Class 28: Metro-Vick Type 2 Co-Bo

[Sir Felix Pole]

Early on in the project, delays within Crossleys prevented a prototype from being built for several months, which in course delayed testing by the same time frame. Even at this early stage, the WAGR Inspectors at Crossleys Openshaw plant were expressing serious concerns about the designs of the engines, particularly the oil passages, bearing sizes , and as a consequence the type of bearings being fitted. Loyalty to the "respected British" led the Assistant Engineer, C W Clarke, to question the skills and experience of the engineer who delivered this report, even though it highlighted the serious problems with this engine early on. Despite his pleading, the inspector was ignored. As the design and testing progressed (now some four months behind schedule) a second unit was run for testing. This demonstrated a high exhaust temperature, and had high levels of lubricating oil consumption. Further improvements were made and a later prototype was built, with the blower being incorporated as part of the engine. This unit also used excessive lubricating oil. Problems were also detected with the fuel injection system, but Crossley persisted with its own design, despite concern from the Inspector. A proposal to use well proven CAV injection equipment was rejected. But following the expiration of Warranty, the WAGR retrofitted CAV systems to the engine.

WAGR Class X

The development and problems of the Crossley HST-V8 engine as used in the 'Co-Bos', but first in the Western Australia Gov Rlys 'X' class is discussed in the above link (partially clipped). Crossleys had already had a disaster with their post-war bus engine, based on a Swiss Saurer design but modified (with dire consequences) to avoid royalty payments. This had already trashed the good reputation of the company, forcing the Crossley Motors part of the business (which built the bus bodies and chassis) to AEC. You do wonder what BR and CIE were thinking of, ordering straight off the drawing board.

 

[Inversnecky]

It just looks sad and depressing!

 

[Revaulx]

It just looks sad and depressing!

The “hangdog” expression was made much more prominent by the yellow ends. The same was true of the Class 110 Calder Valley DMUs

 

[Cowley]

Some years ago I was surprised to learn that D5701 got a coat of Rail Blue with full yellow ends:

(Photo source: https://pjbrailwayphotos.piwigo.com/picture?/32168)

Great photo. It’s always interesting seeing a development dead end that made it into BR corporate blue!

 

[Journeyman]

Whilst looking around on YouTube for something completely different recently, I found this interesting piece that made the news in the eighties - some nice footage of the surviving loco here.

 

[randyrippley]

It needs to be remembered that the 28s were simply a failed experiment. The UK's main independent history of diesel engine design had been in slow speed 2-stroke marine engines, and the 28 was simply the transfer of that technology to rail. A transfer that failed.
Why failed? Poor engineering for one, but things like the cross-cylinder charge induction primary compression didn't work properly at variable speeds. A simple supercharger or Roots blower, unassisted, and plain exhaust would have been better.

Crossley didn't want their engines to be used, but BR must have got political pressure applied. BR wanted a slow-speed 2-stroke to compare with a high-speed 2-stroke (class 23). What resulted was a disaster. Everyone knows the German-designed class 21 & 22 diesels failed, but what is overlooked is that every type 2 with a British designed engine was a disaster. 23,28,30 were all technical dead ends, only the Sulzers worked - and they were designed in Switzerland

 

[Journeyman]

every type 2 with a British designed engine was a disaster. 23,28,30 were all technical dead ends, only the Sulzers worked - and they were designed in Switzerland

Interesting. Obviously the 31s worked pretty well once the EE engines were fitted, but they were effectively derated Type 3s. All of EE's in-house engines seemed to be extremely successful. The only locos they built that were failures had another manufacturer's engines in them.

Before anyone starts, I consider the 31s a major success. I've never quite understood the hatred towards them from some enthusiasts. I know they're a bit puny, but they were clearly useful.

 

[Gloster]

Everyone knows the German-designed class 21 & 22 diesels failed, but what is overlooked is that every type 2 with a British designed engine was a disaster.

It was not the design of the Class 21 and 22 engines that was primarily at fault, but rather the quality of manufacture by NBL, together with some of the compromises made to fit the engines in a smaller body than had been used in Germany.

 

[Strathclyder]

Great photo. It’s always interesting seeing a development dead end that made it into BR corporate blue!

