• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

BR Type 3s - Regional Preferences

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,063
On the 47/4s* there was a button - it's on the controller, IIRC - that the driver could press and this would switch the ETH power off for approx 30 seconds on each carriage. This was to enable the entire power unit output to be concentrated on traction when, eg climbing banks. I can't remember for sure, but I think the 45/1s also had something like this.
I think the WCML electric locos had ETH power switches too, but not on the power controller. I supposed it was needed to avoid making or breaking a connection that had a huge current flowing: Some l/h sets were marked "1000Amp wiring" as the mk3 kitchens had a higher demand than the previous Mk 1 and 2 stock.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
31/4s were originally intended as ECS engines at Kings Cross, Paddington and St Pancras and that's why they have an ETS rating of 66 for large rakes of air conditioned stock. With the widespread introduction of HSTs they became available for secondary passenger services where loco hauled stock replaced first generation DMU's.

Though the trio of early 31/4s allocated to Leeds (409, 410 and 417) had regular turns on portion workings of Kings Cross services in West Yorkshire, to Bradford, Halifax and Huddersfield, probably Harrogate too - someone may know - in the 1970s until the arrival of HSTs on the ECML.
 

kermit

Member
Joined
2 May 2011
Messages
592
The OP has prompted me to think - compared with the other Regions, the London Midland barely seemed to have any use for Type 3s in the 60s and 70s. You could travel from Crewe to North wales, Liverpool, Manchester or Carlisle and rarely see one (or a Type 1 for that matter).
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
The OP has prompted me to think - compared with the other Regions, the London Midland barely seemed to have any use for Type 3s in the 60s and 70s. You could travel from Crewe to North wales, Liverpool, Manchester or Carlisle and rarely see one (or a Type 1 for that matter).

It's true that the LMR didn't go for the type 3 power range. They were either Cl 24/25, or Cl 40/44/45/47 (and later Cl 50).
Given the extra mass of the Cl 40, I don't know if they performed much better on passenger workings than the 37s, which were nominally 12.5% less powerful. I don't think either class was actually well-suited to 90 mph passenger trains, actually. The 40 would have been better on Cl 9 freights, however, with greater brake force.

There might not have been many type 1s between Crewe, Manchester and N Wales, but go anywhere in the Leicester-Derby-Nottingham-Sheffield 'diamond' and you would be falling over them.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,792
Location
Nottingham
There might not have been many type 1s between Crewe, Manchester and N Wales, but go anywhere in the Leicester-Derby-Nottingham-Sheffield 'diamond' and you would be falling over them.
Sounds like the Midland's small engine policy living on 40 years or so after that company's extinction.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,119
Location
Cambridge, UK
Sounds like the Midland's small engine policy living on 40 years or so after that company's extinction.

Yes - and you might say the Midland won the 'Derby vs Crewe' battle eventually ;) (when was the last new build of rolling stock at Crewe?)
 

D5645

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2016
Messages
57
Location
Ripley, Derbyshire
Interesting. Does that mean that the full ETS power is unavailable for traction whenever the ETS is in use, or is the loss of traction power proportionate to the amount of ETS the train is actually using?

It is proportional loss.

As a 31 is only a Type 2 in the first place then turning the ETS off temporarily to get a bit more horsepower to the rail for climbing hills was a regular driving technique.

'You can have heat or speed but not both'.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
Yes - and you might say the Midland won the 'Derby vs Crewe' battle eventually ;) (when was the last new build of rolling stock at Crewe?)

I dunno. There was probably a lot of work for the Class 20s working single n the early 60s. A lot of light trip workings to the collieries. Didn't need more power. Or more weight. There were a bunch of Cl 20s originally at Willesden. And at York. And on the Scottish region. If anything, for many years - I'd say from 1959-66 or so, the GE was a follower of 'small engine' policy - they had lots of type 1s (even lower power than the Cl 20s), Type 2 (30/31s) and Type 3 (37s) without any Type 4s for quite some time - until they got some 47s. (OK, they had a few Cl 40s in the early days.)
The Cl 20s were probably vying with the 37s for the most successful DE locomotve on BR.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
It's true that the LMR didn't go for the type 3 power range. They were either Cl 24/25, or Cl 40/44/45/47 (and later Cl 50).
Given the extra mass of the Cl 40, I don't know if they performed much better on passenger workings than the 37s, which were nominally 12.5% less powerful. I don't think either class was actually well-suited to 90 mph passenger trains, actually. The 40 would have been better on Cl 9 freights, however, with greater brake force.

