Which Loco is your favourite?

CIE · 06-11-2010 1:43am

Karsini wrote: »

The varying figures are due to different ways of reporting engine power. The 071s are 2,475 gross with 2,250 available for traction. The 567-based locos were 950/875 and the 8-645s were 1,100/1,000

That's most curious. None of those are HEP-equipped, so that amount of horsepower lost sounds like a de-rating. It's sure a lot of horses for lighting the engine.

I have a soft spot for 201s as I've spent more time on 201-hauled trains than anything else. Long before I developed an obsession with railways I used to remember getting off an ex Cork train in Heuston with my parents and "looking to see what river name was on the engine." The interest was there but it took me a long time to follow it.

I'm somewhat older than that, so to me, "201-class" is the old C-class that became B-class through re-engining with EMD diesels. They were the first to operate the reopened Maynooth line services, with the push-pulls that were the former AEC 2600-class DMUs.

06-11-2010 1:47am

The As certainly were derated, their GM engines were 1,600hp@900rpm but derated to 1,325hp@800rpm due to reliability concerns.

A 201 on HEP loses about 600hp, they're 3,200 gross with 3,000 available for traction. So with HEP running they're at about 2,400, not much more than a 071.

steamengine · 06-11-2010 12:51pm

Transportuser09 wrote: »

Very nice. Almost looks as though the steam train is going faster than the diesel following it!

Yea, a 201 pushing the second Enterprise and a light engine which maybe someone could identify ??? Is it a 071 ???

flyingsnail · 06-11-2010 12:55pm

steamengine wrote: »

Yea, a 201 pushing the second Enterprise and a light engine which maybe someone could identify ??? Is it a 071 ???

201 Class 233 on Enterprise.

071 Class 081 light engine

corktina · 06-11-2010 2:12pm

ah yes, Merlin.Had ther pleasure to travel Dublin to Belfast behind that little pocket rocket a few years back....

steamengine · 06-11-2010 3:28pm

corktina wrote: »

ah yes, Merlin.Had ther pleasure to travel Dublin to Belfast behind that little pocket rocket a few years back....

No. 174 'Carrantuohill' an earlier class GNR 4-4-0 reputedly once reached a top speed of 114 mph. - I have no hard evidence to back this up, perhaps somebody else here might be able to confirm this. I heard this from a couple of GNR sources years back.

Eiretrains · 06-11-2010 3:30pm

Thanks about the Merlin video (apologies about the quality, I didn't export it properly so it's a bit fuzzy than I wanted it!).
I have one of Slieve Gullion going to Greystones, might upload that one soon. I have to admit though I'm probably more diesel than steam.:o

The diesel Enterprise was delayed by Merlin hence it was going slow, it ran right behind it within about 5 mins.:D

corktina · 06-11-2010 3:31pm

theres loads of these stories around about high speed locos. Theres no subsatnce to any of them IMHO....an inside cylindered 4-4-0 with a very modest boiler wouldnt do that speed even vertically off a cliff :-)

corktina · 06-11-2010 3:32pm

Eiretrains wrote: »

Thanks about the Merlin video (apologies about the quality, I didn't export it properly so it's a bit fuzzy than I wanted it!).
I have one of Slieve Gullion going to Greystones, might upload that one soon. I have to admit though I'm probably more diesel than steam.:o

The diesel Enterprise was delayed by Merlin hence it was going slow, it ran right behind it within about 5 mins.:D

we definately need a railwayac section on boards....

newmug · 06-11-2010 6:18pm

Karsini wrote: »

The As certainly were derated, their GM engines were 1,600hp@900rpm but derated to 1,325hp@800rpm due to reliability concerns.

A 201 on HEP loses about 600hp, they're 3,200 gross with 3,000 available for traction. So with HEP running they're at about 2,400, not much more than a 071.

Whats HEP?

flyingsnail · 06-11-2010 6:44pm

newmug wrote: »

Whats HEP?

Head end power, it is used to provide power to the coaches on the enterprise for lighting and heating ect. The rest of the IE loco hauled fleet used generator / guards van to do this. The dvt on Mk 4s and Mk 3 push pull also contain a dedicated generator to do this.

CIE · 07-11-2010 1:42am

flyingsnail wrote: »

Head end power, it is used to provide power to the coaches on the enterprise for lighting and heating ect. The rest of the IE loco hauled fleet used generator / guards van to do this. The dvt on Mk 4s and Mk 3 push pull also contain a dedicated generator to do this.

