Vintage railway film - The Fell Locomotive - Shell Historical Film Archive - 1951
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- This film introduces the innovative Fell Locomotive, a diesel-powered train with a unique transmission design. In 1951, this locomotive, named after its designer Colonel Fell, emerged as a new approach to main-line traction.
The Fell Locomotive, on the other hand, employs a direct diesel engine with a novel transmission system inspired by a car's differential. It uses three differentials connected to four engines. Initially, only one engine is engaged, with a 4:1 gear ratio for smooth starting. As speed increases, additional engines are activated, resulting in a seamless transition through all speeds, achieving a final ratio of 1:1 with all four engines running.
The greatest unsolved mysteries of the universe:
1. Why is there an imbalance of matter and antimatter.
2. Where are all the aliens.
3. How the Fell Locomotive worked.
Number 3 was explained. If matter and antimatter were in balance there is none of either. As for number 2, why would they want go visit here?
No. The greatest unsolved mystery of the universe is: "What goes through the mind of a woman".
Number 3, it's very simple compared with some other machinery.
the engine/gearbox noises must have been intense for the operators.😬
Fascinating film! Colonel Fell must have been very well connected for BR to have wasted scarce post war development money on this nonsense. Rightly consigned to the dust bin of history.
I'm Not being funny but this is a brilliant example of how we lost everything.
"An exhibition of the most up to date designs?" Was it really up to date . No, it was a perambulating useless load of junk. Six (I ask you) engines in a single loco. It was a joke. Even then one could see how bad our engineering prowess was falling behind the other countries of the world. Ivatt should have known better. Fell was a dreamer
And it looked like perambulating junk too!
Oh dear, perhaps it is you that have the problem. Whilst this prototype appears complicated it was a fine example of engineering. Four 500hp prime movers would ensure that unless all four fail the locomotive and its train would be able to limp to the next station (try that with 10000 or any of the other early diesels just like steam locomotives were often able to do). Two, by having two 150hp engines powering the charge air for the prime movers means that none of their power is lost for this purpose. Plus it was 13 ton lighter than the Class 44 (which had the same overall traction power). It was lighter than contemporary diesel-electric express passenger locomotives in the UK (10000 was 7 tons heavier and 10201 was 13 tons heavier).
@@neiloflongbeck5705 It may have been a fine example of engineering but it never made into production though, did it.
@@levelcrossing150 true, but not every prototype ends up in production. Just ask BRCW about Lion.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 . . . . usually for sound reasons.
...so the loco actually had 6 engines.
Weighing 20 tons more than a future BR type 3 diesel, with exactly half the power.
Little wonder it didn't catch on....
IIRC the problem was that the gearbox was somewhat pointless... Sure in low gear you get a 4:1 ratio but you only have 1 engine running, so the available torque still isn't great. The fix (using that word lightly) was to add two auxiliary engines to "turbocharge" the diesels and provide more torque at lower RPMs.
The point of this thing was fuel efficiency, though. I wonder how it fared on that score?
Superb video but look at this loco ,a mixture of steam design ,four engines and a over complicated ,although amazing engineering skill design doomed esp' when the "twins" were already running
Diesel-electric transmission gets approximately 81% of engine power to the rail for example the Ivatt "Twins" had 1600hp of engine power but only 1295hp got to the rails a loss of 19%. Whereas the inventor claimed lower energy losses. In reality in turned out that only 70% of engine power reach the rails (1400hp out of 2000hp). But it did have advantages over diesel-electrics of the day in having better low-speed torque.
Did they realise all those steamers would be scrap in 18 years ?
Calypso music😂
@@simonf8902 we had plenty of coal, we still do, but almost no oil which is why we stuck with coal for so long. It was only after The Great Smog of 1954 did things change.
Always horrifying to see machining work being undertaken by staff without safety goggles . . .
Another example of British Rail at the time trying to reinvent the wheel when proven off the shelf designs were available from North American manufacturers.
While that may be true, we should have had proven off the shelf designs of our own!
@@damonrobus-clarke533 Britain did, in the steam era. Britain hardly put a foot wrong with steam loco design. But diesels, well, the 1950's era is best forgotten.
The noise 😢
WHAT? 💥👂💥
A unique vision into the past. Always enjoy visions into the past. Thank you. Cheers mates! 🇬🇧🙂👍🇺🇸
I don't get the scourging negativity. Just life in the Internet I suppose. Building one to prove it out feels like a reasonable test. We didn't know which design concept would win. Diesel electric had another energy conversion stage. Deltics were very powerful and compact but fragile. We already knew what we were doing with steam but it couldn't endure. Willingness to experiment is a virtue.
The year before (1950) America has built its last steam locomotive. And diesel (electric in small quantities was already around) was taking over rapidly. By 1960, steam was gone. One might say that British Rail should've spent some time across the Pond looking at EMD, Alco, etc. But they had to deal with the large steam locomotive establishment as well as that of the coal industry and nothing could be done for it. And look at the end of this film as who sponsored and paid for it. You can bet that Shell wanted to sell BR a lot of diesel fuel.
By 1960 steam was NOT gone. More like eight years later.
I believe that when it actually worked its performance was good.