In the same vein, a Baby Deltic also made it into BR Blue - D5909.

http://www.napier-chronicles.co.uk/d5909_hitchin_7.70_gw.jpg

(D5909 at Hitchin - July 1970. Copyright - Grahame Wareham)

 

[Taunton]

I have a vague recollection of reading something in connection with the Irish locos that said that it was related to the varying loads or engine speeds that were required when in rail use. When in marine and stationary use the output is much steadier.

This is a longstanding comment about marine diesel engines adapted for rail use (there are quite a number). However it's not as if the manufacturers don't know what they are in for, or other diesel applications don't require this - city bus engines are even more on/off/on/off in their usage.

It needs to be remembered that the 28s were simply a failed experiment. The UK's main independent history of diesel engine design had been in slow speed 2-stroke marine engines, and the 28 was simply the transfer of that technology to rail. A transfer that failed ... what is overlooked is that every type 2 with a British designed engine was a disaster.

I doubt that English Electric would agree with that. They were quite independent of any overall organisation, yet produced what is probably the longest-lasting set of diesels of all. And if we are looking at the smaller ones, what got put in the Class 08 (350hp), Class 20 (1,000 hp) and eventually in the Class 31 (1,470 hp) have all rolled on fine.

Over in the USA, General Motors got on fine with 2-stroke until recent times and became the world's diesel market leader with them. Alco was their principal competitor in the big dieselisation push in the 1940s-60s and used 4-stroke. So both can be made to work fine. 2-stroke gives more power push for a given engine size, so is useful where space/weight is at a premium - it's notable how many 2-stroke designs can be traced back to submarines in WW2.

 

[WesternLancer]

Whilst looking around on YouTube for something completely different recently, I found this interesting piece that made the news in the eighties - some nice footage of the surviving loco here.

Great find that clip - you have to salute the guys who saved it - the chaps mentioned in that broadcast - interesting backdrop pictures to the clip too.

Looks like restoration is slow - but kudos to the group who are working on 2 very rare pilot scheme locos - wonderful that they survived

Class 15 Preservation Society | D5705 Progress Reports

www.d8233.org.uk

 

[Merle Haggard]

The Irish versions wasn't that bad-looking I thought, and, when I visited Ireland in 1968 (BR was boring, post-steam) there were plenty out working. Here's my best photos of each class.
I have read somewhere that the electrical side of the B.R. Metro-Vics was considered good to the extent of a scheme to re-engine them, but this was abandoned because of the decline of traffic for which Type 2s were required.
I'm also not sure about the connection between Crossley, the manufacturer of the loco. engines, and Crossley the bus manufacturer with the infamous engines. Crossley bus sold out to AEC in the early 1950s.

 

[xotGD]

Here's a shot of D5705 working a demonstration freight at Darley Dale in 1993.

OK, not quite. D100 had just been removed from the front before I took the photo!



It is taking a long, long time to get this machine back up and running. Best of luck to those working on the project. I look forward to witnessing the "throb" on the East Lancs.

 

[Taunton]

The Irish versions wasn't that bad-looking I thought, and, when I visited Ireland in 1968 (BR was boring, post-steam) there were plenty out working.

That's because the Irish railways took the sensible decision to strip out the Crossley engines and put in General Motors ones, sourced from the USA, and the same as the complete GM locos they had bought. There are still a few around preserved in Ireland.

Contrary to a lot I have read, GM were by no means averse to supplying just components for export, such as these replacement engines in Ireland. They also quite happily supplied just engines to Norway, where local builder Nohab assembled locos to their design, with Swedish Asea electrics, and GM prime movers. In Australia they have long supplied designs to be fully built locally.

 

[edwin_m]

The Thomas character was BoCo, not CoBo (not that it makes much difference!).

That depends which way you look at it.

 

[Revaulx]

The Irish versions wasn't that bad-looking I thought, and, when I visited Ireland in 1968 (BR was boring, post-steam) there were plenty out working. Here's my best photos of each class.
I have read somewhere that the electrical side of the B.R. Metro-Vics was considered good to the extent of a scheme to re-engine them, but this was abandoned because of the decline of traffic for which Type 2s were required.
I'm also not sure about the connection between Crossley, the manufacturer of the loco. engines, and Crossley the bus manufacturer with the infamous engines. Crossley bus sold out to AEC in the early 1950s.

Crossley Motors, the bus manufacturer sold to AEC, was a separate subsidiary with a factory on the Levenshulme/Burnage border.

