Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

British Rail: At Last The 1948 Show

63 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew Clarke

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
What if the railways had NOT been nationalised in 1948? What if they had been
tetained and deregulated, with a financial shot in the arm to get them
going again after the war?

On the positive side:

a )No interference re purchasing: the Big Four would not have been lumbered
with some of the unreliable underpowered junk that BR had to buy in order to
stimulate British industry, and which showed the world that only Brush and
English Electric had the faintest idea about how to build a mainline diesel.
EE could do it only if you didn't mind it weighing several tons more than
anybody else's.

b) Sensible competition for real traffic centres, e.g. the Midlands, West
Riding, Glasgow. The grandiose prewar symbolic competition for such
relatively small markets as London- Aberdeen and London- Plymouth would have
had to go, of course.

c) No huge sums of public money wasted on unviable traffic, e.g. no huge
marshalling yards built in the '60s for the Type 1 diesels to tow their
pick-up goods trains into while the trucks were hurtling past on the motorway .

d) Innovative ideas about new traffic and customer service.

e) Selective development of "short lines" instead of just leaving secondary
lines to moulder away

f) Requirement to charge market-level fares would have meant no huge subsidies
for the benefit of London commuters paid for by axing services in the
provinces. The money spent on subsidising commuter services would have been
better spent on encouraging business relocation.

g) Development of integrated company air and motor-coach services to find
cost-effective solutions for marginal business, hence

g) No obligation to spend huge sums to get a few people by rail to Fort
William. LNERAir would speed them much more efficiently by air to Glasgow and
by motorcoach the rest of the way.

h) Rapid dieselisation/electrification of trunk lines (no stop/start
government interference)

The downside:

a) Loss of most rural passenger services by the early 'fifties

b) Closure of most company-owned construction facilities and reliance on
international builders (ASEA, EMD, GEC, Metropolitan-Cammel? etc.)

b) Early demise of those railway magazines that specialised in
furlong-by-furlong descriptions of branchlines that never paid, which lost
every pound that local businessmen had invested in getting them built, and
which employed men at rock-bottom wages to work on life-expired equipment to
keep them going.

Andrew Clarke

unread,
May 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/18/95
to
In article <ajc.76....@libserver.canberra.edu.au> a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au (Andrew Clarke) writes:
>From: a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au (Andrew Clarke)
>Subject: British Rail: At Last The 1948 Show
>Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 17:35:46

Whoops, no sig. ...

Andrew Clarke
University of Canberra, Australia
Usual disclaimer
a...@isd.canberra.edu.au

David Bromage

unread,
May 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/19/95
to
a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au (Andrew Clarke) writes:

>b) Sensible competition for real traffic centres, e.g. the Midlands, West
>Riding, Glasgow. The grandiose prewar symbolic competition for such
>relatively small markets as London- Aberdeen and London- Plymouth would have
>had to go, of course.

We still might have the old "race for the north" every night at 8pm. :)

>a) Loss of most rural passenger services by the early 'fifties

Not as many as Beeching axed.

>b) Closure of most company-owned construction facilities and reliance on
>international builders (ASEA, EMD, GEC, Metropolitan-Cammel? etc.)

But the mighty North British might still be around! :)

Cheers
David

Bill Bedford

unread,
May 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/19/95
to

In article <ajc.76....@libserver.canberra.edu.au>, Andrew
Clarke writes:

~
~ What if the railways had NOT been nationalised in 1948? What if
they had been
~ tetained and deregulated, with a financial shot in the arm to
get them
~ going again after the war?
~
~ On the positive side:
~
~ a )No interference re purchasing: the Big Four would not have
been lumbered
~ with some of the unreliable underpowered junk that BR had to
buy in order to
~ stimulate British industry, and which showed the world that
only Brush and
~ English Electric had the faintest idea about how to build a
mainline diesel.
~ EE could do it only if you didn't mind it weighing several tons
more than
~ anybody else's.

Or as a worst case the railway struggle on until they become
completely backrupt and need to be rescuded by the Wilson or
Heath!!! goverments in the late 60's early 70's
~

~
~ g) Development of integrated company air and motor-coach
services to find
~ cost-effective solutions for marginal business, hence

The railway companies had been force to give up their road
interests in the mid 30's so unless therey could have bought back
in I don't think so
~
~ g) No obligation to spend huge sums to get a few people by rail
to Fort
~ William. LNERAir would speed them much more efficiently by air
to Glasgow and
~ by motorcoach the rest of the way.

No you can't take fish that way. All the Highland lines were on
the bottom line goods lines for moving fish. As long that trade
could be sustained then the marginal cost of providing passenger
trains was minimal, and remember the private companies were
always very good at publicity and tourism.
~
~ h) Rapid dieselisation/electrification of trunk lines (no
stop/start
~ government interference)

Steady and sustain rather than rapid I think

~
~ The downside:
~
~ a) Loss of most rural passenger services by the early 'fifties

No - There would have been a continuous process of closure of the
most unprofitable lines but overall there would be more lines
still open than there are now.
~
~ b) Closure of most company-owned construction facilities and
reliance on
~ international builders (ASEA, EMD, GEC, Metropolitan-Cammel?
etc.)

Possibly - but I doubt it unless there was a crisis. More likely
would be the companies buying in major parts (engines etc) and
doing their own assembly. There was also a strong likelihood of
joint ventures between the companies.
~
~ b) Early demise of those railway magazines that specialised in

~ furlong-by-furlong descriptions of branchlines that never paid,
which lost
~ every pound that local businessmen had invested in getting them
built, and
~ which employed men at rock-bottom wages to work on life-expired
equipment to
~ keep them going.
~
Surely these only date form the 70s/80s?
--
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Bedford Designer of Photo-Etches
bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk

The first bonxie of summer and snow all on the same day

--------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Bedford

unread,
May 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/19/95
to

In article <ajc.76....@libserver.canberra.edu.au>, Andrew
Clarke writes:

~
~ What if the railways had NOT been nationalised in 1948? What if
they had been
~ tetained and deregulated, with a financial shot in the arm to
get them
~ going again after the war?
~

All of this depends on the goverment paying the railways what
they were owed for the wartime transport. Without this cash the
companies were in DS.

David Gee

unread,
May 22, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/22/95
to
An interesting thing to think about here is - what would have
happened to the LNER? It was always the worst-off financially
of the old companies, and it is very doubtful if it could have
coped with the extensive damage to hundreds of bridges caused
by flooding in summer 1948.

Richard Porter

unread,
May 22, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/22/95
to
In article <ajc.76....@libserver.canberra.edu.au>,
Andrew Clarke <a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>On the positive side:

>
>a )No interference re purchasing: the Big Four would not have been lumbered
>with some of the unreliable underpowered junk that BR had to buy in order to
>stimulate British industry, and which showed the world that only Brush and
>English Electric had the faintest idea about how to build a mainline diesel.
>EE could do it only if you didn't mind it weighing several tons more than
>anybody else's.

I think that's a bit unfair. EE's type 4s were very comparable to their
Sulzer engined counterparts. Brush 4s were lighter but came along a bit
later, and EE's type 5s (engined by D. Napier & Sons) were also a lot
lighter. Swindon and Crewe also built some pretty good main line locos
for the Western Region, albeit largely based on Krauss-Maffei designs.

Richard

Dr. D Bates

unread,
May 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/23/95
to

Another parallel is the situation with the Great Northern Railway of Ireland.
This did quite well during the war, and accumulated about #1million. It
invested in new diesel railcars, and 15 new steam engines in the late
40's. However, in about 1951 it had to announce imminent bankruptcy,
and government help was needed to take over and continue the running
of the railway. In this case it was complicated, as it was an international
railway: half in the UK and half in Eire.

Andrew Cooke

unread,
May 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/23/95
to
In article <3pqe09$m...@bmdhh222.bnr.ca> ri...@bnr.co.uk (Richard Porter) writes:
>From: ri...@bnr.co.uk (Richard Porter)
>Subject: English Electric
>Date: 22 May 1995 16:26:49 GMT

I'd like to add that the BR Derby/Crewe/Sulzer 44/5/6 series were no
lightweights either. The only EE design that were a bit heavy really were the
40's, and lets not forget they were a build of about 1958 onwards, based on
the LMS build prototypes of 1948.

On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package, probably
the most successful loco BR bought. As any crew will tell you a tractor will
pull anything anywhere, and yet at the same time they were nippy enough for
use on the Anglian mainlines for 20 years.

Andy


DAVID HANSEN

unread,
May 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/26/95
to
AC> #FROM :Andrew...@nrpa.no

AC>On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package,
AC>probably the most successful loco BR bought.

Class 37 - 1750bhp, 105 tons.

Class 35 - 1700bhp, 75 tons.

The main problem with the Class 35 was that when they were built most
freight trains were unfitted. This gave the Class 37 a great advantage,
especially in the South Wales Valleys, as they had greater braking
effort due to their weight. This is the same reason that Class 40s were
often used on freights.

They also suffered from political problems within BR.

If BR had introduced fitted freight trains earlier then history would
have been different. I agre that the 37 is one of the most successful
locomotives BR bought, but the 35 was even better. 37s never worked 13
coach London - South Wales trains singly for instance. The 35 could do
so.


David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk | PGP key ID
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | 6AC0AC7D
---
* POW 1.2 0041 * He's not dead, Jim, he's just metabolically challenged.

Andrew Cooke

unread,
May 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/27/95
to
(DAVID HANSEN) writes:

>AC> #FROM :Andrew...@nrpa.no

>AC>On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package,
>AC>probably the most successful loco BR bought.

>Class 37 - 1750bhp, 105 tons.

>Class 35 - 1700bhp, 75 tons.

>The main problem with the Class 35 was that when they were built most
>freight trains were unfitted. This gave the Class 37 a great advantage,
>especially in the South Wales Valleys, as they had greater braking
>effort due to their weight. This is the same reason that Class 40s were
>often used on freights.

>They also suffered from political problems within BR.

>If BR had introduced fitted freight trains earlier then history would
>have been different. I agre that the 37 is one of the most successful
>locomotives BR bought, but the 35 was even better. 37s never worked 13
>coach London - South Wales trains singly for instance. The 35 could do
>so.

37s have worked some pretty heavy trains too, although I don't have the
details to hand. What load were the Liverpool St-Norwich trains or delving
into history, the Kings Cross-Sheffields or York-Bournemouth.

In more recent times they were regularly used till 85 on the
Yarmouth-Newcastle summer saturday train, which was load 12.

As you say politics had everything to do with the demise of the hydraulics,
but comparisons of hymeks and tractors are difficult because the former only
ran for 10 years whilst most of the latter are still in use, albeit for some,
in pretty shocking condition. In fact the outward appearance is very
reminiscent of the last days of the hydraulics.

Longevity is as much a component of success as anything, and also reliability.

Andy

Keith Matthews

unread,
May 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/27/95
to
In article <ajc.76....@libserver.canberra.edu.au>
a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au "Andrew Clarke" writes:

> What if the railways had NOT been nationalised in 1948? What if they had been

> tetained and deregulated, with a financial shot in the arm to get them

> going again after the war?
>

> On the positive side:
>
> a )No interference re purchasing: the Big Four would not have been lumbered
> with some of the unreliable underpowered junk that BR had to buy in order to
> stimulate British industry, and which showed the world that only Brush and
> English Electric had the faintest idea about how to build a mainline diesel.
> EE could do it only if you didn't mind it weighing several tons more than
> anybody else's.


The use of UK builders was primarily due to exchange control, especially to
the dollar area, not a desire to push UK industry.

DAVID HANSEN

unread,
May 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/27/95
to
AC> #FROM :Andrew...@nrpa.no

AC>Longevity is as much a component of success as anything, and also
AC>reliability.

The hydraulics were phased out for political reasons, so their lack of
longevity is not a point against them.

The so-called unreliability was something exagerated, again for
political reasons. The 35s simply ran out of trains to haul, since they
could not work unfitted trains on steep hills. The London-Hereford
trains were just about the only ones left.

I grew up in South Wales. The 52s were very, very, reliable. In part
this was because they could move on one engine, unlike most other diesel
locomotives. When they were replaced by 47s and (even worse) 50s the
service became noticeably worse.

The hydraulics had many faults, but also had many good points.

David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk | PGP key ID
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | 6AC0AC7D
---

* POW 1.2 0041 * It takes courage to innovate, not imitate.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,
May 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/28/95
to
In article <Andrew.Cooke...@nrpa.no> Andrew...@nrpa.no (Andrew Cooke) writes:
>
>On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package, probably
>the most successful loco BR bought. As any crew will tell you a tractor will
>pull anything anywhere, and yet at the same time they were nippy enough for
>use on the Anglian mainlines for 20 years.

And they're refurbishing some to use in pairs on international sleeping
car trains as far as the 25kv where electrics will take over through the
channel tunnel.

*Very* good engines.

Andrew Clarke

unread,
May 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/29/95
to
In article <801562...@sweeney.demon.co.uk> Keith Matthews <Ke...@sweeney.demon.co.uk> writes:
>From: Keith Matthews <Ke...@sweeney.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: British Rail: At Last The 1948 Show
>Date: 27 May 1995 09:46:00 +0100

Pity. There was a letter to TI/Modern Railways a long time ago from a
professional railway manager, who said that BR's first impulse had been to
reach for the EMD catalogue.

We could have had hood units swaying along the "short lines" of East Anglia.
What price a royal blue ALCO with scarlet bogies shunting the yard at Great
Dunmow?

Andrew C.


David Bunny

unread,
May 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/29/95
to
DAVID HANSEN (david....@almac.co.uk) wrote:
: AC> #FROM :Andrew...@nrpa.no

: AC>Longevity is as much a component of success as anything, and also
: AC>reliability.

: The hydraulics were phased out for political reasons, so their lack of
: longevity is not a point against them.

: The so-called unreliability was something exagerated, again for
: political reasons. The 35s simply ran out of trains to haul, since they
: could not work unfitted trains on steep hills. The London-Hereford
: trains were just about the only ones left.

: I grew up in South Wales. The 52s were very, very, reliable. In part
: this was because they could move on one engine, unlike most other diesel
: locomotives. When they were replaced by 47s and (even worse) 50s the
: service became noticeably worse.

: The hydraulics had many faults, but also had many good points.

And now you have HSTs. Better in almost every way.


: David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk | PGP key ID


: Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | 6AC0AC7D
: ---
: * POW 1.2 0041 * It takes courage to innovate, not imitate.

--
Regards, World Wide Web
David http://whirligig.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~db93/david.html
db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk


Paul Lee

unread,
May 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/29/95
to
david....@almac.co.uk (DAVID HANSEN) wrote:
>AC> #FROM :Andrew...@nrpa.no
>
>AC>On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package,
>AC>probably the most successful loco BR bought.
>
>Class 37 - 1750bhp, 105 tons.
>
>Class 35 - 1700bhp, 75 tons.
>
>The main problem with the Class 35 was that when they were built most
>freight trains were unfitted. This gave the Class 37 a great advantage,
>especially in the South Wales Valleys, as they had greater braking
>effort due to their weight. This is the same reason that Class 40s were
>often used on freights.
>
>They also suffered from political problems within BR.
>
>If BR had introduced fitted freight trains earlier then history would
>have been different. I agre that the 37 is one of the most successful
>locomotives BR bought, but the 35 was even better. 37s never worked 13
>coach London - South Wales trains singly for instance. The 35 could do
>so.
>
>
>
>
> David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk | PGP key ID
> Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | 6AC0AC7D
>---
> * POW 1.2 0041 * He's not dead, Jim, he's just metabolically challenged.

--
The Hymeks were absolutely no match for the Class 37s, either powerwise or
reliability. The Hymeks were reknowned for their high failure rate. Most of the
Hydraulic classes suffered from poor matching of the transmission to the
engine, and this served to make then a lot less powerful than their diesel
electric counterparts. The Westerns showed this aspect off a treat. Despite
having 2700 hp on board, they could not come close to matching a Class 47 or
Class 50. Although they could develop a high starting effort they could not
sustain this, and were soon underpowered. Should anybody want the exact figures
I am sure I could dig them up. I've posted them once before when a similar
discussion happened.

At their best, the Class 50s and Class 47s were actually more reliable than the
Class 52s. The Class 50s started off on a poor footing, but after refurbishment
in the 1980s became much more reliable, and this was sustained until overhaul
at Doncaster works ceased, and the Class declined once more. A similar story is
true of the Class 47s. As investment in looking after them tailed off, so did
their reliability. Hence the Class 47/7s on the Southern Region were an even
bigger disaster than the Class 50s. The Westerns also had two engines which
would help in terms of failures and stress on the engines, so it is not
entirely a fair comparision.

It would have been interesting to see the Diesel Hydraulic developments
continue as happend in Germany where a great deal of success has emerged.
______________________________________________________________________________

Paul D. Lee Division Limited
"Hoppy" 19 Apex Court, Woodlands
Bristol BS12 4JT, UK
Tel: +44 1454 615554
Fax: +44 1454 615532
Email: ho...@division.co.uk


A R BREEN

unread,
May 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/29/95
to
In article <8AA2421.153E...@almac.co.uk>,
DAVID HANSEN <david....@almac.co.uk> proclaimed:
>snipped!<

>The hydraulics had many faults, but also had many good points.
>
>
Sure, but in the long run a low-stressed, medium-speed engined design will
be cheaper & easier to maintain than a lightweight, highly stressed design.
The EE type 3s weren't a technical tour de force like the Hymeks - just
a good solid workaday job. Black 5 replacements, if you like. They *could*
have been set up to give rather a lot more power (2000+hp - see Roger Ford
in Modern Railways passim) but BR chose not to to keep maintainance costs
down. The EE-3s (and the 2s & 4s for that matter) may not have been
glamorous, but they are effective.
Anyway, if you're that concerned with power to weight ratio - how about
the Deltics :)

* Andy Breen * Adran Ffiseg/Physics Department *
* Grwp EISCAT group * Prifysgol Cymru Aberystwyth *
* 44 1970 621907 * a...@aber.ac.uk *
If my opinions were those of PC-A they'd have to pay me more

David Bromage

unread,
May 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/30/95
to
db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk (David Bunny) writes:

>DAVID HANSEN (david....@almac.co.uk) wrote:

>: I grew up in South Wales. The 52s were very, very, reliable. In part
>: this was because they could move on one engine, unlike most other diesel
>: locomotives. When they were replaced by 47s and (even worse) 50s the
>: service became noticeably worse.

