Talk:British Rail Class D16/1

removal

diff

"Contrary to popular belief the LMS locomotives did not develop into the British Railways Type 4 (later class 44, 45, 46) but a large part of the design was used to produce the North British Type 4 diesel hydraulic locomotives for the Western Region of British Railways (numbered D600 to D604)."

At first sight this appears to be nonsense - what influence did the locomotives have on the "Class 41" ? The engine and tranmission were totally different - was it the bogies or frame ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparing http://www.derbysulzers.com/LMS10000derbybw.jpg and http://www.railblue.com/pages/In%20Depth/hydraulic_pioneers.htm (top images) suggests the bogies were very similar -is there a reliable source for this.83.100.230.154 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Massive revert - no choice

diff

Based on content I can validate what I found was completely wrong eg The bogies basically took a good American pattern design, and with Fox and the team at Derby integrating British engineering creating a unique system of smooth riding which was pretty much copied on most British diesels and still in use today

This is completely wrong - most mass produced BR diesels eg 20, 37, 47, etc used bogies with equalising beams, only in modern times recently has this design cease to be used - now most use flexicoil secondary suspensions.. The British Rail Class 41 (Warship Class) used a vaguely similar suspension in some respects - but that is hardly standard.

The rest of the text is similarly suspect - it makes an excellent tale, but I haven;t got a dot of confidence is what has been written - definitely will not be giving the benefit of the doubt given the total inaccuracy of the first addition. The rest is a cracking read, gushing, but do not trust it.Prof.Haddock (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone go over this an see what is right. In particular the claim that bogies basically took a good American pattern design - can this be confirmed - and if so which manufacturer?Prof.Haddock (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have blanked a vast amount of this – an edit that nearly always "sticks" because an editor who might have the time and resources to repair one specific point about (e.g.) bogie design is simply overwhelmed by the scope of the rest of it. As a result, none of it is ever repaired or restored.

You deleted the discussion about train heating boilers. Yet one of the great themes of UK diesels (along with why hydraulics can't work outside Germany and why BR designs will always be overweight) is that UK heating boilers were so unreliable for decades as to limit the usefulness of the locos. There was no reason to delete content such as that, so uncontroversial, obvious and easily sourced in the specific. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There are two books with a wealth of detail about these locos:

• Hunt, David. LMS Locomotive Profiles, no. 9 - Main Line Diesel-Electrics Nos. 10000 and 10001. Didcot: Wild Swan. ISBN 1-905184-04-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Richards, E.V. (1996). LMS Diesel Locomotives and Railcars. Long Stratton: RCTS. ISBN 0-901115-76-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The bogies were designed by Edward Fox, "based on a lightweight welded design he had produced a few years earlier for the Liverpool-Southport electric trains" (Hunt, p. 19). Primary suspension utilised coil springs, with equalising beams (Richards 1996, p. 145). There does not seem to be any mention of an American influence to the bogie design, although to my mind the secondary suspension, particularly the four transverse leaf springs, is characteristically American. Regarding the influence upon other designs, "the bogie design was lifted, almost unaltered for the EM2 (Class 77) electric locomotives" (Richards 1996, p. 141). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply -

• I'm not entirely sure how to interpret Hunt Richards - the statement appears wrong - as far as I can tell there essentially is no "primary" suspension in LMS 10001 - ie the wheelsets are unsprung - ie the entire bogie frame and three wheel sets forms the unsprung mass - see fig.2 in http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/EnglishElectric_MainlineDiesels1951.pdf there are definately no equalising beams at all.

*It's possible that there is some primary suspension within the bogie frame using a tension rod/leaf spring arrangement hidden inside the frame - but I can't find any reference to it

*Hunt appears correct on the welded frames, - I can't confirm or deny the Class 502 connection. The picture File:Class_502_EMU_at_Tebay.jpg shows the 502s with laminated spring primary suspension, suspended from tension rods - I can't see the secondary on the photo.

I agree that there could be an American influence - in some ways the bogie is like a three axle version of a "three piece" or "barber" freight wagon bogie - does Edward Fox have any American experience or connection ??

