russell newbury engines

[pixie]

I've been offered a russell newbury twin cylinder diesel - it does run quite well but it is not marinised and has not been rebuilt or reconditioned. It was on a standby generator plant which I do know has has little use, so the cosmetics are more serious than the mechanicals. Having looked around at vintage engines (as I enjoy tinkering with them), I quite like these RN engines so it would be ideal as i can't afford the £15-20 K for a new one. The question is how much is it worth as I have no clue and new engine prices are not much of a guide as if its even half of that, its out of my league !

 

any info will be gratefully received.

 

pix

[Proper Job]

I've been offered a russell newbury twin cylinder diesel - it does run quite well but it is not marinised and has not been rebuilt or reconditioned. It was on a standby generator plant which I do know has has little use, so the cosmetics are more serious than the mechanicals. Having looked around at vintage engines (as I enjoy tinkering with them), I quite like these RN engines so it would be ideal as i can't afford the £15-20 K for a new one. The question is how much is it worth as I have no clue and new engine prices are not much of a guide as if its even half of that, its out of my league !

 

any info will be gratefully received.

 

pix

How long is a piece of string? Not much help really, but its worth as much as your prepared to pay for it.

 

There are a lot of differences between the marine RN's and the Industrial units. It depends what you want to do with it and how far you want to go. Generally the differences will be length of crankshaft, governor arrangements etc, etc. All can be overcome with a little bit of ingenuity. RN can supply all of the parts for full marinisation, but it will cost you

 

If you 'reverse' fit the engine (gearbox on the flywheel end) with a prm gearbox you can much reduce costs. If you want the full monty fitted in the traditional configuration, it will be a lot of cost, blood, sweat and tears.

 

I'm sure that Paddington Bear and a few other will chip in.

 

The RN Register is a good place to start. There are a number of members rebuilding industrial engines.

 

Good luck

[denboy]

proper jobs the man for the answers hes rebuilding one at the moment

[mrsmelly]

I've been offered a russell newbury twin cylinder diesel - it does run quite well but it is not marinised and has not been rebuilt or reconditioned. It was on a standby generator plant which I do know has has little use, so the cosmetics are more serious than the mechanicals. Having looked around at vintage engines (as I enjoy tinkering with them), I quite like these RN engines so it would be ideal as i can't afford the £15-20 K for a new one. The question is how much is it worth as I have no clue and new engine prices are not much of a guide as if its even half of that, its out of my league !

 

any info will be gratefully received.

 

pix

 

 

Hi

 

A friend of mine has a RN he has just had to have it rebuilt after years of breakdowns total cost 12 Grand............What you have to ask youself is

If the superb modern engines we have now had been available in say the 1930,s 40,s 50,s how many serious boating companies would have bought RN,s JP,s Gardners etc................

Yes they do look good sound great etc and they r all ok for hobby boating but if u r serious about boating they r well, why dont we all still go around the country on horseback............

[NB Alnwick]

What you have to ask youself is

If the superb modern engines we have now had been available in say the 1930,s 40,s 50,s how many serious boating companies would have bought RN,s JP,s Gardners etc................

 

The biggest advances with modern industrial diesel engines have been in the field of cost cutting to save on production costs so that products can be offered at a competitive price. In many cases this has been achieved at the expense of higher rpm and limited engine life. The older slow-running diesels were over engineered and designed to be serviced and repaired so that they would last forever. In all other respects, vintage engines (especially those where the design was influenced by Sir Harry Ricardo) are comparable in terms of power output for a given fuel consumption and often better in terms of toxic emissions.

 

Admitted, the canal carrying companies of the 1920s and 1930s did not have the choice of buying the cheaper fast running 'use and throw away' engines of today and if they had enjoyed that choice, they may well have gone for the cheapest option but, for preference, give me the good old solid slow running vintage engine any day - it will still be thumping away long after today's contemporary engines have been discarded.

[alan_fincher]

If the superb modern engines we have now had been available in say the 1930,s 40,s 50,s how many serious boating companies would have bought RN,s JP,s Gardners etc................

And how many canal boats were fitted with JPs or Gardners in the 1930s to 1950s ?

 

Not very many at all, I'll wager.

 

The idea of fitting Gardners, Kelvins, and even JPs in a narrow boat is a relatively modern fad. These "vintage" engines were not narrowboat engines, (many probably cost far too much new to be an economic proposition on the canals).

