K2

[Fidelity]

Hi all

What's the K2 like for day to day running? Noise? Maintenance & ease of service etc....  TIA

[NB Alnwick]

The K series engines are magnificent. Easy to set up, easy to maintain and, when properly adjusted, easy to start and run on a daily basis with excellent fuel consumption and minimal exhaust smoke. All of which is excellent for cruising. The K series engine needs to be properly installed and mounted directly to heavy steel or oak bearers that are secured directly to the baseplate and it is best if it is matched to a proper Kelvin gearbox.

We have a K3 in our boat and it probably would not suit everyone, so I will list the possible disadvantages:

• A big slow running engine is not the best choice for charging batteries and providing electricity. We carry a portable generator for topping up the batteries.
• At certain engine RPM there will be vibration sufficient to cause a nuisance.
• The engine bangs and clatters (like any diesel) and this is louder than the exhaust note (which is quite soft) - we do not have a silencer fitted.
• A Kelvin needs a big screw - at least 24" in diameter and this means that the boat will be deeper in the water than most others. This hasn't been too much of a problem to us but it may prevent the navigation of some shallow waterways.
• Kelvin engines are usually fitted with a 24 Volt starter motor and this may mean that the whole boat is wired for 24 Volts - again not a problem to us but it may limit the choice of equipment. I would avoid a Kelvin that was not fitted with an electric start motor as original equipment.

I hope this helps - you can hear our's running here:

https://www.grahamoliver.com/alnwick/alnwick.htm#engine

 

[Fidelity]

Wow, thanks for the information, very informative. Yes, the draft thing maybe an issue. Looking at a Northwich trader and can't seem to find a definitive regarding the draft etc... but loving the vintage engines, I'm pretty mechanical & electrical so see it as an additional thing for me to enjoy. Many thanks for your response, its appreciated 🙏 

[agg221]

22 hours ago, NB Alnwick said:

The K series engines are magnificent. Easy to set up, easy to maintain and, when properly adjusted, easy to start and run on a daily basis with excellent fuel consumption and minimal exhaust smoke. All of which is excellent for cruising. The K series engine needs to be properly installed and mounted directly to heavy steel or oak bearers that are secured directly to the baseplate and it is best if it is matched to a proper Kelvin gearbox.

We have a K3 in our boat and it probably would not suit everyone, so I will list the possible disadvantages:

• A big slow running engine is not the best choice for charging batteries and providing electricity. We carry a portable generator for topping up the batteries.
• At certain engine RPM there will be vibration sufficient to cause a nuisance.
• The engine bangs and clatters (like any diesel) and this is louder than the exhaust note (which is quite soft) - we do not have a silencer fitted.
• A Kelvin needs a big screw - at least 24" in diameter and this means that the boat will be deeper in the water than most others. This hasn't been too much of a problem to us but it may prevent the navigation of some shallow waterways.
• Kelvin engines are usually fitted with a 24 Volt starter motor and this may mean that the whole boat is wired for 24 Volts - again not a problem to us but it may limit the choice of equipment. I would avoid a Kelvin that was not fitted with an electric start motor as original equipment.

I hope this helps - you can hear our's running here:

https://www.grahamoliver.com/alnwick/alnwick.htm#engine

 

Graham has direct experience of the K but most of his comments apply to pretty much any vintage engine running in an engine room. Similar comments would apply to our J2. We draw 3'1" and have made it to the end of the Llangollen feeder so draft hasn't yet proved to be too much of a problem (although the occasional bit of hauling over the shallows was needed up the feeder, but that is nominally limited to 2'3").

 

I have managed to deal with a lot of the annoyance of the vibration which happens at certain RPM. Some of it is about finding the thing that rattles and fixing it down harder, but our whole cabin roof vibrated at certain revs. Having noticed that a friend's boat with a Gardner 2LW and a wooden cabin did not vibrate at all, I have started adding wooden 'cabin frames' internally which have a huge effect on damping the vibration. These are glued in with a high strength polyurethane construction adhesive which gives excellent bond strength and a bit of toughness.

 

If what you are looking at is a Northwich Trader I wouldn't have too many concerns - the boat is basically designed and built around the engine.

 

Alec

Edited November 4, 2023 by agg221

[NB Alnwick]

1 hour ago, Fidelity said:

Looking at a Northwich trader and can't seem to find a definitive regarding the draft etc...

 

Phil Trotter at R. W. Davis told me that the designed draft is 30 inches. However, in practice, this is nearer to 36 inches when underway.

It also depends on how much extra stuff you have aboard - a full coal box, a full diesel tank, etc. etc. all add to the draft.

[alan_fincher]

1 hour ago, agg221 said:

Graham has direct experience of the K but most of his comments apply to pretty much any vintage engine running in an engine room.

I can't really fully agree with that statement.

