Automotive gearbox for a boat?
Neil Brown
preventing you from fitting a heavy duty auto gearbox (e.g a commercial
vehicle box) on a marine engine? you've got reverse, and several
flavours of forward, for juggling torque against efficiency, or keeping
a reasonable load on the engine at low revs to keep the heat up, you'd
have(for example) a vertical brass foot pedal such as you'd see on old
trams or dockside cranes for braking. If assuming in normal use a ratio
of 1:1, and you size the thing properly (e.g. a van box on a 20hp marine
engine you'd think would last a while, and would cost very little) -
then what's to wear out other than bearings?
Of course you'd have to think ahead a bit more for slowing a boat down
but would that really be a problem?
Neil Brown
> Now this may seem like a crazy idea, but what would _really_ be
> preventing you from fitting a heavy duty auto gearbox (e.g a commercial
> vehicle box) on a marine engine? you've got reverse, and several
> flavours of forward, for juggling torque against efficiency, or keeping
> a reasonable load on the engine at low revs to keep the heat up, you'd
> have(for example) a vertical brass foot pedal such as you'd see on old
> trams or dockside cranes for braking.
-- should have said - this would of course form your clutch pedal
Phil Rushton
"Neil Brown" <_de1eteth!sbitt0rep...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:cdgkoo$p92$1...@sun-cc204.lut.ac.uk...
Back in the 60/70's a friend of mine had a Ford 4D in a tug - complete
with the 4 speed automotive gearbox. It worked fine and the choice
of 3rd or top gear was a bonus for river OR canal work. Reverse gear
was rarely used (the reduction was something in the order of 12:1?) - but
we just used horse towing techniques for stopping. In an emergency
the final resort for stopping was to run aground!
If it were possible to install a higher reverse gear set I don't see any
reason why your suggestion should not work fine - many of the automotive
boxes are more robust than some marine boxes.
I have always thought it would be a really useful option to have two or
three
different reduction ratios on the reduction box in marine installations -
e.g
2:1, 1.75:1 and 1.5:1 all in the same box.
Cheers
Phil
still dreaming
Bob Holmes
In olden days this was often done , mainly for economic reasons .
I think the main problem is that you need to use an intermediate gear to get
the right prop revs and the gearbox will not take kindly to running long
periods in one of these. You could use top gear , usually about 1:1 , or
direct drive with a "traditional" slow revving engine but bolting a Ford
gearbox to your National or Kelvin would be "looked down on" in some
circles :-)
You may be able to do without the clutch operation , there would n't be too
much crunching of gears - would the synchromesh help with this?
There is the added problem of the automotive box does not have a thrust
bearing on the output shaft , so you would have to fit one on the prop
shaft somewhere.
Now , if you wanted to talk about a diesel-electric transmission, that
offers some interesting possibilities with regard to engine types and
control equipment.
Bill
Chris Newport
> Now , if you wanted to talk about a diesel-electric transmission, that
> offers some interesting possibilities with regard to engine types and
> control equipment.
Diesel hydraulic makes more sense, you can have a hydraulic drive and a
separate hydraulically driven generator running at constant speed to get
your 50Hz power. The controls are simple and the diesel will automatically
run at any speed from tickover to full chat to maintain the hydraulic
pressure. This also avoids having an electric motor low down in the
bilge powering the prop, water and electricity should be kept as far
apart as possible.
--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.
timleech
wrote:
>Neil Brown wrote:
>
>> Neil Brown wrote:
>>
>> > Now this may seem like a crazy idea, but what would _really_ be
>> > preventing you from fitting a heavy duty auto gearbox (e.g a commercial
>> > vehicle box) on a marine engine? you've got reverse, and several
>> > flavours of forward, for juggling torque against efficiency, or keeping
>> > a reasonable load on the engine at low revs to keep the heat up, you'd
>> > have(for example) a vertical brass foot pedal such as you'd see on old
>> > trams or dockside cranes for braking.