There might not have been many type 1s between Crewe, Manchester and N Wales, but go anywhere in the Leicester-Derby-Nottingham-Sheffield 'diamond' and you would be falling over them.

On the heavy loads on WCML passenger services in the 1960s, you would be lucky to get much faster than the high 70s (mph) unless you were going downhill - and 25 mph up Shap was typical. A good condition Pacific with a willing crew could outrun a 40. However, in later years of the steam era, getting a good quality Pacific (& willing crew) was unusual, and the 40s were more consistent.

Of the loco designs available when the first 40s were built, the extra 300 hp from Class 44 might have been a better choice for WCML.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
On the heavy loads on WCML passenger services in the 1960s, you would be lucky to get much faster than the high 70s (mph) unless you were going downhill - and 25 mph up Shap was typical. A good condition Pacific with a willing crew could outrun a 40. However, in later years of the steam era, getting a good quality Pacific (& willing crew) was unusual, and the 40s were more consistent.

Of the loco designs available when the first 40s were built, the extra 300 hp from Class 44 might have been a better choice for WCML.

Ironic statement since that's exactly where the 44s were allocated when brand new!

http://www.derbysulzers.com/class44.html
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
I remember that, but I could never understand why the LMR preferred the Class 40s.

It's a good question! My guess is that someone had to have them and once the GE had said "thanks but no thanks", and with WCML electrification on the horizon the LMR(W) was as good a home for them as any. To an extent it goes back, once again, to BR ordering series production of locos before the Pilot Scheme examples had even been evaluated. So it ended up with a sub-optimal fleet. I would like to know why the Type 3s only seemed to happen as an after-thought: they seemed to have been about the most versatile locos that BR had.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,017
O S Nock got a good hard footplate run on a Duchess from Crewe to Carlisle very late in their career; it's described in the June 1964 Railway Magazine. It beat the Class 40 timings.

Regarding single Class 20s, I guess this was no problem as long as steam locos were about - long nose forward they still provided a better view. Once steam was gone however someone seems to have decided it was unsafe. I wonder why. US diesels long had the cab at about the 3/4 position, and most were driven "short nose forward". However a couple of their major railways, like the Southern, ran them the other way round, cab controls turned round, as "long nose forward", just like a steam loco. Apparently done to give the crew greater protection in any level crossing accident. That opposite view seems to have been done for safety, as well.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,063
Regarding single Class 20s, I guess this was no problem as long as steam locos were about - long nose forward they still provided a better view. Once steam was gone however someone seems to have decided it was unsafe. I wonder why.
BR was moving towards single-manning footplates where the duties allowed it (no train-heat boiler, ability to get "comfort" breaks, length of turn) and it's as clear as the nose on your face - or the bonnet of a cl 20 - that signal sighting etc past said bonnet is appalling.
 

Western Lord

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
782
I remember that, but I could never understand why the LMR preferred the Class 40s.
The LMR had most of the "Peaks", but they mostly stayed in Midland Railway territory. Even at that late stage maybe old company rivalries were still at play and the LNWR faction regarded the Peaks as NIH (Not Invented Here). While the EE type 4s were not built at Crewe, they came from just down the road at Newton-le-Willows!
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,063
The LMR had most of the "Peaks", but they mostly stayed in Midland Railway territory.
I haven't got many abc books, but a 1988 copy shows a total of 19 class 45s all allocated to Tinsley. Maybe the survivors were concentrated there? I remember them (or maybe 44s or 46s?) on NE-SW services from Bristol in the mid-1970s, but have no idea where they were allocated then.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
I haven't got many abc books, but a 1988 copy shows a total of 19 class 45s all allocated to Tinsley. Maybe the survivors were concentrated there? I remember them (or maybe 44s or 46s?) on NE-SW services from Bristol in the mid-1970s, but have no idea where they were allocated then.