>: The hydraulics had many faults, but also had many good points.

>And now you have HSTs. Better in almost every way.

Maybe so from a passenger point of view, but not so for operational reasons.
A 47, 50 or 52 could be pushed into freight traffic if required, thus
making them more useful to the system overall. An HST has only one purpose.

I think that the idea of building more class 89s is an excellent idea.
The same locomotive can haul 125mph passenger trains and 90mph freights.
This gives you a more flexible powered unit than a class 91 and a push-pull
passenger set.

Passenger trains are not exactly the most profitable bit of the network.
With a multi purpose locomotive at least you can recover some more of its
cost by hauling some freight.

Cheers
David

Andrew Cooke

unread,
May 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/30/95
to
In article <3qdu6u$q...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
>From: bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au (David Bromage)
>Subject: Re: English Electric
>Date: 30 May 1995 01:59:58 GMT

>db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk (David Bunny) writes:

>>DAVID HANSEN (david....@almac.co.uk) wrote:

>>: I grew up in South Wales. The 52s were very, very, reliable. In part
>>: this was because they could move on one engine, unlike most other diesel
>>: locomotives. When they were replaced by 47s and (even worse) 50s the
>>: service became noticeably worse.

>>: The hydraulics had many faults, but also had many good points.

>>And now you have HSTs. Better in almost every way.

>Maybe so from a passenger point of view, but not so for operational reasons.
>A 47, 50 or 52 could be pushed into freight traffic if required, thus
>making them more useful to the system overall. An HST has only one purpose.

Yes, but since about 1988 or so policy on the railway (sectorisation, then
privatisation) dictated that locos working outside their allocated sector had
to be hired in at some ludicrous charge, unless it was simply to clear the
line following a failure). This led to a whole load of pettiness and
stupidity, whereby trains get cancelled rather than hire in another sectors
engine etc. etc.

>I think that the idea of building more class 89s is an excellent idea.
>The same locomotive can haul 125mph passenger trains and 90mph freights.
>This gives you a more flexible powered unit than a class 91 and a push-pull
>passenger set.

When the 91s were built there was a whole lot of press about how they would
work the ECML expresses by day then work freightliners (blunt end first) at
night, hence the two cab design. In practice this has not happened (see,
sectorisation, above). Freight on the ECML is diesel hauled under the wires.

David Bunny

unread,
May 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/30/95
to
Christopher A. Lee (chri...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <Andrew.Cooke...@nrpa.no> Andrew...@nrpa.no (Andrew Cooke) writes:
: >
: >On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package, probably
: >the most successful loco BR bought. As any crew will tell you a tractor will
: >pull anything anywhere, and yet at the same time they were nippy enough for
: >use on the Anglian mainlines for 20 years.

: And they're refurbishing some to use in pairs on international sleeping
: car trains as far as the 25kv where electrics will take over through the
: channel tunnel.

: *Very* good engines.

Forgive my ignorance but are these the Class 37s which have been derated
to 1750 BHP and limited to 80 mph for reliability?

David Gee

unread,
May 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/30/95
to
ri...@bnr.co.uk (Richard Porter) wrote:
>
> In article <ajc.76....@libserver.canberra.edu.au>,
> Andrew Clarke <a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> >On the positive side:
> >
> >a )No interference re purchasing: the Big Four would not have been lumbered
> >with some of the unreliable underpowered junk that BR had to buy in order to
> >stimulate British industry, and which showed the world that only Brush and
> >English Electric had the faintest idea about how to build a mainline diesel.
> >EE could do it only if you didn't mind it weighing several tons more than
> >anybody else's.
>
> I think that's a bit unfair. EE's type 4s were very comparable to their
> Sulzer engined counterparts. Brush 4s were lighter but came along a bit
> later, and EE's type 5s (engined by D. Napier & Sons) were also a lot
> lighter. Swindon and Crewe also built some pretty good main line locos
> for the Western Region, albeit largely based on Krauss-Maffei designs.
>
> Richard

It's worth remembering that the EE Type 4 design was closely derived
from the Southern Railway diesels. In fact the rather odd bogies
were designed by (the office of) Bulleid. Remember the buffers
*on the bogies*?

David.


A R BREEN

unread,
May 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/30/95
to
In article <3qcts3$2...@imp.demon.co.uk>, Paul Lee <hoppy> wrote:
>david....@almac.co.uk (DAVID HANSEN) wrote:
>>AC> #FROM :Andrew...@nrpa.no
>>
>>AC>On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package,
>>AC>probably the most successful loco BR bought.
>>
>>Class 37 - 1750bhp, 105 tons.
>>
>>Class 35 - 1700bhp, 75 tons.
>The Hymeks were absolutely no match for the Class 37s, either powerwise or
>reliability. The Hymeks were reknowned for their high failure rate.
snip!

I imagine the high power-to-weight ratio of the DH classes pushed up both
the failure rate & the running costs. High-speed diesel engines will - all
other things being equal - cost more to maintain than slow or medium speed
ones. This wasn't unique to the DH engines: the EE class 23s (Baby Deltics)
had a very high power to weight ration, high running costs - and short lives.
Even in Germany the DHs seem to be almost extinct now (around Hamburg anyway)
- replaced by great chunky Russian DEs.
High-speed motors are really only to be used when you have to: Deltics or
HSTs are good examples. If you can do the same job with something heavier
but simpler - do it that way..

>. Hence the Class 47/7s on the Southern Region were an even
>bigger disaster than the Class 50s.

The 47/7s had spent years alternating between max. power & hard
braking on the E&G. They were maintained up to the hilt there
(had to be) but still could be pretty ratty. By the time they
came south they must have been pretty well beetled out.
Must be about the only example of the south east getting worn-
out equipment from Scotland. Usually works the other way around...

>
>It would have been interesting to see the Diesel Hydraulic developments
>continue as happend in Germany where a great deal of success has emerged.
>_________________________________________________________________

But see above

Andrew Waugh

unread,
May 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/30/95
to
>> a )No interference re purchasing: the Big Four would not have been lumbered
>> with some of the unreliable underpowered junk that BR had to buy in order to
>> stimulate British industry, and which showed the world that only Brush and
>> English Electric had the faintest idea about how to build a mainline diesel.
>> EE could do it only if you didn't mind it weighing several tons more than
>> anybody else's.
>
>The use of UK builders was primarily due to exchange control, especially to
>the dollar area, not a desire to push UK industry.

It is true that one reason for the use of UK builders was the exchange
controls, but this is not the whole story. Australia, for example, faced
similar exchange limitations over the same period, but the two major systems
(NSW and Victoria) purchased US diesels, not UK diesels.

R.M. Tufnell's very interesting book "The Diesel Impact on British Rail"
makes it very clear that the UK diesel engine manufacturers were vitally
interested:

[The US manufacturers could produce locomotives] at rates that
were frightening if the UK industry was to get any share of the
world market. EMD alone could turn out ten complete locomotives a
day from their integrated plant at La Grange and were after all the
locomotive business from those parts of the world that had been almost
a British preserve, such as South America, India, Africa, and
Australia. They could offer better deliveries, cheaper products,
greater operating experience and much better finance facilities.
This made it all the more important to get some British diesel
engines running on BR as soon as possible, to show our customers, and
to learn for ourselves by first hand experience. [page 19]

and again:

The [diesel engine] industry had for some time been seeking business
from the home market by various lobbies, including their own trade
association, BICEMA [...] and at last it looked as though the long
awaited change of heart by the BTC would result in some forthcoming
orders. [page 21]

Tufnell worked in the British industry and knew it well. I'd suspect that the
desire to support local industry was a very large part of the reason for the
almost British only production of diesels for BR. Tufnell is quite clear that
he thought it a great pity that the (by then) well tried EMD 567 engine wasn't
used in the British dieselisation.

andrew waugh

Paul Lee

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk (David Bunny) wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee (chri...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <Andrew.Cooke...@nrpa.no> Andrew...@nrpa.no (Andrew Cooke) writes:
>: >
>: >On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package, probably
>: >the most successful loco BR bought. As any crew will tell you a tractor will
>: >pull anything anywhere, and yet at the same time they were nippy enough for
>: >use on the Anglian mainlines for 20 years.
>
>: And they're refurbishing some to use in pairs on international sleeping
>: car trains as far as the 25kv where electrics will take over through the
>: channel tunnel.
>
>: *Very* good engines.
>
>Forgive my ignorance but are these the Class 37s which have been derated
>to 1750 BHP and limited to 80 mph for reliability?
>
Several 37s (if not all) have been limited to 80mph. But there is 'nowt wrong
with this since there is nowhere where they can do over 80mph on their regular
duties anyway.

Sleeper services are restricted to 80mph in the UK, to give people a chance of
sleeping :-)

As I understand it, Class 37s have always been 1750hp, and have never been
de-rated.

Also some of the 80mph restrictions are due to the fact that they have been
re-geared (lower), giving a higher TE off the mark, and lower power at speed,
hence the reduced maximum.

Hope this helps.

--

Paul Lee

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
a...@aber.ac.uk (A R BREEN) wrote:
>In article <3qcts3$2...@imp.demon.co.uk>, Paul Lee <hoppy> wrote:
>>david....@almac.co.uk (DAVID HANSEN) wrote:
>>>AC> #FROM :Andrew...@nrpa.no

>>. Hence the Class 47/7s on the Southern Region were an even


>>bigger disaster than the Class 50s.
>
>The 47/7s had spent years alternating between max. power & hard
>braking on the E&G. They were maintained up to the hilt there
>(had to be) but still could be pretty ratty. By the time they
>came south they must have been pretty well beetled out.
>Must be about the only example of the south east getting worn-
>out equipment from Scotland. Usually works the other way around...
>

The same applies to both Classes on the Southern, except it was far worse.
Edinburgh - Glasgow, with two stops, at Haymarket and Falkirk, and about 45
miles. Virtually flat apart from the climb from Queen Street to Cowlairs. Main
line welded track.

While the line from Waterloo - Basingstoke compares favourably to this, beyond
here its a different story.

eg;

Exeter - Yeovil (49 miles).

Stops at Exeter Central, (Pinhoe, Whimple, Feniton) sometimes, Honiton,
Axminster, Crewkerne. 1 in 36 from Exeter St. D. Honiton bank, Steep climb from
Crewkerne towards Axminster, etc. etc. Mostly jointed track.

I reckon neither Class was well suited to the Exeter - Waterloo line. Both
Classes were more at home on long high speed thrash. The 50s would have been
much more reliable on the Scottish push pulls, and proved much more reliable on
the Paddington - Oxfords, and Paddington - Plymouth runs (after refurbishment).

The point is, where they could be compared neither was better than the other in
terms of reliability. Class 47s were worse on the Southern, but a lot of them
were clapped out when they arrived.

Lets no forget also that when most of the bad publicity for the Class 50 on the
Southern arrived, no overhauls or even F exams were taking place. Certainly not
being maintained to the hilt. When the 47/7s arrived and were also not
maintained a similar disaster occurred. The same will happen when they stop
looking after the 47/8s properly.

The Class 33s were the most reliable on the Southern, because they were more
suited to the duties involved.

Andrew Cooke

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
In article <D9Euo...@exeter.ac.uk> db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk (David Bunny) writes:


>Christopher A. Lee (chri...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <Andrew.Cooke...@nrpa.no> Andrew...@nrpa.no (Andrew Cooke) writes:
>: >
>: >On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package, probably
>: >the most successful loco BR bought. As any crew will tell you a tractor will
>: >pull anything anywhere, and yet at the same time they were nippy enough for
>: >use on the Anglian mainlines for 20 years.

>: And they're refurbishing some to use in pairs on international sleeping
>: car trains as far as the 25kv where electrics will take over through the
>: channel tunnel.

>: *Very* good engines.

>Forgive my ignorance but are these the Class 37s which have been derated
>to 1750 BHP and limited to 80 mph for reliability?

Yes, tractors were nominally derated to 80 mph about 1987, but let us not
forget the reasons why.

The vast majority of trains they haul do not need to go any faster than 80.

They were not derated because of frequent failures, but to prevent the
likelihood of failures increasing as the locos approach 30 and more years in
traffic. In an age of intensive use and minimal maintenance, the 37s were seen
to have a future and were therefore treated accordingly.

I can assure you that when needed they still thrash along at more than 80.

Also, the Motherwell fleet were derated to 75 in the mid 1980s

Andy

Andrew Cooke

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
In article <3qh81m$4...@imp.demon.co.uk> Paul Lee <hoppy> writes:

>The Class 33s were the most reliable on the Southern, because they were more
>suited to the duties involved.

Everything fits into the context of the times. When the class 33's were in
charge on 'the mule', they weren't under the same type of pressures as
during the later days of the 50s and the 47/7s. If a 33 looked less than 100%
it would be taken out of the diagram, because there were always plenty of
others lying about spare. The same if one failed, and so on. Traction at that
time was utilised much less intensively and was better maintained all round.
Spare locos would typically have been sitting at Exeter, Yeovil Jct,
Salisbury, Basingstoke, Woking and Clapham Jct.

By the time of the type 4s the traction was ageing, undermaintained, and there
simply wasn't the capacity to deal with failures. If one was dodgy it would be
risked and so on. Nowadays there might be a spare loco at either end of the
line but nothing much in between. Hence failures cause massive disruption.
More BR false economy.......

Half the loco fleet today is running around in a terrible state, and they call
it improved maintenance procedure. Sure.


Andy

Paul Lee

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
Andrew...@nrpa.no (Andrew Cooke) wrote:
>In article <3qh81m$4...@imp.demon.co.uk> Paul Lee <hoppy> writes:
>
>>The Class 33s were the most reliable on the Southern, because they were more
>>suited to the duties involved.
>
>Everything fits into the context of the times. When the class 33's were in
>charge on 'the mule', they weren't under the same type of pressures as
>during the later days of the 50s and the 47/7s. If a 33 looked less than 100%
>it would be taken out of the diagram, because there were always plenty of
>others lying about spare. The same if one failed, and so on. Traction at that
>time was utilised much less intensively and was better maintained all round.
>Spare locos would typically have been sitting at Exeter, Yeovil Jct,
>Salisbury, Basingstoke, Woking and Clapham Jct.
>
I agree with most of this, but I still reckon that Class 33s were more reliable
the type 4s, simply because their engines were under less stress, and designed
for the job. I have had 50s and 47s fail on me, but never a Class 33.

I used to do Cardiff - Brisol in the morning on a Class 33, and back on a Class
50/47.

I've had 3 50s fail on me, and a couple of 47s.

I'm speaking from my experieces with the three Classes, and trying not to let
my bias for Class 50s influence here! 60,000 miles and three failures is not
bad for any type I reckon!

>By the time of the type 4s the traction was ageing, undermaintained, and there
>simply wasn't the capacity to deal with failures. If one was dodgy it would be
>risked and so on. Nowadays there might be a spare loco at either end of the
>line but nothing much in between. Hence failures cause massive disruption.
>More BR false economy.......
>
>Half the loco fleet today is running around in a terrible state, and they call
>it improved maintenance procedure. Sure.
>

I agree with this totally. Absolutely. YES. That's what you get when a bunch of
accountants take over the Railway.

--

A R BREEN

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
In article <D9Euo...@exeter.ac.uk>, David Bunny <db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> babbled:

>
>Forgive my ignorance but are these the Class 37s which have been derated
>to 1750 BHP and limited to 80 mph for reliability?

Oh dear...
The EE type 3s were *always* rated at 1750 bhp for BR use.. There were
a lot of export versions of the design (sold to the Sudan among other places)
which were rated at 2000 bhp but BR turned down the offer of uprating. See Roger
Ford in Modern Railways passim.
The EE type 3s were originally intended to have 90 mph maximum speed but
a large number were later 80 mph rated (no point in 90 mph as BR then had a blanket
speed limit of 75 mph on all but a couple of routes). Quite a lot more were later
re-geared for 50mph & freight. And, of course, it'd be easy to re-gear them for 105
using class 50 (or 55 :) bogies.
There was a suggestion that the Chunnel connection 37s were going to get
class 50 bogies. Anyone know if this is true?

J.P.Watts

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
In article <chrisleeD...@netcom.com> chri...@netcom.com (Christopher A. Lee) writes:
>In article <Andrew.Cooke...@nrpa.no> Andrew...@nrpa.no (Andrew Cooke) writes:
>>
>>On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package, probably
>>the most successful loco BR bought. As any crew will tell you a tractor will
>>pull anything anywhere, and yet at the same time they were nippy enough for
>>use on the Anglian mainlines for 20 years.
>
>And they're refurbishing some to use in pairs on international sleeping
>car trains as far as the 25kv where electrics will take over through the
>channel tunnel.
>
Some of the 37/6s have been completed, and may be seen at Bristol (Bath Road - RIP)
where they're undergoing testing/driver training.

Can't think of anything better for an international sleeper than a pair
of tractors, unburdened with modern silencers, lulling one to sleep!


--

======================================================================
James Watts
Semiconductor Physics Group J.P....@uk.ac.exeter
University of Exeter
======================================================================

Hoppy

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
>As for the HST, the philosophy of having a fixed formation train set
>works well and has been proven. And what could it be replaced with? Can
>you think of a neat little diesel locomotive weighing 70 tons, having a
>low axle weight (17.5 tons) and with an engine rating of 4500 BHP?
>
>
Not quite correct! An HST power car weighs 70 tones and an engine rating of
2250 BHP. There are two of them giving 140 tons and 4500 BHP. I guess you knew
this anyway.