>>
>> -- should have said - this would of course form your clutch pedal
>
>In olden days this was often done , mainly for economic reasons .
>I think the main problem is that you need to use an intermediate gear to get
>the right prop revs and the gearbox will not take kindly to running long
>periods in one of these. You could use top gear , usually about 1:1 , or
>direct drive with a "traditional" slow revving engine but bolting a Ford
>gearbox to your National or Kelvin would be "looked down on" in some
>circles :-)
>You may be able to do without the clutch operation , there would n't be too
>much crunching of gears - would the synchromesh help with this?
>There is the added problem of the automotive box does not have a thrust
>bearing on the output shaft , so you would have to fit one on the prop
>shaft somewhere.
There was someone who had a cottage industry in the 'sixties
'converting' automotive boxes to give useable ratios in both
directions.My guess is that he pulled them apart & manged to rearrange
the existing gears. Presumably long since given up/passed
on/whatever.
You are right, vehicle boxes are not really intended for continuous
duty in anything other than top gear (or maybe 4th and 5th on a modern
car box?).
I used to have a share in a Leeds & Liverpool Short Boat in which as
impoverished students we ran a Perkins P3 with its original van
gearbox, with reverse, at 6:1 reduction, as ahead gear. It got us
around, albeit slowly, for a year or so, & the engine actually died
before the gearbox! We did give up bothering with the clutch but that
wasn't very kind to the box <g>.
Cheers
Tim
Tim Leech
Dutton Dry-Dock
Traditional & Modern canal craft repairs
Pete C
How about a poly vee belt?
<http://fp.transdev.plus.com/pages/belts/poly_v/polyv_main.htm>
cheers,
Pete.
@ntlworld.com Rick
"Phil Rushton" <ca...@water.com> wrote in message
news:40fbded1$0$298$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> but we just used horse towing techniques for stopping. In an emergency
> the final resort for stopping was to run aground!
You put the horse in reverse?
How do you stop a horse drawn boat?
Peter A Forbes
>On Monday 19 July 2004 4:16 pm in uk.rec.waterways Bob Holmes wrote:
>
>> Now , if you wanted to talk about a diesel-electric transmission, that
>> offers some interesting possibilities with regard to engine types and
>> control equipment.
>
>Diesel hydraulic makes more sense, you can have a hydraulic drive and a
>separate hydraulically driven generator running at constant speed to get
>your 50Hz power. The controls are simple and the diesel will automatically
>run at any speed from tickover to full chat to maintain the hydraulic
>pressure. This also avoids having an electric motor low down in the
>bilge powering the prop, water and electricity should be kept as far
>apart as possible.
Why lose two lots of power in the double conversions?
Diesel electric is more efficient and offers more control options, less hassle
with connections and no leaks/oil coolers etc etc.
Look where locomotives went after the brief affair with hydraulics, although
smaller shunters still use hydraulic/mechanical transmissions.
You could bring the electric motor (or a hydraulic motor if you went that way)
out of the bilges on a toothed belt drive if you wanted to, there's not much in
it to raise the level of the drive and you can get hundreds of HP through a
toothed belt these days.
Peter
--
Peter & Rita Forbes
die...@easynet.co.uk
Engine pages for preservation info:
http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel
Malcolm N...
<die...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Why lose two lots of power in the double conversions?
>
>Diesel electric is more efficient and offers more control options, less hassle
>with connections and no leaks/oil coolers etc etc.
>
>Look where locomotives went after the brief affair with hydraulics, although
>smaller shunters still use hydraulic/mechanical transmissions.
>
Yes - but don't recent Sprinters had hydraulic transmissions, AFAIK -
there are no DEMU ?.
--
Malcolm -
[ on a recent canal boat trip 5 out of 6 crew persistently annoyed the
Capt by talking about railways practically every day for a week ! ]
--
Malcolm
Steam narrow boat President web site regularly updated
http://www.nb-president.org.uk/index.htm
Malcolm N...
wrote:
>
>
>How do you stop a horse drawn boat?