 

Few of the many types of "vintage" two cylinder engines fitted to narrow boats develop power that comes close to a K2.

 

From memory a K2 develops around 44HP, that being typically twice that of many other engines, which are often rated roundabout the 22HP mark.

 

An engine bed that is suitable for (say) a Lister JP2 or a Gardner 2LW may well prove under-engineered for a Kelvin K2.

 

The only engine bed I have ever had a look at that was constructed to be man enough for a K2 is a massive piece f engineering that makes the engine bed in either of my historic boats look puny by comparison.

[MtB]

25 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

An engine bed that is suitable for (say) a Lister JP2 or a Gardner 2LW may well prove under-engineered for a Kelvin K2.

 

 

Totally unsuitable, always. As the K series engines (and probably all Kelvin diesels) uniquely require transverse engine beds.

 

 

 

(Cue a long list of posters coming up with other engines also needing transverse engine beds, lol!)

 

 

[agg221]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

I can't really fully agree with that statement.

 

Few of the many types of "vintage" two cylinder engines fitted to narrow boats develop power that comes close to a K2.

 

From memory a K2 develops around 44HP, that being typically twice that of many other engines, which are often rated roundabout the 22HP mark.

 

An engine bed that is suitable for (say) a Lister JP2 or a Gardner 2LW may well prove under-engineered for a Kelvin K2.

 

The only engine bed I have ever had a look at that was constructed to be man enough for a K2 is a massive piece f engineering that makes the engine bed in either of my historic boats look puny by comparison.

It's a valid point that the K2 is twice the hp of most other vintage twins, and that the installation requirements need to take that into account, but Graham's comments weren't that specific. All slow running twins will cause vibration, make battery charging a bit more complex and need a big prop, hence deep draft. They are also all (with the possible exception of Gardners) relatively simple and easy to set up and maintain, hence my comment that in terms of living with an installed traditional engine there isn't much difference between them (assuming they are properly installed in the first place, which whilst different in the detail would be a common requirement for any engine).

 

One point of genuine difference with the K is that as originally specified it did exclusively use 24V starting whereas 12V or 24V were optional on most other engines. However, there are many Kelvin Js, Lister JPs and Gardner LWs with the same basic BS5 starter motor, some using 12V and some 24V, so 24V charging/starting has established solutions, although as Graham points out, if that has been addressed with 24V electrics throughout it is a bit less convenient. It is perfectly possible to charge 24V one side, 12V the other side on a split charge system (a friend's boat has this) but personally I prefer mechanics to electrics so will switch mine to a 12V system throughout. I would hazard a fairly educated guess that high CCA batteries were not available when Ks were being manufactured and that actually you could start one on 12V if you fitted a suitable battery and cables, but they might be rather heavy!

 

Btw, the recommended installation for all Kelvins, right down to the 7hp E2 petrol/paraffin, is a transverse engine bed. I quote the Kelvin Ricardo Petrol/Paraffin service manual: *75. ENGINE FOUNDATION.— All Kelvin models are designed to rest on two transverse bearers (longitudinal bearers are not suitable). The bearers must be of hardwood and should rest direct on the planking clear of ribs. In boats having only steam-bent ribs the bearers must run up the bilge to the height of the flywheel centre, but in boats with grown frames the bearers may be straight on the upper surface. The bearers should be fastened from outside with brass screws and drawn hard down to the keel with a proper brass screw bolt which should be tightened once a year as the wood shrinks. 8 levelling washers were supplied with the engine. One at least should be below each foot to prevent it sinking into the wood.

 

Alec

Edited November 4, 2023 by agg221

[David Mack]

30 minutes ago, agg221 said:

Btw, the recommended installation for all Kelvins, right down to the 7hp E2 petrol/paraffin, is a transverse engine bed. I quote the Kelvin Ricardo Petrol/Paraffin service manual: *75. ENGINE FOUNDATION.— All Kelvin models are designed to rest on two transverse bearers (longitudinal bearers are not suitable). The bearers must be of hardwood and should rest direct on the planking clear of ribs. In boats having only steam-bent ribs the bearers must run up the bilge to the height of the flywheel centre, but in boats with grown frames the bearers may be straight on the upper surface. The bearers should be fastened from outside with brass screws and drawn hard down to the keel with a proper brass screw bolt which should be tightened once a year as the wood shrinks. 8 levelling washers were supplied with the engine. One at least should be below each foot to prevent it sinking into the wood.

But how does that relate to installation in a welded (or rivetted) steel narrow boat?

[agg221]

5 hours ago, David Mack said:

But how does that relate to installation in a welded (or rivetted) steel narrow boat?

 

Kelvin did not appear to envisage this being a question that would be asked when these engines were being manufactured. The general reckoning is that the Kelvins were too expensive for that application. The only original installation I am aware of during the period of manufacture was in Joel and that was a Kelvin Ricardo petrol/paraffin twin.

