jp4712
Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2009
- Messages
- 473
AEC, Leyland and Gardner all had vertical and horizontal engines available by the mid 1950s. It so happens that one of my preserved buses has a vertical AEC engine, and the other has a horizontal Gardner 6HLX.
I suspect that the reason why only AECs and Leylands were fitted to DMUs was that the standard truck/bus engine made by Gardner, designated 6HLW in horizontal form, was underpowered compared to the AEC and Leyland (although it had other advantages such as low fuel consumption and unrivalled reliability). The more powerful Gardner 6LX and 6HLX didn't become available until around 1960, long after most first generation DMUs were built.
Now, the thing about Gardner engines were that they were modular - 4LW, 6LW, 8LW, even 5LW etc - so BR could have had 8HLW engines for more power. But that would have given problems of fitting, as the 8-cylinder Gardner was much longer than a six-cylinder equivalent.
Gardner also made a separate line, called the L3 series, also modular and originally intended for marine applications to be a real low speed 'slogger' with bags of torque. So BR fitted the 8L3 Gardner engine to classes 03, 04 and 05 (maybe others too) as the length of engine with eight cylinders wasn't a problem and a low-speed high-torque 'slogger' was ideal for shunting.
There's one other possible reason why Gardner engines weren't fitted to first generation DMUs: Hugh Gardner. Hugh picked his customers and if he didn't like you, you couldn't have them - it was as simple as that! It's possible that Gardner simply declined to supply BR, although maybe not given the supply of 8L3 engines for shunters. I do know that Hugh was very conservative, for example he prevented experiments with turbochargers until the day he retired, and Gardner may have been reluctant to risk its hard-won reputation for reliability by exposing their engines to this new usage.
Anyway, back on topic: in the mid 1980s I often travelled from Birchwood (near Warrington) to Manchester Oxford Road via the CLC, and if the service was due to stop at Irlam then there'd be zero chance of reaching top gear on the climb from there to the Manchester Ship Canal bridge. I play train simulators a lot, and I do agree that the thing they have in common is being over-powered compared to my recollections.
I suspect that the reason why only AECs and Leylands were fitted to DMUs was that the standard truck/bus engine made by Gardner, designated 6HLW in horizontal form, was underpowered compared to the AEC and Leyland (although it had other advantages such as low fuel consumption and unrivalled reliability). The more powerful Gardner 6LX and 6HLX didn't become available until around 1960, long after most first generation DMUs were built.
Now, the thing about Gardner engines were that they were modular - 4LW, 6LW, 8LW, even 5LW etc - so BR could have had 8HLW engines for more power. But that would have given problems of fitting, as the 8-cylinder Gardner was much longer than a six-cylinder equivalent.
Gardner also made a separate line, called the L3 series, also modular and originally intended for marine applications to be a real low speed 'slogger' with bags of torque. So BR fitted the 8L3 Gardner engine to classes 03, 04 and 05 (maybe others too) as the length of engine with eight cylinders wasn't a problem and a low-speed high-torque 'slogger' was ideal for shunting.
There's one other possible reason why Gardner engines weren't fitted to first generation DMUs: Hugh Gardner. Hugh picked his customers and if he didn't like you, you couldn't have them - it was as simple as that! It's possible that Gardner simply declined to supply BR, although maybe not given the supply of 8L3 engines for shunters. I do know that Hugh was very conservative, for example he prevented experiments with turbochargers until the day he retired, and Gardner may have been reluctant to risk its hard-won reputation for reliability by exposing their engines to this new usage.
Anyway, back on topic: in the mid 1980s I often travelled from Birchwood (near Warrington) to Manchester Oxford Road via the CLC, and if the service was due to stop at Irlam then there'd be zero chance of reaching top gear on the climb from there to the Manchester Ship Canal bridge. I play train simulators a lot, and I do agree that the thing they have in common is being over-powered compared to my recollections.