>
or an unpowered butty :-)
Strap it using bollards placed in strategic places for that very
purpose.
Now many sadly removed by BW.
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>How do you stop a horse drawn boat?
With a stop-rope?
bjg
Peter A Forbes
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:10:26 +0000 (UTC), Peter A Forbes
><die...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Why lose two lots of power in the double conversions?
>>
>>Diesel electric is more efficient and offers more control options, less hassle
>>with connections and no leaks/oil coolers etc etc.
>>
>>Look where locomotives went after the brief affair with hydraulics, although
>>smaller shunters still use hydraulic/mechanical transmissions.
>>
>
>
>Yes - but don't recent Sprinters had hydraulic transmissions, AFAIK -
>there are no DEMU ?.
>
>--
>Malcolm -
ZF BahnTeknik and the other company that makes rail transmissions (Wurth?) both
use a mechanical gearbox with torque converter and converter lock-up, much like
a car really.
Probably saying 'hydraulic transmission' is a complete misnomer as the actual
power is gearbox transmitted, only the changing of gears is hydraulically
actuated but electronically controlled.
The problems of shifting gears in 8 carriages at once is a bit mind-boggling!
but they do it:-
"ZF Bahntechnik GmbH can supply diesel railcar engine manufacturers with
complete systems comprising clutches, transmissions and electronic control
units. This is especially important when using transmissions in rail vehicles,
e.g. with diesel railcars, where each wagon has its own driveline. In this case,
a highly developed electronic control unit has to perfectly synchronize several
transmissions in line with gear change operations to the millisecond."
We are at the Railtex 2004 exhibition at the NEC in November with our charger
products, I'll get the stand details if anyone is interested, and we should have
some complementary tickets available as well.
Andy B
Brian J Goggin <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> typed:
Same as with a motor. you reverse the motive force. Get the horse to pull it
in the opposite direction.
--
Andy B
for personal replies, given email address will return to sender. Please
use Andrew<full-stop>Belton<curly-at>btopenworld<full-stop>com instead.
Bob Holmes
> In news:a6aof01dp1s40f2g8...@4ax.com,
> Brian J Goggin <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> typed:
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:06:54 +0100, "Rick" <aartyy @ntlworld.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> How do you stop a horse drawn boat?
> >
> > With a stop-rope?
> >
> > bjg
>
> Same as with a motor. you reverse the motive force. Get the horse to pull it
> in the opposite direction.
That's rubbish! Doing that you will very likely drag the horse into the cut,
snap the towline , or break the swingletree
As somebody else commented , you can use a strapping post , next best is
mooring bollard , tree, fence post or in an emergency, the lock ladder hand
rails. If none of these are available being a human strapping post is an
option.
Bill
Jonathan Hodgson
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:45:38 +0100, Chris Newport <m...@see-my-sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Diesel hydraulic makes more sense, you can have a hydraulic drive and a
>>separate hydraulically driven generator running at constant speed to get
<snip>
> Why lose two lots of power in the double conversions?
<snip>
> Look where locomotives went after the brief affair with hydraulics, although
> smaller shunters still use hydraulic/mechanical transmissions.
The Western Region's 'Hydraulics' (actually borrowed German
technology) used hydro_dynamic_ transmissions - i.e., a torque
converter plus a four-speed (IIRC) epicylic, automatic transmission -
very much like an auto 'box in a car.
AFAIK, the main reason these light-weight and effective locos were
phased out was standardisation, along with their need for a high
degree of cleanliness during maintenance - not any inherent lack of
performance (the 'Westerns' could start heavy stone trains, or reach
the ton on an express service, with equal ease).
What Chris was suggesting (if I've got my attributions right) is a
hydro_static_ transmission - commonly used on things like garden
tractors, skid steer loaders and other industrial stuff. These are a
completely different animal, and are indeed quite horribly
inefficient.