It was a good experiment but no more than that as it had no chance of beating most of the BR Standard steam loco's that came after it [especially the class 5's & the 9F's] & was out classed by the Southern's powerful West Country, Battle Of Britain & Merchant Navy Pacific's not to mention the class 40's & the Peaks as well as the type 4 Diesel Hydraulic's.
History speaks for itself: Built at Derby Works being completed 12/50 & allocated to Derby MPD 2/52 & sold to BR 5/55 but withdrawn from Derby MPD 11/58 & scrapped at Derby Works 2/60.
A real pity that the locomotive was not preserved.
Interesting. I've heard of the Fell loco but didnt know anything about it, not even from the many books I've read. Its goid to see during construction too. Thank you 👍👍👍
So beuaty idea! In my country, Argentina we haven't locomotives. I though many times that we can acoplate 4 truck's engines of 500 HP instead of a tradirional locomotive engine. They can be acoplated by means of an hydraulic system, not a gear box. This video demostrate that 4 motors could be an efficiently solution. Thank you!
“And coal supplies are a serious problem in Britain today” -1951 Narrator
Says the people who ran steam all the way up to 1968. 🤣🤣🤣
No driver these days would put up with the noise level those engines produced.
Instead, we spread it among the passengers.
Thank you for this .A great video of the past
I have always been amazed by the fact that electrified railway lines in Great Britain are less widespread than in other countries. Electrification may have been expensive but Britain was supposedly an economic power.
Not after the second world war. When Germany invaded countries it stripped out the assets of each country and took the materials/money back to Germany. When Britain won it had to pay back the US for lend lease, Russia refused to do so and kept all the spoils it captured from Eastern Europe. In other words Britain played fair and lost out massively.
After WW2, the railway infrastructure in Europe was pretty much destroyed. European countries rebuilding their railways decided electricity was the way to go. In Britain, the railways were run down due to lack of investment and man power during the war years, but unlike Europe, did not need rebuilding and as coal was plentiful, Britain stayed with steam locomotion.
This has already been put up by Shell Films.
interesting design
Unlike some experimental designs, this one did in fact function as designed. However, it was an ergonomic disaster. You can hear a hint of just how LOUD it was when operating at low speeds, as the "small bus-type engines" then had to work at maximum output to feed one of the main engines with high-pressure air, which is what it needed to turn at slow speeds in a direct-drive system.
An obvious improvement in this area would have been to fit the smaller engines with heavy reduction gearing and the same type of fluid couplings used in the contemporary DMUs, then feed them into the main gearbox somehow. The charge air for the main diesels could then be obtained by conventional turbocharging. This would have made the loco only slightly louder than a DMU when idling or moving slowly.
The maintenance costs would have been prohibitive no doubt. Good to see and hear the Golden Years of BR.
@@Kromaatiksebut would have reduced the horsepower needed for traction, so the compromise was deemed acceptable. Plus each non-traction engine supplied air to at least 2 of the traction engines.
14:30 "The future will decide to what extent she will replace her rivals" replace future with common sense 😂.. While war torn Europe invested in electrification Britain wasted money on this rubbish..
Something wrong there, with supposedly real engineers like Ivatt and his colleagues taking such an unsound concept so seriously - something that any bright thirteen-year-old learning physics and mechanics would reject. Perhaps Colonel Fell had more influence than was healthy. Probably a friend of a politician.
Brilliant, thank you.
That has to be the ugliest diesel locomotive ever! Great bit of period film though, many thanks!❤
Backward Britain didn't electrify like the rest of Europe
It's strange to think of a locomotive that looks (a bit) like countless others from the '60s and yet the bottom half looks like a steam engine.
gear box? nah. what then? loads more engines of coarse.
Is this the same fell who invented the Fell toothed rail system?
Is that Milford tunnel at the start?
Shugborough Tunnel (West Portal)
@@harrygardner1525 *Shugborough
@@1258-Eckhart Thanks, edited & amended.
Good eye!!
My goodness, how it has changed today...
So to start a 1.000 ton freight train, you have 500 hp running through a hydrostatic clutch to do the job. Even if the engine was up to the job, you'd end up cooking the clutch. It's the same principle as a moped, which never has 1.000 tons to lift.
One point nought nought nought tons? That isn't much. Or did you mean 1,000 tons? COMMA!
The hydrostatic clutch is known by engineering people as a Foltinger coupler and was used a lot in English locomotives in the 1950's and in automotive transmissions up to the 1970's in different configurations . There's no clutch lining to burn out .
@@Mercmad I said "hydrostatic", because it was not used as a torque converter unlike on hydraulic locos. The transmission element is still oil, though, thus "hydrostatic". I wish they had hung a 1,000 ton freight onto it though, that experiment I would have paid to see (not that I was around at the time).
Extraordinary. If the engines always engaged in the same order then No1 always worked longer than No4 and so on…how could maintenance be scheduled that would mitigate No1 always needing more servicing than the others? Unless I’m wrong this flaw was either not seen or ignored. What a vast waste of money and resources, otherwise the whole world would have binned diesel-electric traction.
Doing the same now but with diesel electric locomotives , they have up to 6 smaller engines and using the least amount of engines to satisfy power demand , so the basic idea was good
All engines ran whether they were being used or not, so their hours would be the same. No reason why the engines had to be engaged in order unless there was a sequential lock intalled.
Any engine could be used to start from rest, so any engine could be "number 1" in the context of your argument.