Electric traction is even more impressive. A Class 87 for example weighs in at
around 80 tons, and can produce up to 7000 HP AT THE RAIL!!!! Around 8500 BHP
on board?!

Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
>>>On the other hand the EE type 3's have offered in a 1750 hp package, probably
>>>the most successful loco BR bought. As any crew will tell you a tractor will
>>>pull anything anywhere, and yet at the same time they were nippy enough for
>>>use on the Anglian mainlines for 20 years.
>>
>>And they're refurbishing some to use in pairs on international sleeping
>>car trains as far as the 25kv where electrics will take over through the
>>channel tunnel.
>>

Kind of scary that the only front-rank diesel locos for passenger train
haulage in Britain are over 30 years old... How many 47s are left running?

Thanks,
Bill
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bill Harrison -- University of Houston, TX -- CHE...@JETSON.UH.EDU |
| Beethoven. Less boring than Brahms. -- Boulez |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

David Bunny

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
David Bromage (bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
: >And now you have HSTs. Better in almost every way.

: Maybe so from a passenger point of view, but not so for operational reasons.
: A 47, 50 or 52 could be pushed into freight traffic if required, thus
: making them more useful to the system overall. An HST has only one purpose.

: I think that the idea of building more class 89s is an excellent idea.


: The same locomotive can haul 125mph passenger trains and 90mph freights.
: This gives you a more flexible powered unit than a class 91 and a push-pull
: passenger set.

I honestly don't know what railway philosophy is in Australia but it
certainly doesn't work that way here. Many of our trains are push-pull
passenger sets, and in the case of a Class 47/7 or 86 or 87, the
locomotives can be used for freight runs too. Push-pull operation is
desirable to reduce the turn around time at the terminus. Perhaps in
Australia you people have plenty of time to have locomotives running
round your trains.

All AC electrics but the Class 91 haul freight, and I think in the 91s
instance it is because it is geared for 140 mph that it is unsuitable for
freight runs. As you probably know we now have the Class 92 which really
is a true freight electric locomotive. I doubt there are many electric
locomotives suitable for both freights and passenger trains and be able
to run at 125 mph or more.

As for the HST, the philosophy of having a fixed formation train set
works well and has been proven. And what could it be replaced with? Can
you think of a neat little diesel locomotive weighing 70 tons, having a
low axle weight (17.5 tons) and with an engine rating of 4500 BHP?

: Passenger trains are not exactly the most profitable bit of the network.


: With a multi purpose locomotive at least you can recover some more of its
: cost by hauling some freight.

Our railway system thrives on passengers. Unfortunately hauling freight
plays a much lesser role than it did previously.

DAVID HANSEN

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
DB> #FROM :db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk

DB>: The hydraulics had many faults, but also had many good points.

DB>And now you have HSTs. Better in almost every way.

Given that the HST design was finalised 20 years after the 52 design I
jolly well hope so.

David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk | PGP key ID
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | 6AC0AC7D
---

* POW 1.2 0041 * Favourite hobbies include shouting abuse at Tory MP's on television.

DAVID HANSEN

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
PL> @FROM :hoppy

PL>The Hymeks were absolutely no match for the Class 37s, either
PL>powerwise or reliability.

Really.

PL>The Hymeks were reknowned for their high
PL>failure rate.

That depends on how much maintenance was done, like any other loco class.

Pl>Most of the Hydraulic classes suffered from poor
PL>matching of the transmission to the engine,

True to some extent in the case of a 52, but not so in the case of a 35.

PL>At their best, the Class 50s and Class 47s were actually more
PL>reliable than the Class 52s.

Very amusing. Are you comparing the best of the 47 and 50 to the worst
of the 52 by any chance?

PL>The Class 50s started off on a poor
PL>footing, but after refurbishment in the 1980s became much more
PL>reliable,

Any class is more reliable after refurbishent.

PL> The Westerns also
PL>had two engines which would help in terms of failures and stress on
PL>the engines, so it is not entirely a fair comparision.

Thank you, exactly the point I made.

PL>It would have been interesting to see the Diesel Hydraulic
PL>developments continue as happend in Germany where a great deal of
PL>success has emerged.

Politics.


David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk | PGP key ID
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | 6AC0AC7D
---

* POW 1.2 0041 * Fjord [n] - A make of Norwegian car.

Andrew Cooke

unread,
Jun 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/1/95
to

>Tufnell worked in the British industry and knew it well. I'd suspect that the
>desire to support local industry was a very large part of the reason for the
>almost British only production of diesels for BR. Tufnell is quite clear that
>he thought it a great pity that the (by then) well tried EMD 567 engine wasn't
>used in the British dieselisation.

To be purely partisan I say praise be that we didn't have a railway full
of GM's. Instead we had some of the most individualistic, and full of
character designs ever built, mostly by EE. And lets not split hairs, the EE
Type 1s and 3s have served BR with as much distinction, as successfully and
for as long as any GM design could have done. The 567 always sounds very high
revving to me, and I wonder if such a design would have been as suited to the
BR operations as the EE CSVT designs.

I also rather suspect we would have run into trouble with spares at times,
especially during the 70s when the pound was very weak against the dollar.

Vulcan Foundry more than showed they could build locos to match the Americans.

Andy


Andrew Cooke

unread,
Jun 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/1/95
to
Paul Lee <hoppy> writes:

>I've had 3 50s fail on me, and a couple of 47s.

>I'm speaking from my experieces with the three Classes, and trying not to let
>my bias for Class 50s influence here! 60,000 miles and three failures is not
>bad for any type I reckon!

Well this had me digging out my bashing book to look at failures. It can
actually be quite difficult to define exactly what a failure is but I found
the following total collapses.

37s (45,000 miles)

37193, at Carmuirs West Jct on the Stirling-Euston Motorail (not that I had a
car on the train of course) in July 1986. Waited about 1 hour before 37247
appeared from Grangemouth to push us to Coatbridge. Low on coolant (common 37
summer problem)

37418, at Rannoch on the 0950 Glasgow-Fort Bill Nov 85. Bashers and traincrew
spent about 1.75 hrs in the pub next to the station waiting for 37026 to come
from Fort Bill. No amps. It was only about a week out of Crewe.

37426, at Ditton on the morning Liverpool-Cardiff in April 1989. 45 min before
47351 appeared from Garston to push to Crewe.

37897, at Fflint on the return of the Crewe-Holyhead works test train 1987. It
was on test so I suppose it could be forgiven. The duff it was piloting simply
took over.

47's 36,000 miles

47532, at Prees on the York-Shrewsbury mail.Oct 83. waited about 1 hr for
47284 to come from Shrewsbury. Unfortunately Shrewsbury let the 03XX (!)
Shrewsbury-Swansea go.

47565, at Tipton on the 20XX Coventry-Preston. Feb 86. Waited about 20 min for
the following Euston-Wolves to push to Wolves where an 85 took over.

47587, at Dunkeld on the Royal Highlander, June 88. Don't know what happened
cause my Dad came from Pitlochry to pick me up.

47404, at York on 1E43 2020 Aberdeen-Kings X, Feb 86. On Fire. York quickly
rustled up a replacement.

50's 5,500 miles only 8-( (too much time chasing tractors 8-))

50030, at Stechford on 1M42, Paddington-Wolves. Waited 40 mins for Saltley to
send 47604 (Inverness one, but it didn't put a smile on my face).

Also

25268 at Cosford, on an Aberystwyth-Wolves, June 85, after some idiot put the
butterflies in. 25206 carried on.

And that was it. There were several other partial failures.

37063 oil-leak at York on the Scarborough-Newcastle
37100 oil-leak at Derby on the Cardiff-York (driver didn't like it)
37051 brakes at Cowlairs (driver refused to take it down the hill after
brakeblock fire at Blair Atholl)
47524 at Dundee on the Aberdeen-Kings Cross
85018 at Carlisle on an Edinburgh-Exeter relief
47617 at Perth on a Glasgow-Inverness

But no peaks in 7,000 miles. No 31s, 40s, 33s etc. and no 86 or 87s in about
20,000.

I didn't count boiler failures but as an illustrative point of how flexible
the railway used to be:- One night in October 1982 a friend and I were going
to London on the Aberdeen-Kings X from York. A 46 brought the train in, and
was replaced by 40028 (which at the time had me leaping up and down with
excitement). After leaving it became apparent there was no heat, and the guard
refused it at Leeds. The wailing and gnashing of teeth soon stopped when 40069
appeared on a freight, and was swapped for 'Samaria' on the spot. Even better,
a Healey Mills loco. The whole fuss took about 25 minutes.

Cheers
Andy

David Bunny

unread,
Jun 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/1/95
to
A R BREEN (a...@aber.ac.uk) wrote:
: >. Hence the Class 47/7s on the Southern Region were an even

: >bigger disaster than the Class 50s.

: The 47/7s had spent years alternating between max. power & hard
: braking on the E&G. They were maintained up to the hilt there
: (had to be) but still could be pretty ratty. By the time they
: came south they must have been pretty well beetled out.
: Must be about the only example of the south east getting worn-
: out equipment from Scotland. Usually works the other way around...

The route from Edinburgh to Glasgow which the 47/7s used was very high
speed and in view of the light loads these locomotives used to pull/push,
I don't regard their work as punishing compared with (for example) HST
cross country sets whose engines will be continiously winding up and
down. Indeed, the 47/7s would have spent a lot of their time at high
speed. Consistent operation at maximum output is not considered to be as
punnishing as continual throttling up and down of the engine. (Read my
thread train logs about this which was taken from an article in Railway
World).


: >
: >It would have been interesting to see the Diesel Hydraulic developments
: >continue as happend in Germany where a great deal of success has emerged.

The French have some very successful diesel designs. BB 67400 has three
phase electric transmission and a power rating virtually equal to that of
our class 47 and yet only weighs just over 80 tons. BB72000 weighs 114
tons and has an engine rated at 3520 hp. Compare that with the Class 56
which weighs 126 tons. And of course there is the experimental engine of
4700+ hp fitted to one of the BB72000's which ups the weight to 118 tons
but has the most powerful single diesel engine in a locomotive of perhaps
anywhere in the world.

This clearly demonstrates how much better the french are in railroading.
Especially given that most of their lines are electrified and emphasis is
on improving electric traction.

Hoppy

unread,
Jun 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/1/95
to
Andrew...@nrpa.no (Andrew Cooke) wrote:
> Paul Lee <hoppy> writes:

>50's 5,500 miles only 8-( (too much time chasing tractors 8-))
>
>50030, at Stechford on 1M42, Paddington-Wolves. Waited 40 mins for Saltley to
>send 47604 (Inverness one, but it didn't put a smile on my face).
>

Incredible. One of my Class 50 failures was 50030 on 1M42 Padd - Wolves, but
this time she blew up at Slough. After a traction motor isolation staggered no
to Reading where 56047 was rustled up.

Sven Manias

unread,
Jun 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/1/95
to
In article <3qf7tj$f...@osfa.aber.ac.uk>,

a...@aber.ac.uk (A R BREEN) writes:

>Even in Germany the DHs seem to be almost extinct now (around Hamburg anyway)
>- replaced by great chunky Russian DEs.

I can't let that pass without comment. Diesel-hydraulics are alive and
well in Germany. While I am not familiar with the situation around
Hamburg from personal experience, I gather that there are a lot of
class 232 and 234 diesel-electrics (soviet-built former East German
stock) around nowadays. But that is largely due to the fact that there
are much more trains between Hamburg and the former East Germany now and
that the rail links from Hamburg eastward are so far not electrified.
This has also resulted in a number of trains between Hamburg and
(former) West German destinations being hauled by 232's and 234's.
But the diesel-hydraulic 218's that used to dominate the diesel scene
in most parts of the old FRG, including Hamburg, are far from extinct.
Instead, lots of older Soviet-built diesel-electrics have been retired
during the last years, along with some diesel-hydraulics from both
former parts of Germany.

I want to point out that even the GDR acquired large diesel-hydraulic
locomotives (necessary for lines with lower axle load limitations) well
into the eighties (class 119, now 219). Admittedly these locos suffered
from very poor reliability at the beginning. But that was probably
largely the fault of the Romanian manufacturer. (COMECON guidelines
specified that the GDR was not to produce diesel locomotives above a
certain power limit. The GDR was pretty much the only country in the
Eastern Bloc to adhere strictly to these guidelines.) Reliability of
the 119's improved after these East-German-desined, Romanian-built
engines were re-equipped with GDR-built engines and transmissions.

(FRG = Federal Republic of Germany, former West Germany
GDR = German Democratic Republic, former East Germany
COMECON: economic cooperation of the eastern bloc countries)

Sven
--
Sven Manias * University of Karlsruhe * Karlsruhe * Germany
sven....@stud.uni-karlsruhe.de ua...@dkauni2.bitnet
"Lazy white man - sits while walking." -- An unknown African chieftain,
on seeing a cyclist for the first time in his life

David Bunny

unread,
Jun 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/2/95
to
Hoppy (ho...@division.co.uk) wrote:
: >As for the HST, the philosophy of having a fixed formation train set
: >works well and has been proven. And what could it be replaced with? Can
: >you think of a neat little diesel locomotive weighing 70 tons, having a
: >low axle weight (17.5 tons) and with an engine rating of 4500 BHP?
: >
: >
: Not quite correct! An HST power car weighs 70 tones and an engine rating of

: 2250 BHP. There are two of them giving 140 tons and 4500 BHP. I guess you knew
: this anyway.

Yes of course, but David Bromage suggests that an all purpose locomotive
similar to a Class 89 which can haul freight and passenger trains is the
better option. Since the HST is diesel he implies that a single unit
diesel locomotive is needed with the same axle loading and weight of a
single HST power car but yet producing twice the power. The closest
design I can think of is the Kestrel which was overweight and so never
ran at its 125 mph design speed.

David Bunny

unread,
Jun 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/2/95
to
A R BREEN (a...@aber.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <D9Euo...@exeter.ac.uk>, David Bunny <db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> babbled:

: >
: >Forgive my ignorance but are these the Class 37s which have been derated
: >to 1750 BHP and limited to 80 mph for reliability?

: Oh dear...
: The EE type 3s were *always* rated at 1750 bhp for BR use.. There were
: a lot of export versions of the design (sold to the Sudan among other places)
: which were rated at 2000 bhp but BR turned down the offer of uprating. See Roger
: Ford in Modern Railways passim.

Bzzzt! The *manufactuers* actually rated the 12-CSVT engine in the 37s at
2000 BHP. (This is according to BR Motive Power Performance bt David N
Clough and Martin Beckett). At the time more powerful type 4 locomotives
were being developed and so *BR* decided to rate the 12-CSVT at 1750 BHP
which is why they are so reliable.

: The EE type 3s were originally intended to have 90 mph maximum speed but


: a large number were later 80 mph rated (no point in 90 mph as BR then had a blanket
: speed limit of 75 mph on all but a couple of routes). Quite a lot more were later
: re-geared for 50mph & freight. And, of course, it'd be easy to re-gear them for 105
: using class 50 (or 55 :) bogies.

The 37s were actually regeared for 80 mph, and not simply de-rated to 80
mph which is a major modification. I think the reason for that is that
more tractive effort is needed at lower speeds and that the 1750 BHP
engine wouldn't be sufficient to haul a decent sized train at 90 mph on
the level anyway. Many sections of the ER route on which they worked for
many years were cleared for 90 mph and with such a small power unit as
well, I really wonder how the 37s coped. The schedules must have been
very forgiving.

My vote for the best small locomotive is the Class 33. They also have
had excellent reliability. Their engines may be slightly smaller at 1550
BHP but they weigh a little over 80 tons, whereas a 37 can weigh anything
between 104 to 120 tons. 33/1s of course retain compatibility with SR MUs
a very useful ability. :)

Bill Bedford

unread,
Jun 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/2/95
to

In article <3qgaqt$5...@weever.mel.dit.csiro.au>, Andrew Waugh writes:

~
~ In article <801562...@sweeney.demon.co.uk> Ke...@sweeney.demon.co.uk
writes:
~ >In article <ajc.76....@libserver.canberra.edu.au>
~ > a...@libserver.canberra.edu.au "Andrew Clarke" writes:
~ >> a )No interference re purchasing: the Big Four would not have been lumbered

~ >> with some of the unreliable underpowered junk that BR had to buy in order
to
~ >> stimulate British industry, and which showed the world that only Brush and

~ >> English Electric had the faintest idea about how to build a mainline
diesel.
~ >> EE could do it only if you didn't mind it weighing several tons more than
~ >> anybody else's.
~ >
~ >The use of UK builders was primarily due to exchange control, especially to
~ >the dollar area, not a desire to push UK industry.
~
~ It is true that one reason for the use of UK builders was the exchange
~ controls, but this is not the whole story. Australia, for example, faced
~ similar exchange limitations over the same period, but the two major systems
~ (NSW and Victoria) purchased US diesels, not UK diesels.
~
There is one piece of information that is almost always overlooked in these
discusions and that is that the CME's of the private railways held patents and
royalties that applied to their designs privately. Any payments from these were
counted as a perk of the job. This is the reason, I believe that the LMS and SR
built their own locos rather than buying in existing designs.

How long this situation would have continued I would not like to speculated but
I believe it would have taken a major corporate shakeup to change.
--
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Bedford Designer of Photo-Etches
bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk

The first bonxie of summer and snow all on the same day

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hudson Leighton

unread,
Jun 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/2/95
to
-=> Quoting David Hansen to All <=-

DH> From: david....@almac.co.uk (DAVID HANSEN)

PL> @FROM :hoppy

PL>The Hymeks were absolutely no match for the Class 37s, either
PL>powerwise or reliability.