Crossley Brothers, the "big engine" makers responsible for the disasters in the Co-Bos, were the original business dating from the 1860s. Their factory was in Pottery Lane Openshaw, more or less opposite Ashburys station. They ended up as part of Rolls Royce, and the Opensaw factory only closed in 2009.

 

[6Gman]

Crossley Motors, the bus manufacturer sold to AEC, was a separate subsidiary with a factory on the Levenshulme/Burnage border.

Crossley Brothers, the "big engine" makers responsible for the disasters in the Co-Bos, were the original business dating from the 1860s. Their factory was in Pottery Lane Openshaw, more or less opposite Ashburys station. They ended up as part of Rolls Royce, and the Opensaw factory only closed in 2009.

Thank you for that clarification.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Interesting. Obviously the 31s worked pretty well once the EE engines were fitted, but they were effectively derated Type 3s. All of EE's in-house engines seemed to be extremely successful. The only locos they built that were failures had another manufacturer's engines in them.

Before anyone starts, I consider the 31s a major success. I've never quite understood the hatred towards them from some enthusiasts. I know they're a bit puny, but they were clearly useful.

A big +1 from me too. Sorry to be slightly OT

 

[6Gman]

A couple of further curiosities on these locos which, frankly, could easily have been the Professors of Curiosity in the Curiosity Department of the University of Oxford.

When first delivered they had semi-wrapround front windows which had to be replaced by plain glass because they had a habit of falling out when in use!

And in 1963 when part of the WCML near Lancaster (possibly the Lune Viaduct?) was closed for engineering works trains were diverted Lancaster Castle - Green Ayre (reverse) - Morecambe (reverse) - Hest Bank resulting in a Class 28 hauling The Royal Scot.

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

I've always wondered why the styling was so different from other MV designs of the era - there seems to be an MV house style that's visible to varying degrees in the Irish locos, the WAGR X class, 18100, the New South Wales 46 class and this Brazilian electric, but not at all (at least to my eye) in the Co-Bos. Maybe it was the requirement to accommodate end doors (though the XA variant of the X class had those too)?

 

[Bevan Price]

WAGR Class X

The development and problems of the Crossley HST-V8 engine as used in the 'Co-Bos', but first in the Western Australia Gov Rlys 'X' class is discussed in the above link (partially clipped). Crossleys had already had a disaster with their post-war bus engine, based on a Swiss Saurer design but modified (with dire consequences) to avoid royalty payments. This had already trashed the good reputation of the company, forcing the Crossley Motors part of the business (which built the bus bodies and chassis) to AEC. You do wonder what BR and CIE were thinking of, ordering straight off the drawing board.

Reading elsewhere about Manchester City Transport Crossley Buses**, they could run quite well on routes that were mostly flat, or with gentle slopes. Indeed some lasted for around 20 years, which was considered a good age for buses. The problems arose when Crossleys were required to work hard, on steep, hilly routes -- at which point they became very "fragile" and unreliable.

(** "The Manchester Bus" by Michael Eyre & Chris Heaps)

 

[Grumpy]

d.


Everyone knows the German-designed class 21 & 22 diesels failed,

Did the class 22's fail? Apart from being built to serve markets that were going.

 

[peteb]

The Hornby Dublo model has a die-cast body so perhaps the CO-BO class 28 was selected as being a relatively simple shape and had plenty of weight. The class 20 Dublo ( and later Wrenn) model has a super-detailed plastic body and being lighter is therefore relatively underpowered, needing rubber bands on the bogie wheels to aid traction. I saw the Class 28 at Bristol and reported it in the Railway Magazine traffic and traction pages c1980.

 

[randyrippley]

I doubt that English Electric would agree with that. They were quite independent of any overall organisation, yet produced what is probably the longest-lasting set of diesels of all. And if we are looking at the smaller ones, what got put in the Class 08 (350hp), Class 20 (1,000 hp) and eventually in the Class 31 (1,470 hp) have all rolled on fine.

But there wasn't a successful EE type 2 until the 30s were rebuilt. The EE involvement was due to the failure of the original engines

The Hornby Dublo model has a die-cast body so perhaps the CO-BO class 28 was selected as being a relatively simple shape and had plenty of weight. The class 20 Dublo ( and later Wrenn) model has a super-detailed plastic body and being lighter is therefore relatively underpowered, needing rubber bands on the bogie wheels to aid traction. I saw the Class 28 at Bristol and reported it in the Railway Magazine traffic and traction pages c1980.

