Most successful re-engined conversion in UK

[Bessie]

I'm interested to know what others think have been the most successful re-engined conversions on British Railways. From my standpoint as an enthusiast rather than working on the railways the HST re-engine programme seemed a success as did the Class 47 to Class 57 with both having a decent number of locos still in service. The jury is out on Class 56 to Class 69. Are there others which have been a success?

 

[Llama]

Class 30-31?

 

[DarloRich]

class 73/9?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Pacers from Leyland TL11 to Cummins LTA-10R engines plus the gearboxes from epicyclic (?) to Voith?

 

[yorksrob]

The original wooden bodies carriages that were converted into the first SUB units in the early twentieth century ?

 

[AM9]

Classes 306 and 307 from their 1500VDC setup to 6.25/25Kv ac.

 

[hexagon789]

Class 101 from 1976? After all, some would last another quarter century in normal traffic.

 

[36270k]

Never happened, but the Class 17 Clayton should have been re-engined with Caterpillar or Cummins.

 

[Trackman]

class 73/9?

Winky emoji face I see. Well I suppose, with more than double the HP- but they were complete re-builds a brand new loco in essence.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

All the early 170s had their original defective Cummins(?) engines replaced with new units from MTU. Later builds had the updated MTU from new.

Note: Edited with new information provided by @43096 below.

 

[43096]

All the early 170s had their original defective Cummins(?) engines replaced with MTU. Later builds had MTU from new.

The 170s were never Cummins (there’s a story behind that) and were MTU from new. MTU/ADtranz had to replace the engines with modified versions of the same type.

 

[xotGD]

47601/901

 

[47444]

Class 30-31?

Got to be this one!

 

[Richard Scott]

What about the 37/9s? Whilst nothing wrong with the EE engine, we're the replacements an improvement? No idea to be honest so if someone has any knowledge would be appreciated.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The sheer longevity of Class 37s has to put them in contention.

 

[43096]

The sheer longevity of Class 37s has to put them in contention.

Do you mean Class 31s? The 37s (other than the six 37/9 testbeds) weren't re-engined.

Just to throw another in, Classes 142-144 getting Cummins engines in place of the Leyland originals.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The sheer longevity of Class 37s has to put them in contention.

Most weren't re-engined though, other than swaps of the same types of power units between locomotives.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I was thinking 31s but also the re-engined 37/9 test beds.

 

[AlistairCowell]

The 170s were never Cummins (there’s a story behind that) and were MTU from new. MTU/ADtranz had to replace the engines with modified versions of the same type.

Is there a difference between original and modified MTU engines?

Another thing we failed to mention that Class 43 HSTs have also been re-engined a decade back. Paxman Valenta engines were replaced with MTU engines on all but MML HSTs (the MML examples had VP185 engines).

 

[GS250]

I suppose the MTU was without doubt a technical success. The heavier rakes on the ECML especially were really pushing the PV to the limit but it seemed the MTU's coped better from day 1? However....they provided around another 10-12 years of life for the HST's on long distance services. Did this ever really recoup the investment? Or was it simply necessary to prevent them from keeling over altogether? Or maybe emissions legislation?

 

[Irascible]

Never happened, but the Class 17 Clayton should have been re-engined with Caterpillar or Cummins.

Rolls-Royce back then, I guess. What they *should* have been re-engined with was the engine they had, only the version Paxman wanted to build rather than the one BR forced on them.

What about the 37/9s? Whilst nothing wrong with the EE engine, we're the replacements an improvement? No idea to be honest so if someone has any knowledge would be appreciated.

Bit hard to tell with such a small sample size, really - things can seem fine on a testbed & only start showing problems after years of mass use. Given I think the EE unit started life in the 1930s you'd hope there was some improvement, at least.

 

[tomuk]

Bit hard to tell with such a small sample size, really - things can seem fine on a testbed & only start showing problems after years of mass use. Given I think the EE unit started life in the 1930s you'd hope there was some improvement, at least.

Four were fitted with Mirlees Blackstone MB275s the larger version of this engine then was used to power the Class 60s

Two were fitted with Ruston, the then brand for EE, RK270s this was basically a 'clean sheet' design following similar principals to replace the long evolved 1930s EE engine (08,20,31,37,40,50,56,58). Although not particularly successful as a locomotive engine it was a big seller in the marine market, fast ferries, OPVs etc. So much so that further refined versions are sold as the MAN 28/33D.

 

[Rescars]

Taking a broad interpretation of the OP, what about the conversion of the South Devon Railway from the stationary engined atmospheric system to locomotive traction?

 

[delt1c]

Loco has to be the 31,s , look how long they lasted re engined , for
Units again long lived has to be Pacer’s

 

[Strathclyder]

As far as locos are concerned, it has to be Class 30/31 in terms of longevity/service life after reengining. The MTU HST power cars could also be within a shout here.

