequently DP3 and their own prototype Dp4.
Towards 4000hp
Firstly, small up-ratings were performed on the deltic powerunits by adjusting the rpm governed level up 5% and increasing both blower and fuel manifold pressures. This was outside manufatcurer warranty but it is rumoured that there was full consent to this. It lead to a 3650 hp approximate output. However it did result in more TM 'run hot' incidents. At least three were secretly upgraded and perhaps as many as 6 had the 'fiddle' as fitters called it.
In one attempt to take the uprated deltics and their brethren to 110mph while reducing TM overloads, a fourth field diversion circuit was developed and advances learnt from the KV10 regulator application in DP2 were also applied to allow for an improved application of tractive effort and overall top speed. Although the experiment on 55033 was deemed successful, the cost of upgrade was not deemed to represent value for money and woudl take too much down time fromt he by now premium fleet. Deltics were providing top line express services by now not only ont he ECML with it's core 22 allocation, the Midland long distance to leeds and carlisle-settle, Midland direct services to glasgow and edinburgh but also venturing as far a field onto wetern region with the trial of push pull equipment on the Paddington to Bristol and Cardiff route, the traingle via gloucester / birm. Oxford, and the planned forwarding of the Glasgow/edinburgh- SW services from the WCML Their value in service was more than the 10% speed increase envisaged for the potential upgrade.
Concurrently in the mid 1960s a turbo version of the engine ( PU) had been installed as a weapons system-control electircal generator in several leander class frigates in a 12 cylinder version rated at 2000hp. Also 18 and a 24 cylinder variant had been produced. With the aim of reducing maintainence over the 18 in rail application EE/ napiers envisaged a 12 cylinder application at a derating to traction use down to 1850hp. | However the stipulation for type 6 was approximately as follows
The prototype, project Dp4, was designed and static component and rolling road tests conducted with the inclusion of similar equipment to be found on the early production D600 ( later to be class 50). The body shell to be chosen was based on the class 50, but with a central train indicator panel on the front end rather than the roof. The chasis required to be 2 m longer but the bogies were basically interchangeable at least 'downwards' to the Dp3s. Stronger armatuers and some other structural modifications were made to the new bogie which were deemed essential for a loco capable of 120mph.
In the end "project dp4" ran a little late as an actual locomotive and was only delivered upon committment to the fleet- this being actually as two pre-production locomotives with all equipment as planned for the fleet and con-currently under delivery from suppliers and assembly from components.
Committing to 4400 HP!
BRB were very close to ordering 50 super-deltics for the WCML north of crewe. These were to be supplemented by the Dp3 ( class 50, D600s) which had shown great promise, especially in pairs over the demanding route with the largest 'royal scot' ans sleeper services. The Dp3s D600s ( later class 50) were more technically advanced than the 'production' D400 DP2s and would in any case replace the last order for Dp2s with the by then prefered flat end layout. The idea was that there would be a release of paired locomotive operations, which had commenced with modified Dp2s and D200s, by utilising single 'Super Deltics'. Further to this aim in going to a far higher horse power than seen before, they would be taking advantage of EE's Newton-le-willows servicing facility during commissioning of such a complex and previously unsurpassed power delivery.
However as mentioned political pressure lead to BRB splitting the order with Brush's Kestrel locomotives. Thus 25 of each were ordered and in the super deltic fleet, six spare power units was judge prudent and fitted in with the revised 'modular repair' plans as detailed below. In actually fact at anyone time Napiers division had 8 power units available at Newton-Le-Willows which could be swapped in a single labour-shift, thus not allowing the PUs to hold back availability. This also allowed them to do spot-investigations on engines upon their first 200 and then 750 hours running to look for potential problems and wear. In general this had worked well in the older deltic fleet and contributed to a high availability for both classes despite their complexity.
A decision was made that all locomotives would initially be stabled at the new crewe diesel shed, the supposedly 'clean' depot removed from steam's incroaches. However, there just was insufficient room to stable loco's and inspect them under roof. Therefore A and B exams and other rectifications or manufacturer investigations were to be held at Newton-le-Willows and Derby in respect of EEs presence in the former and brush's proximity to the latter. This proved to be key in commissioning, fault finding and comprehensive rectification and fault avoidance training in the delivery of these complex locomotives.
Introduction Period
Super deltics, or just "the supers" as they were called, came in as "prototypes" as before for Dp3s, really in fact being pre-production units. This was somewhat risky but in many respects EE were rightly confident in terms of power delivery, performance and reliability between service intervals. In actual fact by the time in 1967 static rolling road trials had been run on "DP4 no.1" there were three sisters nearing completion at Newton-le-Willows. Two were delivered in what was really a pre-prepared commissioned state each with 1000 loco hours and probably more PU hours from the non loco test pans.
These were available for trials in late august-september although EE had had the same priveledge as brush in having ready access to test trains, tachograph coaches and light locomotive runs. At this time there were a further four actually on the tracks under EE private supervision/ownership, and the whole prototyping issue became a bit of a farce. BRB had ordered them on the back of access to the static trials on 55033 with turbo engines and on the good reputation of the Deltics, DP2s and other variants.
By March 1968 the super deltic order was ratified although 8 units were actually ready for service on the 20th of march insitgation of contract for their actual build! A further six were laid down that year, but the DP3 order suffered and given promising service interval and 5400 hp on express services in 1967, with a shorter commissioning time than the super deltics at 6 months rather than the rather luxurious 14 months for the supers.
The push to replace steam had to be balanced with actual full availability of reliable diesel power for express services and WCML area secondary and releif services would utilise the ever growing number of type 2 and 3s made available by the deminishing number of post beeching mixed freights with the move to road haulage.
(BRB were confident to cascade power down the routes to allow for the decimation of the unsuccessful type 2s below 1350hp at least. Type 3 would become the mainstay of semi-fast stopping services and medium distance such as Nw- East England etc, as well as having mixed traffic capacity / availaibilty at shed. Lower powered type 4s would work frieght and longer distance stopping services, and this included the peaks outside MML service and the use of 'permanenlty' paired D200s. General 2500hp plus co-cos would work the typical D1-D399 services on main lines and express freight.)
Super deltics were as mentioned delivered in a tight group of 8 and then a further 6 in 1968 before a gap to allow Newton and RSH(derby) Ltd to finalise the DP3 order, deliver the final D700 order and begin the 'super syphon' project. 14 was probably in hindsight enough given good availability of Kestrels, the planned service interval of the Dp4s and the continuing use of pairs of D600s on the route. However EE had planned to take full advantage of the manufacturer inspection ( D exam) necessitated as an option in the warranty agreement. This meant that depsite a planned service interval at the now trained Crewe Diesel depot and Crewe and Doncaster works, EE could take them out of traffic and secure payment for the remaining 9.
BRB had already scaled down type 4 mixed traffic orders for both the DP3s and the disappointing Brush Type 4s, favouring the introduction of two freight dedicated classes -the class 43 and the class 38 super-syphons which were based on the now proven EE CSVT and Co bogie but at a 10,000 hour service interval. EE were no doubt concerned of the possibility of the invokement of the standard cancellation clause..unwritten..be pals on these cancelled orders today so we can reorganise and order generation 3 tommorrow!
In the end the last two superdeltics were not delivered until1970 and actuall the bill came from GEC Group PLC to BRB.
The Deltic 15TSCM Power Unit
To appease BRB's wish for simpler maintainance and to take advantage of the power gains from turboing, EE/Napiers' division created a 15 cylinder verison of their new beasts. This featured some very advanced features for the time:
The latter was partially successful in reducing the clouds of exhaust so characteristic of the first deltics. The internal oil injection and pressure routing require very clean oil systems and a separate super-clean circuit for the cylinder faces. During running in of new and repaired engines this necessitated the use of centrifugal oil filters which were prone to breaking down or becoming clogged and causing overheats in an engine thus starved of oil.
In general though, not only did turbo charging increase power output significantly, it also helped to ensure complete combustion of fuel in a much larger excess of intercooled air. In practice this meant that the eshaust cloud was reduced in comparison to the deltic on loco's with no faults or internal leaks.
Turboing of course added the defining revving tone over the top of the usual deltic drone while the rather odd 'down shreek and whistle' were a result of fuel injection supression being utilised. This entailed engaing 'supress' in the injectors in short periods, staggered across the cylinders, which meant the engine 'windmilled' for about 30% of the time when shut down to 'notch zero' on the demand handle. Earlier, in a standard fuel pump set up, static test units would sometimes refuse to shut down, the turbo power creating so much pressure that the draw through the fuel injection system overcame the flow regulation and the engines literally had to have their fuel lines cut or run dry to stop them!
Having 'common rail' with rotational fuel compression/feed meant that the system had a far longer maintainance interval than a multi pistion pump or single pump per injector systems. Although more complex internally, it had the feature of being removable as a single component, which alowed for a modular maintainence scheme, where a new or reconditioned unit could be waiting for the time-served unit to be removed. The same modular practice was applied to the inlet manifolds, the downstream fuel manifolds, the final air ducts, the filter areas and the entire super-turbo-cooling assembly.