 

(Clearly Nationals and RNs were fitted new in large numbers in the 1930s, so are a different category).

 

That said, I bet a JP needs serious heavy maintenance a lot less frequently than anything based on a modern Japanese industrial engine, (but the same probably applies to a Lister SL/SR/ST series engine).

 

Alan

[Dominic M]

And how many canal boats were fitted with JPs or Gardners in the 1930s to 1950s ?

 

Not very many at all, I'll wager.

 

The idea of fitting Gardners, Kelvins, and even JPs in a narrow boat is a relatively modern fad. These "vintage" engines were not narrowboat engines, (many probably cost far too much new to be an economic proposition on the canals).

 

(Clearly Nationals and RNs were fitted new in large numbers in the 1930s, so are a different category).

 

That said, I bet a JP needs serious heavy maintenance a lot less frequently than anything based on a modern Japanese industrial engine, (but the same probably applies to a Lister SL/SR/ST series engine).

 

Alan

It's a good job Tony Redshaw isn't a member of this forum. You'd be a marked man, Alan .

[andywatson]

Hi

 

A friend of mine has a RN he has just had to have it rebuilt after years of breakdowns total cost 12 Grand............What you have to ask youself is

If the superb modern engines we have now had been available in say the 1930,s 40,s 50,s how many serious boating companies would have bought RN,s JP,s Gardners etc................

Yes they do look good sound great etc and they r all ok for hobby boating but if u r serious about boating they r well, why dont we all still go around the country on horseback............

 

Probably none, but that's like saying if we'd had modern cars then who would have bought a Ford model T.

 

75 years ago someone bought my Gardner, presumably as a sound commercial proposition to get worked hard for it's living (which it did for at least 65 years) and it's still going nicely.

[FadeToScarlet]

Plus a modern high-revving engine just doesn't have the necessary "grunt" to be used to tow a butty or to properly propel a deep-drafted, fully-laden boat; it would have necessitated a complete re-think of how cargo was carried. I suppose some companies would have liked the possibility of hiding the engine away in a smaller space so as to be able to do away with the engine room and carry more cargo, but then they would have been harder to maintain.

[Keeping Up]

Plus a modern high-revving engine just doesn't have the necessary "grunt" to be used to tow a butty or to properly propel a deep-drafted, fully-laden boat; it would have necessitated a complete re-think of how cargo was carried. I suppose some companies would have liked the possibility of hiding the engine away in a smaller space so as to be able to do away with the engine room and carry more cargo, but then they would have been harder to maintain.

Yes it does, if suitably geared down and fitted with an appropriate propellor.

[mrsmelly]

Yes it does, if suitably geared down and fitted with an appropriate propellor.

 

 

Hi

 

Absolutely right and response is immediate and far more importantly than propulsion the boat stops very quickly. My brother in law has a fab old engine on his boat and it does the job well but he was gobsmacked at how my beta 43 with the correct box and prop does the job with so much more ease,( and my false teeth dont fall out ) Oh and before we get people saying modern boats r lighter therefore it enables my modern engine to cope, my boat is 70 feet long with 15 mil bottom and comes in now at 24 tons. Old engines r great as I said for hobby boating but when I take my boat around Trent falls AGAIN I will be realy pleased its a beta not a chugger.

Edited February 2, 2009 by mrsmelly

[Timleech]

And how many canal boats were fitted with JPs or Gardners in the 1930s to 1950s ?

 

Not very many at all, I'll wager.

 

The idea of fitting Gardners, Kelvins, and even JPs in a narrow boat is a relatively modern fad. These "vintage" engines were not narrowboat engines, (many probably cost far too much new to be an economic proposition on the canals).

 

(Clearly Nationals and RNs were fitted new in large numbers in the 1930s, so are a different category).

 

That said, I bet a JP needs serious heavy maintenance a lot less frequently than anything based on a modern Japanese industrial engine, (but the same probably applies to a Lister SL/SR/ST series engine).

 

Alan

 

JPs were common in barges in Yorkshire, and some Gardners were fitted into L&L Short Boats. Also the Cowburn & Cowpar Narrow Boats had (semi-diesel) Gardners from new.

 

 

Modern manufacture can have some benefits for longevity, enabling better materials and closer tolerances.

 

I do agree with your general point though.