 

In practical terms, I would take it that the primary bearers on which the engine sits should always be transverse, but that the lower stiffness of the flat baseplate in a narrowboat would require additional stiffening - probably using attachment to the sides and extending fore and aft to spread the load. I am sure if you looked at a Northwich Trader you would find a good solution, since excessive vibration does not appear to be something that owners report.

 

Alec

Edited November 4, 2023 by agg221

[koukouvagia]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

the K series engines (and probably all Kelvin diesels) uniquely require transverse engine beds.

 

This is how the K2 engine beds were made for the Josher Owl.  The engine was very stable.  I could balance a threepenny bit on it when it was running.

 

[NB Alnwick]

A lot of nonsense about Kelvin engines and their suitability as motive power for narrow boats often emanates from those who have little or no experience of living with them. It was George Bergius who suggested to Phil Trotter that our K3 would be very appropriate for a narrow boat and, although the engine is capable of producing 66 horse power at 750 rpm - on inland waterways, with the correct screw, it will rarely need to exceed 300 rpm or thereabouts. At canal rpm the power output will be in line with that of many other engines currently being fitted to narrow boats. The advantages of a properly engineered slow running engine like the Kelvin K series includes low service and maintenance costs, exceptionally good fuel consumption (we use less than two litres an hour when cruising), and an absence of any obvious exhaust smoke - which means it is always a pleasure to stand behind!
We also have to remember that in the days of commercial canal carrying, the operators were limited by financial considerations - a failed engine could be easily replaced without risk to life. Kelvins and similar top of the range engines were the choice of those who rated dependable reliability above all else. That is why they were often chosen by Arctic fishermen!

[agg221]

2 hours ago, NB Alnwick said:

A lot of nonsense about Kelvin engines and their suitability as motive power for narrow boats often emanates from those who have little or no experience of living with them. It was George Bergius who suggested to Phil Trotter that our K3 would be very appropriate for a narrow boat and, although the engine is capable of producing 66 horse power at 750 rpm - on inland waterways, with the correct screw, it will rarely need to exceed 300 rpm or thereabouts. At canal rpm the power output will be in line with that of many other engines currently being fitted to narrow boats.

One question I have wondered about - are you able to run it hard enough to avoid bore glazing? The J2 in ours is definitely worked hard. When we first got it, it smoked badly (blue) but with repeated hard work we have now got a clean exhaust up to most revs. I could of course strip it down and rebuild it, which would solve the problem, but it seems to be doing a decent enough job of sorting itself out. I can see how a 70' boat could make use of 44hp but I have sometimes idly wondered whether you can make 66hp work hard enough on canals to avoid the problem?

 

Alec

[NB Alnwick]

There are some occasions when one can open up the regulator a bit - my favourite is Braunston Tunnel. Other than that, there are times when deep mud or silt makes the engine work hard even at low rpm. That said, my bores may well be glazed - it is almost 30 years since they were last inspected! We did give the engine a good blow through when racing down the Severn Estuary - we docked at Portishead a shade over two hours after leaving Sharpness lock! However, that was 17 years ago!

 

[magnetman]

I wondered if part of the reason for Kelvins not being used in canal boats was the start and stop nature of canal boat work. I don't know exactly how canal boats operated but I don't think the engine would have been running continuously for days or weeks like a trawler engine. 

 

Also on a narrow boat you want an engine which can easily be lifted out and replaced if problems occur with the unit so the boat has minimal downtime. RN and National were ideal for this. 

 

 

The petrol start system introduces complications. With a National or RN and a warm back cabin in winter it is easy to hand start the engine with decompressors straight onto diesel no petrol needed and no messing around. Wind it over listen to the horse and drop the decompressor. 

 

Job done. Simplicity does work. 

 

 

[BEngo]

I doubt the Bergius company had the spare capacity to manufacture the number of engines needed for the GU expansion programme.  Even RN had to part sub the job out to National. 

 

The diesel  Kelvins were also still a fairly new design in the mid 30's, so Walter may have wanted to wait a while, and rely on his existing local market to build the engines' reputation.

 

They were also expensive compared with other engines.  A J2 in the 60's was the same sort of price as a small house, so I assume something similar would  have been the case in the 30's.  Certainly the various petrol and paraffin engines were an expensive, but very reliable choice.

 

I agree that petrol start would have been an unwanted complication.   The model J engines were available without the petrol start, and I suspect would have started as happily as the RN and National.

 

As for lifting them out , the J is no more complicated to take out in one piece than any other engine.  Both RN/National and Kelvin had rotary gear change  and similar numbers of connections.  The size of the hole in the roof, or engine hole front bulkhead, would not have been much different either.

