Why isn't manual transmission used on railway vehicles?

On Jul 10, 1:55 am, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.> wrote:
> >> Some older diesels had a cold start knob that gave a richer mixture.

> >Ummm ... richer mixture ?

> I think Tony is referring to older technology which rather crudely
> just injected extra fuel into the inlet manifold, as described under
> "Cold Start Injectors"



Ohhh .. . that real old stuff ... sorry I was not going that far back.

But if one does look that far back, one of the reasons was that diesel
fuel was slow to evolve a refining standard ... older engines clagged
anyway because of fuel variance.

--
Nick

> My Peugeot is much easier to get into reverse having previouly
> been driving forward than my girlfriend's Honda, where you have to be
> stationary for several seconds before it will go in.

Some of the bubble cars in the 50s and 60s had no reverse gear but were
capable of reversing by the simple expedient of running the engine in
reverse?
--
Bruce Fletcher
(Remove dentures to reply)

On 10 jul, 10:33, Stimpy <stimpy199...m> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:24:03 +0100, NM wrote
>
>
>
> > The early diesel was 2 litre and available almost from inception in
> > 1948 the petrol and the diesel engine were the same castings, crank.
> > etc.
> > at the introduction of the 86 inch wheelbase series one both motors
> > were increased to 2.25
> > NM
>
> ISTR reading that the 80/86 inch Diesels were third-party conversions
> (Turners of Wolverhampton?).  
>
> The first official Diesel was the 88-inch 2-litre in 1957.
>
> ...BICBW :-)

That is possibly the way things were, I had an 80inch and was offered
a diesel motor to replace the petrol, that was 2 litre thus I knew
about the castings being the same.
NM (300tdi Defender and Disco for ér indoors)

In message <rZadnSaaP9x7UujVnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@bt.com>, "Bruce Fletcher
(Stronsay, Orkney)" <ricardianteeth@> writes
>Some of the bubble cars in the 50s and 60s had no reverse gear but were
>capable of reversing by the simple expedient of running the engine in
>reverse?
The Messerschmitt was like that, if I remember correctly (though I'm
very unsure) I think it had a 191cc Sachs engine that could be run in
both directions.
--
Clive

In message <0001HW.C49B8FFF0A797C63F0407648@news.eclipse.co.u k>, Stimpy
<stimpy1997ukm> writes
>...and some (Isetta?) had no reverse gear and no way of reversing at all -
>other than by being pushed.
>
>Given that the door was at the front, it was never a good idea to park one
>nose-in to a wall :-)
I remember Dave Allen saying that most bubble car drivers died in their
cars after driving into their garages then not being able to get out:-)
--
Clive

Tony Polson wrote:
> "Mortimer" <me@> wrote:
>>Nowadays I drive a diesel so the concept of a choke (manual or automatic)
>>and the fade of power on acceleration while the engine is cold are a thing
>>of the past.
>
>
> Some older diesels had a cold start knob that gave a richer mixture.

Diesels don't have a mixture. What enters the cylinders through the
intake valve is air, possibly compressed with a turbo. Because the
cycle relies on the temperature rise from compression to cause the fuel
to auto-ignite, if the engine is too cold, it can chill the air so that
ignition does not occur. For this purpose, engines have glow plugs -
electric heaters that preheat the cylinders.

I've never run a diesel road vehicle, but for the marine engines (on
yachts) that I've played with, you run the glow plugs for a couple of
seconds before trying to start in cold weather. That generally does the
trick for the engines I've needed to use. Then you check the exhaust to
make sure the cooling water is coming out.

Robin

On Jul 10, 9:50 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:

> D7666 <d7...@m> wrote:
> >Ohhh .. . that real old stuff ... sorry I was not going that far back.


> Thanks for that, Nick. :-(

LOL

Sorry was not intended in that way !!!

--
Nick

On 12 Jul, 12:05, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

> I'm almost worried I know this/can remember it but - the 965 in the 4x4
> Panda wasn't an overbore of the 903. The 903 was the little Lampredi-
> designed engine from the FIAT 127 (and, IIRC, from rear-engined FIATs
> like the 850cc and the 133 before that) - a lovely little engine, but
> the 965 was an Autobianchi engine, used in the A10 (a delightful car,
> but never sold in the UK, unless you count Gibraltar). FIAT got the
> 965 (along with the A10 and a few other things) when they took
> Autobianchi over in (at a guess) the late 1960s.
>
> That's probably enough Italian cars for a while..
>

Not quite, I had an autobianchi A10 for a while and I agree it was a
cracker.

Whilst on Italian motors an Alfa Bertone GTV 1560, 1600 junior, 1750
and 2000 versions. bloody good drivers cars.
NM

On 4 Jul, 12:32, ab...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> On 4 Jul, 11:26, thagor2...@ wrote:
>
> > Manual gearshifts are popular with trucks because they're fuel
> > efficient compared to automatics. How come their not used on the
> > railways as far as I know? Is it the extra complexity of having bogies
> > that rules it out or the huge clutch that would be required especially
> > with locomotives or is there another reason?
>
> Firstly because most diesel locomotives are electric transmission.
>
> Secondly, because the size of the gearbox on DMUs / WR diesel
> hydraulics is a damn sight larger than a cars
>
> Thirdly, if they had manual transmission, how would you change gear on
> a power-twin DMU or larger? Signal box sized levers and rodding?
>
> I expect it's a complexity thing. Can you imagine pulling away from
> The Cross being sent every which way by the points whilst also
> changing up gears?
>
> Manual gearboxes are used on small diesel mechanical shunters -
> especially historic narrow gauge ones. I've had a lot of fun with a
> four-speed air-shift gearbox on an old mines Hunslet diesel. In
> addition, the simplese type of motive power, the Motor Rail Simplex
> has two big levers, forward-reverse and first-second gears.

I think the ex County Donegal railcars [now on Isle of Man?] have
manual gearboxes.

On Jul 12, 11:24 am, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
much the 96 replacement, and are a bit more common).
> A 90 with the 150LPT would be - nice.
>

With 180K miles on it and still perfect, I sold my 1984 99 --- a move
I now regret, but it was a 2-door and awkward with two small children
--- to a guy in Nottingham who was going to graft the engine from a
16v Turbo into it.

ian