Also depending on the locomotive, you could either run the HEP generator from the main "prime mover" (diesel motor that runs the generator for the traction motors) if you have enough horsepower; or if not, some locos have a secondary engine that runs at a constant speed attached to the HEP generator. AFAICS, you'd need at least 4,000 horses in the "prime mover" to do without the secondary motor.

07-11-2010 1:47am

CIE wrote: »

AFAICS, you'd need at least 4,000 horses in the "prime mover" to do without the secondary motor.

Which is probably why the 201s have so much trouble with HEP, GM actually recommended a secondary engine to IE at the time.

Cookie_Monster · 07-11-2010 3:52am

Eiretrains wrote: »

I have to admit though I'm probably more diesel than steam.:o

good man, no need for the embarrassed smiley.

Diesel is where its at

:)

Cookie_Monster · 07-11-2010 3:56am

Karsini wrote: »

Which is probably why the 201s have so much trouble with HEP, GM actually recommended a secondary engine to IE at the time.

indeed, I've heard that before, but that CIE didn't agree at all. and thats why so many 201s have failed due to being on fire on the ent:D

you'll regularly see non ent livery 201s on the ent train these days so they don't overly stress the 4 or so ent designated 201s (208,209, 215,216 iirc). though they arrival of mk3 egvs should resolve this problem

07-11-2010 3:57am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

good man, no need for the embarrassed smiley.

Diesel is where its at :)

Same as, though that might be indicative of my age. I'm 26 so still a baba in this circle!

07-11-2010 4:02am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you'll regularly see non ent livery 201s on the ent train these days so they don't overly stress the 4 or so ent designated 201s (208,209, 215,216 iirc). though they arrival of mk3 egvs should resolve this problem

Correct, though only 227, 228 and 231 are permitted north of Dundalk now as they're the only ones fitted with TPWS for NIR (outside of the Enterprise branded locos). 231 hasn't been on the Enterprise for a while now. They tried running with just 206, 207, 208, 209, 230 and 233 when the mandatory TPWS regs came in, but obviously decided that wasn't enough.

Cookie_Monster · 07-11-2010 4:37am

speaking of 201s

some of ye may be interested in this a 1:76 scale model of the loco, brand new announcement from Murphy Models. I've seen it, looks amazing and great spec

steamengine · 07-11-2010 11:41am

corktina wrote: »

theres loads of these stories around about high speed locos. Theres no subsatnce to any of them IMHO....an inside cylindered 4-4-0 with a very modest boiler wouldnt do that speed even vertically off a cliff :-)

'City of Truro' 102mph 1904

Losty Dublin · 07-11-2010 12:33pm

Karsini wrote: »

Which is probably why the 201s have so much trouble with HEP, GM actually recommended a secondary engine to IE at the time.

Sorry to say but that's something of an old wife's tale about EMD recommending against HEP being used as well as a smaller engine being offered. EMD fitted HEP in locomotives for years and they knew that the tender asked required by CIE at the time needed a HEP solution, something that they actually installed in the loco as an order option. The 645 engine had been out of general production for 10 years at the time of construction so there was no other option and only one smaller variation of the series was available, an 8 cylinder model that blows barely 2,000 BHP. Closer to the truth is that the HEP was overworking the engine on the services it was needed; engines not appearing on the Belfast runs fare far better overall as things go

PS The Dad was an inspector on the job and knew his engines better than he knew us

corktina · 07-11-2010 1:23pm

steamengine wrote: »

'City of Truro' 102mph 1904

theres a HUGE difference between 104 (reckoned to be actualy "around 100" nowadays) and 114. Massive LMS pacifics on special trials only got to that speed.

steamengine · 07-11-2010 8:34pm

corktina wrote: »

theres a HUGE difference between 104 (reckoned to be actualy "around 100" nowadays) and 114. Massive LMS pacifics on special trials only got to that speed.

There was a lot of prestige at stake between the old LMS and LNER and Mallard finally won out at 126mph, during a speed trial in 1938, although wrecking bearings in the process. However it is probably safe to say that both companies' locos could maintain a top service speed of 100mph ie the LNER's A4's and the LMS's Coronations. It is anecdotal, but is also recorded somewhere that Carrantuohill was the fastest GNR(I) locomotive, and I was hoping that maybe a poster here could confirm it - if true.

corktina · 07-11-2010 8:46pm

100 mph in steam days was a rare occurence.....the GWR for instance aimed at a crusing speed of around 60mph only (according to OS Nock),
I would imagine Merlin with a bigger boiler and 3 cylinders would be a better bet as a high speed loco....

Transportuser09 · 07-11-2010 9:55pm

I've seen mention of that GNR feat somewhere before, from what I remember it seemed as though it only had one carriage, which might account for it be able to perform feats larger engines could with a full train.

dowlingm · 08-11-2010 1:58am

HEP seems to come in and out of favour. VIA Rail Canada is refitting its 100mph F40PH locos with separate HEP during rebuild, but Metra Chicago bought 27 HEP-from-prime mover locos (powered by 16-645Fs) in 2003-4 and I think the new HSP46s for MBTA Boston are HEP-from-prime mover too.

newmug · 08-11-2010 2:08am

You would imagine HEP would be the best way to go, its more direct and it saves x amount of horsepower actually having to pull the generator van!

CIE · 08-11-2010 7:02am

dowlingm wrote: »

HEP seems to come in and out of favour. VIA Rail Canada is refitting its 100mph F40PH locos with separate HEP during rebuild, but Metra Chicago bought 27 HEP-from-prime mover locos (powered by 16-645Fs) in 2003-4 and I think the new HSP46s for MBTA Boston are HEP-from-prime mover too.

All based on horsepower. The bottom threshold seems to be 3,600 horses to allow variable-speed operation of the diesel engine; any lower than that and the prime mover has to run at full revolutions at all times. The F40PHs are reputed as "screamers" because to run the HEP, they had to rev at over 900 rpm even when the train was stopped; any rebuilds would either need a higher-horsepower engine (there are newer 16-cylinder engines that can put out over 4,000 horses, but those are usually four-stroke due to emissions requirements, and EMD under Caterpillar's ownership has not developed one yet) or the secondary diesel engine.

corktina wrote: »

100 mph in steam days was a rare occurence

No, it was actually commonplace on intercity expresses. You sure you didn't mean an average speed of 60 mph? The GWR's commuter steamers (mostly the tank engines) had a top speed of around 60 mph.

corktina · 08-11-2010 8:20am

CIE wrote: »

No, it was actually commonplace on intercity expresses. You sure you didn't mean an average speed of 60 mph? The GWR's commuter steamers (mostly the tank engines) had a top speed of around 60 mph.

sorry,you are totally wrong .
Steam was much slower than the diesels that replaced it. In express steams dieing months, Bulleid Pacifics were pushed to high speeds for the sheer hell of it,the iccasional one reached 100, but it wasnt anywhere near a daily occurence. GWR express locos were designed to be at their most efficent at 60mph and speeds over 80 were exceptional. timetabled 100 mph running didnt appear until the class 55 Deltics were in service.

08-11-2010 7:43pm

CIE wrote: »

All based on horsepower. The bottom threshold seems to be 3,600 horses to allow variable-speed operation of the diesel engine; any lower than that and the prime mover has to run at full revolutions at all times. The F40PHs are reputed as "screamers" because to run the HEP, they had to rev at over 900 rpm even when the train was stopped; any rebuilds would either need a higher-horsepower engine (there are newer 16-cylinder engines that can put out over 4,000 horses, but those are usually four-stroke due to emissions requirements, and EMD under Caterpillar's ownership has not developed one yet) or the secondary diesel engine.

Same as the 201s, full engine speed is 900 rpm. They do have a standby HEP setting which uses the main generator rather than the HEP generator, this spins the engine at 720 rpm but is only available when the locomotive is stopped. Even the F40PH has a 16 cylinder engine rather than the 12 cylinder as on the 201s. (645 or 710 is really irrelevant - 645s haven't been available on new builds since 1985/86 and aren't majorly different to my knowledge). As far as I can see the engine is too weak for HEP - maybe if it used a gearbox like the 22000s do.

EMD did have a 4-stroke engine at one stage, the 265 "H Engine" but it hasn't been very popular. Only used in two or three designs and some of these batches used 710s instead.

steamengine · 08-11-2010 9:07pm

What's a few mph between enthusiasts ? Corktina you might like this one !!!

A film featuring an LNER A4 - 'Silver Fox' hauling the Elizabethan Express from King's Cross to Edinburgh in 1955.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5kLJdCEgU4

Which Loco is your favourite?

Comments