Why GM?

[jhb171achill]

22 minutes ago, spudfan said:

Story goes that when the 071 class were introduced here British Rail were very impressed with the reliabilty and day to day performance of the class. So much so that they wanted to purchase them for UK operations. Seems politics intervened and they were not allowed to purchase them.

All goes to show that well over a decade later, CIE's judgement, or rather that of their political masters, was (for once!) proved right!

[jhb171achill]

1 hour ago, Warbonnet said:

............Planes never did it for me so my knowledge on them is weak to say the least!

Me too.

They don't run on rails.

They have long bits sticking out of the sides which would foul any loading gauge.

Despite jhb171Junior having been in the aircraft industry and having had me in aircraft cockpits, he was unable to show me a single orifice in which coal was to be put in a moving aircraft, nor injectors operated. None of these things appear to have even ONE connecting rod, and I'd lay money on it that they have no firebox.

They have no obvious receptacles for coal or water, and I know for a fact that they aren't wood or oil burners.

Airports do not, in any event, appear to have coaling facilities, and I doubt very much if there are coaling facilities in the air.

Junior has not said or demonstrated anything to address my doubts. He talks about "wings" and "jet" something.......

Strange.

[Mayner]

There was an interesting series of articles on the GNR dieselization proposals from the mid 1950s in New Irish Lines several years ago, both GM and Metrovick tendered to supply locos to the GNR in 1955, including the EMD standard G8 export model and Metrovick 1200hp A Class interestingly the A Class was more expensive than the G8 and one of the more expensive of the British diesels.

Its possible the deal to buy the Metrovicks may have been tied up with improving trade relations with the UK in preparation for the Anglo Irish Free Trade agreement. 

Its possible that CIE accepted the Metrovick tender as the A Class was the only British design that met CIEs specification for a 6 axle locomotive in terms of power and axleload.

The choice of the two stroke Crossley engine may have been an attempt by AEI to design a relatively high powered light axle load diesel to compete with GM in export markets, contemporary 4 cycle diesel electrics were heavier considerably heavier and likely to exceed axleload limits within a BoBo or Co Co format.

CIEs choice of Sulzer engine and Metrovick electrical equipment for the pioneering diesel electrics 1100 & 1101 was nearly ideal in terms of choice of reliability of equipment, but effectively restricted to the Cork line in terms of axle load for a Bo Bo, the B101 A1A A1A BRCW version was the near ideal in terms of a British built diesel electric but underpowered for a main line diesel electric locomotive.

The English Electrics attempts to produce a 1600hp 15ton axle load diesel electric for New Zealand based on the LMS twins resulted in 60' long 2-Co Co-2 behemoth NZR Df Class, which had a short life their V12 engines were plagued by engine problems, NZR selecting the GM G12 & G8 export model 5 years later to complete the North Island main line dieselization programme, though EE locos in the 600-900 Hp power class were more successful than the Df.

The Brush Type A1A A1A design may have been suitable for use in Ireland, Brush built similar locos for Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) in the early 1950s, BR modernization Plan Brush locos would have been too heavy for use on CIE, the Brush diesel locos and components supplied to BR gave considerable problems in service, the Mirrless engines originally used in the Brush Type 2/Class 31 developed signs of stress when they were uprated beyond the manufacturers original specification and were replaced with EE engines, the twin Bank Sulzers used in the Class 47 locos gave trouble for similar reasons and some were later replaced with re-conditioned GM engines for heavy freight use. The Brush electrical system was considered problematic the final batch of BR Type 4 "Peak" Class 46 locomotives were fitted with AEI electrical equipment which proved even more problematic.

Part of the problem with British manufacturers seems to have arisen from a sense of entitlement than develops in a protected market essentially closed to outside competition, it would have been politically unacceptable up to the mid 1980s for British Rail or other nationalized industry to award a large contract to a foreign company. 

Another problem was manufacturers failing to understand the long asset life of railway locos and rolling stock.

British Leyland literally itself in the foot by failing to understand the market and shutting off part supply for locomotive/railcar/dmu engines and transmissions for CIE/UTA/BR and NZR when it upgraded engine and transmission design in the 60s and 70s. 