I don't know about 1988 - the HSTs had largely taken over MML duties by then, and probably what became XC too. You would not have seen Cl 44s on passenger turns - or at least very, very unlikely, after 1962. They moved to Toton in, I think, late 62 or early 63, they were designated freight locos, with boilers removed. As I remember, the 46s were initially on the GN, Newcastle-Liverpools and Bristol trains. The 45s were put on MML St Pancras - Manchester/Sheffields and also Thames Clyde and other stuff over the S&C, plus parcels/freight/mineral traffic, of course. The 45s were probably also on the Bristols early on too, but I'm not sure about that.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
The LMR had most of the "Peaks", but they mostly stayed in Midland Railway territory. Even at that late stage maybe old company rivalries were still at play and the LNWR faction regarded the Peaks as NIH (Not Invented Here). While the EE type 4s were not built at Crewe, they came from just down the road at Newton-le-Willows!
Have you got any evidence for this assertion? My impression is that the LNW at the time were very pleased to get hold of D1 - D10 in 1959-1960, when they mainly took over Class 7 and 8 turns.

It's also my impression - I stress impression, based on the fact that I believe I've read the Cl 44s were 'on-loan' to the WCML at the time - that the 44s were originally intended to be on the Midland, but were lent to the WCML because of difficulties in finding maintenance staff (for steam) at the time. But this could all be supposition in the past on my part that has since morphed into 'fact' - but I try to avoid this happening, hence my bringing it up.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,686
Location
Devon
I haven't got many abc books, but a 1988 copy shows a total of 19 class 45s all allocated to Tinsley. Maybe the survivors were concentrated there? I remember them (or maybe 44s or 46s?) on NE-SW services from Bristol in the mid-1970s, but have no idea where they were allocated then.
Without wanting to stray too far off topic I seem to remember that yes the last remaining Peaks were allocated to Tinsley for the last couple of years of operation. Before that (pre 1986ish?) they were all allocated to Toton. The 45/1s having finished on trans-Pennine services were then allocated to the parcels sector but still turned up on passenger services at times - especially on summer Saturdays.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,017
Many of the 46s were progressively moved to the Western Region, where although they monopolised the NE-SW services through to the West, they also became maids of all work from Bristol and Plymouth depots, working freight, ballast trains, etc. If I recall correctly the main reason for this was that the 46s had been refitted with the old GWR pattern ATC, whereas the 45s were not and only had the BR ATC, thus were kept north of Bristol on old Midland territory. This had always been one of the reasons why NE-SW services previously changed locos at Bristol from Diesel-Electrics to Hydraulics. The GW ATC track installations were changed over in the mid-1970s, in preparation for the HST coming along.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,075
45s were certainly working west of Exeter by 1972, as observed by a week on Dawlish sea wall. Couldn't have been any later as a couple of Warships were still in action that week. Around 40 Peaks in a week, 45 and 46, from both Midland and NE sheds.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
Many of the 46s were progressively moved to the Western Region, where although they monopolised the NE-SW services through to the West, they also became maids of all work from Bristol and Plymouth depots, working freight, ballast trains, etc. If I recall correctly the main reason for this was that the 46s had been refitted with the old GWR pattern ATC, whereas the 45s were not and only had the BR ATC, thus were kept north of Bristol on old Midland territory. This had always been one of the reasons why NE-SW services previously changed locos at Bristol from Diesel-Electrics to Hydraulics. The GW ATC track installations were changed over in the mid-1970s, in preparation for the HST coming along.

Given that 45s most certainly did work west to Paignton and Plymouth I wonder if this was allowable subject to being double-manned?
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
Sounds like the Midland's small engine policy living on 40 years or so after that company's extinction.

I think that many Type 1 & 2 locos were intended to replace steam on some of the lighter freight workings, including trip workings & branch line freights -- the sort of trains that were mostly doomed by the Marples-Beeching changes and closures. Previously, many would have been worked by 0-6-0s or the smaller designs of 2-6-0.

In retrospect, far too many Types 1 & 2 were built and even some of the better designs (e.g. Class 24) had relatively short lives.