 

Tim

[Proper Job]

Pixie

 

For a new member, as you can see, it dosen't take long for things to wander

 

You have now started the traditional war of sides between the 'Vintage for ever' clan v's the 'Modern is best'.

 

Stick with it. It may come back 'on topic' at some stage.

 

We love a good barney!

 

 

Even if your proposed 'restoration' is cosmetic, you might want to have a quick look at my blog (link below signature). My National was a basket case. Restorations are rarely cosmetic only. The engine that has had a 'lick of paint' and plonked in the boat as 'restored' is usually the one that subsequently breakdown.

 

Don't be put off by the 'Modern is Best' clan. My boat has a JP3 in it and it runs as sweet as any new engine (apart from the fuel pump coupling). I expect it, with regular servicing, to out live me. I will now sit back and wait for the next volly

[estwdjhn]

Personally I don't understand why people fit modern engines into narrow boats.

 

I would argue that the Lister SR series is probably the best engine ever put into boats from the point of veiw of just moving the boat about. They are far simpler, and much tougher than any modern offering. They are also more economical than most modern high reving engines.

 

However, if I ever have a boat built, and get to specify everything, it almost certainly won't have a Lister. I’d much rather have a older classic. (I don’t think SR’s really count as classics, although they are hardly modern either). The sound of a large low reving engine is just so appealing, as is the chance to have an impressive engine room, which everyone on the bank is usually trying to look in.

 

Out of interest, two period engines which I haven’t heard of in boats, both of which I’d rather fancy – the 1930’s Ruston Hornsby 30ish bhp 3 cylinder engines, as used on their smaller narrow gauge railway engines, and the Dorman 2 cylinder units (about 20bhp) used by Motor Rail Ltd in the Simplex narrow gauge railway engines. Is there a good reason why?

Edited February 2, 2009 by estwdjhn

[mrsmelly]

Personally I don't understand why people fit modern engines into narrow boats.

 

I would argue that the Lister SR series is probably the best engine ever put into boats from the point of veiw of just moving the boat about. They are far simpler, and much tougher than any modern offering. They are also more economical than most modern high reving engines.

 

However, if I ever have a boat built, and get to specify everything, it almost certainly won't have a Lister. I’d much rather have a older classic. (I don’t think SR’s really count as classics, although they are hardly modern either). The sound of a large low reving engine is just so appealing, as is the chance to have an impressive engine room, which everyone on the bank is usually trying to look in.

 

Out of interest, two period engines which I haven’t heard of in boats, both of which I’d rather fancy – the 1930’s Ruston Hornsby 30ish bhp 3 cylinder engines, as used on their smaller narrow gauge railway engines, and the Dorman 2 cylinder units (about 20bhp) used by Motor Rail Ltd in the Simplex narrow gauge railway engines. Is there a good reason why?

 

Hi

 

Me again from the modern is best clan, my brother in law has a 2 pot ruston hornsby in his boat with a bloody great flywheel, it is a great engine with lots of grunt and about 23 horses I think, it looks great and sounds great and if I didnt want to do any serious boating then thats the engine I would go for

[Dominic M]

Just to pour fat on the flames, remember that before Anders Bolinder delivered us his infernal creation of the devil, canal boat propulsion was usually just one horsepower

[Steve3]

Just to pour fat on the flames, remember that before Anders Bolinder delivered us his infernal creation of the devil, canal boat propulsion was usually just one horsepower

Old or New

Have had four and a half years with a JP3 and it was stripped down 3 times.

This was removed from our 5 year old boat last week.

New Beta Tug engine due by the end of the month.

Bring on the serious cruising.

 

We also had an old MG midget a few years ago, great fun. But for serious distance you cant beat a modern car.

[estwdjhn]

But when your Beta is over 50 years old, will it be as reliable as a well maintained JP?

A new JP would be far better than a new Beta.

 

Comparing an old well worn engine to a brand new one is hardly playing the game.

[bargiepat]

But when your Beta is over 50 years old, will it be as reliable as a well maintained JP?

A new JP would be far better than a new Beta.

 

Comparing an old well worn engine to a brand new one is hardly playing the game.

 

Hi, I have enjoyed a JD3 for the past 9 years and it has never missed a beat............. When cruising I keep it warm overnight with a blanket and large coat.

Starting from COLD is the main time that wear takes place and I only cruise at 800rpm not the 1200 rpm max.

 

i see NO REASON why this engine should not chug on for the next 50 years !!!!!!!!!!

 

Regards, Patrick.

[mrsmelly]

But when your Beta is over 50 years old, will it be as reliable as a well maintained JP?

A new JP would be far better than a new Beta.

 

Comparing an old well worn engine to a brand new one is hardly playing the game.

Unless u r a 12 year old with a boat we will all be dead in 50 years now wont we ?

[billh]

Personally I don't understand why people fit modern engines into narrow boats.

 

I would argue that the Lister SR series is probably the best engine ever put into boats from the point of veiw of just moving the boat about. They are far simpler, and much tougher than any modern offering. They are also more economical than most modern high reving engines.

 

However, if I ever have a boat built, and get to specify everything, it almost certainly won't have a Lister. I’d much rather have a older classic. (I don’t think SR’s really count as classics, although they are hardly modern either). The sound of a large low reving engine is just so appealing, as is the chance to have an impressive engine room, which everyone on the bank is usually trying to look in.

 

Out of interest, two period engines which I haven’t heard of in boats, both of which I’d rather fancy – the 1930’s Ruston Hornsby 30ish bhp 3 cylinder engines, as used on their smaller narrow gauge railway engines, and the Dorman 2 cylinder units (about 20bhp) used by Motor Rail Ltd in the Simplex narrow gauge railway engines. Is there a good reason why?

 

The Ruston 3cylinder engines- 3VRO and 3VRH are their versions of the Lister JP3, very similar in appearance, performance and layout. The "O" version revs to 1000rpm , the "H" to about 1200. The latter was fitted in the early versions of the Ruston Bucyrus 10RB excavator/crane and, as you say, the DL series locos.

The Simplex locos had various sizes of engine over a long production period . There was a Dorman petrol engine as well as several models of diesel. The later locos had 2LB which rev to 2200rpm - a bit quick for an NB but they do sound powerful, the bores are 5inch on these.

On balance, the Lister SR or HR are brilliant on reliability, sound good and look nice in a proper engine room, I'd go for one of those.

Bill

[billh]

Personally I don't understand why people fit modern engines into narrow boats.

 

I would argue that the Lister SR series is probably the best engine ever put into boats from the point of veiw of just moving the boat about. They are far simpler, and much tougher than any modern offering. They are also more economical than most modern high reving engines.

 

However, if I ever have a boat built, and get to specify everything, it almost certainly won't have a Lister. I’d much rather have a older classic. (I don’t think SR’s really count as classics, although they are hardly modern either). The sound of a large low reving engine is just so appealing, as is the chance to have an impressive engine room, which everyone on the bank is usually trying to look in.

 

Out of interest, two period engines which I haven’t heard of in boats, both of which I’d rather fancy – the 1930’s Ruston Hornsby 30ish bhp 3 cylinder engines, as used on their smaller narrow gauge railway engines, and the Dorman 2 cylinder units (about 20bhp) used by Motor Rail Ltd in the Simplex narrow gauge railway engines. Is there a good reason why?

 

The Ruston 3cylinder engines- 3VRO and 3VRH are their versions of the Lister JP3, very similar in appearance, performance and layout. The "O" version revs to 1000rpm , the "H" to about 1200. The latter was fitted in the early versions of the Ruston Bucyrus 10RB excavator/crane and, as you say, the DL series locos.

The Simplex locos had various sizes of engine over a long production period . There was a Dorman petrol engine as well as several models of diesel. The later locos had 2LB which rev to 2200rpm - a bit quick for an NB but they do sound powerful, the bores are 5inch on these.

On balance, the Lister SR or HR are brilliant on reliability, sound good and look nice in a proper engine room, I'd go for one of those.

Bill

[Hairy-Neil]

Personally I don't understand why people fit modern engines into narrow boats.

 

I guess there are nothing like enough historic ones to go around.

[Timleech]

Two things about the RN:-

 

On the plus side, all parts are available, apart from a few which were peculiar to the older engines (water pumps, for instance). That doesn't apply to a lot of the other old designs such as the JP, parts for some of them are getting thin on the ground and even if they exist might require scouring the country (or further afield) to find.

 

On the minus side, the parts tend to be VERY expensive.

I don't have the figures in front of me, as my customer paid direct, but I fitted new pistons & liners to an RN last year and to the best of my recollection the pistons were about £400 each plus VAT and the rings were extra.

 

Tim

Edited February 2, 2009 by Timleech