DH> True to some extent in the case of a 52, but not so in the case of a
DH> 35.

PL>At their best, the Class 50s and Class 47s were actually more
PL>reliable than the Class 52s.

Could someone please post a short version of what these various lcocmotives
are? Us dumb Yanks don't have the faintest idea what a 52 or a 47 is ;-)

... Why are there interstate highways in Hawaii?
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12


David Bromage

unread,
Jun 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/2/95
to
db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk (David Bunny) writes:

>: Not quite correct! An HST power car weighs 70 tones and an engine rating of
>: 2250 BHP. There are two of them giving 140 tons and 4500 BHP. I guess you knew
>: this anyway.

>Yes of course, but David Bromage suggests that an all purpose locomotive
>similar to a Class 89 which can haul freight and passenger trains is the
>better option. Since the HST is diesel he implies that a single unit
>diesel locomotive is needed with the same axle loading and weight of a
>single HST power car but yet producing twice the power.

That's not what i was suggesting. I was suggesting that building
passenger-only locomotives is very inflexible nd rather a waste of money.
If you want a flexible fleet you're better off with a high speed
locomotive which can haul light (i.e. under 400t) passenger trains at
passenger trains speeds and heavy (e.g. 1000t) goods trains at around
75-80% of the passenger speed.

The HST idea is good in principle, but is inflexible because it assumes
that the traffic demand will be constant 365 days per year. With a
locomotive hauled passenger train you can seasonally add or subtract
carriages as the traffic demands. If a service rostered for an HST is
booked out, what do the excess passengers have to do - wait for the next
one? Fair enough if they have the time and are not wanting to make a
connection. I'm sure they'll be pleased to know that there is another
fixed consist HST to Penzance in only an hour or so, even if they they
do miss the last train to Falmouth. [Insert heavy sarcasm]

My point was that because the class 89 can haul passenger trains at 125mph
AND freights, it would be a more useful locomotive. Certainly there is
also a need for the class 92. The high speed multi purpose principle really
only works for electric locomotives.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of GWR purists, maybe this is a case
for erecting wires over the WR main lines? *ducks* :-)

This is not to say that you can run your entire service with one class of
locomotive, but considering the cost of locomotives these days you want to
make maximum use of what you do buy.

Cheers
David

Tobias Benjamin Koehler

unread,
Jun 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/3/95
to
David Bunny (db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk) wrote:

: Yes of course, but David Bromage suggests that an all purpose locomotive

: similar to a Class 89 which can haul freight and passenger trains is the
: better option. Since the HST is diesel he implies that a single unit
: diesel locomotive is needed with the same axle loading and weight of a

: single HST power car but yet producing twice the power. The closest

: design I can think of is the Kestrel which was overweight and so never
: ran at its 125 mph design speed.

This is the all-purpose concept... for a long time it was the
goal of all locomotive development to create an engine capable
of hauling both heavy freight and fast passenger trains. This
was reached in the 1980s with 3-phase-AC motors and electronic
inverters. Examples are the German 120, the French Sybic, the
Swiss 460/465.

But meanwhile, a different development seems to be the end of
all-purpose locomotives shortly after it was possible to build
them: in many countries, railways are being split up into
separate companies for freight, passenger and commuter service.
Take Germany for example: The class 120 (200 km/h, 5.6 MW) was
built in 60 units. Then plans about reorganisation of the DB/DR
have stopped any new orders, and now the separation of Inter-
city, commuter and freight service led to ordering three
different classes 101, 145" and 152". They cannot be freely
interchanged...

Or take a look at Britain. The same locomotive is painted in
different liveries and operating for different sectors, no more
interchange...

The Swiss and French still seem to believe in the concept of the
all-purpose locomotive.

Britain still has too many Diesel trains under the wire...

-- _,-'"`-._ _,-'"`-._ le progrès ne vaut
tobias b. köhler `-.___,-'. .-.-.-. .`-.___,-' que s'il est
s_...@ira.uka.de --=========================-- partagé par tous
|]||[]| [___] |[]||[|
>______-----------| || | 13254 | || |-----------______<
|_| == ==___== | ||__| = = = |__|| | ==___== == |_|
>|_|-------__(-)-(-)__--|__|-----------|__|--__(-)-(-)__-------|_|<
(=|_|__| *_/__\_(o)_/__\__/_ \ |_|=|_| / _\__/__\_(o)_/__\_* | ||_|=)
/ (*) \__/ ~~~ \__/ \__/ -^- \__/ \__/ ~~~ \__/ (*) \

Tobias Benjamin Koehler

unread,
Jun 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/3/95
to
David Bromage (bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:

: That's not what i was suggesting. I was suggesting that building


: passenger-only locomotives is very inflexible nd rather a waste of money.
: If you want a flexible fleet you're better off with a high speed
: locomotive which can haul light (i.e. under 400t) passenger trains at
: passenger trains speeds and heavy (e.g. 1000t) goods trains at around
: 75-80% of the passenger speed.

Tell this today's marketing people who think it's better to have
separate managements for passenger and freight...

: The HST idea is good in principle, but is inflexible because it assumes


: that the traffic demand will be constant 365 days per year. With a
: locomotive hauled passenger train you can seasonally add or subtract
: carriages as the traffic demands. If a service rostered for an HST is
: booked out, what do the excess passengers have to do - wait for the next
: one? Fair enough if they have the time and are not wanting to make a
: connection. I'm sure they'll be pleased to know that there is another
: fixed consist HST to Penzance in only an hour or so, even if they they
: do miss the last train to Falmouth. [Insert heavy sarcasm]

You can also be flexible with fixed trainsets. For example:
- Have trainsets of maximum platform length. Run two trains at
short distance if necessary.
- Have trainsets of half platform length. You can run two
coupled together, or have a single or double train shortly
before or after it if necessary.

Locomotive-hauled pull-only passenger trains are not good if
the train has to change its direction of travel underways.

: My point was that because the class 89 can haul passenger trains at 125mph


: AND freights, it would be a more useful locomotive. Certainly there is
: also a need for the class 92. The high speed multi purpose principle really
: only works for electric locomotives.

This is true, as Diesel locomotives tend to be heavy when
powerful.

: At the risk of incurring the wrath of GWR purists, maybe this is a case


: for erecting wires over the WR main lines? *ducks* :-)

Would be a neat idea :) Catch the eurostar in Brussels and get
off at Bristol Parkway :)

: This is not to say that you can run your entire service with one class of


: locomotive, but considering the cost of locomotives these days you want to
: make maximum use of what you do buy.

Yes, but if you look at Britain or Germany or any country
privatising its trains, every sector tends to have its own
locomotives anyway, even if that is uneconomic regarding the
entire system as a whole.

Tobias Benjamin Koehler

unread,
Jun 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/3/95
to
DAVID HANSEN (david....@almac.co.uk) wrote:

: There are many reasons for doing this. For instance the lines should be
: able to take Berne Gauge vehicles to South Wales (via Gloucester) and
: Exeter (via Bristol), which would be a useful marketing strategy for the
: umpteen mickey mouse companies now running railfreight. Electric haulage
: would reduce the running costs and the investment could be shared with
: the passenger people.

: The Eurostars would also be able to run at full speed on the WR main
: lines.

Full speed for an eurostar is 300 km/h. I doubt that installing
overhead wires on the GWR will be enough for this :)

When will the high speed line Folkestone - London Waterloo come?

DAVID HANSEN

unread,
Jun 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/3/95
to
DB> #FROM :bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au

DB>At the risk of incurring the wrath of GWR purists, maybe this is a
DB>case for erecting wires over the WR main lines? *ducks* :-)

There are many reasons for doing this. For instance the lines should be
able to take Berne Gauge vehicles to South Wales (via Gloucester) and
Exeter (via Bristol), which would be a useful marketing strategy for the
umpteen mickey mouse companies now running railfreight. Electric haulage
would reduce the running costs and the investment could be shared with
the passenger people.

The Eurostars would also be able to run at full speed on the WR main
lines.

David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk | PGP key ID
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | 6AC0AC7D
---

* POW 1.2 0041 * Bigamy: one wife too many. Monogamy: same idea.

Hoppy

unread,
Jun 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/3/95
to
david....@almac.co.uk (DAVID HANSEN) wrote:
>PL> @FROM :hoppy
>
>PL>The Hymeks were absolutely no match for the Class 37s, either
>PL>powerwise or reliability.
>
>Really.
>
Yes really!
For your benefit here are the tractive effort curves of the two Classes.
Sources, Class 37: British Rail, Class 35 "Diesel Hydraulics of the Western
Region" by Brian Reed. Eff stands for efficiency through the transmission.
Class 37s were 1750bhp, Class 35s 1740bhp.


CLASS 37 CLASS 35

SPEED TE HP EFF TE HP EFF

0 55000 - - 47000 - -
10 42700 1139 65% 33500 893 51%
20 24200 1291 73% 22500 1200 69%
30 16250 1300 74% 15500 1240 71%
40 12700 1355 77% 12000 1280 74%
50 9860 1315 75% 9500 1267 72%
60 8095 1295 74% 8000 1280 74%
70 6910 1290 74% 6900 1290 74%
80 6000 1280 73% 6100 1300 75%
90 5250 1260 72% 5500 1320 76%

Class 37:
Full Field 0 - 25mph
Intermediate Field 25 - 47 mph
Weak Field 47 -> mph
Generator Unloading 79 mph

Class 35:
1st Converter 0 - 25mph
2nd Converter 25 - 42 mph
3rd Converter 42 - 70 mph
4th Converter 70 -> mph

The Class 35 only out performs the Class 37 by a small amount after 70mph when
the Class 35 takes the fourth converter, and the Class 37 generator unloads at
79mph. How often did/do these Classes spend at speed?

On the reliability front:

Source "Electric v Hydraulic", Modern Railways December 1965, page 659....

Over 40 weeks, the average of four weekly availability;

Class 37 : 90.5%
Class 35 : 82.8%
Class 47 : 86.1%
Class 52 : 64.3%

Miles per Casualty over the same period;

Class 37 : 31,000 miles per casualty
Class 35 : 18,000 miles per casualty
Class 47 : 11,000 miles per casualty
Class 52 : 8,500 miles per casualty

The is a graph in the Brian Reed book of the availabilities over the period;

MIN Availability MAX Availability Average

Class 37 : Not on graph Not on graph 90.5%
Class 35 : 72% 84% 82.8%
Class 47 : 65% 90% 86.1%
Class 52 : 50% 65% 64.3%

The milages recorded by the fleets at the same point were:

Class 47 : 7, 722, 000
Class 37 : 21, 066, 700
Class 52 : 9, 615, 400
Class 35 : 12, 423, 400

Clearly the Class 37 comes out on top! Surely?


Due to repeated engine failures some of the Hymeks were de-rated to 1350 bhp
and the first converter was locked out in an attempt to make then more
reliable, while the engine problems were overcome.

Contrast this with the fact that no Class 37s have been downrated. Indeed, and
I quote (this time from "Railway World October 1986"

".......37292 which was modified at Doncaster during 1981 to develop 2000 bhp,
the manufacturers rating of the locomotives 12 CSVT power unit. As part of the
modification, Class 50 type fuel pumps were fitted to ensure adequate fuel
supply, and revised control circuitry was installed to provide three stages of
field weakening. After limited trial on the ER, the locomotive was allocated to
Eastfield depot and later in the year No 37292 moved to Motherwell where it was
usually employed in multiple with another Class 37 on the Hunterston -
Ravenscraig ore and coal traffic. Contrary to a view expressed by another
commentator, the trial uprating WAS a success and no particular problems were
encountered, nor was the locomotives reliabilty inferior to that of other
Motherwell units." But 37292's availabilty suffered, in view of the lack of
certain spairs on the region, such as fuel pumps.......the operating department
decided it did not want the extra power and 37292 was returned to 1750bhp as
37425"

>Pl>Most of the Hydraulic classes suffered from poor
>PL>matching of the transmission to the engine,
>

>True to some extent in the case of a 52, but not so in the case of a 35.
>
Agreed that's why I said MOST:

SPEED EFF (47) EFF (42) EFF (52) EFF (50)

20 77% 80% 66% 75%
40 84% 79% 75% 77%
60 83% 79% 75% 77%
80 82% 79% 72% 79%
100 64% 75% 70% 66%

MIN (20 - 80) 77% 77% 66% 75%
MAX (20 - 80) 85% 81% 77% 80%

There are dips on the curve here so that at the sample points I used, the
Western gets an edge but its flaws are revealed by the min and MAX.
Source this time "Railway Gazette International" May 19, 1967.

>PL>At their best, the Class 50s and Class 47s were actually more
>PL>reliable than the Class 52s.
>

>Very amusing. Are you comparing the best of the 47 and 50 to the worst


>of the 52 by any chance?


Nope. I was using an OFFICIAL comparison from 1964:

CLASS AVAILABILTY MILES PER CASUALTY

47 86.1% 11000
52 64.3% 8500

Over 40 weeks. I couldn't find any real Class 50 data except for some quotes
here and there;

"The L.M. region managed 75% with the Class 50"
"A figure of around 80% and a miles per casualty of around 20000 was recorded
after refurbishment"

...compared with the above 64.3% and 8500 miles per casualty for Class 52.


The Class 50s got a lot of bad publicity from their rundown, when failures were
inevitable. Which is what a lot of people compare the Hydraulics to!

At first on the Western Region the depots struggled with the Class 50s, in
particular their control systems, and a low of 38% availability was recorded.
But as one commentator put it "A similar drop might have occurred if the
Hydraulics went to the Midland" Indeed there can be no few other reasons for a
drop from 75% to around 50%, and as expected the 50s availabilty soon grew back
to around 75% - 80%.

cho...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu

unread,
Jun 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/3/95
to
In article <8AA92ED.153E...@almac.co.uk>, david....@almac.co.uk (DAVID HANSEN) writes:
:> DB> #FROM :bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au
:>
:> DB>At the risk of incurring the wrath of GWR purists, maybe this is a
:> DB>case for erecting wires over the WR main lines? *ducks* :-)
:>
:> There are many reasons for doing this. For instance the lines should be
:> able to take Berne Gauge vehicles to South Wales (via Gloucester) and
:> Exeter (via Bristol), which would be a useful marketing strategy for the
:> umpteen mickey mouse companies now running railfreight. Electric haulage
:> would reduce the running costs and the investment could be shared with
:> the passenger people.
:>
:> The Eurostars would also be able to run at full speed on the WR main
:> lines.
> David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk

But also Berne gauge to Birmingham (Wolverhampton really) and then, with
some creative engineering Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester

And if Dr. Beeching had not been so foresighted, over the ex-G.C.R.

David.
not OSUCOM

Dave Cromarty

unread,
Jun 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/4/95
to
In article <8020...@f4052.n282.z1>
Hudson....@f4052.fido.tdkt.mn.org "Hudson Leighton" writes:

[snip]


> Could someone please post a short version of what these various lcocmotives
> are? Us dumb Yanks don't have the faintest idea what a 52 or a 47 is ;-)
>

Some of us dumb Brits don't either. Here 's a few I _can_ remember,
though (would people with more knowledge and/or better memories
please correct where necessary ? TIA) :