Servicing the Power Units
This modular approach contributed to a slighlty higher maintenance interval than the original deltics and once fully commissioned the average was over 3500 hours per PU, although some examples in the fleet where notably higher or lower without any real explicability. After commissioning a diagnostic set was run to allow for 'C exam' and further only when indicated by wear and fault' which meant that the maintainance interval was no longer just arbitary but based on keeping the locos in service as long as they were 'looking good'. EE/Napiers were not fully comfortable with the situation but had negotiated only a 2 year manufacturer warranty post the agreed 2 year commissioning period and first F exam, which was in the price. Under this latter period they set a recommendation of no more than 3500hours between full inspection of the PUs.
Towards the very end of the WCML electrifciation programme, which now included Edinburgh via both waverly and Carstairs routes, the depots were accused of 'running the locos into the ground' by avoiding even B exams before one would actually fail in traffic or on idle at the shed! Their aim was clear- locos requiring D exam or higher were to be sent to doncaster works for H exam i.e. heavy general repair that is to say in Works speak- full dismanteling and refurbishment. The worse a state a loco was allowed to get in, the quicker it would be off the depot's costs on the balance sheet.
In the later year or two as wires appeared ever closer to Polmadie and Haymarket, it was the Polmadie-Motherwell shed mafia who were most likely the worst offenders. They never liked the superdeltics or their occiasional older cousins visiations to begin with. The locos were stabled down at crewe to begin with, so if a fault or failure resulted north of carlise the locos were taken in to these sheds on the glasgow services and Haymarket depot on the edinburgh runs. For polmadie and it's heavier brother in repairs, Motherwell depot, this meant recieving engines with hot turbos, hot traction motors, hot blowers, brakes etc etc while at the same time Control having the expectation to turn them around as fast as possible for the premiere services they operated up to 1974. The three depot's had no allocation of locos in the intial 1967-71 period, which meant they could not have spare locos or "hidden" 4000hp beasts as crewe could wangle. Motherwell used their allocation of the less reliable but paired class 50s in the hope of allowing the SuperDeltics to cool down because working around the turbo/exhaust collective area on a super deltic removing any heat sheilds was down right dangerous for fitters when these were fresh from a hard WCML run. Also they hoped in vain to rid them selves of some members of the class 50 allocation which had proved particularily troublesome by patching them up, holding them as reserves for superdeltics and then sending them south while the super's chilled out!
Haymarket however had a less ambivilant relationship with superdeltics and were by 1968 authorised to perform B and partial C exams on the beasts. This was due to their long standing work with the older deltic fleet and allocation of these similar cousin locos. Haymarket were in fact due to recieve an allocation of super's before Polmadie/Motherwell/ Eastfield but a joint training programme for A through D and eventually E exams was set in place at Eastfeild...it having hte best capacity and broadest technical training facilities available in scotland at that time. èven then Glasgow St Rollox works got in on the act. Old edinburgh-glasgow rivalries simmered under the surface but HA really had enough on their hands anyway with the 20 'odrindary' deltics they had for the ECML, NE-SW and inverness routes. Being confronted with the technical compexity of the supers under more than B exam, they were happy to send their failed or failing Super's westward to Dr. Eastfield! In the end they recieved a mere 6 on a floating allocation from Crewe, whilst the "Polmadie" sticker was placed on 12 but half of those were to be stabled at Carlisle and most of the repairs or detailed inspections happened at the other Glasgow area sites or even given pushed slots, Haymarket. Upon full electirfication as far as Carlisle in 1972, the crewe depot allocation was taken as 'stored, servicable, pending reallocation' and thus it became a somewhat uncertain waiting room for those examples which failed in traffic. After this timepoint, there was only really a requirement for between 9 and 12 4000hp plus locos for WCML passengers northwards, and there were some 50 on the books!
However as stated many examples of the 'supers' and the kestrels too were being stored awaiting H exam, redeployment and potential sale to the highest bidder! The actual utilisation stretched of course to mail trains, stranraer services, the perth motor-rail services, the inverness through services and the Carlisle-Aberdeen post and connecting passenger service - the infamous 1S81. Also they were used on sundays under remedial work to the electrified route south of carlisle, either working via settle or under 'dead wires' and even over the WIndscale coast route on a couple of occaisions.
All the above in effect meant that there was a percieved 'need' for a maximum in service at any one time of 29 type 6 locos on the North WCML operations. It was known the first 20 odd deliveries of kestrel/superdeltic wer due H exam and leghnthy mnufacturer assesments. This meant a fairly even run-out of locos whilst the wires crept closer to glasgow and edinburgh.
Once at the interconnector power box at carstairs was swithced on, it meant that loco turn arounds were short enough for the entire type 6allocation to be redeployed. Polmadie were landed with the remaining WCML class 50s to do this short run, whilst superdeltics were kept laterly only at Haymarket and Eastfield for the longer distance through routes discussed already. Kestrels were completely reallocated by late 1973, despite reliability/availability issues with electric locomotives.
There was one chink in the re-allocation armour. Superdeltics had the low enough axel wieght to operate on RA5 routes and from summer 1973 to January 1976 worked both the Fort William sleeper and the Orcadian through service to Thurso/wick. This was in fact a stalking horse for eastfield to keep an allocation of the labout intensive locos North of the border..hence keeping a high level of staffing. But the investment in driver training did not of course lead to a long term allocation and as we will see, their relationship with west scotland at least ended with 1977 when a lone superdeltic worked firstly a west highland sleeper from Mossend, then an inverness special followed by an emergency turn out on a Euston-Stranraer service with the loco actually losing one PU and beign sent light back to crewe.
New trains were found though in the twilight days as the unions at Polmadie realised that they would need to drammatically reduce staffing levels - the new electric locos had proven problematic and the first generation of class 82 and 84 were becoming unreliable. Control allocated both a Glasgow - Leeds and a Glasgow-manchester as diesel throughout despite ever northwards coverage of wires. The leeds service was extended to manchester although this required a loco change at leeds because norht manc' drivers were not to be trained on the supers. One final attempt on 'local' redeployment was to remove the kestrels as by agreement and work all trains north of mossend and edinburgh coming fromt he WCML with super deltics. This also included rerouting one and supplementing one more service to Stranraer via Glasgow central and running the odd '0700 Ayr- glasgow' with a super. All this jockeying in 1974 lead to just the RA5 trains above being covered and the ubiquitous Dp2s or Brush Type 4s working the ingenious new routes. So relegated were the superdeltics that eastfield made a policy of engaging only one engine for these routes. The other engine was literally locked up with a padlock and chain restricting the fuel racks and a 'key box' over the control over-ride panel, with the system being 'off'. It became an open secret that keys for these locos were hidden at different points int he locos so that inspectors at Perth, Fort Bill and Snechie could be informed upon PU nop1 end's failure (as was usual practice) . Churlish drivers egged on by enthusiasts would hunt them out and start up the second unit in the last few months of operation. Unfortunetly for the fleet, when it was known at all depots that work was to cease on them beyond A exam, even Crewe where they concregated, small faults and overheating went unreported and there was a laisez faire complacency developed. Both Eastfield and Haymarket fell out of love with them as soon as redpolyment OFF ScR was the reality and sent even minor failures back whilst running any engine into failure in service to just get rid of them. When an EE rep' came to Scr he systematically inspected locos in service and recommended that 6 of the remaining Glasgow "wanderers" be returned for H exam, whcih they were. At the same time HA failed three of their four and 'got rid' of the final one. This left a lonely loco, 65 006, with no dispatch papers and it worked out it's time to 3450 odd engine hours from Polmadie before the above incidents.
With wage inflation, the demise of much frieght and some passenger traffic and the oil crisis the future for 'thirsty' and labout intensive super deltics did not look particularily rosey and indeed the entire fleet was inactive through much of 1977 and all of 78. In 1976 however, the then GEC company Ltd had decided to buy back it's predecessors offspring and undertake H exam speculatively. However they mid way through closing the deal the death of most diesel hydraulics was brought forward from approximate 1985 run out to 1978. GEC were hence turned around to be invited to tender to service the locos which they agreed to and the fleet were luckily all refurbished by 1980, some few examples re-entering traffic for training and relief operations south of Birmingham in 1979. Had it been later then the class 50 and dp2 redeployment programmes of 1980 would have probably rendered the 25 supers ( 24 actually due to a fire at crewe in 1979) unserviced, non standard white elephants. But the superdeltics went on to provide a further ten years of active service in western region and later private spot hire useage as we will see.
Towards 4000hp
Firstly, small up-ratings were performed on the deltic powerunits by adjusting the rpm governed level up 5% and increasing both blower and fuel manifold pressures. This was outside manufatcurer warranty but it is rumoured that there was full consent to this. It lead to a 3650 hp approximate output. However it did result in more TM 'run hot' incidents. At least three were secretly upgraded and perhaps as many as 6 had the 'fiddle' as fitters called it.