Re Andrew's comment - I'm not disagreeing on the overall view you present on UK diesel loco steam boiler issues, but the specific content in this article is unverified and specific. - I should note that I removed the block because it all seemed to come from the same source (IP address), and at least half of it seemed so inaccurate as to remove any trust I might have had in the remainder of the account.

I think some of it can be repaired, but I can't repair information that I can only contradict.Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The class 77 eg File:27000_at_Swanwick.jpg appears it may have some sort of equalising beams - it clearly has a two stage suspension - the bogie is close in design to that in LMS 10000 as mentioned, but appears to have additional elements - if there are any equalising beams/etc in LMS 10000 the springs are very well hidden. Has anyone got any more insight into this?Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies - the secondary suspension was hiding from me - no idea what happened there...

I've reinstated the text, not quite a revert as much of it need superlatives removing, also amalgamated some text.

I can't explain what diagrams I was misreading - again apologies for to have wasted your time on this one.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged some odd bits The locomotives were designed to operate singly as equivalent of a 'Black 5' - as far as I know this was not by design - it was due to limitations of engine power in acceptable weight. Also 'Royal Scot' with a tare of 17 bogie coaches established a haulage record still unmatched today - neeeds details, also not really sure if the "unmatched today" claim really is valid.

Article still needs references.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is unthinkable to have a loco without primary suspension: that would mean that the whole bogie frame, and several other components mounted on the bogies, are completely unsprung; moreover, the axleboxes would not be free to move relative to each other (or to the bogie frame), which would mean that they could not accommodate vertical irregularities in the track, and so would give a poor ride, severely punish the track and give an increased chance of derailment. The primary suspension is the springing between axlebox and bogie, and comes in two main forms: independently sprung or utilising equalising beams.

With independent suspension (as used on classes 40, 44, 45, 46), there are no equalising beams, and the springs will be either directly above the axlebox, or directly below; and the quantity of these is either equal to the number of axleboxes, or a simple multiple.

Where equalising beams are used, two adjacent axles share a spring or group of springs, and those springs are placed at some point between the axles: typically about two thirds of the distance from centre axle to outer. That is what we have here: they are coil springs, easy to spot in the Class 77 pic because they're painted white; photos of the bogies of 10000 show coil springs in exactly the same position. The bogie side frames are not solid, but hollow - two parallel plates close together, with the equalising beams occupying the space between. They may be seen in the general arrangement drawing in Hunt, p. 26. The photo (captioned "Fig. 2 Completed motor-bogie showing traction motors") on p. 3 of the PDF that you linked (the English Electric brochure) is also given on Hunt, p. 21, and we can clearly see the primary suspension coil springs between the outer and centre wheels. We can also see the gap in between the two bogie frame plates. The leaf springs for the secondary suspension have not yet been fitted; they are on the floor among the brake blocks. The lower photo on Hunt, p. 21 is not shown in that English Electric brochure, but shows the bogie frame almost end-on, and you can see between the frame plates. The equalising beams of classes 37, 47 etc. are below the primary suspension springs, but it's the same principle: the loco and bogie weight is borne on two groups of springs on each side of each bogie, those springs rest on top of a beam whose ends are connected to the axleboxes. The unsprung weight is low (but not minimal), comprising wheels, axles, axleboxes, equalising beams and a proportion of the traction motor. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's absolutely right - unsprung bogies being doubly un-viable in three axle form - I don't know what I was thinking before but have woken up now..

There appears to be an OS Nock performance paper (added to the literature section) that should be interesting - I don't have it, but it turned up in a literature search. If anyone does have it please update - from what I can tell it contains historically valuable cost per mile data, and so on..Prof.Haddock (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's in Railway Magazine vol.107 (1961) p.415 onwards.

Power class

Removed:

6P5F, later 5P5F ..

Not sure this is right - the locomotives were said to be equivalent to a 4-6-0 at speed and a 2-6-4T at load speed - that's more 4F / 5P

See "The Engineer" 25 Apr 1947 p .355 - letter from Ivatt.http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/6/67/Er19470425.pdf

quote The proposed 1600 hp LMS unit for example, while able to attain the same continuous rating as a steam class 5 mixed traffic above 35mph is not able .. at maximum tractive efforts below that speed ... the performance of the locomotive will come out more nearly comparable to that of the class 4 2-6-0 tank engine.