Class 03 : 204 bhp 0-6-0 diesel mechanical shunter, Baguley Drewry
Class 08 : 400 bhp 0-6-0 diesel electric shunter, English Electric
Class 09 : Ditto, geared for slightly higher speed
Class 13 : Tinsley yard master/slave hump shunters, made from two
08s, one with a cab and one without
Class 20 : 1000 bhp single cab Bo-Bo diesel electric, English
Electric
Class 25 : 1250 (? correct me somebody) bhp Bo-Bo diesel electric,
Britsh Railways/Sulzer engine. Known by some as Rats
Class 26 : Now I'm getting out of my depth - Bo-Bo diesel electrics
of similar power to 25s
Class 27 : And again
Class 31 : 1200 bhp-ish, A1A-A1A diesel electrics, Brush Traction
Sometimes known as Toffeeapples
Class 33 : 1500 bhp-ish, Bo-Bo diesel electrics, Birmingham Railway
Carriage & Wagon Co, Sulzer engine. Known by some as
Cromptons after the electrical equipment
Class 35 : Magnificent 1700 bhp B-B diesel hydraulic with scrumptious
Maybach engine, built I think by BR Swindon and Beyer
Peacock (did I dream this?) and known as 'Hymeks' which
was something to do with the transmission (Mekydro?)
Class 37 : 1750 bhp Co-Co diesel electric, English Electric. Known
by some as Tractors and not as interesting IMHO
Class 40 : 2000 bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, English Electric. Known
by some (only magazine journos I suspect) as Whistlers
because of their distinctive turbocharger whine
Class 41 : Prototype HST power car if I remember rightly
Class 42 : Hideous 2200 bhp B-B diesel hydraulic, BR Swindon/North
British Loco Co (???), Maybach engines, Voith
transmission, known as 'Warships' because of their names.
Derived from the DB V200 class.
Class 43 : Production HST power cars
Class 44 : 2500 (?) bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, BR built, Sulzer
engines. I can remember the names, though : Scafell Pike,
Helvellyn, Skiddaw, Great Gable, Cross Fell, Whernside,
Ingleborough, Penyghent, Snowdon, Tryfan :)
Class 45 : 2600 (?) bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, BR built, Sulzer
engines. Very similar to 44s and known as Peaks (this
name actually came from the 44s as will be obvious from
their names).
Class 46 : 2600 (?) bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, BR built, Sulzer
engines. Indistinguishable by me from class 45 and also
known as Peaks
Class 47 : 2750, then 2650 bhp Co-Co diesel electrics, Brush
Traction, Sulzer engines. Known by some as Duffs. 508
built, and still a mainstay of all sorts of things. My
last one, 47643, has been stored unserviceable in
Inverness Millburn yard for several years. Not that I'm
interested in diesels of course. Why couldn't the bloody
thing fail at Bescot...
Class 50 : 2750, Co-Co diesel electrics, English Electric.
Class 52 : Utterly magnificent 2700 bhp (2x1350) C-C diesel
hydraulics, BR Swindon and some other place in Cheshire
built, Maybach engines and Voith transmission. Quite the
best looking diesel ever to run anywhere in the world and
until you've seen and heard one of these beasts start a
heavy train, preferably uphill, you ain't lived. Not that
I'm in any way prejudiced in favour of these spectacular
locos. Known to the cognoscenti as 'Westerns', all being
named 'Western xxxxxx'. The first was Western Enterprise.
Class 55 : 3300 bhp Co-Co diesel electrics, English Electric. 2x1650
bhp Napier Deltic engines hence their general name of
'Deltics'. Mostly named after regiments (Royal Scots Grey
etc), or racehorses (Crepello, St. Paddy, Shergar - oops
sorry, just my opinion). Very highly rated by those not
besotted by Westerns, and even I would admit not a bad
noise when trying; also more clag than you've ever seen
from a diesel when they revved up from idling.
Class 56 : 3250 (???) bhp Co-Co diesel electric freight locos,
Electroputere Romania/BR built. Can't remember the
engines.
Class 58 : 3??? bhp bhp Co-Co diesel electric freight locos, BR
Doncaster built. Can't remember their engines either (but
either 56 or 58 have Paxman engines).
Class 59 : Imported Co-Co diesel electrics from GM. American persons
will know all about these. More impressively quiet than
impressively noisy!
Class 60 : 3??? bhp Co-Co diesel electric freight locos, Brush
Traction. Don't know the engines, again. Too new fangled
for me.
Class 73 : 1600/600 bhp electrodiesels (the 600 bhp is third rail
electric. Don't know anything about these. I think they're
Bo-Bos. If you take Gatwick Express from LGW to Victoria
you'll get one.
Class 76 : Bo-Bo electrics, 1500v DC overhead. Better known for their
exploits in Holland - I photographed one in Kijfhoek yard
last weekend.
Class 81 : Bo-Bo electrics, 25kv AC overhead. Can't remember much else
about them.
Classes 82, 83, 84, 85 : ditto
Class 86 : Ditto but still extant. They're 4000 bhp I believe.
Class 87 : Ditto but still extant. They're 5000 bhp I believe.
Class 89 : Unique Co-Co electric, built by Brush and named Avocet. Now a
stuffed Avocet because it's been withdrawn and preserved.
Class 90 : Bo-Bo electrics, 25kv AC overhead. Can't remember much else
about them. With classes 86 and 87, mainstay of the West
Coast Main Line.
Class 91 : Well, they're electrics (25 kv AC overhead). Got a sloping
end at one end and a flat one at the other. Mainstay of
the East Coast main line and the one that set the record
this week. Alleged to be capable of 140mph and now we know
it's true.
Class 92 : Co-Co freight locos for the Channel Tunnel. 25kv AC
overhead/750 v DC third rail like the Eurostars. Brush
built them and they are named after famous figures from
the arts (Beethoven, Luciano Pavarotti etc).

This is all off the cuff and from memory which is deteriorating
rapidly. It is NOT an exhaustive list, either. Apologies for any
errors which I'm sure will be promptly corrected by others. The
following classes are extinct, or virtually so, for main line
purposes : 03, 13, 25, 26, 27, 35 (sob), 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 50,
52 (sob), 55, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89. Having no interest
whatsoever in diesel preservation other than Hymeks and Westerns I'm
not well up on the preservation situation but I think there are
preserved examples of 03, 25, 26, 27, 35, 40, 42, 44, 45 or 46, 50,
52, 55, 76, 89 and one of the other 80s.

Dave

--
Dave Cromarty da...@imago.demon.co.uk
Imago plc, Telford, England. (+44) 1952 292680
All opinions are mine and should not be attributed
to any other person or organisation.

Hoppy

unread,
Jun 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/4/95
to
Dave Cromarty <da...@imago.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8020...@f4052.n282.z1>
> Hudson....@f4052.fido.tdkt.mn.org "Hudson Leighton" writes:
>
>[snip]
>> Could someone please post a short version of what these various lcocmotives
>> are? Us dumb Yanks don't have the faintest idea what a 52 or a 47 is ;-)
>>
>Some of us dumb Brits don't either. Here 's a few I _can_ remember,
>though (would people with more knowledge and/or better memories
>please correct where necessary ? TIA) :
>
Its bloody good from the top of your head! Here are a few corrections, or
places that you could be wrong......but I'm not sure. Amusing Hydraulic
bias..... :-)

Class 01 : ???? Can somebody fill in the blanks.
Class 02 : 170 bhp

>Class 03 : 204 bhp 0-6-0 diesel mechanical shunter, Baguley Drewry

Class 04 204 bhp
Class 05 204 bhp
Class 06 204 bhp
Class 07 275 bhp

>Class 08 : 400 bhp 0-6-0 diesel electric shunter, English Electric
>Class 09 : Ditto, geared for slightly higher speed

Class 10. Similar to 08. 350 bhp.

>Class 13 : Tinsley yard master/slave hump shunters, made from two
> 08s, one with a cab and one without

Class 14. Diesel Hydraulic Shunter? Nicknamed "Teddy Bear". 650 bhp.
Class 15. 800 bhp. Bo-Bo?
Class 17. "Claytons". Bo-Bo 450 bhp.


>Class 20 : 1000 bhp single cab Bo-Bo diesel electric, English
> Electric

Nicknamed "Choppers".

>Class 25 : 1250 (? correct me somebody) bhp Bo-Bo diesel electric,
> Britsh Railways/Sulzer engine. Known by some as Rats
>Class 26 : Now I'm getting out of my depth - Bo-Bo diesel electrics
> of similar power to 25s

Nicknamed "MacRats" a sub-species of the "Rat" family.
>Class 27 : And again
More "MacRats". These were particularly good at catching fire, hence another
nickname (from the Latin for Rat "Rattus" :-) ) "Rattus Fire Riskus".


>Class 31 : 1200 bhp-ish, A1A-A1A diesel electrics, Brush Traction

> Sometimes known as Toffeeapples.
Also nicknamed "Goyles" or "Gargoyle" or "Peds". The latter from the word
"Pedal", a British piss take on their lack of power. They have English Electric
1470 bhp engines and Brush electrical gear. The Class 31/0s were the origin of
the nickname "Toffe apples" from the shape of the power controller I believe.
Some have no headcode box on top (but discs instead) and are called
"Skinheads".
I think they were all re-engined at some point, hence the possible confusion.


>Class 33 : 1500 bhp-ish, Bo-Bo diesel electrics, Birmingham Railway
> Carriage & Wagon Co, Sulzer engine. Known by some as
> Cromptons after the electrical equipment

1550 BHP I think. Also nicknamed "Shredders" from the sound they make.

>Class 35 : Magnificent 1700 bhp B-B diesel hydraulic with scrumptious
> Maybach engine, built I think by BR Swindon and Beyer
> Peacock (did I dream this?) and known as 'Hymeks' which
> was something to do with the transmission (Mekydro?)

They were actually 1740 bhp as quoted by Swindon, at 1500 rpm. Many books quote
them wrongly at 1700 bhp, presumably from the originial specification.

>Class 37 : 1750 bhp Co-Co diesel electric, English Electric. Known

> by some as Tractors and not as interesting IMHO.
Also called "Syphons". Typically English Electric. Sound tremendous when
pulling away.

>Class 40 : 2000 bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, English Electric. Known
> by some (only magazine journos I suspect) as Whistlers

> because of their distinctive turbocharger whine.
Also known as "Buckets" to some of the earlier railfans. The power plant is
same as a Class 50 but with less turbo-charging. They therefore sound very
similar, but with less "Dubbing" and more "Whistling".

>Class 41 : Prototype HST power car if I remember rightly.
2250 bhp like the Class 43 production versions.

>Class 42 : Hideous 2200 bhp B-B diesel hydraulic, BR Swindon/North
> British Loco Co (???), Maybach engines, Voith
> transmission, known as 'Warships' because of their names.
> Derived from the DB V200 class.

Contained 2 x 1100 bhp engines, although there were several experimental ones,
with different engines and power ratings.

>Class 43 : Production HST power cars.

>Class 44 : 2500 (?) bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, BR built, Sulzer
> engines. I can remember the names, though : Scafell Pike,
> Helvellyn, Skiddaw, Great Gable, Cross Fell, Whernside,
> Ingleborough, Penyghent, Snowdon, Tryfan :)

The origin of the nickname "Peak" for all of Classes 44, 45, 46 although only
the Class 44s were named after Peaks. Had 2300 bhp engines.

>Class 45 : 2600 (?) bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, BR built, Sulzer
> engines. Very similar to 44s and known as Peaks (this
> name actually came from the 44s as will be obvious from
> their names).

2500 bhp.

>Class 46 : 2600 (?) bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, BR built, Sulzer
> engines. Indistinguishable by me from class 45 and also
> known as Peaks

2500 bhp.


>Class 47 : 2750, then 2650 bhp Co-Co diesel electrics, Brush
> Traction, Sulzer engines. Known by some as Duffs. 508
> built, and still a mainstay of all sorts of things. My
> last one, 47643, has been stored unserviceable in
> Inverness Millburn yard for several years. Not that I'm
> interested in diesels of course. Why couldn't the bloody
> thing fail at Bescot...

I though it was 2580 bhp they we're derated to? Nicknames include "Duffs" or
"Spoons".

>Class 50 : 2750, Co-Co diesel electrics, English Electric.

2700 bhp. Nicknamed "Warships" which never caught on at all, or "Hoovers", or
"Logs" or "Vacs". The "Hoover" nickname comes from the Vacuum Cleaner type
sound, caused by the inertia filtration equipment that was removed on
refurbishment. "Vacs" is a derivative name from "Hoover". "Hoover" vacuum
cleaner manufacturer in Britain!


>Class 52 : Utterly magnificent 2700 bhp (2x1350) C-C diesel
> hydraulics, BR Swindon and some other place in Cheshire
> built, Maybach engines and Voith transmission. Quite the
> best looking diesel ever to run anywhere in the world and
> until you've seen and heard one of these beasts start a
> heavy train, preferably uphill, you ain't lived. Not that
> I'm in any way prejudiced in favour of these spectacular
> locos. Known to the cognoscenti as 'Westerns', all being
> named 'Western xxxxxx'. The first was Western Enterprise.

They were very nice!

>Class 55 : 3300 bhp Co-Co diesel electrics, English Electric. 2x1650
> bhp Napier Deltic engines hence their general name of
> 'Deltics'. Mostly named after regiments (Royal Scots Grey
> etc), or racehorses (Crepello, St. Paddy, Shergar - oops
> sorry, just my opinion). Very highly rated by those not
> besotted by Westerns, and even I would admit not a bad
> noise when trying; also more clag than you've ever seen
> from a diesel when they revved up from idling.

The "Deltic" name for the engine comes from the way the cylinders are arranged.
Each engine has 3 banks of 6 cyliners arranged in a delta shape. The cylinders
were fairly small compared to most, and hence the engines RPM was higher than
most. Hence the distinctive sound.

>Class 56 : 3250 (???) bhp Co-Co diesel electric freight locos,
> Electroputere Romania/BR built. Can't remember the
> engines.

Ruston-Paxman ? Nicknamed "Grid-Iron" ? Or "Christmas Tree" ?

>Class 58 : 3??? bhp bhp Co-Co diesel electric freight locos, BR
> Doncaster built. Can't remember their engines either (but
> either 56 or 58 have Paxman engines).

3300 bhp Ruson-Paxman. "Egg-timers".

>Class 59 : Imported Co-Co diesel electrics from GM. American persons
> will know all about these. More impressively quiet than
> impressively noisy!

3300 bhp??

>Class 60 : 3??? bhp Co-Co diesel electric freight locos, Brush
> Traction. Don't know the engines, again. Too new fangled
> for me.

3300 bhp??


>Class 73 : 1600/600 bhp electrodiesels (the 600 bhp is third rail
> electric. Don't know anything about these. I think they're
> Bo-Bos. If you take Gatwick Express from LGW to Victoria
> you'll get one.

The 600 bhp is diesel power, the 1600 is third rail electic.

>Class 76 : Bo-Bo electrics, 1500v DC overhead. Better known for their
> exploits in Holland - I photographed one in Kijfhoek yard
> last weekend.

Class 76s were nicknamed "Tommies" after the first one was named "Tommy" having
been abroad. Are you sure these were famous in Holland? See below Class 77.

Class 77. Passenger variant of Class 76. Were bought by NS, and therefore spent
much of their lives in Holland. Co-Co.

>Class 81 : Bo-Bo electrics, 25kv AC overhead. Can't remember much else
> about them.

>Classes 82, 83, 84, 85 : ditto.

I think they were all around 3200hp continuous rating.

>Class 86 : Ditto but still extant. They're 4000 bhp I believe.

Originally 3600 hp, and then 4000 hp continuous rating. Some are still 3600 hp
I think.

>Class 87 : Ditto but still extant. They're 5000 bhp I believe.

5000 hp continuous rating, but like all electrics capable of a lot more than
their continuous rating. Perhaps over 7000 hp at Rail peak.

>Class 89 : Unique Co-Co electric, built by Brush and named Avocet. Now a
> stuffed Avocet because it's been withdrawn and preserved.

Nicknamed "Anteater". Its been preserved by some employees of Brush and thank
god they did. This revolutionary beast is the most powerful engine to grace BR.
It is more powerful than the Class 91s. The owners are restoring it to main
line running. It is almost brand new, only having done some 6000 hours since
new. Potential for WCML engines still......


>Class 90 : Bo-Bo electrics, 25kv AC overhead. Can't remember much else
> about them. With classes 86 and 87, mainstay of the West
> Coast Main Line.

The Class 90 are basically 87101 with a different body. 87101 is a thyristor
controlled experimental engine, and hence Class 90 are thyristor controled.
AC classes 81/2/3/4/5/6/7 use Tap Changer control.

>Class 91 : Well, they're electrics (25 kv AC overhead). Got a sloping
> end at one end and a flat one at the other. Mainstay of
> the East Coast main line and the one that set the record
> this week. Alleged to be capable of 140mph and now we know
> it's true.

Built by GEC.

>Class 92 : Co-Co freight locos for the Channel Tunnel. 25kv AC
> overhead/750 v DC third rail like the Eurostars. Brush
> built them and they are named after famous figures from
> the arts (Beethoven, Luciano Pavarotti etc).
>

Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789

unread,
Jun 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/4/95
to
>>> Could someone please post a short version of what these various lcocmotives
>>> are? Us dumb Yanks don't have the faintest idea what a 52 or a 47 is ;-)
>>>
>>Some of us dumb Brits don't either. Here 's a few I _can_ remember,
>>though (would people with more knowledge and/or better memories
>>please correct where necessary ? TIA) :
>>
>Its bloody good from the top of your head! Here are a few corrections, or
>places that you could be wrong......but I'm not sure. Amusing Hydraulic
>bias..... :-)
>
Some more additions....

The numerical system identified locomotive power by the first numeral --
from zero for shunters, up to 5 for heavy diesels. 7 for DC electrics, and
8 for AC electrics...

>Class 01 : ???? Can somebody fill in the blanks.
>Class 02 : 170 bhp
>
>>Class 03 : 204 bhp 0-6-0 diesel mechanical shunter, Baguley Drewry
>Class 04 204 bhp
>Class 05 204 bhp
>Class 06 204 bhp
>Class 07 275 bhp
>

Class 01 thru 07 were the small diesel shunters (switchers ;=) ) with
mechanical transmission produced as "working prototypes" by various
manufacturers in the '50s and early '60s. They were mostly made in small
quantities, and became associated with one particular location or region
so far as railfans were concerned.

A couple of 01s survived long after the rest of the class was withdrawn
and worked the Holyhead breakwater, which I believe was physically isolated
from the rest of the rail system? The 02s were to be seen in the Liverpool
area. The 03s servived longer than most at locations like Bournemouth,
Landore (Swansea), Norwich and Newcastle. The 04s were a differently
engined 03 clone (more or less...) and were all gone by the early '70s.
An 05 soldiered on on the Isle of Wight for many years. The 06s all
were based in Scotland (appropriate as they were built by Barclay's
of Kilmarnock). The 07s were a modern diesel-electric design and
wroked the Southampton docks traffic. I can still remember a high-school
visit to the docks -- we saw the QE II liner leaving for New York, but
I was more concerned with checking out the 07s shunting banana vans ;=).

>>Class 08 : 400 bhp 0-6-0 diesel electric shunter, English Electric
>>Class 09 : Ditto, geared for slightly higher speed
>Class 10. Similar to 08. 350 bhp.

Class 11 and 12. Predecessors of the 08 type built for the Southern
Railway and the LMS. Just caught the last survivors at Willesden and
Hither Green :=)

>
>>Class 13 : Tinsley yard master/slave hump shunters, made from two
>> 08s, one with a cab and one without
>Class 14. Diesel Hydraulic Shunter? Nicknamed "Teddy Bear". 650 bhp.
>Class 15. 800 bhp. Bo-Bo?
>Class 17. "Claytons". Bo-Bo 450 bhp.
>
>

16 Another small, low power Bo-Bo?

21, 22, 29 were other low-power prototypes built by North British(??)
More details??

23 Baby deltics -- one "Deltic" engine -- see Class 55 below.
Classic use on Kings Cross suburban passenger trains with non-corridor
coaching stock.

24 Predecessor (150 built) of 25s. "Skinhead" like front end (see Class 31).

28 "Metrovic" (Metropolitan Vickers) diesels, with unique Bo-Co
(2-axle truck at one end, 3-axle truck at the other!!) wheel
arrangement... Their initial (and only) moment of glory came on
their use on the "Condor" express frieght service from London to
Glasgow in the late '50s. Hornby Doublo once made a model of this design.