In one attempt to take the uprated deltics and their brethren to 110mph while reducing TM overloads, a fourth field diversion circuit was developed and advances learnt from the KV10 regulator application in DP2 were also applied to allow for an improved application of tractive effort and overall top speed. Although the experiment on 55033 was deemed successful, the cost of upgrade was not deemed to represent value for money and woudl take too much down time fromt he by now premium fleet. Deltics were providing top line express services by now not only ont he ECML with it's core 22 allocation, the Midland long distance to leeds and carlisle-settle, Midland direct services to glasgow and edinburgh but also venturing as far a field onto wetern region with the trial of push pull equipment on the Paddington to Bristol and Cardiff route, the traingle via gloucester / birm. Oxford, and the planned forwarding of the Glasgow/edinburgh- SW services from the WCML Their value in service was more than the 10% speed increase envisaged for the potential upgrade.
Concurrently in the mid 1960s a turbo version of the engine ( PU) had been installed as a weapons system-control electircal generator in several leander class frigates in a 12 cylinder version rated at 2000hp. Also 18 and a 24 cylinder variant had been produced. With the aim of reducing maintainence over the 18 in rail application EE/ napiers envisaged a 12 cylinder application at a derating to traction use down to 1850hp. | However the stipulation for type 6 was approximately as follows
- To haul 1000 tonne passenger trains over shap and beattock achieving maximum speeds of 120mph where permitted
- To be able to start a haulted 1000tonne train on the steepest gradients here and on lickey bank
- To decrease Crewe (later preston and lastly carlisle) north running times by 20% i.e. 12 mins faster in the hour.
- To provide a higher level of ETH
- To haul a maximum load of 1200tonnes allowing for a dragged electric loco and a failed diesel loco to the large passenger train.
The prototype, project Dp4, was designed and static component and rolling road tests conducted with the inclusion of similar equipment to be found on the early production D600 ( later to be class 50). The body shell to be chosen was based on the class 50, but with a central train indicator panel on the front end rather than the roof. The chasis required to be 2 m longer but the bogies were basically interchangeable at least 'downwards' to the Dp3s. Stronger armatuers and some other structural modifications were made to the new bogie which were deemed essential for a loco capable of 120mph.
In the end "project dp4" ran a little late as an actual locomotive and was only delivered upon committment to the fleet- this being actually as two pre-production locomotives with all equipment as planned for the fleet and con-currently under delivery from suppliers and assembly from components.
Committing to 4400 HP!
BRB were very close to ordering 50 super-deltics for the WCML north of crewe. These were to be supplemented by the Dp3 ( class 50, D600s) which had shown great promise, especially in pairs over the demanding route with the largest 'royal scot' ans sleeper services. The Dp3s D600s ( later class 50) were more technically advanced than the 'production' D400 DP2s and would in any case replace the last order for Dp2s with the by then prefered flat end layout. The idea was that there would be a release of paired locomotive operations, which had commenced with modified Dp2s and D200s, by utilising single 'Super Deltics'. Further to this aim in going to a far higher horse power than seen before, they would be taking advantage of EE's Newton-le-willows servicing facility during commissioning of such a complex and previously unsurpassed power delivery.
However as mentioned political pressure lead to BRB splitting the order with Brush's Kestrel locomotives. Thus 25 of each were ordered and in the super deltic fleet, six spare power units was judge prudent and fitted in with the revised 'modular repair' plans as detailed below. In actually fact at anyone time Napiers division had 8 power units available at Newton-Le-Willows which could be swapped in a single labour-shift, thus not allowing the PUs to hold back availability. This also allowed them to do spot-investigations on engines upon their first 200 and then 750 hours running to look for potential problems and wear. In general this had worked well in the older deltic fleet and contributed to a high availability for both classes despite their complexity.
A decision was made that all locomotives would initially be stabled at the new crewe diesel shed, the supposedly 'clean' depot removed from steam's incroaches. However, there just was insufficient room to stable loco's and inspect them under roof. Therefore A and B exams and other rectifications or manufacturer investigations were to be held at Newton-le-Willows and Derby in respect of EEs presence in the former and brush's proximity to the latter. This proved to be key in commissioning, fault finding and comprehensive rectification and fault avoidance training in the delivery of these complex locomotives.
Introduction Period
Super deltics, or just "the supers" as they were called, came in as "prototypes" as before for Dp3s, really in fact being pre-production units. This was somewhat risky but in many respects EE were rightly confident in terms of power delivery, performance and reliability between service intervals. In actual fact by the time in 1967 static rolling road trials had been run on "DP4 no.1" there were three sisters nearing completion at Newton-le-Willows. Two were delivered in what was really a pre-prepared commissioned state each with 1000 loco hours and probably more PU hours from the non loco test pans.
These were available for trials in late august-september although EE had had the same priveledge as brush in having ready access to test trains, tachograph coaches and light locomotive runs. At this time there were a further four actually on the tracks under EE private supervision/ownership, and the whole prototyping issue became a bit of a farce. BRB had ordered them on the back of access to the static trials on 55033 with turbo engines and on the good reputation of the Deltics, DP2s and other variants.
By March 1968 the super deltic order was ratified although 8 units were actually ready for service on the 20th of march insitgation of contract for their actual build! A further six were laid down that year, but the DP3 order suffered and given promising service interval and 5400 hp on express services in 1967, with a shorter commissioning time than the super deltics at 6 months rather than the rather luxurious 14 months for the supers.
The push to replace steam had to be balanced with actual full availability of reliable diesel power for express services and WCML area secondary and releif services would utilise the ever growing number of type 2 and 3s made available by the deminishing number of post beeching mixed freights with the move to road haulage.
(BRB were confident to cascade power down the routes to allow for the decimation of the unsuccessful type 2s below 1350hp at least. Type 3 would become the mainstay of semi-fast stopping services and medium distance such as Nw- East England etc, as well as having mixed traffic capacity / availaibilty at shed. Lower powered type 4s would work frieght and longer distance stopping services, and this included the peaks outside MML service and the use of 'permanenlty' paired D200s. General 2500hp plus co-cos would work the typical D1-D399 services on main lines and express freight.)
Super deltics were as mentioned delivered in a tight group of 8 and then a further 6 in 1968 before a gap to allow Newton and RSH(derby) Ltd to finalise the DP3 order, deliver the final D700 order and begin the 'super syphon' project. 14 was probably in hindsight enough given good availability of Kestrels, the planned service interval of the Dp4s and the continuing use of pairs of D600s on the route. However EE had planned to take full advantage of the manufacturer inspection ( D exam) necessitated as an option in the warranty agreement. This meant that depsite a planned service interval at the now trained Crewe Diesel depot and Crewe and Doncaster works, EE could take them out of traffic and secure payment for the remaining 9.
BRB had already scaled down type 4 mixed traffic orders for both the DP3s and the disappointing Brush Type 4s, favouring the introduction of two freight dedicated classes -the class 43 and the class 38 super-syphons which were based on the now proven EE CSVT and Co bogie but at a 10,000 hour service interval. EE were no doubt concerned of the possibility of the invokement of the standard cancellation clause..unwritten..be pals on these cancelled orders today so we can reorganise and order generation 3 tommorrow!
In the end the last two superdeltics were not delivered until1970 and actuall the bill came from GEC Group PLC to BRB.
The Deltic 15TSCM Power Unit
To appease BRB's wish for simpler maintainance and to take advantage of the power gains from turboing, EE/Napiers' division created a 15 cylinder verison of their new beasts. This featured some very advanced features for the time:
- The somewhat archaic Roots blower was replaced with a centrifugal supercharger
- In addition to charged air/water assisted intercooling, the post super turbo feed was 'pre cooled' by a near mirror-image of the exit cool system
- A sequencial centifugal and torque packet fuel pump system delivered fuel to what is now refered to as 'common rail' fuel manifolds with the injectors being operated by a supressor/timer and induction tuned to the vaccuum of the cylinder's stroke.
- The latter system could be used to supress injection of every third stroke of sets of three cylinders. This was utilsed on idle to increase fuel efficiency and on run-down to slow the engine down faster than a pure rpm vaccum demand or timed injection could.
- Oil scavenging and screens for the cranks to reduce burning of oil and deposits in the combustion stroke and exhaust port areas.
The latter was partially successful in reducing the clouds of exhaust so characteristic of the first deltics. The internal oil injection and pressure routing require very clean oil systems and a separate super-clean circuit for the cylinder faces. During running in of new and repaired engines this necessitated the use of centrifugal oil filters which were prone to breaking down or becoming clogged and causing overheats in an engine thus starved of oil.
In general though, not only did turbo charging increase power output significantly, it also helped to ensure complete combustion of fuel in a much larger excess of intercooled air. In practice this meant that the eshaust cloud was reduced in comparison to the deltic on loco's with no faults or internal leaks.
Turboing of course added the defining revving tone over the top of the usual deltic drone while the rather odd 'down shreek and whistle' were a result of fuel injection supression being utilised. This entailed engaing 'supress' in the injectors in short periods, staggered across the cylinders, which meant the engine 'windmilled' for about 30% of the time when shut down to 'notch zero' on the demand handle. Earlier, in a standard fuel pump set up, static test units would sometimes refuse to shut down, the turbo power creating so much pressure that the draw through the fuel injection system overcame the flow regulation and the engines literally had to have their fuel lines cut or run dry to stop them!