N

[agg221]

12 minutes ago, BEngo said:

I doubt the Bergius company had the spare capacity to manufacture the number of engines needed for the GU expansion programme.  Even RN had to part sub the job out to National. 

 

The diesel  Kelvins were also still a fairly new design in the mid 30's, so Walter may have wanted to wait a while, and rely on his existing local market to build the engines' reputation.

 

They were also expensive compared with other engines.  A J2 in the 60's was the same sort of price as a small house, so I assume something similar would  have been the case in the 30's.  Certainly the various petrol and paraffin engines were an expensive, but very reliable choice.

 

I agree that petrol start would have been an unwanted complication.   The model J engines were available without the petrol start, and I suspect would have started as happily as the RN and National.

 

As for lifting them out , the J is no more complicated to take out in one piece than any other engine.  Both RN/National and Kelvin had rotary gear change  and similar numbers of connections.  The size of the hole in the roof, or engine hole front bulkhead, would not have been much different either.

N

I agree, and suspect the lack of application was mostly a function of quality/price. A J2 on high compression heads would be functionally no different to a 2DM/DM2/JP2, but it's rather like the difference between installing a Ford engine or a Rolls Royce engine - you would generally expect the Rolls Royce engine to be better engineered, run more smoothly and reliably and be all round nicer to have, but at a price that generally isn't viable. If my life was dependent on a single engine when fishing in the Atlantic I would buy the best I could afford; for a canal boat which could just be towed home, I would economise.

 

Alec

[magnetman]

Its possible that gearbox type would also be a consideration. 

 

I don't know how different a RN Bruntons? box would be from a Kelvin but it is worth bearing in mind a narrow boat engine would be going in and out of gear dozens or even hundreds of times a day. My longest day on the GU was 50 locks (did have a steerer with me) so that engine will have gone in and out of gear at least once per lock and probably more. 

 

On a trawler it will go into gear when you leave the harbour and might stay like that for days. 

 

Gearbox wear is an important factor there. 

 

 

 

And ease of clutch replacement. 

[BEngo]

Dont know the Brunton box at all, but I suspect it is a more complicated device than the Kelvin box.   The Kelvin box is very simple, and has only five rotating assemblies, none containing anything more complicated than a ball bearing.  It was originally designed without clutch linings but after long periods in ahead was likely to refuse to come out of gear. The later boxes had lined clutches.  It is an easy thing to maintain though.  I would expect to be able to swop a lined clutch and output shaft in a day, including riveting on the new linings.

 

I have done some long spells of boating with ours, over the years,  (including Itchington to Lapworth top and Middlewich to Stone, each in the day )  and it has never complained about frequent gear changes.  It does need to be at tickover when changing gear, so might not have done well in the hands of someone keen only to 'get em ahead'.

N

[NB Alnwick]

Evidence again of the Kelvin’s reliability and ease of maintenance. Our gearbox still gives good service after 25 years with no maintenance other than an oil change in 2007 ish. In fact, so far, the only major failure has been the crankshaft on the C.A.V. Injection pump which was repaired by welding. That was in 2006 and we bought a brand new one as a spare together with some additional spare parts but so far, these have not been needed. It must say something for the Glasgow Bergius Company when the only item to suffer serious failure was designed and manufactured elsewhere!

[hughc]

At Langley Mill the Norway replica is being built around what I think is the last K2 built before the L series took over.

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, NB Alnwick said:

Evidence again of the Kelvin’s reliability and ease of maintenance. Our gearbox still gives good service after 25 years with no maintenance other than an oil change in 2007 ish. In fact, so far, the only major failure has been the crankshaft on the C.A.V. Injection pump which was repaired by welding. That was in 2006 and we bought a brand new one as a spare together with some additional spare parts but so far, these have not been needed. It must say something for the Glasgow Bergius Company when the only item to suffer serious failure was designed and manufactured elsewhere!

Curiously the only boat I have seen broken down on the Thames this summer was a narrow boat with a K2. I was as amazed as the owners. He had spares and all it wasn't fuel but it just would not go. They had had the boat for ages and never had any issues. Ended up getting a hire boat and towed their own boat with it back from Marlow to somewhere on the Oxford around Banbury. The K2 was blue. 

 

 

The bloke was trying to get it going for several days to no avail. Must have been something major wrong with it but had been running normally. He couldn't even get it going on one cylinder. They will run on one quite happily but it wouldn't do anything. Bizarre. 

 

 

 

 

[NB Alnwick]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The K2 was blue. 

Obviously the wrong colour!

[magnetman]

I did wonder. 

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

The K2 was blue. 

 

 

The bloke was trying to get it going for several days to no avail. Must have been something major wrong with it but had been running normally. He couldn't even get it going on one cylinder. They will run on one quite happily but it wouldn't do anything. Bizarre. 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps he should have tried adding anti-depressants to the fuel?