In Ireland and the UK first generation railcars and DMUs basically were made obsolete within 20 years of their introduction when Leyland ceased to supply spare parts, NZR had to re-engine its fleet of DSC shunting locos when Leyland ceased to supply replacement engines/parts within 10 years of the classes introduction.

 

 

[Buz]

Hi all

It all comes down to reliability and therefore being cost effective to run.

They got burned with the Crossley (spelling) diesel engines.

Interestingly the WAGR X class locomotives built by Metropolitan Vickers err I think.

These got rejected by one of the Irish 3'6" gauge lines because of the Crossley( spelling) diesel engines.

I wish the WAGR had not bought them the only use they where was starting more bush fires than steam ever did, and where excellent for training apprentice fitters.

With a much better engine in them they could have been a really good locomotive on light rail lines being a 2-DO-2

When the WAGR bought them they still had a lot of low poundage built track in use on what where called either pioneer lines or political line depending on the motivation for the line being built.

The engines had more oil on the outside instead of on the inside where it should be and where notorious for carboning up the exhausts and then when the engine was under high load heating up to a red hot exhaust and spiting out carbon embers and you guessed it starting a line side fire.

Oh and as built they still had the WW1 submarine reversing gear on the engine so you guessed it before the engineers messed about with them it was possible to start the engine running backward not good for the electrics in them.

So why GM because it works.

regards John

[hexagon789]

13 hours ago, spudfan said:

Story goes that when the 071 class were introduced here British Rail were very impressed with the reliabilty and day to day performance of the class. So much so that they wanted to purchase them for UK operations. Seems politics intervened and they were not allowed to purchase them.

I seem to remember it took some political wrangling for NIR to get its 111s

[Fiacra]

Lots of interesting and informative responses - fascinating stuff!

[Warbonnet]

On 8/30/2020 at 2:09 PM, hexagon789 said:

I seem to remember it took some political wrangling for NIR to get its 111s

It rings a bell that NIR wanted 141s but had to 'buy British' and ended up with Hunslets instead, but not sure how true that was. 

[irishthump]

I read somewhere that CIE wanted GM from the beginning but a lack of available US currency resulted in them turning to the UK.

[Robert Shrives]

IIRC protectionist polices and a lack of foreign currency and debt to US prevented buying US engines. - So much for special friendship.  On the flip side in UK we did buy 30 class 56s that were subbed to Romania - power units were shipped from UK to be fitted and then returned - it seems that UK ones were built before first batch was successfully delivered and accepted into traffic . A case of getting your own medicine when compared to A and C class deliveries perhaps.

The  first Yeoman 59s however were a special order and as such got VIP treatment, the only cause of early failures was due to UK fitted AWS equipment so it has been reported.  the Subsequent 59s and 66s have a touch of the Leyland / BMC  about them! 

 

When PRONI reopens  UTA paper work might solve the NIR questions as quite a lot but not all seems listed - the vague "bundles of minutes" would  offer a starting place...     

[hexagon789]

On 9/1/2020 at 9:41 AM, Warbonnet said:

It rings a bell that NIR wanted 141s but had to 'buy British' and ended up with Hunslets instead, but not sure how true that was. 

Quite possibly, but would that have solved the power issue on the Enterprise? Given the 1,350hp Hunslets were felt to be rather underpowered for even six-coach loads singly.

(Even accounting for the losses incurred by the HEP/ETH output of a Hunslet a 950hp 141 doesn't quite have the same grunt.)

[jhb171achill]

On 9/1/2020 at 9:41 AM, Warbonnet said:

It rings a bell that NIR wanted 141s but had to 'buy British' and ended up with Hunslets instead, but not sure how true that was. 

That is correct. The UTA in its last days was very impressed with the 141s and 181s and there were thoughts of getting several. In those days the spoil trains were running, so with that AND the “Enterprise” in kind, an order of half a dozen of them would have been possible.

If they were to be used on Derry trains too, and the cross-border goods, up to twelve could have been needed.

That, in turn, would probably have resulted in somewhat fewer 80 class railcars, and no “111”s or second-hand “C” class locos....

Black 141 with UTA crest, anyone? Or maroon NIR ones?