Personally I'm pondering a 'modern steam' energy system for a nb, in
which the boiler provides all the heat and power needed (more for the
hell of it, and the torque and slow rhythm of a steam engine, than for
efficiency) - but my second choice would be a mild hybrid
diesel-electric system, with a set of traction batteries buffering the
demand on the genset :-)
Back to the subject line, I wonder if you could use an auto 'box from
a front engine / RWD car, maybe with the torque converter and the
parking pawl removed. This would give you a reverse closer to 3:1 or
4:1 than 12:1, and depending on engine and prop could probably be used
in second or third gear most of the time. A rough guess suggests
about 300 Nm at the crankshaft of a nb engine, so you'd need something
out of a big old Merc or Beemer (ZF 4HPxx?), perhaps, to have enough
spare torque rating to live...
Jonny
Nick Atty
wrote:
>Neil Brown wrote:
>
>> Neil Brown wrote:
>>
>> > Now this may seem like a crazy idea, but what would _really_ be
>> > preventing you from fitting a heavy duty auto gearbox (e.g a commercial
>> > vehicle box) on a marine engine? you've got reverse, and several
>> > flavours of forward, for juggling torque against efficiency, or keeping
>> > a reasonable load on the engine at low revs to keep the heat up, you'd
>> > have(for example) a vertical brass foot pedal such as you'd see on old
>> > trams or dockside cranes for braking.
>>
>> -- should have said - this would of course form your clutch pedal
>
>In olden days this was often done , mainly for economic reasons .
From "Narrow Boat":
"when converted she was fitted with a 'Model T' Ford marine conversion
which utilises the original epicyclic gearbox as a marine reverse gear"
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
Adrian Stott
<nos...@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:16:49 +0100, Bob Holmes <bho...@cs.man.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Neil Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Neil Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> > Now this may seem like a crazy idea, but what would _really_ be
>>> > preventing you from fitting a heavy duty auto gearbox (e.g a commercial
>>> > vehicle box) on a marine engine? you've got reverse, and several
>>> > flavours of forward, for juggling torque against efficiency, or keeping
>>> > a reasonable load on the engine at low revs to keep the heat up, you'd
>>> > have(for example) a vertical brass foot pedal such as you'd see on old
>>> > trams or dockside cranes for braking.
>>>
>>> -- should have said - this would of course form your clutch pedal
>>
>>In olden days this was often done , mainly for economic reasons .
>
>From "Narrow Boat":
>
>"when converted she was fitted with a 'Model T' Ford marine conversion
>which utilises the original epicyclic gearbox as a marine reverse gear"
When I bought my barge, it was powered by a DAF 100 HP 6-cylinder
engine that some clown had mounted halfway along the barge. It still
had its original truck engine, permanently in 3rd gear, and halfway
along the lo-ong prop shaft was a forward-reverse 1:1 marine gearbox.
What a disaster.
However, I think there is no problem in principle with using an
automotive gearbox. I know of another, older, barge that had an
engine with a fore-aft box, but to change it you had to use a clutch
pedal in the wheel house.
Adrian
John Lee
"Adrian Stott" <ba...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:o8msg0dcpsumad6j6...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>> > Now this may seem like a crazy idea, but what would _really_ be
> >>> > preventing you from fitting a heavy duty auto gearbox (e.g a
commercial
> >>> > vehicle box) on a marine engine? you've got reverse, and several
> >>> > flavours of forward, for juggling torque against efficiency, or
keeping
> >>> > a reasonable load on the engine at low revs to keep the heat up,
you'd
> >>> > have(for example) a vertical brass foot pedal such as you'd see on
old
> >>> > trams or dockside cranes for braking.
> >>>
> >>> -- should have said - this would of course form your clutch pedal
>
car engines (Austin sevens and Morris eights were favourites) with their
original gearboxes. The trouble was that you either used first gear to go
ahead, with the consequent noise, inefficiency and wear, or you had very
little astern power.
John.