I thought that transmission by oil was called "hydrostatic" transmission. Where the engine drives a pump and the pressurised oil drives a hydraulic motor. Like on some combined harvesters and earthmoving vehicles.

Surely diesel hydraulic was like an engine driven automatic gearbox with torque converters (more than one) and cardan shafts (propshafts !) driving the wheelsets through a reduction gearbox.

Have we an "expert" to confirm this ??????

The western all over, they always thought themselves superior it appears.
An attitude that was still all too common until comparitively recently.
The Hymeks were pretty little engines though, they don,t look dated even now.
I believe the diesel hydraulics revved a lot higher than diesel electrics, this may well have been one of the reasons for their demise, since it would follow that would wear very quickly?
Just a thought.

There were such things as torque converter locomotives; Canadian Pacific had some. But I assumed, because they bothered to call them that, they were distinct from other diesel-hydraulics such as Krauss-Maffei ML4000s.

Taken from an article about Warship class 42's

Class 42 Details:

Introduced: 1958 Engines: Two Bristol Siddeley-Maybach MD 650 V-type of 1152bhp at 1530rpm. Weight: 78 tons Maximum Tractive Effort: 52400lb Transmission: Two Mekydro type K104 hydraulic transmissions containing permanently filled single torque convertor and four speed automatic gearbox. Driving Wheel Diameter: 3' 3½"

Aha ! I found this description of the transmission on the class 52 (Westerns) and it illustrates quite clearly the way the transmission is laid out. Now I do understand !!:D :D

http://www.westernloco.com/media/cut-away.swf

Hold the cursor over each number to get a description.



Philip

Well there you have it very good pre65
ccmmick.

Now what about Gas Turbines
I bought a book a couple of years ago on Gas Turbines very interesting they were a bit before my time but they fascinate me.
ccmmick.

I agree, the Western Region, as was the GWR, were not frightenend to be different, with diesel-hydraulic transmissions being successful in Europe, why did the WR have so many problems with their own machines? Was this merely a lack of understanding by our engineers, or was it with the designers?
Any how, the truth of the matter was that, in my opinion, they were a sight to behold, and the Westerns especially were more streamlined than most designs of their day in that they had basically the same profile as their coaching stock. Incidentally, when I was a young lad I had a small model railway and had two Hymeks, two Warships and a Western, but had to part with them. Funny thing hindsight, now I have a son who is into trains, I wish I had kept them as we are currently building a new layout, they would ahvbe looked great on it!