With WCML electrification rendering diesels spare, the LMR had no need for Type 3 (Class 37s) in the 1960s & early 1970s. Displaced Class 40 & 47 could deal with most of the heavier freight duties on the former Western Division of the LMR, whilst Classes 25 & 24 could work the less arduous turns. Class 37 generally appeared in the area only on a few through services (mostly freight) from the Eastern Region.
.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
With WCML electrification rendering diesels spare, the LMR had no need for Type 3 (Class 37s) in the 1960s & early 1970s. Displaced Class 40 & 47 could deal with most of the heavier freight duties on the former Western Division of the LMR, whilst Classes 25 & 24 could work the less arduous turns. Class 37 generally appeared in the area only on a few through services (mostly freight) from the Eastern Region.
.

An interesting contrast with the GE Division of the Eastern Region. 40s were rejected as no better than a Brit yet ended up with 37s as prime power for express services. Once container services from Felixstowe became established as an important flow doubled 37s eventually became the preferred power, presumably due to better adhesion on the Felixstowe branch itself. Perhaps the ability to have a semi-standardised fleet (31s and 37s) was the key for the Eastern, at least as far the GE was concerned. As I recall it was the late 1970s before 47s began to appear on the GE in any numbers.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,075
The GE not having type 4 power is no surprise: there were no hills to need it! What type 4 locos that were available were better sent elsewhere.
As to why the WCML getting class 40s and not Peaks, my guess is that they had little choice. The BR workshops couldn't keep up with a decent rate of production while EE could - so EE got more orders even though the product was inferior, and someone had to use them once they were built. The LNWR got the short straw
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,711
Location
Glasgow
The 27 were 1,250hp 6-cylinder Sulzers. The 27/2, converted to ETH, had this provided by a noisy little Deutz auxiliary diesel, which when the loco was idling at Glasgow Queen Street made far more racket than the prime mover.

Noisy and very unreliable I'm given to understand

They could never have managed 39 minutes nonstop Queen Street to Haymarket every hour both ways otherwise

37 mins, 39 was with the Falkirk High stop. The new electrics, when they eventually appear, will be slower than trains from 46 years ago - so much for progress.

Interesting. Does that mean that the full ETS power is unavailable for traction whenever the ETS is in use, or is the loss of traction power proportionate to the amount of ETS the train is actually using?

I've been wondering that too for a while.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
The new electrics, when they eventually appear, will be slower than trains from 46 years ago - so much for progress.

But probably a sight more reliable than the 27s. And in the 1970s there were rather fewer train services out there than now - opportunities to thrash trains all the way on the limit are rather harder to find in 2018.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
On the heavy loads on WCML passenger services in the 1960s, you would be lucky to get much faster than the high 70s (mph) unless you were going downhill - and 25 mph up Shap was typical. A good condition Pacific with a willing crew could outrun a 40. However, in later years of the steam era, getting a good quality Pacific (& willing crew) was unusual, and the 40s were more consistent....
.

To be fair, WCML expresses in the early 60s were HEAVY - I mean, 14-15 carriages were normal - and were not timed for anything much faster than 75 max, I should think. Does anyone have logs of Cl 40s on the ECML of the time, I wonder - I suspect with 10-11 carriages, which was more like the average load out of KX by then, you would get higher speeds out of a 40.
Actually, this is so far off topic - I'm gonna start a new thread.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,711
Location
Glasgow
But probably a sight more reliable than the 27s. And in the 1970s there were rather fewer train services out there than now - opportunities to thrash trains all the way on the limit are rather harder to find in 2018.

I suppose there's no denying the frequency is far better, but I still know which generation of stock I'd rather have on that route (not 27s 47/7s!).
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
I think that many Type 1 & 2 locos were intended to replace steam on some of the lighter freight workings, including trip workings & branch line freights -- the sort of trains that were mostly doomed by the Marples-Beeching changes and closures. Previously, many would have been worked by 0-6-0s or the smaller designs of 2-6-0.
...
.

The type 2s did a wide variety of 'replacing', as I'm sure you know. On the LNW the early 24s replaced Cl 5s and Standard 4s on Euston - Bletchley - Northampton - Brum locals - but also, I suspect, LNW 0-8-0s and 0-6-0 4Fs on goods traffic.

On the Midland, the 24s, 25s and 27s replaced a lot of 4Fs, but also, in tandem ( 2 x 25) they replaced 9Fs and 8Fs on heavy mineral traffic for awhile. I thought the 25s in two-tone green looked quite smart when new out of shops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top