>>Class 20 : 1000 bhp single cab Bo-Bo diesel electric, English
>> Electric
>Nicknamed "Choppers".
>
>>Class 25 : 1250 (? correct me somebody) bhp Bo-Bo diesel electric,
>> Britsh Railways/Sulzer engine. Known by some as Rats
>>Class 26 : Now I'm getting out of my depth - Bo-Bo diesel electrics
>> of similar power to 25s
>Nicknamed "MacRats" a sub-species of the "Rat" family.
>>Class 27 : And again
>More "MacRats". These were particularly good at catching fire, hence another
>nickname (from the Latin for Rat "Rattus" :-) ) "Rattus Fire Riskus".
>
>
>>Class 31 : 1200 bhp-ish, A1A-A1A diesel electrics, Brush Traction
>> Sometimes known as Toffeeapples.
>Also nicknamed "Goyles" or "Gargoyle" or "Peds". The latter from the word
>"Pedal", a British piss take on their lack of power. They have English Electric
>1470 bhp engines and Brush electrical gear. The Class 31/0s were the origin of
>the nickname "Toffe apples" from the shape of the power controller I believe.
>Some have no headcode box on top (but discs instead) and are called
>"Skinheads".
>I think they were all re-engined at some point, hence the possible confusion.

The 31/0 toffee apples were once classified as Class 30? 31/0s defined
the East Anglian railfan experience :=)

>
>
>>Class 33 : 1500 bhp-ish, Bo-Bo diesel electrics, Birmingham Railway
>> Carriage & Wagon Co, Sulzer engine. Known by some as
>> Cromptons after the electrical equipment
>1550 BHP I think. Also nicknamed "Shredders" from the sound they make.

I think the 33/1 (multiple unit control with EMUs) were classed 34 to
begin with?

>
>>Class 35 : Magnificent 1700 bhp B-B diesel hydraulic with scrumptious
>> Maybach engine, built I think by BR Swindon and Beyer
>> Peacock (did I dream this?) and known as 'Hymeks' which
>> was something to do with the transmission (Mekydro?)
>They were actually 1740 bhp as quoted by Swindon, at 1500 rpm. Many books quote
>them wrongly at 1700 bhp, presumably from the originial specification.
>
>>Class 37 : 1750 bhp Co-Co diesel electric, English Electric. Known
>> by some as Tractors and not as interesting IMHO.
>Also called "Syphons". Typically English Electric. Sound tremendous when
>pulling away.
>
>>Class 40 : 2000 bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, English Electric. Known
>> by some (only magazine journos I suspect) as Whistlers
>> because of their distinctive turbocharger whine.
>Also known as "Buckets" to some of the earlier railfans. The power plant is
>same as a Class 50 but with less turbo-charging. They therefore sound very
>similar, but with less "Dubbing" and more "Whistling".

A classic early design.

>
>>Class 41 : Prototype HST power car if I remember rightly.
>2250 bhp like the Class 43 production versions.
>
>>Class 42 : Hideous 2200 bhp B-B diesel hydraulic, BR Swindon/North
>> British Loco Co (???), Maybach engines, Voith
>> transmission, known as 'Warships' because of their names.
>> Derived from the DB V200 class.
>Contained 2 x 1100 bhp engines, although there were several experimental ones,
>with different engines and power ratings.

The Swindon warships were Class 42, the North British 43. Hideous???
Well, I guess we agree to disagree.... ;=)

>
>>Class 43 : Production HST power cars.
>
>>Class 44 : 2500 (?) bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, BR built, Sulzer
>> engines. I can remember the names, though : Scafell Pike,
>> Helvellyn, Skiddaw, Great Gable, Cross Fell, Whernside,
>> Ingleborough, Penyghent, Snowdon, Tryfan :)

All based at Toton (near Nottingham) for many years and used for hauling coal
trains.

>The origin of the nickname "Peak" for all of Classes 44, 45, 46 although only
>the Class 44s were named after Peaks. Had 2300 bhp engines.
>
>>Class 45 : 2600 (?) bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, BR built, Sulzer
>> engines. Very similar to 44s and known as Peaks (this
>> name actually came from the 44s as will be obvious from
>> their names).
>2500 bhp.
>
>>Class 46 : 2600 (?) bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, BR built, Sulzer
>> engines. Indistinguishable by me from class 45 and also
>> known as Peaks
>2500 bhp.
>>Class 47 : 2750, then 2650 bhp Co-Co diesel electrics, Brush
>> Traction, Sulzer engines. Known by some as Duffs. 508
>> built, and still a mainstay of all sorts of things. My
>> last one, 47643, has been stored unserviceable in
>> Inverness Millburn yard for several years. Not that I'm
>> interested in diesels of course. Why couldn't the bloody
>> thing fail at Bescot...
>I though it was 2580 bhp they we're derated to? Nicknames include "Duffs" or
>"Spoons".

A handful of 47s were classed as 48 to begin with (different engines??)

>
>>Class 50 : 2750, Co-Co diesel electrics, English Electric.
>2700 bhp. Nicknamed "Warships" which never caught on at all, or "Hoovers", or
>"Logs" or "Vacs". The "Hoover" nickname comes from the Vacuum Cleaner type
>sound, caused by the inertia filtration equipment that was removed on
>refurbishment. "Vacs" is a derivative name from "Hoover". "Hoover" vacuum
>cleaner manufacturer in Britain!
>
>
>>Class 52 : Utterly magnificent 2700 bhp (2x1350) C-C diesel
>> hydraulics, BR Swindon and some other place in Cheshire
>> built, Maybach engines and Voith transmission. Quite the
>> best looking diesel ever to run anywhere in the world and
>> until you've seen and heard one of these beasts start a
>> heavy train, preferably uphill, you ain't lived. Not that
>> I'm in any way prejudiced in favour of these spectacular
>> locos. Known to the cognoscenti as 'Westerns', all being
>> named 'Western xxxxxx'. The first was Western Enterprise.
>They were very nice!

Classics...

>
>>Class 55 : 3300 bhp Co-Co diesel electrics, English Electric. 2x1650
>> bhp Napier Deltic engines hence their general name of
>> 'Deltics'. Mostly named after regiments (Royal Scots Grey
>> etc), or racehorses (Crepello, St. Paddy, Shergar - oops
>> sorry, just my opinion). Very highly rated by those not
>> besotted by Westerns, and even I would admit not a bad
>> noise when trying; also more clag than you've ever seen
>> from a diesel when they revved up from idling.
>The "Deltic" name for the engine comes from the way the cylinders are arranged.
>Each engine has 3 banks of 6 cyliners arranged in a delta shape. The cylinders
>were fairly small compared to most, and hence the engines RPM was higher than
>most. Hence the distinctive sound.

Ah.... To see and hear a Deltic arriving at King's Cross, bursting out of
Gassworks Tunnel ;=) .

>
>>Class 56 : 3250 (???) bhp Co-Co diesel electric freight locos,
>> Electroputere Romania/BR built. Can't remember the
>> engines.
>Ruston-Paxman ? Nicknamed "Grid-Iron" ? Or "Christmas Tree" ?
>
>>Class 58 : 3??? bhp bhp Co-Co diesel electric freight locos, BR
>> Doncaster built. Can't remember their engines either (but
>> either 56 or 58 have Paxman engines).
>3300 bhp Ruson-Paxman. "Egg-timers".
>
>>Class 59 : Imported Co-Co diesel electrics from GM. American persons
>> will know all about these. More impressively quiet than
>> impressively noisy!
>3300 bhp??
>
>>Class 60 : 3??? bhp Co-Co diesel electric freight locos, Brush
>> Traction. Don't know the engines, again. Too new fangled
>> for me.
>3300 bhp??

70 Bulleid-design third-rail electrics for the Brighton line.

71 DC electrics built for the Kent coast 750V DC third-rail electrification.
Classic duty was on Dover to London freights of ferry traffic, complete with
bogie break van (*almost* a US-style caboose ;=O) at the rear end.
Also had novel 1500V DC pantograph for goods yards fitted out with
overhead wires rather than third rail.

72 Classification of some 73s early on.

>>Class 73 : 1600/600 bhp electrodiesels (the 600 bhp is third rail
>> electric. Don't know anything about these. I think they're
>> Bo-Bos. If you take Gatwick Express from LGW to Victoria
>> you'll get one.
>The 600 bhp is diesel power, the 1600 is third rail electic.
>

74 Rebuilt Class 71 as electrodiesel (see 73) for Bournemouth line
duties after electrification. Classic use: Southampton docks and Weymouth
boat trains.

>>Class 76 : Bo-Bo electrics, 1500v DC overhead. Better known for their
>> exploits in Holland - I photographed one in Kijfhoek yard
>> last weekend.
>Class 76s were nicknamed "Tommies" after the first one was named "Tommy" having
>been abroad. Are you sure these were famous in Holland? See below Class 77.
>
>Class 77. Passenger variant of Class 76. Were bought by NS, and therefore spent
>much of their lives in Holland. Co-Co.
>

80 Prototype AC electric ??

A small handful of designs didn't survive long enough to receive
numerical classification: the LMS prototype diesels (although one
*did* get painted in Rail Blue, I believe), and the North British
prototype Warships (D600 series). Others???

Memories...

Hudson Leighton

unread,
Jun 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/4/95
to
-=> Quoting Hoppy to All <=-

Ho> From: Hoppy <ho...@division.co.uk>

Ho> Dave Cromarty <da...@imago.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8020...@f4052.n282.z1>
> Hudson....@f4052.fido.tdkt.mn.org "Hudson Leighton" writes:
>
>[snip]

>> Could someone please post a short version of what these various lcocmotives
>> are? Us dumb Yanks don't have the faintest idea what a 52 or a 47 is ;-)
>>
>Some of us dumb Brits don't either. Here 's a few I _can_ remember,
>though (would people with more knowledge and/or better memories
>please correct where necessary ? TIA) :

Us dumb Yanks thank you! Now if I can just figure what direction
London is from Glasgow, I will have it made ;-)


... Member: International Brotherhood of Tagline Thieves ** Local #4052
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12


Alan J Flavell

unread,
Jun 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/4/95
to
In article <8022...@f4052.n282.z1>

Hudson Leighton <Hudson....@f4052.fido.tdkt.mn.org> writes:

>Us dumb Yanks thank you! Now if I can just figure what direction
>London is from Glasgow, I will have it made ;-)

Trans-border ;-)

J.P.Watts

unread,
Jun 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/4/95
to
In article <Andrew.Cooke...@nrpa.no> Andrew...@nrpa.no (Andrew Cooke) writes:
> Paul Lee <hoppy> writes:
>
[lots of things about failed locos, but which I'm not going to comment on]

I notice that 47706 has been withdrawn; I was in Exeter throughout the 47/7s
monopoly of the LSWR mainline, and never saw 706 complete a journey. I saw
it dragged home several times, though.

pity.


--

======================================================================
James Watts
Semiconductor Physics Group J.P....@uk.ac.exeter
University of Exeter
======================================================================

J.P.Watts

unread,
Jun 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/4/95
to
In article <3qkl31$3...@bright.ecs.soton.ac.uk> db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk (David Bunny) writes:
>A R BREEN (a...@aber.ac.uk) wrote:
>: >. Hence the Class 47/7s on the Southern Region were an even
>: >bigger disaster than the Class 50s.
>
>: The 47/7s had spent years alternating between max. power & hard
>: braking on the E&G. They were maintained up to the hilt there
>: (had to be) but still could be pretty ratty. By the time they
>: came south they must have been pretty well beetled out.
>: Must be about the only example of the south east getting worn-
>: out equipment from Scotland. Usually works the other way around...
>
>The route from Edinburgh to Glasgow which the 47/7s used was very high
>speed and in view of the light loads these locomotives used to pull/push,
>I don't regard their work as punishing compared with (for example) HST
>cross country sets whose engines will be continiously winding up and
>down. Indeed, the 47/7s would have spent a lot of their time at high
>speed. Consistent operation at maximum output is not considered to be as
>punnishing as continual throttling up and down of the engine. (Read my
>thread train logs about this which was taken from an article in Railway
>World).

Sorry, David, I don't agree with you here. Surely the 47/7s would have
been throttling up and down all the time as well - these locos were
even given enlarged compressor intercoolers (white pipework above fuel
tanks) to cope with the increased air supply demand caused by the
continuous braking and restarting. Besides, the engines would also have
spent a lot of time at full power at low speed. This isn't the most
healthy scenario for a loco.

I'm happy to be corrected though.

Hoppy

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk (David Bunny) wrote:
>Hoppy (ho...@division.co.uk) wrote:

>: david....@almac.co.uk (DAVID HANSEN) wrote:
>: >PL> @FROM :hoppy
>: >
>: >PL>The Hymeks were absolutely no match for the Class 37s, either
>: >PL>powerwise or reliability.
>: >
>: >Really.
>: >
>: Yes really!
>
><stuff snipped...>
>
>One note about the relative performance capabilities you omitted Paul is
>that your Hymek weighs a lot less than your 37. This will make it
>superior on the 'open road' (at least in theory). Class 35 weighs 83 tons
>(approx) whilst the 37 comes at anything between 104 - 120 tons.
>
This is a fair point. I was comparing the performance of the Classes. Class
37/0 are 105 tons. The ones which are 120 tons have deliberately added weights
ton improve performace. So we should really compare 105 tons.

How much difference does this make in real terms. Well uphill the Class 37 will
lose out, downhill it will gain, and on the Level the Class 35 will gain a
minor advantage. For example with 500 tons to pull the 37 has 3.7% more weight
to pull around. The hevaier the load, the less of a disadvantage the Class 37
has.

An even better point to make, and one which will have more of an impact, would
be the rolling resistance of the two. We have a Class 37 Co-Co, and a Class 35
Bo-Bo of totally different shapes. I'm afraid we'll find information on that
one difficult to find.

It could well be that the Class 35 gains a further advantage here, or that the
Class 37 has better front end resistance and regains or even betters its lost
weight advantage. And less wind resistance helps up hill, down hill or on the
level.

Would you like me to try and find some data. I think we may have to make some
gross assumptions like Class 35 is similar to Class 47 and Class 37 is similar
to a Deltic sort of thing. I'm sure that any difference here would be much more
significant.


>: Contrast this with the fact that no Class 37s have been downrated. Indeed, and


>: I quote (this time from "Railway World October 1986"
>
>: ".......37292 which was modified at Doncaster during 1981 to develop 2000 bhp,
>: the manufacturers rating of the locomotives 12 CSVT power unit.
>

><more stuff snipped>
>
>But isn't that a downrating? The engine was designed as a *2000hp* power
>unit, not 1750hp and surely this is one of the *major* reasons why they
>are so reliable.
>
No. They were designed to have 1750hp engines. That they chose not to have the
full 2000 hp is not a downrating. The fact that they operated one at 2000hp
shows that it was equally reliable. The 35s had their 1740hp engines downrated
because of problems with engine failures.
--

David Bunny

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
Hoppy (ho...@division.co.uk) wrote:

: david....@almac.co.uk (DAVID HANSEN) wrote:
: >PL> @FROM :hoppy
: >
: >PL>The Hymeks were absolutely no match for the Class 37s, either
: >PL>powerwise or reliability.
: >
: >Really.
: >
: Yes really!

<stuff snipped...>

One note about the relative performance capabilities you omitted Paul is
that your Hymek weighs a lot less than your 37. This will make it
superior on the 'open road' (at least in theory). Class 35 weighs 83 tons
(approx) whilst the 37 comes at anything between 104 - 120 tons.

: Contrast this with the fact that no Class 37s have been downrated. Indeed, and


: I quote (this time from "Railway World October 1986"

: ".......37292 which was modified at Doncaster during 1981 to develop 2000 bhp,
: the manufacturers rating of the locomotives 12 CSVT power unit.

<more stuff snipped>

But isn't that a downrating? The engine was designed as a *2000hp* power
unit, not 1750hp and surely this is one of the *major* reasons why they
are so reliable.

--

David Bunny

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
J.P.Watts (jpw...@exeter.ac.uk) wrote:
: Sorry, David, I don't agree with you here. Surely the 47/7s would have
: been throttling up and down all the time as well - these locos were
: even given enlarged compressor intercoolers (white pipework above fuel
: tanks) to cope with the increased air supply demand caused by the
: continuous braking and restarting. Besides, the engines would also have
: spent a lot of time at full power at low speed. This isn't the most
: healthy scenario for a loco.

: I'm happy to be corrected though.

Well its just my opinion that a route with many intermediate speed
restrictions, stops and tough gradients (like the Salisbury to Exeter
route) is more punishing that a high speed bash along a straight
relatively level line free of restrictions. As for spending a lot of time
at low speed, surely this can't be compared to say, getting a train
underway on the Salisbury to Exeter line with a 1/80 gradient in the way,
and the stopping and restarting (how many stops did the Glasgow -
Edinburgh service make) surely cannot be compared with again, Salisbury
to Exeter.

Hoppy

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
Dave Cromarty <da...@imago.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3qs47f$7...@imp.demon.co.uk> ho...@division.co.uk "Hoppy" writes:
>
>[snip]
>> Amusing Hydraulic
>> bias..... :-)
>
>Bias ? BIAS ? What bias? Pure fact, mate :-)
>
>> They were very nice!
>
I prefer to like em all!

>Seriously, thanks for all the corrections. Old age is obviously creeping on.
>
Now now. Your initial stab was better than anything I could do! somebody else
has posted even more changes. Maybe somebody should save all this for the FAQ!