Having 'common rail' with rotational fuel compression/feed meant that the system had a far longer maintainance interval than a multi pistion pump or single pump per injector systems. Although more complex internally, it had the feature of being removable as a single component, which alowed for a modular maintainence scheme, where a new or reconditioned unit could be waiting for the time-served unit to be removed. The same modular practice was applied to the inlet manifolds, the downstream fuel manifolds, the final air ducts, the filter areas and the entire super-turbo-cooling assembly.
Servicing the Power Units
This modular approach contributed to a slighlty higher maintenance interval than the original deltics and once fully commissioned the average was over 3500 hours per PU, although some examples in the fleet where notably higher or lower without any real explicability. After commissioning a diagnostic set was run to allow for 'C exam' and further only when indicated by wear and fault' which meant that the maintainance interval was no longer just arbitary but based on keeping the locos in service as long as they were 'looking good'. EE/Napiers were not fully comfortable with the situation but had negotiated only a 2 year manufacturer warranty post the agreed 2 year commissioning period and first F exam, which was in the price. Under this latter period they set a recommendation of no more than 3500hours between full inspection of the PUs.
Towards the very end of the WCML electrifciation programme, which now included Edinburgh via both waverly and Carstairs routes, the depots were accused of 'running the locos into the ground' by avoiding even B exams before one would actually fail in traffic or on idle at the shed! Their aim was clear- locos requiring D exam or higher were to be sent to doncaster works for H exam i.e. heavy general repair that is to say in Works speak- full dismanteling and refurbishment. The worse a state a loco was allowed to get in, the quicker it would be off the depot's costs on the balance sheet.
In the later year or two as wires appeared ever closer to Polmadie and Haymarket, it was the Polmadie-Motherwell shed mafia who were most likely the worst offenders. They never liked the superdeltics or their occiasional older cousins visiations to begin with. The locos were stabled down at crewe to begin with, so if a fault or failure resulted north of carlise the locos were taken in to these sheds on the glasgow services and Haymarket depot on the edinburgh runs. For polmadie and it's heavier brother in repairs, Motherwell depot, this meant recieving engines with hot turbos, hot traction motors, hot blowers, brakes etc etc while at the same time Control having the expectation to turn them around as fast as possible for the premiere services they operated up to 1974. The three depot's had no allocation of locos in the intial 1967-71 period, which meant they could not have spare locos or "hidden" 4000hp beasts as crewe could wangle. Motherwell used their allocation of the less reliable but paired class 50s in the hope of allowing the SuperDeltics to cool down because working around the turbo/exhaust collective area on a super deltic removing any heat sheilds was down right dangerous for fitters when these were fresh from a hard WCML run. Also they hoped in vain to rid them selves of some members of the class 50 allocation which had proved particularily troublesome by patching them up, holding them as reserves for superdeltics and then sending them south while the super's chilled out!
Haymarket however had a less ambivilant relationship with superdeltics and were by 1968 authorised to perform B and partial C exams on the beasts. This was due to their long standing work with the older deltic fleet and allocation of these similar cousin locos. Haymarket were in fact due to recieve an allocation of super's before Polmadie/Motherwell/ Eastfield but a joint training programme for A through D and eventually E exams was set in place at Eastfeild...it having hte best capacity and broadest technical training facilities available in scotland at that time. èven then Glasgow St Rollox works got in on the act. Old edinburgh-glasgow rivalries simmered under the surface but HA really had enough on their hands anyway with the 20 'odrindary' deltics they had for the ECML, NE-SW and inverness routes. Being confronted with the technical compexity of the supers under more than B exam, they were happy to send their failed or failing Super's westward to Dr. Eastfield! In the end they recieved a mere 6 on a floating allocation from Crewe, whilst the "Polmadie" sticker was placed on 12 but half of those were to be stabled at Carlisle and most of the repairs or detailed inspections happened at the other Glasgow area sites or even given pushed slots, Haymarket. Upon full electirfication as far as Carlisle in 1972, the crewe depot allocation was taken as 'stored, servicable, pending reallocation' and thus it became a somewhat uncertain waiting room for those examples which failed in traffic. After this timepoint, there was only really a requirement for between 9 and 12 4000hp plus locos for WCML passengers northwards, and there were some 50 on the books!
However as stated many examples of the 'supers' and the kestrels too were being stored awaiting H exam, redeployment and potential sale to the highest bidder! The actual utilisation stretched of course to mail trains, stranraer services, the perth motor-rail services, the inverness through services and the Carlisle-Aberdeen post and connecting passenger service - the infamous 1S81. Also they were used on sundays under remedial work to the electrified route south of carlisle, either working via settle or under 'dead wires' and even over the WIndscale coast route on a couple of occaisions.
All the above in effect meant that there was a percieved 'need' for a maximum in service at any one time of 29 type 6 locos on the North WCML operations. It was known the first 20 odd deliveries of kestrel/superdeltic wer due H exam and leghnthy mnufacturer assesments. This meant a fairly even run-out of locos whilst the wires crept closer to glasgow and edinburgh.
Once at the interconnector power box at carstairs was swithced on, it meant that loco turn arounds were short enough for the entire type 6allocation to be redeployed. Polmadie were landed with the remaining WCML class 50s to do this short run, whilst superdeltics were kept laterly only at Haymarket and Eastfield for the longer distance through routes discussed already. Kestrels were completely reallocated by late 1973, despite reliability/availability issues with electric locomotives.
There was one chink in the re-allocation armour. Superdeltics had the low enough axel wieght to operate on RA5 routes and from summer 1973 to January 1976 worked both the Fort William sleeper and the Orcadian through service to Thurso/wick. This was in fact a stalking horse for eastfield to keep an allocation of the labout intensive locos North of the border..hence keeping a high level of staffing. But the investment in driver training did not of course lead to a long term allocation and as we will see, their relationship with west scotland at least ended with 1977 when a lone superdeltic worked firstly a west highland sleeper from Mossend, then an inverness special followed by an emergency turn out on a Euston-Stranraer service with the loco actually losing one PU and beign sent light back to crewe.
New trains were found though in the twilight days as the unions at Polmadie realised that they would need to drammatically reduce staffing levels - the new electric locos had proven problematic and the first generation of class 82 and 84 were becoming unreliable. Control allocated both a Glasgow - Leeds and a Glasgow-manchester as diesel throughout despite ever northwards coverage of wires. The leeds service was extended to manchester although this required a loco change at leeds because norht manc' drivers were not to be trained on the supers. One final attempt on 'local' redeployment was to remove the kestrels as by agreement and work all trains north of mossend and edinburgh coming fromt he WCML with super deltics. This also included rerouting one and supplementing one more service to Stranraer via Glasgow central and running the odd '0700 Ayr- glasgow' with a super. All this jockeying in 1974 lead to just the RA5 trains above being covered and the ubiquitous Dp2s or Brush Type 4s working the ingenious new routes. So relegated were the superdeltics that eastfield made a policy of engaging only one engine for these routes. The other engine was literally locked up with a padlock and chain restricting the fuel racks and a 'key box' over the control over-ride panel, with the system being 'off'. It became an open secret that keys for these locos were hidden at different points int he locos so that inspectors at Perth, Fort Bill and Snechie could be informed upon PU nop1 end's failure (as was usual practice) . Churlish drivers egged on by enthusiasts would hunt them out and start up the second unit in the last few months of operation. Unfortunetly for the fleet, when it was known at all depots that work was to cease on them beyond A exam, even Crewe where they concregated, small faults and overheating went unreported and there was a laisez faire complacency developed. Both Eastfield and Haymarket fell out of love with them as soon as redpolyment OFF ScR was the reality and sent even minor failures back whilst running any engine into failure in service to just get rid of them. When an EE rep' came to Scr he systematically inspected locos in service and recommended that 6 of the remaining Glasgow "wanderers" be returned for H exam, whcih they were. At the same time HA failed three of their four and 'got rid' of the final one. This left a lonely loco, 65 006, with no dispatch papers and it worked out it's time to 3450 odd engine hours from Polmadie before the above incidents.
With wage inflation, the demise of much frieght and some passenger traffic and the oil crisis the future for 'thirsty' and labout intensive super deltics did not look particularily rosey and indeed the entire fleet was inactive through much of 1977 and all of 78. In 1976 however, the then GEC company Ltd had decided to buy back it's predecessors offspring and undertake H exam speculatively. However they mid way through closing the deal the death of most diesel hydraulics was brought forward from approximate 1985 run out to 1978. GEC were hence turned around to be invited to tender to service the locos which they agreed to and the fleet were luckily all refurbished by 1980, some few examples re-entering traffic for training and relief operations south of Birmingham in 1979. Had it been later then the class 50 and dp2 redeployment programmes of 1980 would have probably rendered the 25 supers ( 24 actually due to a fire at crewe in 1979) unserviced, non standard white elephants. But the superdeltics went on to provide a further ten years of active service in western region and later private spot hire useage as we will see.
mandag 8. oktober 2007
Brief History og Type 4 to Type 6 developments post intial diesel trial ...in a parallel universe
By 1958 it was apparent to those at the BRB dieselisation office and the fleet controllers of the ECML that the wieght and lower power of the EE 16 SVT and Sulzer 12LDA delivered locomotives was not sufficient to replace the performance of the 'pacific' steam locomotives. "3000hp under the bonnet" was the rallying cry.
Of course EE had undergone a purely private venture in creating the 'Deltic' prototype, which fullfilled the design specifications and had put in some tremendous trial runs on the W&ECMLs and elsewhere. An order for 34 was placed for the ECML with a later follow up of 12 to be utilised on NE to SW through trains to avoid the need to change locomotive, and some of the fleet was used on the WCML northwards from Crewe.
However BRB were under some internal and political pressure not to allow any one manufacturer to completely dominate the order scheme for type 4 and type 5. The longevity of both locomotives and manufacturer presence in the market were both still unkown quantities. Deltics had been promised a 10 to 12 year life time with parts recoverable for the D6700 fleet or re-engining options to be considered. They came of course to last longer and be joined by their Type 6 cousins, the super deltics which are now entering their fourth decade, be that with new PUs. Brush and BRCW were approached and decided to cooperate on a rival type 5 plan, producing two prototypes based upon the Brush variant of the type 4.
The main technical problem was that as of 1960 it was known by EE and brush that voltages involved in producing over 2.2kw from the current generators would require a cleanliness not realistically available in a rail environment. EE solved this by using two PUs-generator set ups while brush used a higher amp circuit capable of an estimated 1.8kw.
So brush decided upon utilising two generators with an extended version of the production 12LDA. Taking basically two of the type 3 8 cylinder engines and casting a twin bank arangement. This unti was designed in Switzerland but built in Germany, at reputably huge expense. The idea was to either mount the generators laterally adjacent or at either end. BRB loading gauage in terms of width and air-draught would not allow for the cramped single end set up.
Placing a generator at either end of the engine came with a penalty in terms of space. Furthermore the single generator/s usually resides in the 'clean end' (or centre) and is bathed in filtered air as it self-cools under rotation. Requiring two 'clean ends' would mean creating a yet longer locomotive and to keep costs down the two initial prototypes were built on the current 1CoCo1 platform of their body-snathced victims the peaks.
Brush and BRCW overcame this by creating a clean air culvert system which supplied the two generators with air flow and maintained them under 'positive pressure' while in operation and also on start up and for one minute after shut down. Hence the locos were known as "blowers" amongst other less sulubrious nick-names. The generators were inside shells with vents which were closed under null pressure, some of which being operated thermostatically. Basically fans located at either side of the PU, low on the body and away from exahust fumes, forced air over a oil wet surface seive filter and through the channels towards each end of the PU. These filters were to some degree self-cleaning and had three 'phases' , one being washed and one dried at any point in a given engine hour cycle. They were slid over one another hence avoiding any 'down time' in the filtering process whilst the flow-demand paddle would simply request more pressure upon them going momentarily into double depth. This electro mechanical system worked well but was abandoned later.
It took some time for the twin bank engine prototypes to be constructed with one block entirely rejected on grounds of a metalurgic fault. However by 1962 the PU, electricals systems and control equipment had all been tested on static generation beds linked to bogies with modified traction motors and gearing. The engine was trialled at 3450 hp @900rpm, but to keep servicing levels in line with the type 3 8lDa fitted locos which were in service, the PU was regulated down to 750rpm acheiveing a mechanical 3200hp, a miserly 100hp short of the EE competition. Coupled to this was the further weight handicap of the heavy 16LDA and the 1CoCo1 chasis/bogie set up. To add to their risk of not pleasing the clientel with a judicous delivery time, the BRB responsible buyer descided to request the latest design 'flat front ends' as sported by the "Lion"prototype of the same origin. The alliance would not have bent with the wind if that had known that the BRB had just placed an order for 66 'DP2' locomotives to replace the d1 series on fast passenger and work north of crew, and on NW-NE expresses and the Holyhead-london route. However bend they did and created cabs at the ends of the mammoth 1CoCo1s, making for an incongrous blend of the first generation and that one emerging.
It was not before early 1963 that the two prototypes entered service and BRB ECML had already taken up the full order of deltics plus the option for 12 based upon potential resale post electirfication back to the supplier. This set a somewhat bleak scene for BRCW but BRB saw fit at this point to cancel further orders of type 2s and set many of the relatively reliable 'peaks' to work on frieghts and secondary passenger services. This meant space on the midlane and ECML at least for a type 5 and brush could allow their offering to be evaluated here.
To overcome issues with overheating traction motors, brush had made a major compromise in their use of voltage/ampage and increased voltage across the circuit. The locos were designed for maintained high speed running and rapid acceleration through the range so they had set five field diversions, the first characteristaclly low down to allow for a very heavy train to be started ( over 1500tonnes was tested!) . They had a system to flip the generators out of circuit only momentarily hence allowign the mechanical RPM to only subside to 30 to 40 % max running range. THis undoubtedly played into the fact that the locos had very good service interval with engine assesments at least double that of major service requirements on the deltics.
By this time the midlane line had gone over to ETH coaching stock and this also included wider range trains such as the St Pancras-liverpool and Holyhead via Manchester, the Edinburgh via Nottingham and Leeds and the Cross london services to Dover, Brighton and S'ton/portsmouth. In a bid to appease the patience of BRCW/Brush the BRB allowed the locomotives to be redesigned to avoid the requirement for the couple of tonnes of boiler equipment plus the extra water tank and the producition run of the twin bank 16 LDA was several tonnes lighter. Thus a Co Co locomotive was acheivable with a total wieght of under 125 tons. Brush/BRCW learned fromt he Lion and the concurrent order for the brush type 4 ( brush buiying BRCW out at around this time) and applied further weight and space saving features into D12000- "EAGLE", the first production model which was backed by an order of 32 further examples.
The blowing-budgies as they were nick-named for their clean air circuit sound and the eagle emblem the first six carried, were a great success on the midland line and were able to match delticcs on the ECML and even exceed their speeds under mointored trials of 105mph and 112mph down hill. These were not within the originaly manufacturer warranty and Brush refused to extend this, probably with an eye to holding a marketing edge for their potential 'type 6' offering already under design in 1965- the prototype 'Falcon' for which the steel chasis had already been laid with a view to 125mph operations in the UK and the growing foreigh market tired of the lack lustre GM performance in locomotives.
One side effect of the purchase of these was that the 8 cylinder unit was chosen to re-engine firtslyt the entire class 26 then class 27 fleets, due to it'æs standardisation in the 'class 53' and class 33s. This was done so on a basis where ETH stock could be allocated or just when the 6LDA could be flogged off to shipping or static use! Some of the class 25 fleet underwent conversion in the early 70s with a view to replacing the western region 'Hymeks', somethign which never eventually happened until some decades later.
BRB were confident to cascade power down the routes to allow for the decimation of the unsuccessful type 2s below 1350hp at least. Type 3 would become the mainstay of semi-fast stopping services and medium distance such as Nw- East England etc, as well as having mixed traffic capacity / availaibilty at shed. Lower powered type 4s would work frieght and longer distance stopping services, and this included the peaks outside MML service and the use of 'permanenlty' paired D200s. General 2500hp plus co-cos would work the typical D1-D399 services on main lines and express freight.
In ScR, the lack of ETH stock required the production of the 'drain pipe' boiler-compressors which to some extent solvedthe problem and after some intiial disatarous teething problems, prove more reliable than the earlier types and far more economical to run. These were long slim units with a core about the width of just a drain pipe and featured recompression i.e. steam was sent back along the outer heat jacket to catch some more therms before whisking off to heat bums on seats. The slimness meant they could lie along the side of the engine towards the no 1 end and their excellent heat recovery and insulation ensured only slight compartment warming, which was not unwanted in the winter application they found anyway!
The Type 6s .
Towards the end of the middle of the 1960s, BRB had a desire to match the best of foreign performance and that of the best runs by the Gressly Pacifics. 125mph operations would require between 4 and 5ooobhp to haul a 600 tonne train. Given tight supply of steel and labour, single rather than double headed or end to end locomotives were of preference. Brush had already entered the successful Falcon initiative, committing to this in 1964 with the patenting of various features of their traction and compact space alternator. EE had prepared a spare deltic body shell with turbo charged 15 cylinder engines at 2250hp each in 1964-5, although this was purely a static test. Further to this they were prepared to enter a new non flash over generator rated at 3kw and powered by 18 cyclinder variants of either the EE newton v18 or the paxman v18 valenta and later ventura with the hope of matching the 10 000 hour service interval acheived by the DP2s and their cousins the D600s.
Also BRB could see the need to displace the frquent use of paired locomotives to supply motive power to supplement the ill fated first and second generation multiple untis and the various type 2 classes now deemed unstandard and outright inadequate compared to the 'tank' and small tender steam power they replaced. This cascade down the tree meant a redeployment of type 3s to more passenger and lower HP type 4s to largely freight: The aim of this was to speed up the replacement of steam and deliver improved time tables over 'kettle power' and aslo replace the disasterous generation 1 DMUs from mainline useage. These bus engined heaps were being converted to non driven coching stock at the rate of three units a week by 1967!
BRB had shelved plans for the ECML, midland and Bristol route electircation plans and concentrated on the WCML. They wanted to reallocate the dp2 and subsequent dp3 fleets away from the WCML to finally kill off the wisp of steam by 1968 on all other major express routes, picking up cross country ventures into ScR, Southern and western regions. This would also release the numbers at a higher rate if a 4000hp replacement could come into play as single locomotives, replacing the D200s and D6700s used in pairs prior to full delivery of DP2 and first numbers of the Dp3 D600s ( later class 54 and 50 respetively)
Under pressure to maintain a serious competitive supply chain in the UK, with the demise of many of the former steam builders and others like vikers, the government forced BRB to split the original order for the "proven" superdeltic with the 4400hp kestrel fleet. The order was split 25 :25.
Now the superdeltics had an odd course of fate. Firstly turboing the engine did nothing to increase service interval towards that of the CSVT or LDA or LVA engines. They were planned for 2700 hours between strip downs despite the reduction in one bank of cylinders to 15, and some other stregnthinening and maintainence frenignly modifications over the 1950s 18 cylinder units. Later in operation BR WCML NW operations were acheiving 5000 hours out of the new kestrels while the deltics were still "running in under manufacturer warranty and close supervision' . Often they ended up running on one PU alone, yet still commanding 110mph ! This operational ability was taken into good use during the fuel crisis of the subsequent young decade, when the second unit would be switched off going down shap and beatock and for the secondary extended routes of Perth, Inverness, fortwilliam and aberdeen as well as their optional use on the stranraer and holyhead routes.
The Dp2 order was fully delivered by 1965 and all units fully commissioned or rectified under warranty by 1966. The latter which would have taken them into over 200, was switched over to the slab ended dp3- the D600s and the prototype, in effect 50 050, was delivered in 1966 with others being laid down to the somewhat over complex specifications set by the customer.Later they as said became class 50 whilst the Dp2 fleet were reclassified class 54 to represent their close similarity to deltic 55, and later it fitted with their revised final power rating.
The kestrel prototype was also being trialled under private venture late in 1966 and of course was subsequently ordered along with the superdeltics. These 'big brushes' started displacing Brush type 4s from their new build and rectification programme at brush a fact which was hard to hide from the BRB purchasing committee. However the promise of single power units releasing pairs of D200s, D6700s and the planned use of D600s in pairs by 1969 kept their fears at bay and after the first 12 were laid, following construction was more phased in with the new build, derating and re-egining of the two type 4 variant classes.
Super deltics, or just "the supers" as they were called, came in as "prototypes" as before for Dp3s, really in fact being pre-production units. This was somewhat risky but in many respects EE were rightly confident in terms of power delivery, performance and reliability between service intervals. In actual fact by the time in 1967 static rolling road trials had been run on "DP4 no.1" there were three sisters nearing completion at Newton-le-Willows. Two were delivered in what was really a pre-prepared commissioned state each with 1000 loco hours and probably more PU hours from the non loco test pans.
These were available for trials in late august-september although EE had had the same priveledge as brush in having ready access to test trains, tachograph coaches and light locomotive runs. At this time there were a further four actually on the tracks under EE private supervision/ownership, and the whole prototyping issue became a bit of a farce. BRB had ordered them on the back of access to the static trials on 55033 with turbo engines and on the good reputation of the Deltics, DP2s and other variants.
By March 1968 the super deltic order was ratified although 8 units were actually ready for service on the 20th of march insitgation of contract for their actual build! A further six were laid down that year, but the DP3 order suffered and given promising service interval and 5400 hp on express services in 1967, with a shorter commissioning time than the super deltics at 6 months rather than the rather luxurious 14 months for the supers. The push to replace steam had to be balanced with actual full availability of reliable diesel power for express services and WCML area secondary and releif services would utilise the ever growing number of type 2 and 3s made available by the deminishing number of post beeching mixed freights with the move to road haulage.
Kestrels were delivered at a pace with a shorter pre-delivery trial / rectifcation and also a wise non time stipulated commissioning. It was based on key indicators, repeat tests and a brush / Derby works service at 500 engine hours ( which was between 1000 and 2000 actual PU hours). Brush had a secret option from BRB central to supply more than 50 kestrel type locos in addition to the 25. It has been speculated that these would have either supplemented diesel hydraulic operations in the west, hasting their demise ( wishful centralised thinking in the mid 60s) or to actually replace much of the ECML deltic fleet. This was not maybe relevant for Brush who needed the hard cash from the 25 units to supplement the huge re-enigining, de-rating and cancellation of the Type 4s- the class 47 and 48. They pushed on with the kestrelas and all were at least built by 1968 Q3, and payed for by mid 1969.
Super deltics were as mentioned delivered in a tight group of 8 and then a further 6 in 1968 before a gap to allow Newton and RSH(derby) Ltd to finalise the DP3 order, deliver the final D700 order and begin the 'super syphon' project. 14 was probably in hindsight enough given good availability of Kestrels, the planned service interval of the Dp4s and the continuing use of pairs of D600s on the route. However EE had planned to take full advantage of the manufacturer inspection ( D exam) necessitated as an option in the warranty agreement. This meant that depsite a planned service interval at the now trained Crewe Diesel depot and Crewe and Doncaster works, EE could take them out of traffic and secure payment for the remaining 9. BRB had already scaled down type 4 mixed traffic orders for both the DP3s and the disappointing Brush Type 4s, favouring the introduction of two freight dedicated classes -the class 43 and the class 38 super-syphons which were based on the now proven EE CSVT and Co bogie but at a 10,000 hour service interval.
In the end the last two superdeltics were delivered in 1970 and actuall the bill came from GEC Group PLC to BRB.
Power Unit ( diesel engine) Life Cycle Options from EE (GEC)
EE took a wise course at about the same point they delivered the finally "DP3s" and the first "Dp4s" i.e. super deltics. . With D400-D590 being DP2s they offered the 'DP3s' later class 50s with leased PUs which could be subject to anticpated upgrades in PU and also the fall of patents relating to alternators. They offered an option to review PU with a view to either retro upgrade of parts ( as ill fatedely happend on the class 50s at a 3000hp rating) or complete new pus ( as worked well onthe DP2s with 3300hp) . This was also applied to the Super deltics, and much to the chagrin of many a commentator and entusiast the dp4s were retro fitted with either twin v8 Ventura producing 2000hp a peice at 1650 rpm (with a service interval of 6000 hours ) or the V16 by this time RK engine with quad turbos at 3450hp and an interval of 8000 hours. They are currently stored servicable awaiting an SRA approval for sale abroad or disposal as they are still considered non standard by their now private owners.
By 1980 all superdeltics bar one had their engines replaced to form class 61 and 62 respectively. The one remaining unit was bought by a wealthy millionaire who was mad about them and continous in it's semi -mainline, semi preserved status toiday despite enviromentalist actions agaisnt the 'summerset smoke cloud'
But the ignomosity of having the original PU ripped out to a lower HP replacement was not left for the superdeltics. In the mid 1980s the kestrel fleet was brought back into private ownership as the first example f such. they were systimatically re-engined with the same 3300 hp unit as the heavy class 56s and utilised on the holyhead route replacing class 40s and peak classes on this and other services. 4 Locos of the 20 were lost to cannabilisation while a further 8 were sold to austrailia and refitted with what became the later class standard- the 16 venturea (VP185 effectivley) at 4400hp. In 2000, it was decided that the body and other electro mechanicals were sutiably robust for the remainder of the fleet to be fitted with v16 VP185s at 4400 hp and this was completed in 2004 with the locos now working alongside the latest class 69s of the same PU on the holyhead drags, the bristol and cardiff drags, the midland line, the channel tunnel railhead to leeds via the midalnd route and assorted other trial trains.
Re-engineing
In the 1970s a major repair programme was undertaken on the class 50s and 53ss as an opt-in to the contracts set by EE and now honoured by GEC. The electrical giant extended the option tie to Rustons upon divestment from the group. Meanwhile this new freedom as a demerged company and the success of the kestrel class from Brushg lead to a parralell order for the class 56 freight dedicated fleet. This too was optioned and the class is now well into what is expected to be it's fional phase with v16s in about 2/3s of the fleet at some 3450, most 3800 and 18 toton allocated at4350 hps. The final third of the class were fitted with the twin turbo v12 RKe so successful in the class 54. These run as a freight dedicated cousin in depots with a mixed or passenger traffic allocation of the now unquituous Brush / Ruston Class 54 "mini dubber". For example Motherwell and laira both have small allocations. It should be noted that about 35 class 56s have succombed to becoming parts bins from the original fleet, most of these being the early romanian built indivivuals locos.
The sixteen remaining Dp2s and the 8 remaining class 50s have all been fitted with leased v12 engines at 2700 and 3000hp respectively. This was commenced at the time 'thuird and forth' generation DMUs showed their weakness in reliability and resutling capacity to deliver the uk punter. Thus were a limited number of these 'non standards' saved from the cutters torch whilst som of their brehtrin are now active in preservation adn spot hire.
Of course EE had undergone a purely private venture in creating the 'Deltic' prototype, which fullfilled the design specifications and had put in some tremendous trial runs on the W&ECMLs and elsewhere. An order for 34 was placed for the ECML with a later follow up of 12 to be utilised on NE to SW through trains to avoid the need to change locomotive, and some of the fleet was used on the WCML northwards from Crewe.
However BRB were under some internal and political pressure not to allow any one manufacturer to completely dominate the order scheme for type 4 and type 5. The longevity of both locomotives and manufacturer presence in the market were both still unkown quantities. Deltics had been promised a 10 to 12 year life time with parts recoverable for the D6700 fleet or re-engining options to be considered. They came of course to last longer and be joined by their Type 6 cousins, the super deltics which are now entering their fourth decade, be that with new PUs. Brush and BRCW were approached and decided to cooperate on a rival type 5 plan, producing two prototypes based upon the Brush variant of the type 4.
The main technical problem was that as of 1960 it was known by EE and brush that voltages involved in producing over 2.2kw from the current generators would require a cleanliness not realistically available in a rail environment. EE solved this by using two PUs-generator set ups while brush used a higher amp circuit capable of an estimated 1.8kw.
So brush decided upon utilising two generators with an extended version of the production 12LDA. Taking basically two of the type 3 8 cylinder engines and casting a twin bank arangement. This unti was designed in Switzerland but built in Germany, at reputably huge expense. The idea was to either mount the generators laterally adjacent or at either end. BRB loading gauage in terms of width and air-draught would not allow for the cramped single end set up.
Placing a generator at either end of the engine came with a penalty in terms of space. Furthermore the single generator/s usually resides in the 'clean end' (or centre) and is bathed in filtered air as it self-cools under rotation. Requiring two 'clean ends' would mean creating a yet longer locomotive and to keep costs down the two initial prototypes were built on the current 1CoCo1 platform of their body-snathced victims the peaks.
Brush and BRCW overcame this by creating a clean air culvert system which supplied the two generators with air flow and maintained them under 'positive pressure' while in operation and also on start up and for one minute after shut down. Hence the locos were known as "blowers" amongst other less sulubrious nick-names. The generators were inside shells with vents which were closed under null pressure, some of which being operated thermostatically. Basically fans located at either side of the PU, low on the body and away from exahust fumes, forced air over a oil wet surface seive filter and through the channels towards each end of the PU. These filters were to some degree self-cleaning and had three 'phases' , one being washed and one dried at any point in a given engine hour cycle. They were slid over one another hence avoiding any 'down time' in the filtering process whilst the flow-demand paddle would simply request more pressure upon them going momentarily into double depth. This electro mechanical system worked well but was abandoned later.
It took some time for the twin bank engine prototypes to be constructed with one block entirely rejected on grounds of a metalurgic fault. However by 1962 the PU, electricals systems and control equipment had all been tested on static generation beds linked to bogies with modified traction motors and gearing. The engine was trialled at 3450 hp @900rpm, but to keep servicing levels in line with the type 3 8lDa fitted locos which were in service, the PU was regulated down to 750rpm acheiveing a mechanical 3200hp, a miserly 100hp short of the EE competition. Coupled to this was the further weight handicap of the heavy 16LDA and the 1CoCo1 chasis/bogie set up. To add to their risk of not pleasing the clientel with a judicous delivery time, the BRB responsible buyer descided to request the latest design 'flat front ends' as sported by the "Lion"prototype of the same origin. The alliance would not have bent with the wind if that had known that the BRB had just placed an order for 66 'DP2' locomotives to replace the d1 series on fast passenger and work north of crew, and on NW-NE expresses and the Holyhead-london route. However bend they did and created cabs at the ends of the mammoth 1CoCo1s, making for an incongrous blend of the first generation and that one emerging.
It was not before early 1963 that the two prototypes entered service and BRB ECML had already taken up the full order of deltics plus the option for 12 based upon potential resale post electirfication back to the supplier. This set a somewhat bleak scene for BRCW but BRB saw fit at this point to cancel further orders of type 2s and set many of the relatively reliable 'peaks' to work on frieghts and secondary passenger services. This meant space on the midlane and ECML at least for a type 5 and brush could allow their offering to be evaluated here.
To overcome issues with overheating traction motors, brush had made a major compromise in their use of voltage/ampage and increased voltage across the circuit. The locos were designed for maintained high speed running and rapid acceleration through the range so they had set five field diversions, the first characteristaclly low down to allow for a very heavy train to be started ( over 1500tonnes was tested!) . They had a system to flip the generators out of circuit only momentarily hence allowign the mechanical RPM to only subside to 30 to 40 % max running range. THis undoubtedly played into the fact that the locos had very good service interval with engine assesments at least double that of major service requirements on the deltics.
By this time the midlane line had gone over to ETH coaching stock and this also included wider range trains such as the St Pancras-liverpool and Holyhead via Manchester, the Edinburgh via Nottingham and Leeds and the Cross london services to Dover, Brighton and S'ton/portsmouth. In a bid to appease the patience of BRCW/Brush the BRB allowed the locomotives to be redesigned to avoid the requirement for the couple of tonnes of boiler equipment plus the extra water tank and the producition run of the twin bank 16 LDA was several tonnes lighter. Thus a Co Co locomotive was acheivable with a total wieght of under 125 tons. Brush/BRCW learned fromt he Lion and the concurrent order for the brush type 4 ( brush buiying BRCW out at around this time) and applied further weight and space saving features into D12000- "EAGLE", the first production model which was backed by an order of 32 further examples.
The blowing-budgies as they were nick-named for their clean air circuit sound and the eagle emblem the first six carried, were a great success on the midland line and were able to match delticcs on the ECML and even exceed their speeds under mointored trials of 105mph and 112mph down hill. These were not within the originaly manufacturer warranty and Brush refused to extend this, probably with an eye to holding a marketing edge for their potential 'type 6' offering already under design in 1965- the prototype 'Falcon' for which the steel chasis had already been laid with a view to 125mph operations in the UK and the growing foreigh market tired of the lack lustre GM performance in locomotives.
One side effect of the purchase of these was that the 8 cylinder unit was chosen to re-engine firtslyt the entire class 26 then class 27 fleets, due to it'æs standardisation in the 'class 53' and class 33s. This was done so on a basis where ETH stock could be allocated or just when the 6LDA could be flogged off to shipping or static use! Some of the class 25 fleet underwent conversion in the early 70s with a view to replacing the western region 'Hymeks', somethign which never eventually happened until some decades later.
BRB were confident to cascade power down the routes to allow for the decimation of the unsuccessful type 2s below 1350hp at least. Type 3 would become the mainstay of semi-fast stopping services and medium distance such as Nw- East England etc, as well as having mixed traffic capacity / availaibilty at shed. Lower powered type 4s would work frieght and longer distance stopping services, and this included the peaks outside MML service and the use of 'permanenlty' paired D200s. General 2500hp plus co-cos would work the typical D1-D399 services on main lines and express freight.
In ScR, the lack of ETH stock required the production of the 'drain pipe' boiler-compressors which to some extent solvedthe problem and after some intiial disatarous teething problems, prove more reliable than the earlier types and far more economical to run. These were long slim units with a core about the width of just a drain pipe and featured recompression i.e. steam was sent back along the outer heat jacket to catch some more therms before whisking off to heat bums on seats. The slimness meant they could lie along the side of the engine towards the no 1 end and their excellent heat recovery and insulation ensured only slight compartment warming, which was not unwanted in the winter application they found anyway!
The Type 6s .
Towards the end of the middle of the 1960s, BRB had a desire to match the best of foreign performance and that of the best runs by the Gressly Pacifics. 125mph operations would require between 4 and 5ooobhp to haul a 600 tonne train. Given tight supply of steel and labour, single rather than double headed or end to end locomotives were of preference. Brush had already entered the successful Falcon initiative, committing to this in 1964 with the patenting of various features of their traction and compact space alternator. EE had prepared a spare deltic body shell with turbo charged 15 cylinder engines at 2250hp each in 1964-5, although this was purely a static test. Further to this they were prepared to enter a new non flash over generator rated at 3kw and powered by 18 cyclinder variants of either the EE newton v18 or the paxman v18 valenta and later ventura with the hope of matching the 10 000 hour service interval acheived by the DP2s and their cousins the D600s.
Also BRB could see the need to displace the frquent use of paired locomotives to supply motive power to supplement the ill fated first and second generation multiple untis and the various type 2 classes now deemed unstandard and outright inadequate compared to the 'tank' and small tender steam power they replaced. This cascade down the tree meant a redeployment of type 3s to more passenger and lower HP type 4s to largely freight: The aim of this was to speed up the replacement of steam and deliver improved time tables over 'kettle power' and aslo replace the disasterous generation 1 DMUs from mainline useage. These bus engined heaps were being converted to non driven coching stock at the rate of three units a week by 1967!
BRB had shelved plans for the ECML, midland and Bristol route electircation plans and concentrated on the WCML. They wanted to reallocate the dp2 and subsequent dp3 fleets away from the WCML to finally kill off the wisp of steam by 1968 on all other major express routes, picking up cross country ventures into ScR, Southern and western regions. This would also release the numbers at a higher rate if a 4000hp replacement could come into play as single locomotives, replacing the D200s and D6700s used in pairs prior to full delivery of DP2 and first numbers of the Dp3 D600s ( later class 54 and 50 respetively)
Under pressure to maintain a serious competitive supply chain in the UK, with the demise of many of the former steam builders and others like vikers, the government forced BRB to split the original order for the "proven" superdeltic with the 4400hp kestrel fleet. The order was split 25 :25.
Now the superdeltics had an odd course of fate. Firstly turboing the engine did nothing to increase service interval towards that of the CSVT or LDA or LVA engines. They were planned for 2700 hours between strip downs despite the reduction in one bank of cylinders to 15, and some other stregnthinening and maintainence frenignly modifications over the 1950s 18 cylinder units. Later in operation BR WCML NW operations were acheiving 5000 hours out of the new kestrels while the deltics were still "running in under manufacturer warranty and close supervision' . Often they ended up running on one PU alone, yet still commanding 110mph ! This operational ability was taken into good use during the fuel crisis of the subsequent young decade, when the second unit would be switched off going down shap and beatock and for the secondary extended routes of Perth, Inverness, fortwilliam and aberdeen as well as their optional use on the stranraer and holyhead routes.
The Dp2 order was fully delivered by 1965 and all units fully commissioned or rectified under warranty by 1966. The latter which would have taken them into over 200, was switched over to the slab ended dp3- the D600s and the prototype, in effect 50 050, was delivered in 1966 with others being laid down to the somewhat over complex specifications set by the customer.Later they as said became class 50 whilst the Dp2 fleet were reclassified class 54 to represent their close similarity to deltic 55, and later it fitted with their revised final power rating.
The kestrel prototype was also being trialled under private venture late in 1966 and of course was subsequently ordered along with the superdeltics. These 'big brushes' started displacing Brush type 4s from their new build and rectification programme at brush a fact which was hard to hide from the BRB purchasing committee. However the promise of single power units releasing pairs of D200s, D6700s and the planned use of D600s in pairs by 1969 kept their fears at bay and after the first 12 were laid, following construction was more phased in with the new build, derating and re-egining of the two type 4 variant classes.
Super deltics, or just "the supers" as they were called, came in as "prototypes" as before for Dp3s, really in fact being pre-production units. This was somewhat risky but in many respects EE were rightly confident in terms of power delivery, performance and reliability between service intervals. In actual fact by the time in 1967 static rolling road trials had been run on "DP4 no.1" there were three sisters nearing completion at Newton-le-Willows. Two were delivered in what was really a pre-prepared commissioned state each with 1000 loco hours and probably more PU hours from the non loco test pans.
These were available for trials in late august-september although EE had had the same priveledge as brush in having ready access to test trains, tachograph coaches and light locomotive runs. At this time there were a further four actually on the tracks under EE private supervision/ownership, and the whole prototyping issue became a bit of a farce. BRB had ordered them on the back of access to the static trials on 55033 with turbo engines and on the good reputation of the Deltics, DP2s and other variants.
By March 1968 the super deltic order was ratified although 8 units were actually ready for service on the 20th of march insitgation of contract for their actual build! A further six were laid down that year, but the DP3 order suffered and given promising service interval and 5400 hp on express services in 1967, with a shorter commissioning time than the super deltics at 6 months rather than the rather luxurious 14 months for the supers. The push to replace steam had to be balanced with actual full availability of reliable diesel power for express services and WCML area secondary and releif services would utilise the ever growing number of type 2 and 3s made available by the deminishing number of post beeching mixed freights with the move to road haulage.
Kestrels were delivered at a pace with a shorter pre-delivery trial / rectifcation and also a wise non time stipulated commissioning. It was based on key indicators, repeat tests and a brush / Derby works service at 500 engine hours ( which was between 1000 and 2000 actual PU hours). Brush had a secret option from BRB central to supply more than 50 kestrel type locos in addition to the 25. It has been speculated that these would have either supplemented diesel hydraulic operations in the west, hasting their demise ( wishful centralised thinking in the mid 60s) or to actually replace much of the ECML deltic fleet. This was not maybe relevant for Brush who needed the hard cash from the 25 units to supplement the huge re-enigining, de-rating and cancellation of the Type 4s- the class 47 and 48. They pushed on with the kestrelas and all were at least built by 1968 Q3, and payed for by mid 1969.
Super deltics were as mentioned delivered in a tight group of 8 and then a further 6 in 1968 before a gap to allow Newton and RSH(derby) Ltd to finalise the DP3 order, deliver the final D700 order and begin the 'super syphon' project. 14 was probably in hindsight enough given good availability of Kestrels, the planned service interval of the Dp4s and the continuing use of pairs of D600s on the route. However EE had planned to take full advantage of the manufacturer inspection ( D exam) necessitated as an option in the warranty agreement. This meant that depsite a planned service interval at the now trained Crewe Diesel depot and Crewe and Doncaster works, EE could take them out of traffic and secure payment for the remaining 9. BRB had already scaled down type 4 mixed traffic orders for both the DP3s and the disappointing Brush Type 4s, favouring the introduction of two freight dedicated classes -the class 43 and the class 38 super-syphons which were based on the now proven EE CSVT and Co bogie but at a 10,000 hour service interval.
In the end the last two superdeltics were delivered in 1970 and actuall the bill came from GEC Group PLC to BRB.
Power Unit ( diesel engine) Life Cycle Options from EE (GEC)
EE took a wise course at about the same point they delivered the finally "DP3s" and the first "Dp4s" i.e. super deltics. . With D400-D590 being DP2s they offered the 'DP3s' later class 50s with leased PUs which could be subject to anticpated upgrades in PU and also the fall of patents relating to alternators. They offered an option to review PU with a view to either retro upgrade of parts ( as ill fatedely happend on the class 50s at a 3000hp rating) or complete new pus ( as worked well onthe DP2s with 3300hp) . This was also applied to the Super deltics, and much to the chagrin of many a commentator and entusiast the dp4s were retro fitted with either twin v8 Ventura producing 2000hp a peice at 1650 rpm (with a service interval of 6000 hours ) or the V16 by this time RK engine with quad turbos at 3450hp and an interval of 8000 hours. They are currently stored servicable awaiting an SRA approval for sale abroad or disposal as they are still considered non standard by their now private owners.
By 1980 all superdeltics bar one had their engines replaced to form class 61 and 62 respectively. The one remaining unit was bought by a wealthy millionaire who was mad about them and continous in it's semi -mainline, semi preserved status toiday despite enviromentalist actions agaisnt the 'summerset smoke cloud'
But the ignomosity of having the original PU ripped out to a lower HP replacement was not left for the superdeltics. In the mid 1980s the kestrel fleet was brought back into private ownership as the first example f such. they were systimatically re-engined with the same 3300 hp unit as the heavy class 56s and utilised on the holyhead route replacing class 40s and peak classes on this and other services. 4 Locos of the 20 were lost to cannabilisation while a further 8 were sold to austrailia and refitted with what became the later class standard- the 16 venturea (VP185 effectivley) at 4400hp. In 2000, it was decided that the body and other electro mechanicals were sutiably robust for the remainder of the fleet to be fitted with v16 VP185s at 4400 hp and this was completed in 2004 with the locos now working alongside the latest class 69s of the same PU on the holyhead drags, the bristol and cardiff drags, the midland line, the channel tunnel railhead to leeds via the midalnd route and assorted other trial trains.
Re-engineing
In the 1970s a major repair programme was undertaken on the class 50s and 53ss as an opt-in to the contracts set by EE and now honoured by GEC. The electrical giant extended the option tie to Rustons upon divestment from the group. Meanwhile this new freedom as a demerged company and the success of the kestrel class from Brushg lead to a parralell order for the class 56 freight dedicated fleet. This too was optioned and the class is now well into what is expected to be it's fional phase with v16s in about 2/3s of the fleet at some 3450, most 3800 and 18 toton allocated at4350 hps. The final third of the class were fitted with the twin turbo v12 RKe so successful in the class 54. These run as a freight dedicated cousin in depots with a mixed or passenger traffic allocation of the now unquituous Brush / Ruston Class 54 "mini dubber". For example Motherwell and laira both have small allocations. It should be noted that about 35 class 56s have succombed to becoming parts bins from the original fleet, most of these being the early romanian built indivivuals locos.
The sixteen remaining Dp2s and the 8 remaining class 50s have all been fitted with leased v12 engines at 2700 and 3000hp respectively. This was commenced at the time 'thuird and forth' generation DMUs showed their weakness in reliability and resutling capacity to deliver the uk punter. Thus were a limited number of these 'non standards' saved from the cutters torch whilst som of their brehtrin are now active in preservation adn spot hire.
Abonner på:
Kommentarer (Atom)