Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- From: kevallsop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
On 18 Mar, 21:41, D7666 <d7...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 16, 10:28 am, kevall...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 16 Mar, 09:09, "Peter Fox" <peterfoxd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Class 47 used the body of FALCON and the innards of LION. So a Class 47That's a bit questionable.
is a lion in a falcon's clothing.
Indeed ... but ....
While the fact that the 47 body originated
from Loughborough meant that similar construction techniques to those
of Falcon were used,
Were they ?
I thought they were very different.
Surely a 47 is an integral monocoque, whereas Falcon is a conventional
underframe design more like a 31 if one must compare it with a
Luffbruff product. (All that explains the different grille layout). I
might be wrong - relevant books not on hand right now.
I think you may, indeed be wrong. If you look at teh grilles on
Falcon you will note various diagonal members behind them. These seem
to suggest a somewhat stretched Class 47 type body.
a production Class 47 shares, or much more
closely approximates, many overall dimensions with Lion. Length,
bogie wheelbase and wheel diameter are the same,
Mainly becuase of the BTC 1960 spec dictated certain parameters: BTC
did not actually go into the detail precisely but there were certain
general specs that meant whatever any maker offered would be similar
in terms of wheel size etc because if you specifiy a certain installed
engine power + a certain max speed + a certain axle weight + and a
certain maximum speed, your drawing boards tend to the same result.
True enough. Falcon's wheels were 2" smaller than a 47's (or Lion's).
BTCdid however specify cab layout in some detail - thats why Falcon /
Lion / Duff tend to look the same at a glance - only EE bucked that as
is well known to speed up getting a prototype out they used a Deltic
shell for DP2.
Much as they specified the AC electric cabs, right down to the blue
Formica on the driving desks.
Falcon was also noteworthy as providing a useful comparison with which
to judge the efficiency (or lack thereof) of the Class 52s. When
operating alongside them it was possible to compare the relative
maintenance costs of hydraulic and electric transmissions using the
same engines.
It did and I'm sure it yielded interesting data - but that was not the
original intention.
No, I wasn't suggesting that it was. But the realisation that such a
useful comparison was available must have been a pleasant one.
This thread has reminded yet again that I must get out my NBL Type 4
tender response documents and get an item in a mag. NBL offered the
same engine options in a shell that looks like a stretched 84 (even
with oval buffers and the same cab style).
Given the robust way that 84s were built, the body design might not
have needed a lot of alteration to take a diesel engine. That having
been said, NBL's record as a diesel builder wasn't a happy one, so
perhaps it was good thing that it didn't happen.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- From: D7666
- Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- References:
- Help, please, re "Lion"
- From: Bob Martin
- Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- From: Jeremy Double
- Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- From: kevallsop
- Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- From: Bob Martin
- Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- From: Peter Fox
- Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- From: kevallsop
- Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- From: D7666
- Help, please, re "Lion"
- Prev by Date: Re: Tram-Train trials?
- Next by Date: Re: Burnley to Manchester via Tod
- Previous by thread: Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- Next by thread: Re: Help, please, re "Lion"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|