Keith Ioan Matthews

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
In article <3qgaqt$5...@weever.mel.dit.csiro.au>
a...@conger.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU "Andrew Waugh" writes:

>
> It is true that one reason for the use of UK builders was the exchange

> controls, but this is not the whole story. Australia, for example, faced

> similar exchange limitations over the same period, but the two major systems

> (NSW and Victoria) purchased US diesels, not UK diesels.
>

> R.M. Tufnell's very interesting book "The Diesel Impact on British Rail"
> makes it very clear that the UK diesel engine manufacturers were vitally
> interested:


I haven't had the opportunity to read Tufnell's volume, but I have managed
to dig out the reference I was thinking of earlier (E.S.Cox, Locomotive
Panorama Vol II). On Page 123 Cox (writing about the 1955/56 modernisation plan)
states "No available manufacturer with
equipment ready for production was left out with the notable exception of
General Motors, by far the most experienced of the manufacturers. They had to
be excluded, however, because of their inflexible rule not to grant licences
for their engines to be built anywhere outside the USA and dollars were just not
available to buy their engines in bulk."

For those not in the know, Cox was Executive Officer, Design to Riddles at the
start of BR immediately following nationalisation, and Mechanical Engineer
(Development) and de facto Deputy CME to Bond when Riddles left in 1954.
--
Keith Ioan Matthews

David Bromage

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
Dave Cromarty <da...@imago.demon.co.uk> writes:

>Class 03 : 204 bhp 0-6-0 diesel mechanical shunter, Baguley Drewry
>Class 08 : 400 bhp 0-6-0 diesel electric shunter, English Electric
>Class 09 : Ditto, geared for slightly higher speed

[Remainder snipped]

I know that there is a brief listing on Mercurio, but perhaps some
enterprising person could put a semi-detailed list on a WWW page. I'm sure
that many railfans would enjoy browsing through an online reference. I can
tell a class 33 from a 47 from, but don't ask me what the various
sub-classes are. :)

The list should contain brief technical descriptions (e.g. engine,
generator/alternator, traction motors, hp, max, speed, etc) of the classes
and numerous sub-classes, with perhaps details of where one can see them in
operation (in mainline service or preserved). It would not be necessary to
list every individual locomotive in BR service or where they are shedded.

I'm attempting to compile a similar list for Australian locomitives.
http://www.monash.edu.au/ccstaff2/che/bromage/WWW/rail/

Cheers
David

Dave Cromarty

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
In article <3qs47f$7...@imp.demon.co.uk> ho...@division.co.uk "Hoppy" writes:

[snip]
> Amusing Hydraulic
> bias..... :-)

Bias ? BIAS ? What bias? Pure fact, mate :-)

> They were very nice!

I should Co-Co - sorry, C-C.

> The 600 bhp is diesel power, the 1600 is third rail electic.

Dear me, what was I thinking of. You're right, of course.

> Class 76s were nicknamed "Tommies" after the first one was named "Tommy" having
> been abroad. Are you sure these were famous in Holland? See below Class 77.
>
> Class 77. Passenger variant of Class 76. Were bought by NS, and therefore spent
> much of their lives in Holland. Co-Co.

Um, yes, um, well, I think it _might_ have been a 77 at that. Sorry..
It was a rotten photograph anyway :-(

Seriously, thanks for all the corrections. Old age is obviously creeping on.

Dave
--
Dave Cromarty da...@imago.demon.co.uk

David Gee

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
Bill Bedford <bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snipped]

> There is one piece of information that is almost always overlooked in these

>discusions and that is that the CME's of the private railways held patents and
>royalties that applied to their designs privately. Any payments from these were
>counted as a perk of the job. This is the reason, I believe that the LMS and SR
>built their own locos rather than buying in existing designs.
>
>How long this situation would have continued I would not like to speculated but
>I believe it would have taken a major corporate shakeup to change.

I strongly suspect that most of the railways would have done what the LMS and
Southern were doing and got the CME to design the mechanical parts, obtaining
the electricals and diesel engines from EE (or maybe even GM/EMD?).

I wonder what the GWR would have done - gone gas-turbine (and got caught
when the price of oil shot up) or opted for hydraulics - or neither?

David.
--
"Private business must be run for private profit. The State could run the
railways at a loss to benefit industry and agriculture."

- Winston Churchill


Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
>I wonder what the GWR would have done - gone gas-turbine (and got caught
>when the price of oil shot up) or opted for hydraulics - or neither?
>
Or oil-burning steam locomotives??

DAVID HANSEN

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
C > #FROM :cho...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu

C >:> There are many reasons for doing this. For instance the lines
C >should be :> able to take Berne Gauge vehicles to South Wales (via
C >Gloucester) and :> Exeter (via Bristol), which would be a useful
C >marketing strategy for the :> umpteen mickey mouse companies now
C >running railfreight. Electric haulage :> would reduce the running
C >costs and the investment could be shared with :> the passenger
C >people. :>

C >But also Berne gauge to Birmingham (Wolverhampton really) and then,
C >with some creative engineering Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester

I'm not sure how far one could get towards Birmingham, presumably it
would be via Oxford.

C >And if Dr. Beeching had not been so foresighted, over the ex-G.C.R.

Yes, all the way to Sheffield or possibly Manchester. The GC line was
built as a high speed line and some very fast trains ran on it before it
was swallowed up. It would make a good north-south high speed route.


David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk | PGP key ID
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | 6AC0AC7D
---

* POW 1.2 0041 * JAIL ME! I marched against the Criminal Justice Act.

cho...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
In article <8022...@f4052.n282.z1>, Hudson Leighton <Hudson....@f4052.fido.tdkt.mn.org> writes:
> -=> Quoting Hoppy to All <=-
>
:> Ho> From: Hoppy <ho...@division.co.uk>
:>
:> Ho> Dave Cromarty <da...@imago.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:> >In article <8020...@f4052.n282.z1>

:> > Hudson....@f4052.fido.tdkt.mn.org "Hudson Leighton" writes:
:> >
:> >[snip]
:> >> Could someone please post a short version of what these various lcocmotives
:> >> are? Us dumb Yanks don't have the faintest idea what a 52 or a 47 is ;-)
:> >>
:> >Some of us dumb Brits don't either. Here 's a few I _can_ remember,
:> >though (would people with more knowledge and/or better memories
:> >please correct where necessary ? TIA) :
:>
:> Us dumb Yanks thank you! Now if I can just figure what direction
:> London is from Glasgow, I will have it made ;-)
:>
:>
:> ... Member: International Brotherhood of Tagline Thieves ** Local #4052
:> ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
:

Which of course reminded me of the Goon Show "The MacReekie Rising of '74"

"Tonight, we march North tae England!!!"

"But England's sooth!!"

"Aye we're going tae march right roond the wurrld and sneak up on
them from behind"

Chorley MacChorley, the steaming sassenach
not OSUCOM

David Bunny

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
I had endeavoured to do this in my UK web pages but time hasn't allowed
me to do so. Tobias Kohkler has such a description though, taken from
Jane's Book of railways.

Keith Balderson

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to
cho...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu wrote:
>
>But also Berne gauge to Birmingham (Wolverhampton really) and then, with
>some creative engineering Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester
>
>And if Dr. Beeching had not been so foresighted, over the ex-G.C.R.

If I remember correctly, about a year or so ago some consortium ran
a "gauging" train from somewhere around Folkestone to Glasgow to measure
the alterations _actually_ needed to run Berne gauge. They came up with
an answer of some 80 million pounds, as against the DoT's estimate of
hundreds of millions (forget the exact answer, it was big enough to convince
anyone that it couldn't be done.

Cheers, Keith.


Andrew Cooke

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
In article <802258...@imago.demon.co.uk> Dave Cromarty <da...@imago.demon.co.uk> writes:

>Class 47 : 2750, then 2650 bhp Co-Co diesel electrics, Brush
> Traction, Sulzer engines. Known by some as Duffs. 508
> built, and still a mainstay of all sorts of things. My
> last one, 47643, has been stored unserviceable in
> Inverness Millburn yard for several years. Not that I'm
> interested in diesels of course. Why couldn't the bloody
> thing fail at Bescot...

Hope for you yet Dave, I read in the railway press this w/e that the Scottish
Railway Preservation Society are thinking about purchasing this and carting it
off to Bo'ness as it was a ScR one for most of its life (47269 before it was
e.h converted?).

As a latter day Inverness duff I've had the bloody thing for hundreds of
incidental miles...........

Andy


Andrew Cooke

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to

>>>Class 31 : 1200 bhp-ish, A1A-A1A diesel electrics, Brush Traction
>>> Sometimes known as Toffeeapples.
>>Also nicknamed "Goyles" or "Gargoyle" or "Peds". The latter from the word
>>"Pedal", a British piss take on their lack of power. They have English Electric
>>1470 bhp engines and Brush electrical gear. The Class 31/0s were the origin of
>>the nickname "Toffe apples" from the shape of the power controller I believe.
>>Some have no headcode box on top (but discs instead) and are called
>>"Skinheads".
>>I think they were all re-engined at some point, hence the possible confusion.

>The 31/0 toffee apples were once classified as Class 30? 31/0s defined
>the East Anglian railfan experience :=)

They were built (I think) with Paxman engines, and subsequently in the late
60s all rebuilt with the EE power unit. Strangely they're the only form of EE
power I don't like. Many became adorned with painted snails at one point (!)


>>>Class 41 : Prototype HST power car if I remember rightly.
>>2250 bhp like the Class 43 production versions.

The D600 series warships may also have been class 41.

>>>Class 46 : 2600 (?) bhp 1Co-Co1 diesel electric, BR built, Sulzer
>>> engines. Indistinguishable by me from class 45 and also
>>> known as Peaks
>>2500 bhp.

Many railmen also refer to the 46s as Cromptons. The difference with the 45's
was the use of Crompton-Parkinson electrical equipment as opposed to Brush.


>A handful of 47s were classed as 48 to begin with (different engines??)

47114-8 (can't remember the D numbers). They had the same sulzer engine that
is in the SNCF 68000 series. Pete Waterman has preserved 47117 at Bury with a
view to restoring it as a 48 eventually if he can get an engine.


>>>Class 55 : 3300 bhp Co-Co diesel electrics, English Electric. 2x1650
>>> bhp Napier Deltic engines hence their general name of
>>> 'Deltics'. Mostly named after regiments (Royal Scots Grey
>>> etc), or racehorses (Crepello, St. Paddy, Shergar - oops
>>> sorry, just my opinion).

>Ah.... To see and hear a Deltic arriving at King's Cross, bursting out of
>Gassworks Tunnel ;=) .

What a shame that in naming the 91s current BR management had no sense of
tradition, and couldn't have given us some racehorse names. From the post
deltic era we could have had Mill Reef, Brigadier Gerard, Shergar, Dancing
Brave, Time Charter (?) and so on....... I suppose theres no mutual corporate
brown tongue mileage in it.


>>>Class 89 : Unique Co-Co electric, built by Brush and named Avocet. Now a
>>> stuffed Avocet because it's been withdrawn and preserved.
>>Nicknamed "Anteater".

I didn't know that but I immediately saw the joke........:-)


Keith Ioan Matthews

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
In article <1995Jun5.1...@zippy.dct.ac.uk>
davi...@unn.ac.uk "David Gee" writes:

>
> I wonder what the GWR would have done - gone gas-turbine (and got caught
> when the price of oil shot up) or opted for hydraulics - or neither?
>

They did produce an experimental design that was put into service for a while
then converted to act as the experimental prototype for 25kV AC traction.
Number was 18100 in BR terms.
--
Keith Ioan Matthews

Jeremy Double

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
David Bunny (db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk) wrote:

[lots of stuff snipped]

: But isn't that a downrating? The engine was designed as a *2000hp* power
: unit, not 1750hp and surely this is one of the *major* reasons why they
: are so reliable.

There isn't one single power rating that an engine is designed for. The
rating depends on the use to which the engine is put. Engines are USUALLY
rated at a lower power output for rail use, when compared with marine use
of the engine (e.g. Valentas, Deltics etc. etc.).

The other thing is that engines develop over time: the same basic engine
rated at 1500 hp in the LMS Co-Co diesels was developed to 2700 hp in the
Class 50s. Of course, there were a lot of developments in the design to
achieve this.

--
========================================================================
Jeremy Double J.M.D...@bradford.ac.uk
Chemical Engineering, University of Bradford, West Yorkshire, England
========================================================================

Michael Powell

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
Dave Cromarty (da...@imago.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <8020...@f4052.n282.z1>
: Hudson....@f4052.fido.tdkt.mn.org "Hudson Leighton" writes:

: [snip]
: > Could someone please post a short version of what these various lcocmotives
: > are? Us dumb Yanks don't have the faintest idea what a 52 or a 47 is ;-)

: >


lots of interesting bits deleted...

: Class 13 : Tinsley yard master/slave hump shunters, made from two


: 08s, one with a cab and one without

cow and calf in American parlance,

: Class 31 : 1200 bhp-ish, A1A-A1A diesel electrics, Brush Traction
: Sometimes known as Toffeeapples

also known at one time as Brians, because they are so boring... (with
apologies to any interesting guys called Brain out there...


: Class 37 : 1750 bhp Co-Co diesel electric, English Electric. Known


: by some as Tractors and not as interesting IMHO

also known as Siphons? or have I made that up...


: Class 50 : 2750, Co-Co diesel electrics, English Electric.

called Hoovers when I was kid, because of the turbo charger whine. I
think these were removed in the '80's refurb, so the name dropped out of
use. I used to lie in bed in my childhood home in Stroud, and listened
to these things drone all the way from Stonehouse all the way up the hill
to Chalford and beyond.... marvellous!


: Class 52 : Utterly magnificent 2700 bhp (2x1350) C-C diesel

: hydraulics, BR Swindon and some other place in Cheshire
: built, Maybach engines and Voith transmission. Quite the
: best looking diesel ever to run anywhere in the world and
: until you've seen and heard one of these beasts start a
: heavy train, preferably uphill, you ain't lived. Not that
: I'm in any way prejudiced in favour of these spectacular
: locos. Known to the cognoscenti as 'Westerns', all being
: named 'Western xxxxxx'. The first was Western Enterprise.

yep, marvellous see remniscence above...

I think, for our American friend, that the 59's are more less an SD40-2
squuezed into the UK loading gauge. Easily the best bit of kit in the
UK. We should have bought American from the diesel dawn and done away
with all those underpowered boxes on wheels churned out in the '50's and
'60's!

WR hydraulics excepted of course!

Michael Powell
m...@dmu.ac.uk

Hoppy

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
m...@dmu.ac.uk (Michael Powell) wrote:
>
>: Class 50 : 2750, Co-Co diesel electrics, English Electric.
>
>called Hoovers when I was kid, because of the turbo charger whine. I
>think these were removed in the '80's refurb, so the name dropped out of
>use. I used to lie in bed in my childhood home in Stroud, and listened
>to these things drone all the way from Stonehouse all the way up the hill
>to Chalford and beyond.... marvellous!
>
>
They were called "Hoovers" because they had a hum that sounded like a vacuum
cleaner. This was nothing to do with the Turbo charger as far as I know. It was
caused by the inertia filtration equipment. Hence the "hoover" sound vaished
after refurbishment, though they were still called Hoovers afterwards.

Hoppy

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
Hoppy <ho...@division.co.uk> wrote:
>m...@dmu.ac.uk (Michael Powell) wrote:
>>
>>: Class 50 : 2750, Co-Co diesel electrics, English Electric.
>>
>>called Hoovers when I was kid, because of the turbo charger whine. I
>>think these were removed in the '80's refurb, so the name dropped out of
>>use. I used to lie in bed in my childhood home in Stroud, and listened
>>to these things drone all the way from Stonehouse all the way up the hill
>>to Chalford and beyond.... marvellous!
>>
>>
>They were called "Hoovers" because they had a hum that sounded like a vacuum
>cleaner. This was nothing to do with the Turbo charger as far as I know. It was
>caused by the inertia filtration equipment. Hence the "hoover" sound vaished
>after refurbishment, though they were still called Hoovers afterwards.
>
Sorry! I also forgot to point out that the Turbo chargers were not removed on
refurbishment. A refurbished 50 still had 4 turbo chargers just like the
unrefurbished ones.

Gary Cooper

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
In article <3qvn09$8...@masala.cc.uh.edu>

che...@Elroy.UH.EDU "Bill Harrison (713 writes:

> >I wonder what the GWR would have done - gone gas-turbine (and got caught
> >when the price of oil shot up) or opted for hydraulics - or neither?
> >

> Or oil-burning steam locomotives??


Possibly - this was tried (starting in 1945) due to shortages of
coal, and was quite successful. Plans were in hand to convert 184
GWR steam locomotives to oil burning but, of course, no one had had
the sense to remember that oil was priced in US Dollars, nor had they
considered the possibility of something like the Suez crisis.

Meanwhile, gas turbine was certainly being considered as a major
option at Swindon. In "Next Station" (published in 1947 by the
GWR on the eve of the theft^H^H^H^H^H nationalisation) the company
said: "The two gas turbine locomotives which are now being built
will develop a power output equal to 2,500 h.p. and will travel at
a maximum speed of ninety miles an hour. The Great Western is
determined to press forward the completion of these locomotives
because it sees the possibility of a brilliant future for the
new method of propulsion."


--
Gary Cooper

David Bunny

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
Jeremy Double (J.M.D...@bradford.ac.uk) wrote:
: David Bunny (db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk) wrote:

: [lots of stuff snipped]

: : But isn't that a downrating? The engine was designed as a *2000hp* power
: : unit, not 1750hp and surely this is one of the *major* reasons why they
: : are so reliable.

: There isn't one single power rating that an engine is designed for. The
: rating depends on the use to which the engine is put. Engines are USUALLY
: rated at a lower power output for rail use, when compared with marine use
: of the engine (e.g. Valentas, Deltics etc. etc.).

You're talking about something a little different now. The 12-CSVT engine
for the Class 37 was an engine only for *rail* use and rated by the
manufacturers at 2000 BHP. The Napier engines on the other hand used in
the Deltics, I would imagine are quite dissimilar to their marine
counterparts.

