Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
56036 was the first loco to carry this livery back in the day (with the yellow cabsides, think there was a class 47 just with the big double arrows much earlier?)
Yes. 1978, I recall being wowed at the sight of 56036 in the railway press.
I think the first 47s with large logos, were 1981 (e.g. 47583 with red-white-blue arrow / 47712) for the Royal Wedding.
Refurbished 50s started to receive large logo blue in 1981.
Yes. 1978, I recall being wowed at the sight of 56036 in the railway press.
I think the first 47s with large logos, were 1981 (e.g. 47583 with red-white-blue arrow / 47712) for the Royal Wedding.
Earlier than that - 47170 received full large logo blue in mid-June 1980, having previously sported a grey roof, black cab window surrounds and large BR double arrow but without the yellow cabsides.
Earlier than that - 47170 received full large logo blue in mid-June 1980, having previously sported a grey roof, black cab window surrounds and large BR double arrow but without the yellow cabsides.
I'm pretty sure a friend of mine who worked at Derby said that most of the early ones from Romania had to go to Derby for checking and completion. Now whether that was the works or the RTC I can't remember.
I'm pretty sure a friend of mine who worked at Derby said that most of the early ones from Romania had to go to Derby for checking and completion. Now whether that was the works or the RTC I can't remember.
I think they had bodywork issues that had to be ironed out surely, as a result of their bodywork having being flattened by the use of the hammer whilst being constructed there.
I'm pretty sure a friend of mine who worked at Derby said that most of the early ones from Romania had to go to Derby for checking and completion. Now whether that was the works or the RTC I can't remember.
I think they had bodywork issues that had to be ironed out surely, as a result of their bodywork having being flattened by the use of the hammer whilst being constructed there.
One of the issues was jagged metal, shearing cables. Much of the build in Romania was done by candlelight. By the time all the issues had been sorted, it would have been as quick to build them in the UK. But the original plan needed them operational by a certain date.
One of the issues was jagged metal, shearing cables. Much of the build in Romania was done by candlelight. By the time all the issues had been sorted, it would have been as quick to build them in the UK. But the original plan needed them operational by a certain date.
Candlelight? I take the works in Romania was dark and their electricity was poor. Or were the candles used as a tool?
Romania was behind the Iron Curtain at the time, and it seemed bizarre that Brush Traction did place its contract at a locomotive works in the Warsaw Pact country.
Romania was behind the Iron Curtain at the time, and it seemed bizarre that Brush Traction did place its contract at a locomotive works in the Warsaw Pact country.
It was such a ridiculous false economy in the end. They could have thrown money at BREL to get them built here faster and it would still have been cheaper, and they would have got more operating hours out of them in their first 3 years as well.
I'd be interested to see the cost comparison of a Electroputere one and a BREL one once the complete rewire, body panel replacement and component switches are factored in. They must have been at about 130-150% of the cost of the BREL ones in the end
Well, the Romanian batch was a lot slower than expected, the quality was not up to standard as well as it’s resultant rebuild, and they eventually entered service around the same time as the BREL ones.
I only remember 56005/010/015 coming into Derby Loco Works, plus 56042 for bogie conversion (58 bogies), and 56036 on show.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
One of the issues was jagged metal, shearing cables. Much of the build in Romania was done by candlelight. By the time all the issues had been sorted, it would have been as quick to build them in the UK. But the original plan needed them operational by a certain date.
What was the delivery method for the Romanian locos? Obviously there was no Channel Tunnel then, but were they delivered by rail through the Iron Curtain to French/Belgian/Dutch ports and shipped over the Channel, or shipped direct(-ish) from Romanian Black Sea ports via the Bosphorus and Mediterranean? Or indeed via the Danube, the Rhine-Danube canal, and the Rhine itself?
What was the delivery method for the Romanian locos? Obviously there was no Channel Tunnel then, but were they delivered by rail through the Iron Curtain to French/Belgian/Dutch ports and shipped over the Channel, or shipped direct(-ish) from Romanian Black Sea ports via the Bosphorus and Mediterranean? Or indeed via the Danube, the Rhine-Danube canal, and the Rhine itself?
They were towed there with riders on board. There was an article in traction years ago that said one of the riders nearly froze to death and they then fitted them with some temporary wood burning stove with chimney through the windows for the journey. The riders were given money for the train back but most used it to buy western goods like jeans which were unavailable in Romania and then hitch hiked back.
