BR Class 28 "Metrovick"

On the CIÉ, Metroplitan-Vickers Class A (later 'Class 001' 60 Co-Co locos 1955/56) were supplied with 2-stroke Crossley engines. I believe at that time, government (and therefore CIÉ) policy was in favour of Sterling transactions, due to a lack of $US reserves.

The (un)reliability of Crossley engines likely saved at least the same number of steam locos for a good five years! Somehow, they soldiered on until re-engined with de-rated EMD645E engines, between 1968-71, after which they served well until the mid 1990s. There are four (re-engined) survivors.

The lightweight Bo-Bo Class C (later 'Class 201' had a fairly similar history. Three survive.

Between them, with horror stories of faulty locos and piles of broken engine components littering the yard at Inchicore, these classes go a long way to explaining the CIÉ's subsequent policy of sourcing locomotives from General Motors.

The same issues with the Crossley engine plagued Western Australian Government Railways Class X. They doggedly stuck with the Crossley lump, eventually solving many problems. Six locos (of two varients) survive.

If seeking a scapegoat, it appears, back in the 50s, the Crossley power plant received rave reviews from the British Admiralty. Perhaps some senior naval types were enjoying more than their daily quota of rum?

 

Or just using them in a different environment that didn't find their weak spots so easily?

 

As I heard it, CIÉ started by re-engining 2 of the A Class with Maybach lumps. GM had never, to that point, supplied engines separately, were understandably jealous of their reputation, and did not want to put that at risk if they supplied an Artful Bodger. In the event, the work done at Inchicore met with their approval and so CIÉ were the first railway to be supplied with engines for rebuilding other builder's kit.
Pat

 

The Wikipedia entry for the X Class suggests it was more involved than that. Faults identified by the tenacious WAGR workshop staff number in the hundreds. It seems they were finally rendered reliable by the time withdrawal loomed!

It's been a while since I perused my reference on CIÉ diesels, but recall that the locos were decidedly complex machines and given the timeline, Inchicore must have made some significant inroads, before throwing in the towel and re-engineering them.

I'd clean forgotten about the Maybachs, but the comment about GM supplying engines does ring a bell. To judge by subsequent CIÉ purchasing policy, GM made the right call!

Edit: Having just checked, the Class E (401/421), shunting/trip/branch line locos were Maybach engined.

 

Crossley never had a good reputation as engine manufacturers post-WWII... On the bus front, Manchester and Glasgow Corporations, and Leeds City Transport, amongst other operators, had batches of Crossley DD42 'deckers and SD42 single deckers. Manchester had the most of course.
Both Glasgow and Leeds kept theirs to the flatter routes, as the Crossley engines were pretty fragile, and quickly lost power after overhaul.

Richard.

 

I remember once overtaking a Crossley on Armley Ridge Road (Leeds); and I was walking. OK, it was a fast walk but it was still walking.

 

Crossleys bus engines were suspect. They copied the design, without permission, from Saurer. When Saurer found oyt, they demanded royalty payments, which Crossley didn't want to pay. To get round this, they altered the design of the cylinder head, so it no longer infringed Saurers patent.

as a result, they didn't run well and a lot of the DD42s were 're engined with Gardner or Leyland units.

 

Translation:

Sauer: Pissed off
Saurer: Even more pissed off

What a story!

 

They were taken over by AEC not long afterwards

 

And my bus has the tried and tested AEC 9.6. No performance issues there!

Richard.

 

What bus have you got?

 

Huddersfield JOC No. 225... last surviving Northern Coachbuilders postwar Lowbridge body. Under restoration.

Richard.

 

An AEC Regent III, nice. Bury had two of those, 176/7

 

Interesting. That`s a new locomotive for me.

It looks almost like a british version of the american built EMD G12 Thanks for your link!

Knut

 

Yep, Ben177 being preserved. Very unpopular with drivers, as the fleet was all-Leyland apart from those two.
Mine's a preselector too, good for dealing with hills - No nasty friction clutch to wear out!

Richard.

 

This is the sort of content I come here for.
Knowledgeable comments about a subject I know little about.
Then I go and google stuff.
Carry on please.

 

Is it that preselector like Daimlers had where the change pedal would sometimes violently spring back?

Back onto class 28s, I believe they were also very inefficient and heavy on fuel, as well as being very smoky.

 

No, the AEC preselector was air-operated - Very light pedal action. The Daimler was spring-operated, the pedal coming back by increasing amounts depending on which gear was selected. We have one at our Museum, ex-Halifax. It was the pedal travel, together with the heel-locating side-plate which skinned many a driver's ankles.

Just been reading about the class 28 in the latest "Trackside" magazine. I have to say, this seems a really good publication.

Richard.

 

Nowt much wrong with an AEC engine.
Memo:- always carry a spare set of injector pipes.

 

Wilson preselect epicyclic with fluid flywheel ? although I once gave my left thumb a nasty surprise when I got it too near the selector gate slot
"concentrate on what your doing Victor"