I added a newly-written section, British Rail Class D16/1#Classification. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Also

RA 9

Again - seems high - a class 70 is probably a little heavier and has RA7 ?? Prof.Haddock (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Route availability is not based purely upon weight; axle loading is a far more important criterion. Considering only the six-axle (Co-Co, C-C or A1A-A1A) diesels, we have

• RA5 - Classes 31, 37, 55: weight 103-111 t
• RA6 - Classes 47, 50, 52, 53, 57: weight 110-122 t
• RA7 - Classes 56, 58, 59, 66, 70: weight 121-130 t
• RA8 - Class 60: weight 129-131 t

Nos. 10000/1, after the boilers were changed in 1953, weighed 130.7 long tons (132.8 t) which is above the lower limit for RA8, so RA9 is possible. Other factors besides weight and number of axles are taken into account - I would expect that the total wheelbase is one of them.

• Strickland, D.C. (1983). D+EG Locomotive Directory. Camberley: Diesel & Electric Group. ISBN 0-906375-10-X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

shows nos. 10000/1 as RA9 (Strickland 1983, p. 27). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cab Noses

Quoting: One cab 'noses' also contained a traction motor cooling fan, the other an air compressor. Shouldn't that be: Each cab nose contained a traction motor cooling blower and an air compressor? I've seen a pic of one being assembled, and the blower is on the right - second man's - side. Both bogies would need one blower each.86.129.103.124 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

yes fixed.Prof.Haddock (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Class 34

How could these two have been class 34 under TOPS when the last example was withdrawn in 1966 and BR didn't come across TOPS until 1968? Also the class 33/1 where originally class 34 before becoming class 33/1 so I think that the LMS twins being class 34 is not at all accurate. 70.72.183.55 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The references are: Hunt 2005, p. 14; Richards 1996, p. 145; and Strickland 1983, pp. 27, 173. I have all three books. Hunt says Their official BR modernisation scheme power range was Type 3 and class designation was Class 34 but this seems rarely, if ever, to have been used and there was nothing on the locomotives to indicate it. Richards says They were given the classification of Class 34, but it is believed this was never painted on. but Strickland does not support the claim. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

But again, if they were withdrawn by 1966, and the TOPS system was introduced years later there is no way that they would be classified under TOPS. Have spoken to people who worked with these and they said they were never classified under TOPS. So it seems to me that this is just wishful thinking and is in no way accurate. 70.72.183.55 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The TOPS system wasn't introduced years later, but months. Drafts are known from 1967, and the first published list appeared in Autumn 1968. If there are 1967 drafts, there may have been a draft in 1966, at a time when no. 10001 was still in service. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet according to the wiki article on TOPS, BR didn't encounter TOPS until 1968. Further it is mentioned in the class 33 article that class 34 was originally assigned to the engines that eventually became class 33/1. 70.72.183.55 (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 1968 was the publication, but as I say, drafts are known from 1967. Also, please do not use Wikipedia as a referencing source - everything was entered by people like you or me, you need to go back to the actual sources of the information in order to be sure. When there is a discrepancy between two Wikipedia articles, and neither gives its sources, who is to say which one is "right"? Perhaps neither is actually correct. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not the first mainline diesels built in Britain

That was Armstrong Whitworth's 800 bhp locomotive built for the LNER in 1933 It also built mainline diesels for Ceylon and India in the middle-to-late 1930s And Egyptian railways also ordered locos from EE just after the second world war. Construction started before the LMS twins, but the twins might have been delivered first for political reasons, as Ivatt wanted them working before nationalisation. I will find some references. 180.219.9.217 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's an interesting webpage ... obviously not possible to reference it. https://www.derbysulzers.com/ceylonindia.html 180.219.9.217 (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Armstrong-Whitworth loco was never LNER property, and was certainly not "built for the LNER". It was entirely an AW project, and although the LNER allowed it to be given trial runs over LNER lines (Newcastle-Berwick and Newcastle-Carlisle), no LNER order was ever placed, and nor did it influence the development of future LNER internal-combustion locos. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)