Candlelight? I take the works in Romania was dark and their electricity was poor. Or were the candles used as a tool?
Romania was behind the Iron Curtain at the time, and it seemed bizarre that Brush Traction did place its contract at a locomotive works in the Warsaw Pact country.
There was a British Government campaign at the time to try to bring Romania into the Western camp by giving it technology it could use to increase it's industrial base. It was seen as a way of backdooring our technology and sales into the Comecon bloc.
There were a number of attempts, all failures. The most notable was the transfer of the BAC-111 production line to ROMBAC. They were hoping for large scale sales into the east, in reality I think they built six not all of which flew.
With the 56 the hope was that Electroputere would build more for eastern bloc use, especially for Russia. Obviously it never happened - Electroputere were quite happy with their existing designs and preferred locally built Sulzer diesels over imported EE designs.
There were talks as well about shifting car production lines from Leyland to Romania as well - never came to anything, instead they got the Renault 12 derived Dacia Denem/Duster
An interesting chapter in the paperback class 56 book by Bradford Barton Press details the building and delivery of the Romanian locos (probably available on ebay)
I only remember 56005/010/015 coming into Derby Loco Works, plus 56042 for bogie conversion (58 bogies), and 56036 on show.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
One of the issues was jagged metal, shearing cables. Much of the build in Romania was done by candlelight. By the time all the issues had been sorted, it would have been as quick to build them in the UK. But the original plan needed them operational by a certain date.
When the news came out that 30 of these new locos were going to be built in Romania, everyone on the railway in Derby from the ticket collectors at the station to the tea ladies in Nelson Street knew this was a bonkers idea. My boss even drew up plans to combine two class 40s in some sort of Master-Slave combination as an alternative, cheaper and surely more reliable source of increased power. The got nowhere, of course.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There was a British Government campaign at the time to try to bring Romania into the Western camp by giving it technology it could use to increase it's industrial base. It was seen as a way of backdooring our technology and sales into the Comecon bloc.
There was certainly an idea at the time, fuelled by the fact that Romania had refused to take part in and, at least initially, criticised* the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 68, was somehow different and could be levered away from the Pact by 'special treatment'. This is why the Ceaușescus were invited to the UK in 73 (?) and even met HMQ.
I don't know if this was an FCO idea or came from someone in the government, but as the late Sir John Birch, who I believe was at the time either at the British embassy in Bucharest or desk officer for Eastern Europe at the time, told me, many years later, this was all a big mistake. (You bet!)
But I didn't get the message that one tool to achieve this was to provide technology to Romania. They had no money to pay for it in any case.
* The criticism suddenly stopped after Ceaușescu was 'invited' to meet the Soviet ambassador one day in August '68 in Bucharest.
There were talks as well about shifting car production lines from Leyland to Romania as well - never came to anything, instead they got the Renault 12 derived Dacia Denem/Duster
The idea that Romania is somehow close to France (through the language ties) and that Bucharest is/was the "Paris" of eastern Europe is a beloved myth of many Romanians.
Good job they never got stuff from Leyland - it would have convinced ordinary folks that government propaganda might be telling the truth after all about the misery of life in the west!
The thirty Class 56 locomotives built by Electoputere at Craiova, Romania arrived in Great Britain at Harwich during 1976 and 1977. They were then moved by rail to Tinsley depot one or two at a time
I'm pretty sure a friend of mine who worked at Derby said that most of the early ones from Romania had to go to Derby for checking and completion. Now whether that was the works or the RTC I can't remember.
Interesting you say that. There was a rather sarcastic article in Modern Railways at the time (possibly by Captain Deltic) reporting on a speech by a BR bigwig saying how pleased they were with the new Romanian machines and that there was no quality difference between the two production sites. The guy went on to say that however there was a technology difference e.g. with the welding method used in the bogies, but the results were "just as good". I can't remember exactly what the comparison was (maybe arc- vs butt- welding??? I'm sure one of you engineering bods will know better than me) but the claim was there was no quality difference - in which case, as the article author said if there was no difference what was the point in mentioning it?
The speech at the time seemed rather politically directed and condescending to help grease the wheels of government policy re Romania
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