For units, the 142s-144s are a good contender once they had the Cummins/Voith drivetrain fitted to replace the perennially unreliable Leyland/SCG setup.

I suppose the MTU was without doubt a technical success. The heavier rakes on the ECML especially were really pushing the PV to the limit but it seemed the MTU's coped better from day 1? However....they provided around another 10-12 years of life for the HST's on long distance services. Did this ever really recoup the investment? Or was it simply necessary to prevent them from keeling over altogether? Or maybe emissions legislation?

A mix of the two, most likely.

The pool of serviceable Valentas (not to mention spares in general) was only going to continue shrinking & major failures were only going to increase in frequency - add in the fact that the Valenta was never the cleanest powerplant to begin with as far as emissions were concerned - and it only made sense for everyone involved to just start from scratch and install a new powerplant as part of the refurbishment. @43096 is the person to consult here I think, as what I've said here is either dead wrong (most likely) or a painfully basic rundown of what actually happened.

One thing that still surprises me even now (despite knowing the reasons) is how the Grand Central power cars managed to hold onto their Valentas well into 2010.

 

[43096]

A mix of the two, most likely.

The pool of serviceable Valentas (not to mention spares in general) was only going to continue shrinking & major failures were only going to increase in frequency - add in the fact that the Valenta was never the cleanest powerplant to begin with as far as emissions were concerned - and it only made sense for everyone involved to just start from scratch and install a new powerplant as part of the refurbishment. @43096 is the person to consult here I think, as what I've said here is either dead wrong (most likely) or a painfully basic rundown of what actually happened.

The TOCs may have claimed the environmental benefits (it makes good PR), but really it was down to two things: the attrition of serviceable Valenta blocks (Angel had had some new ones manufactured in the early 2000s) and savings on fuel and maintenance (which was what made the business case work).

One thing that still surprises me even now (despite knowing the reasons) is how the Grand Central power cars managed to hold onto their Valentas well into 2010.

There were two things with the GC fleet: first it was GC themselves (via Sovereign Trains) who owned their HSTs - they bought them as the ROSCOs felt the risk for leasing them was too high as a new business and the first long distance open access operation (see WSMR for what can happen to open access operators). Being open access they didn't have access to the capital to re-engineer the fleet and it wasn't until the business was more established that Angel stepped in with a sale-and-lease-back deal that also included refurbishment and MTU fitment. The other thing was that by the end there were plenty of Valenta spares available, although GC ended up buying two engines off 125 Group to keep the fleet running.

 

[Strathclyder]

@43096 Makes sense and I knew I'd be way off in my assertations. Cheers.

 

[Magdalia]

The TOCs may have claimed the environmental benefits (it makes good PR), but really it was down to two things: the attrition of serviceable Valenta blocks (Angel had had some new ones manufactured in the early 2000s) and savings on fuel and maintenance (which was what made the business case work).

There were two things with the GC fleet: first it was GC themselves (via Sovereign Trains) who owned their HSTs - they bought them as the ROSCOs felt the risk for leasing them was too high as a new business and the first long distance open access operation (see WSMR for what can happen to open access operators). Being open access they didn't have access to the capital to re-engineer the fleet and it wasn't until the business was more established that Angel stepped in with a sale-and-lease-back deal that also included refurbishment and MTU fitment. The other thing was that by the end there were plenty of Valenta spares available, although GC ended up buying two engines off 125 Group to keep the fleet running.

Thanks for this, interesting and useful.

Did the power cars with MTU engines last long enough for the fuel and maintenance costs savings to cover the extra capital costs of the engine replacement?

And what was the weight difference between a power unit with an MTU engine and a power unit with a Valenta engine? That's probably on the interweb somewhere but I don't know where to look!

 

[43096]

Thanks for this, interesting and useful.

Did the power cars with MTU engines last long enough for the fuel and maintenance costs savings to cover the extra capital costs of the engine replacement?

Yes, the working assumption when the business case was put together was around a 8-10 year life extension. The payback was reasonable considering the Valenta was 18/36 months for half/full life overhaul. The MTU is around 30/60 months and VP185 36/72 months for the same. Quite a saving, even given the use of MTU for overhauls and the associated costs (but you get the OEM warranty).

And what was the weight difference between a power unit with an MTU engine and a power unit with a Valenta engine? That's probably on the interweb somewhere but I don't know where to look!

Not a huge difference, I don’t think. I haven’t got the figures to hand, but there was no change to the van area loading limit as a result - the only change for this was due to Brush cooler group installation.

 

[Richard Scott]

Thanks for this, interesting and useful.

Did the power cars with MTU engines last long enough for the fuel and maintenance costs savings to cover the extra capital costs of the engine replacement?

And what was the weight difference between a power unit with an MTU engine and a power unit with a Valenta engine? That's probably on the interweb somewhere but I don't know where to look!

What about the VP185 re-engined power cars, understood they were possibly even better than MTU in terms of fuel consumption, anyone have any data to prove/disprove this?