I think it had a Ringfield motor on the six wheel bogie. The Hornby Dublo catalogue used to carry an advert showing how many 4 year old boys various numbers of CoBos could haul. Had a photo of a schoolboy in a trailer sitting behind a loco

It was not the design of the Class 21 and 22 engines that was primarily at fault, but rather the quality of manufacture by NBL, together with some of the compromises made to fit the engines in a smaller body than had been used in Germany.

Theres a post on the web which details the 22 engine faults.....its big
I'll try to find it later

 

[Bevan Price]

The Hornby Dublo model has a die-cast body so perhaps the CO-BO class 28 was selected as being a relatively simple shape and had plenty of weight. The class 20 Dublo ( and later Wrenn) model has a super-detailed plastic body and being lighter is therefore relatively underpowered, needing rubber bands on the bogie wheels to aid traction. I saw the Class 28 at Bristol and reported it in the Railway Magazine traffic and traction pages c1980.

Was the powered bogie on the Hornby Dublo Co-Bo identical to that used on the Hornby Dublo Deltic model ?? If so, it would be an easy option to choose 2 models requiring only a single basic bogie design.

 

[Merle Haggard]

That's because the Irish railways took the sensible decision to strip out the Crossley engines and put in General Motors ones, sourced from the USA, and the same as the complete GM locos they had bought. There are still a few around preserved in Ireland.

Contrary to a lot I have read, GM were by no means averse to supplying just components for export, such as these replacement engines in Ireland. They also quite happily supplied just engines to Norway, where local builder Nohab assembled locos to their design, with Swedish Asea electrics, and GM prime movers. In Australia they have long supplied designs to be fully built locally.

May I gently point out that the A and C class locos in my photos were, at the time, still Crossley-powered? When GMs were fitted to the A class, they received an 'R' suffix to the number, and the C class were re-prefixed B. Incidentally, the M-V electrical equipment was retained - in the case of the C class, the engine rating was approximately doubled, so that part of the design was sound.
The Crossley engines in the C class were rated at 550 H.P., which makes even NBL's 1000 HP Bo-Bo and B-B classes look powerful (by the way, why did 1,000 HP count as type 2???) and a memorable experience I had was seeing one pull away on a freight train. The clouds of grey/white smoke and loud exhaust certainly conformed the heritage, but, despite the sound effects, the acceleration was far from brisk!
Where I have misled is the photo of a B class ; these were built by BRCW, though they did have M-V electrical equipment.

 

[Ash Bridge]

May I gently point out that the A and C class locos in my photos were, at the time, still Crossley-powered? When GMs were fitted to the A class, they received an 'R' suffix to the number, and the C class were re-prefixed B. Incidentally, the M-V electrical equipment was retained - in the case of the C class, the engine rating was approximately doubled, so that part of the design was sound.
The Crossley engines in the C class were rated at 550 H.P., which makes even NBL's 1000 HP Bo-Bo and B-B classes look powerful (by the way, why did 1,000 HP count as type 2???) and a memorable experience I had was seeing one pull away on a freight train. The clouds of grey/white smoke and loud exhaust certainly conformed the heritage, but, despite the sound effects, the acceleration was far from brisk!
Where I have misled is the photo of a B class ; these were built by BRCW, though they did have M-V electrical equipment.

I think the NBL class 22 were rated at 1100 bhp so just about qualified for the type 2 classification.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think the NBL class 22 were rated at 1100 bhp so just about qualified for the type 2 classification.

D6300-05 were built with 1000 bhp; the remainder were 1100 bhp

 

[WesternLancer]

The Hornby Dublo model has a die-cast body so perhaps the CO-BO class 28 was selected as being a relatively simple shape and had plenty of weight. The class 20 Dublo ( and later Wrenn) model has a super-detailed plastic body and being lighter is therefore relatively underpowered, needing rubber bands on the bogie wheels to aid traction. I saw the Class 28 at Bristol and reported it in the Railway Magazine traffic and traction pages c1980.

That's a good point!

 

[BR Boy 125]

I presume this is a Western diesel hydraulic? It’s not a Class 42 “Baby Warship”, though, but I can’t think what it is. Can the experts here please help me out? TIA...

Not a hydraulic. It's full name is a Metropolitan Vickers Diesel Electric Type 2, or Metrovick for short.