Another example of a de-rating is of course the Class 47, but this was
because of stresses in the engine which caused failure and the engine
can't be run at the full 2750 BHP power rating.

Sam Wilson

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
In article <8022...@f4052.n282.z1>, Hudson Leighton
<Hudson....@f4052.fido.tdkt.mn.org> wrote:

> ... Now if I can just figure what direction

> London is from Glasgow, I will have it made ;-)

Anywhere to London is always up!

Sam

Hudson Leighton

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
-=> Quoting Jeremy Double to All <=-

JD> From: J.M.D...@bradford.ac.uk (Jeremy Double)

JD> David Bunny (db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk) wrote:

JD> [lots of stuff snipped]

JD> : But isn't that a downrating? The engine was designed as a *2000hp*
JD> power : unit, not 1750hp and surely this is one of the *major* reasons
JD> why they : are so reliable.

JD> There isn't one single power rating that an engine is designed for.
JD> The rating depends on the use to which the engine is put. Engines are
JD> USUALLY rated at a lower power output for rail use, when compared with
JD> marine use of the engine (e.g. Valentas, Deltics etc. etc.).

Also remember that Marine Diesels have a much larger heat sink available
for cooling then Railway Diesels. Also Marine applications have very few
thermal (speed & load change) cycles.

JD> The other thing is that engines develop over time: the same basic
JD> engine rated at 1500 hp in the LMS Co-Co diesels was developed to 2700
JD> hp in the Class 50s. Of course, there were a lot of developments in
JD> the design to achieve this.


... Newton's Law: Sitting under apple trees causes headaches.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12


DAVID HANSEN

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
H > #FROM :ho...@division.co.uk

H >The Class 35 only out performs the Class 37 by a small amount after
H >70mph when the Class 35 takes the fourth converter, and the Class 37
H >generator unloads at 79mph. How often did/do these Classes spend at
H >speed?

The figures you quote are all very well, but without looking in detail
at them I can't really comment. However I would expect a general purpose
locomotive to spend rather a lot of time at around 70mph. Sadly British
Railways' incompetence meant that few freight trains ran at this
sensible speed.

H >On the reliability front:
[snip]
H >Clearly the Class 37 comes out on top! Surely?

Anybody can produce reliability figures to prove whatever point they
want to. When I go to see my accountant I say, "What is the profit this
year?" and he says, "What profit would you like to make this year?" I
have seen figures that prove exactly the opposite point.

H >Nope. I was using an OFFICIAL comparison from 1964:

H >CLASS AVAILABILTY MILES PER CASUALTY

H >47 86.1% 11000
H >52 64.3% 8500

See my note above about figures. Who produced the official comparison
and what point were they trying to prove?


David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk | PGP key ID
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | 6AC0AC7D
---

* POW 1.2 0041 * GCHQ on 1984, "Yes we were a bit late, but it's happening now."

J.P.Watts

unread,
Jun 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/7/95
to
In article <802258...@imago.demon.co.uk> da...@imago.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <8020...@f4052.n282.z1>
> Hudson....@f4052.fido.tdkt.mn.org "Hudson Leighton" writes:
>
['dumb yanks' ask for loco gen, 'dumb brits' offer: :-)]

>
>Class 03 : 204 bhp 0-6-0 diesel mechanical shunter, Baguley Drewry
most built by BR, top speed ~27.75mph, Gardner 8L3 engine, Wilson-Drewry
epicyclic gearbox (5 speed), some dual brake fitted with millions of air
reservoirs for use as station pilots, two (03079, 03179) survive on the
Isle of Wight.

>Class 08 : 400 bhp 0-6-0 diesel electric shunter, English Electric

I could be wrong, but werent these 350 bhp?

You missed:
Class 05 : 204 bhp 0-6-0 diesel mechanical shunter, built by Hunslet, Leeds
top speed 15mph, Gardner 8L3 engine, lots built, but only one made the BR
TOPS numbering scheme - 05001 - which was based on the Isle of Wight, and
is now owned by the Isle of Wight Steam Railway. (Currently undergoing
major engine refurbishment)

Not exactly a main line class, though, I grant you.
--

======================================================================
James Watts
Semiconductor Physics Group J.P....@uk.ac.exeter
University of Exeter
======================================================================

Gary Cooper

unread,
Jun 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/7/95
to
In article <802510...@imago.demon.co.uk>
da...@imago.demon.co.uk "Dave Cromarty" writes:

> If I remember rightly (and as usual I haven't got the book to hand),
> at least two GW locos _were_ converted to oil burning. I'm pretty
> sure one was a 50xx Castle; the other possibly a Hall. Anyone got the
> details? I remember the photo of the Castle's oil tank fitted tender
> in the Ian Allan book.

It was more than that. I can't find a definitive list at the moment
but in 1945 they announced the conversion of ten 28XXs (starting with
2872). Whether they ever finished all ten, I'm not sure, but they
certainly converted at least four of them, possibly others too, and
then tackled 5966 Garth Hall and Castle 5091, both in 1946.

Interestingly, oil burning wasn't new in the U.K. The Great
Eastern had run oil burners sometime during the early years
of this century but stopped due to the rising price of oil.

--
Gary Cooper

Phil Purle

unread,
Jun 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/7/95
to
In article <3r1qoh$f...@macondo.dmu.ac.uk> m...@dmu.ac.uk "Michael Powell" writes:

> I used to lie in bed in my childhood home in Stroud, and listened
> to these things drone all the way from Stonehouse all the way up the hill
> to Chalford and beyond.... marvellous!

Hehe, I used to live in Tuffley and they came screaming down to a halt,
huge catherine-wheels of fire from the brakes visible at night.


Phil.
--
Phil Purle.

Hoppy

unread,
Jun 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/7/95
to
david....@almac.co.uk (DAVID HANSEN) wrote:
>H > #FROM :ho...@division.co.uk
>
>H >The Class 35 only out performs the Class 37 by a small amount after
>H >70mph when the Class 35 takes the fourth converter, and the Class 37
>H >generator unloads at 79mph. How often did/do these Classes spend at
>H >speed?
>
>The figures you quote are all very well, but without looking in detail
>at them I can't really comment. However I would expect a general purpose
>locomotive to spend rather a lot of time at around 70mph. Sadly British
>Railways' incompetence meant that few freight trains ran at this
>sensible speed.
>
Are you choosing to ignore these figures then?
Are you saying the numbers are wrong?


>H >On the reliability front:
>[snip]
>H >Clearly the Class 37 comes out on top! Surely?
>
>Anybody can produce reliability figures to prove whatever point they
>want to. When I go to see my accountant I say, "What is the profit this
>year?" and he says, "What profit would you like to make this year?" I
>have seen figures that prove exactly the opposite point.
>
1) I am NOT an accountant.

2) I looked through all the details I could find. Class 37s always came out at
around 90% availability. Hymeks always far worse. I can't do any better than
that.

3) The report was by British Rail (W) to compare the two modes of traction. It
was not an attempt to get rid of Hydraulics.

4) Anybody can say the above. I like Hydraulics therefore hydraulics are best
and no facts can prove otherwise. Yeah right!

5) Quote your facts, and your sources then, rather than belittling damning
evidence. You would then have a far better chance of swaying my opinion. After
all I am not biased one way or the other. :-))

6) The reports I have read come a long way to convincing me, and perhaps a lot
of other people. You haven't as yet come up with anything concrete. I have
quoted the sources. Nothing more.

7) If I had produced figures that showed Hydraulics came out on top would you
have still made these comments. I doubt it somehow.

>H >Nope. I was using an OFFICIAL comparison from 1964:
>
>H >CLASS AVAILABILTY MILES PER CASUALTY
>
>H >47 86.1% 11000
>H >52 64.3% 8500
>
>See my note above about figures. Who produced the official comparison
>and what point were they trying to prove?
>

The report was done in 1964 by British Rail (W). They were not trying to prove
anything. They were merely comparing the two Classes. It would seem very
strange that a report by BR(W) would be biased against the Hydraulics when they
were still being delivered!

The report was not done by accountants! :-)))


It would have been far better if you could have said "These figures do indicate
that the Class 37 held the upper hand. Here are some figures that I have that
show the opposite".

Your arguments above seem to me to have little backbone.

Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789

unread,
Jun 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/7/95
to
>> If I remember rightly (and as usual I haven't got the book to hand),
>> at least two GW locos _were_ converted to oil burning. I'm pretty
>> sure one was a 50xx Castle; the other possibly a Hall. Anyone got the
>> details? I remember the photo of the Castle's oil tank fitted tender
>> in the Ian Allan book.
>
>It was more than that. I can't find a definitive list at the moment
>but in 1945 they announced the conversion of ten 28XXs (starting with
>2872). Whether they ever finished all ten, I'm not sure, but they
>certainly converted at least four of them, possibly others too, and
>then tackled 5966 Garth Hall and Castle 5091, both in 1946.
>
>Interestingly, oil burning wasn't new in the U.K. The Great
>Eastern had run oil burners sometime during the early years
>of this century but stopped due to the rising price of oil.
>

I seem to recall that *all* the Halls were intended to be modified,
but only a small handful were actually converted before the project
was abandoned. I think that some (ex) Southern locos were also
lined up for conversion. Does anybody know why the plan was
aborted?

Thanks,

Keith Ioan Matthews

unread,
Jun 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/7/95
to
In article <Sam.Wilson-06...@mcfadzean.ucs.ed.ac.uk>
Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk "Sam Wilson" writes:

Except to the Midland Railway when everything to Derby was up !

--
Keith Ioan Matthews

Dave Cromarty

unread,
Jun 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/7/95
to
In article <802446...@wordshop.demon.co.uk>
coo...@wordshop.demon.co.uk "Gary Cooper" writes:

If I remember rightly (and as usual I haven't got the book to hand),
at least two GW locos _were_ converted to oil burning. I'm pretty
sure one was a 50xx Castle; the other possibly a Hall. Anyone got the
details? I remember the photo of the Castle's oil tank fitted tender
in the Ian Allan book.

Dave

David Bunny

unread,
Jun 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/7/95
to
Hoppy (ho...@division.co.uk) wrote:
: david....@almac.co.uk (DAVID HANSEN) wrote:

<stuff about class 37s and hydraulics..>

This really does sound like sour grapes to me. In the face of the data
provided by Paul Lee, there really is only one conclusion that can be
reached. Sounds a bit like hard core steam enthusiasts who seem to think
that one of Britains steam locomotives could match a modern AC electric
on a run to Glasgow with the same load. Unless you have evidence to the
contrary David, I suggest you resign yourself to accepting Paul Lee's
conclusions on this matter.

Gary Cooper

unread,
Jun 7, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/7/95
to
In article <3r4jhi$8...@masala.cc.uh.edu>

che...@Elroy.UH.EDU "Bill Harrison (713 writes:

> I seem to recall that *all* the Halls were intended to be modified,
> but only a small handful were actually converted before the project
> was abandoned. I think that some (ex) Southern locos were also
> lined up for conversion. Does anybody know why the plan was
> aborted?


The scheme was being promoted by the Government and was a classic
piece of governmental stupidity. The argument ran: "We need to sell all
our best coal overseas as we're in financial trouble - especially due
to this damned shortage of US Dollars. So, what we'll do is carry on
flogging our coal abroad and import oil instead". As the post-war
price of oil floated higher (and, of course, it was priced in Dollars),
the 'cunning plan' was abandoned - just in time as it happens: the Suez
crisis was only a few years away.

The Government's 1946 plan was to convert a total of about 1,217
locomotives (I say about as accounts seem to differ), across all
four companies, between 170-190 of them on the GWR. The GWR itself
claimed it was looking at 25 Castles, 73 2-8-0s and 86 mixed traffic
engines - mostly 4-6-0s, so the Halls would have been prime candidates.

Just to put a figure on it, the GWR claimed that their conversion would
have "saved" some 173,000 tones of coal per year.

Where did the majority of GWR coal burners run? Yes, right first
time - South Wales!

--
Gary Cooper

DAVID HANSEN

unread,
Jun 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/8/95
to
DB> #FROM :db...@ecs.soton.ac.uk

DB>This really does sound like sour grapes to me.

It really doesn't bother me one way or the other.

The fact is that figures can be made to represent any point of view one
wants, I have done so myself in order to get projects funded by
sceptical administrators. We are talking about engineering here, not
science. Arguments over competing sets of figures are rather boring and
I don't have the time anyway.


David Hansen | david....@almac.co.uk | PGP key ID
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | 6AC0AC7D
---

* POW 1.2 0041 * Nice jacket, but aren't the sleeves a bit long?

David Bromage

unread,
Jun 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/8/95
to
m...@dmu.ac.uk (Michael Powell) writes:

>Dave Cromarty (da...@imago.demon.co.uk) wrote:

>: Class 13 : Tinsley yard master/slave hump shunters, made from two
>: 08s, one with a cab and one without

>cow and calf in American parlance,

Slave units were sometimes called slug units for some strange reason.

>: Class 37 : 1750 bhp Co-Co diesel electric, English Electric. Known
>: by some as Tractors and not as interesting IMHO

>also known as Siphons? or have I made that up...

Person A: What was on the parcels train tonight?
Person B: A Siphon hauling a couple of Siphons and a Toad.

What an interesting sight that would be.

I remember reading somewhere that the HSTs were nicknamed "trams" at some
stage.

Cheers
David

Bill Bedford

unread,
Jun 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/8/95
to

In article <802536...@wordshop.demon.co.uk>, Gary Cooper writes:

~
~ It was more than that. I can't find a definitive list at the moment
~ but in 1945 they announced the conversion of ten 28XXs (starting with

~ 2872). Whether they ever finished all ten, I'm not sure, but they
~ certainly converted at least four of them, possibly others too, and
~ then tackled 5966 Garth Hall and Castle 5091, both in 1946.

There were a number of occasions in the last 100 years when British
Railways have turned to oil burning - usually during periods of
disruption of coal supplies. 1912 1918-9 1926-7 and 1946-7 come to mind.
In all cases it was a temporary measure.
~
~ Interestingly, oil burning wasn't new in the U.K. The Great
~ Eastern had run oil burners sometime during the early years
~ of this century but stopped due to the rising price of oil.

Ther GER oil burners were some think different. The idea was to use oil
that was produced as a by product in the company's gas works, and as
such was successesful, but not so successful that the scheme was persued
after the gas works became redundant.
--
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Bedford Designer of Photo-Etches
bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk

The first bonxie of summer and snow all on the same day

--------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Cooke

unread,
Jun 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/8/95
to
David Bromage wrote

>Person A: What was on the parcels train tonight?
>Person B: A Siphon hauling a couple of Siphons and a Toad.

>What an interesting sight that would be.

>I remember reading somewhere that the HSTs were nicknamed "trams" at some
>stage.

Correct, and flying bananas.

What's a toad?

All the wagons used by the civil engineers department are classified by fish
names. Ergo a 'siphon' (I'm a tractor man myself) hauling a train of catfish,
dogfish, turbot and cod is a common sight. :-)

Andy

Andrew Clarke

unread,
Jun 8, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/8/95
to
In article <Andrew.Cooke...@nrpa.no> Andrew...@nrpa.no (Andrew Cooke) writes:
>From: Andrew...@nrpa.no (Andrew Cooke)
>Subject: Re: English Electric
>Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:26:16


>>>>Class 31 : 1200 bhp-ish, A1A-A1A diesel electrics, Brush Traction

>>>> Sometimes known as Toffeeapples.
>>>Also nicknamed "Goyles" or "Gargoyle" or "Peds". The latter from the word
>>>"Pedal", a British piss take on their lack of power. They have English Electric
>>>1470 bhp engines and Brush electrical gear. The Class 31/0s were the origin of
>>>the nickname "Toffe apples" from the shape of the power controller I believe.
>>>Some have no headcode box on top (but discs instead) and are called
>>>"Skinheads".
>>>I think they were all re-engined at some point, hence the possible confusion.

>>The 31/0 toffee apples were once classified as Class 30? 31/0s defined
>>the East Anglian railfan experience :=)

>They were built (I think) with Paxman engines, and subsequently in the late
>60s all rebuilt with the EE power unit. Strangely they're the only form of EE
>power I don't like. Many became adorned with painted snails at one point (!)

They were originally built with Mirlees, Bickerton and Day units developing (I
think) about 1250 hp. Later machines were upgraded to 1365 hp (?) Some were
uprated as high as 1,600 hp. I believe the original engines eventually
succumbed to stress fractures, hence the reengining.

Originally D5500-19, I believe. I saw my last of the original group -- D5506
-- on the Tilbury line on my last day in England. The only one never to pass
through Burnt Mill ...

Andrew Clarke

Keith Ioan Matthews

unread,
Jun 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/9/95
to
In article <3r5kpp$l...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>
bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au "David Bromage" writes:

> m...@dmu.ac.uk (Michael Powell) writes:
>
> >Dave Cromarty (da...@imago.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>
> >: Class 37 : 1750 bhp Co-Co diesel electric, English Electric. Known
> >: by some as Tractors and not as interesting IMHO
>
> >also known as Siphons? or have I made that up...

Also known to many as growlers


>
> Person A: What was on the parcels train tonight?
> Person B: A Siphon hauling a couple of Siphons and a Toad.
>
> What an interesting sight that would be.
>
> I remember reading somewhere that the HSTs were nicknamed "trams" at some
> stage.

early on they were knwon as 'flying bananas', Most track workers seem to
call them 'wispering death', but that could equally apply to 91s.

--
Keith Ioan Matthews

Dave Cromarty

unread,
Jun 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/9/95
to
In article <Andrew.Cooke...@nrpa.no>
Andrew...@nrpa.no "Andrew Cooke" writes:

[snip]
>
> What's a toad?
>
The standard GW goods brake van with a very large verandah at one end
only (jolly jest about amphibians resisted).

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages