Locos that never hauled a passenger train

[D7666]

The example of the Brighton - wherever falls into a similar category as the Cannock / Nuneaton drags - diagrammed for a freight loco (possibly a specific class) when the diversions were on, but not a “regular diagram”. However, we’re getting into the area of splitting hairs…

Are you sure any of those drags were diagrammed for 56/58s at all by any definition or (ir)regular ?

I was in West mids up to 1986 when there were routine drags with 56s and 58s having oodles of both - 2/3 of them each class - and none absolutely none ever diagrammed then for 56s or 58s -they were all nominally 47s (or 50s between stabling) ((and occasionally 45/1)) diagrams - indeed 47/4s for anything that was WCML or XC coffins - all the WCML drags even including Birmingham Nuneaton - exceeded the time permitted for coffins to run off batteries so needed an ETH loco on paper and could not be paper diagrammed for non ETH.

The Cannock drags used New Street crews (from the southern end) and they did not know 56s or 58s; from the northern end I don't know what crews they were, but if they were Crewe crews I'd also question they knew 56/58s at that time. Saltley did not know the roads that way, and Bescot crews seldom used for weekends passenger diverts (indeed even getting locos off BS on a Sunday morning was fraught as one road or another was usually blocked; obviously when Cannock specifically was used that did not apply, but it did block out much other use).

56s and 58s were used [a] they were fixed (b) they were otherwise idle [c] there were never enough 47/4s in the right places [d] on diagrams Saltley could work

Sectorisation started in 1984, and by 1986 had really cut in, diagrammed use of 56/58s would have found even less oppurtunity, especially after they started that game of EBW running Wolverhampton Stafford TV Rugby Euston - a game precisely to avoid use of diesels.

There may have been occasions when 56/58s diagrammed, but to my knowledge no; if you say yes, please produce the loco diagram and crewing arrangements.
_
_

I know of one other basher who cleared 509 of the class 47, it took 20 years, the locos he missed were the accident write-offs.
What was the number of your last loco to clear the class?

508 47s for haulage has been done by quite a few, it is your 509, and above, where far fewer clam to have done it.

For the record I only got to 415 but as some of you around at the time will remember I operated a deliberate 'no duffs' policy through most of the 1980s and avoided them by whatever alternative was available. Of course I had a few in that period, but unavoidables. Of the 90 or so I dod not have, there were a number of ETH ones especially some of the later conversions, so it was not just NB ones I missed.
_
_

It makes the thread more interesting to go into e-locos and non TOPS things.

 

[Bevan Price]

Bevan Price said:


I was hauled by 509 Class 47s, including all the non-boilered locos - all on scheduled services. (I missed 3 early accident victims)

I know of one other basher who cleared 509 of the class 47, it took 20 years, the locos he missed were the accident write-offs.
What was the number of your last loco to clear the class?

My last 47 for haulage was 47010. I missed D1671, 1734 and 1908.
D1908 was the one that collided with 310.094 near Wolverhampton - the latter just mentioned in the 304/310/312 thread.

I also had all the Class 90s on the WCML

Another "drag" working not mentioned previously was Wigan to Lostock Junction, when WCML trains between Wigan & Preston had to be diverted. At least one 56 is known to have worked these, but pairs of 20s were more common. The locos used were anything available on Sunday at Springs Branch; on other days the locos were used on coal trains from Bickershaw Colliery. (The WCML train loco - almost inevitably a 47/4 - remained on the rear of the train between Wigan & Lostock Jn)

 

[The Crab]

The first 20 of what became class 24 were on loan to the Southern specifically for passenger work because they had steam heat boilers. I think it was because S.R. coaching stock wasn't being converted to electric heating sufficiently quickly. They were on the S.E. Division, I think.

//

Pre electrification, Sulzer 2s were the mainstay of semi fasts Euston - Northampton - Birmingham, and the D1 -10 'Peaks' were used quite intensively on the W.C.M.L. when new. The Devons Road EE1s were also used on passenger work, mostly on Trings, but I saw a pair on a Euston - Northampton once.

I have a very vague idea that the steam heating boiler gave rise to weight issues when the 24s were loaned to the Southern & some were removed.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I have a very vague idea that the steam heating boiler gave rise to weight issues when the 24s were loaned to the Southern & some were removed.

Not sure of the point of that, since the 24s were only there to provide steam heat (because a 33 couldn't)

 

[The Crab]

Not sure of the point of that, since the 24s were only there to provide steam heat (because a 33 couldn't)

My very vague idea was that the 33s were delivered late.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I have a very vague idea that the steam heating boiler gave rise to weight issues when the 24s were loaned to the Southern & some were removed.

That would be ironic if my recollection of the reason for their transfer (as steam-heated diesels) was correct! I'll check the Railway Observer of the time to see if the reason for the loan was given at the time.

They certainly had steam heat boilers on their return to the L.M. - they were the mainstay of Euston - Northampton services.

 

[Magdalia]

I have a very vague idea that the steam heating boiler gave rise to weight issues when the 24s were loaned to the Southern & some were removed.

That would be ironic if my recollection of the reason for their transfer (as steam-heated diesels) was correct! I'll check the Railway Observer of the time to see if the reason for the loan was given at the time.

They certainly had steam heat boilers on their return to the L.M. - they were the mainstay of Euston - Northampton services.

Overall weight, and meeting axle load constraints, was an issue for all of the modernisation plan Type 2 Bo-Bos.

The boiler itself made a significant weight contribution, but the weight of full tanks of boiler water and boiler fuel also had to be factored in.

In the particular case of the class 24s, D5050 upwards had smaller boilers and water tanks to reduce weight.

 

[The Crab]

Overall weight, and meeting axle load constraints, was an issue for all of the modernisation plan Type 2 Bo-Bos.

The boiler itself made a significant weight contribution, but the weight of full tanks of boiler water and boiler fuel also had to be factored in.

In the particular case of the class 24s, D5050 upwards had smaller boilers and water tanks to reduce weight.

I

Not sure of the point of that, since the 24s were only there to provide steam heat (because a 33 couldn't)

Looking at the www.derbysulzers.com website it seems that the 24s were a few tons over design weight and D5002-6 had their boilers removed but no mention of re-instatement or otherwise.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I

Looking at the www.derbysulzers.com website it seems that the 24s were a few tons over design weight and D5002-6 had their boilers removed but no mention of re-instatement or otherwise.

Overall weight, and meeting axle load constraints, was an issue for all of the modernisation plan Type 2 Bo-Bos.

The boiler itself made a significant weight contribution, but the weight of full tanks of boiler water and boiler fuel also had to be factored in.

In the particular case of the class 24s, D5050 upwards had smaller boilers and water tanks to reduce weight.

The Railway Observer of the day provides some help. It states that, on arrival, they weighed 5 tons more than expected whereupon the Civil Engineer vetoed their use on a number of routes where they were to have been employed. D5002-6 visited Eastleigh Works soon after arrival, for what the R.O. described as 'to undergo certain modifications. The R.O. also states that the boilers on D5002-D5006 were removed and on all locos sundry other items were removed or replaced with lighter items with the result that there were then two route availability groups with D5002 - 6 having greater availability than D5000/1/7-14.The R.O. then gives a long list of the lines they were cleared for, including branches. Their first recorded use, after driver training, was on freight work. Spotting at Wellingborough I distinctly remember seeing D5002 heading a set of green coaches on the up fast so they did some passenger work.

The R.O. is silent on the reason for the loan but contemporary interest would not have been great; the S.R. was at the time fitting new front ends to Moguls and just about still rebuilding Bulleids. Lots happening on the steam front. Just a few boring diseasels...

 

[47296lastduff]

Not diesels, but worth mentioning that 92021/45/6 have never done any passenger AFIK.

 

[The Crab]

Not diesels, but worth mentioning that 92021/45/6 have never done any passenger AFIK.

I'm just amazed at how many "Crosti" 9Fs have hauled a passenger train.

 

[d9009alycidon]

What about the Network North West Day April 25/26 1992? They were all advertised service trains, I had 60095 on the 1448 Man Vic – Barrow amongst others

 

[D7666]

The Railway Observer of the day provides some help. It states that, on arrival, they weighed 5 tons more than expected whereupon the Civil Engineer vetoed their use on a number of routes where they were to have been employed. D5002-6 visited Eastleigh Works soon after arrival, for what the R.O. described as 'to undergo certain modifications. The R.O. also states that the boilers on D5002-D5006 were removed and on all locos sundry other items were removed or replaced with lighter items with the result that there were then two route availability groups with D5002 - 6 having greater availability than D5000/1/7-14.The R.O. then gives a long list of the lines they were cleared for, including branches. Their first recorded use, after driver training, was on freight work. Spotting at Wellingborough I distinctly remember seeing D5002 heading a set of green coaches on the up fast so they did some passenger work.

While not challenging the facts about weights and axle loads and boilers, I am always amused by contemporary reports - and then many years of subsequent writers repeating this - suggesting the D5000s weight was "unexpected".

That it was "unexpected" can not be true. A BR Diagram is issued right from new build, weighing is part of delivery and issuing that Diagram, and these Diagrams covered all up and individual axle weights IWO, empty and unsprung. The early D5000s DE/2000/1 Diagram were IWO 19 t 19 c i.e. all but 20 t so RA 6 (although not sure that the RA system was in place then). This would have been fully known.

It is true early D5000s were over design weight - but that was well known at the time - indeed there are contemporary reports on that very subject; almost every early type was over weight.

Not cross checked every D5000 loco by loco - but AFAIK 19 t 19 applied to the first 20, the next 30 were 19 t 13 c outer axles 19 t 14 c inner axles, then the later ones 18 t 8 c one bogie 18 t 2 c other bogie. There were other variations, but those are the majority principal stats.

Now look at D5300s. They too were heavier than design. New, the first lot were GN based, and amongst their duty was cross London transfer freight to SR, including via Snow Hill (i.e. Thameslink today) and that was not an unrestricted axle load route. Look at DE/2001/1 Diagram that covered those 20 - they are 19 t 12 c on the heaviest axle, the other 2-3 c less. It is the heaviest axle that nominally determines RA - I find it hard to understand why SR did not fuss over this for the difference between 19 t 19 c of D5000 and 19 t 12 c on a D5300. Or if SR did fuss over it how come no big issue has been made on it in the myths and legends of diesel history. Especially when you consider the SR 5000s were on the SED side, and the GN D5300s also worked mainly on to the SED side.

Overall an early D5000 was ~2 t heavier than an early D5300 but in practical terms you can lose 2 t by running them at 2/3 supplies. I think the whole issue has been distorted out of proportion or there are significant facts lost in the past 65 years. If a D5000 had to lose 5 t to be acceptable, why did a D5300 - at 2 t lighter - also not need to lose 3 t to run on SR.

Cynical me suggests it was more likely SR CCE found that had rather less robust PW than they thought they had, or even had not assessed some of it.

Whatever, I do not accept we have the full story behind all of this nor that it was a big a problem as myth and legend promotes.

_
_

As an aside for those who like numbers, when SR had the D5000s, they had all of D5001 and E5001 and 5001*** and 35001, and other end digits in those ranges, all at the same time.

*** that had 15001 within it, and so on

 

[Trackman]

What about the Network North West Day April 25/26 1992? They were all advertised service trains, I had 60095 on the 1448 Man Vic – Barrow amongst others

That's a point, they were passenger service trains, not specials.
McRats on the Barrow, who would have thought!

 

[Magdalia]

I have done a lot of research on diesel locomotive route availability in the Modernisation Plan era, mostly in relation to the Eastern Region.

The Modernisation Plan Type 2 specification included 18 ton axle load. Any 4 axle Type 2 was expected to weigh less than 72 tons in order to meet the specification. The MetroVicks had 5 axles, so needed to weigh less than 90 tons, and the Brush Type 2s had 6 axles, so needed to weigh less than 108 tons.

If, when the first locomotives were completed, and put into the weigh house, they exceed those limits, then that was unexpected. The saga of the Baby Deltics weight issues is well documented in The Deltic locomotives of British Rail Webb/David and Charles chapter 2, including reducing the size of the boiler water tank. The equivalent Sulzer diesel locomotives of British Rail does not go into the same level of detail, but does mention the Southern Region issues in Chapter 3.

On the Eastern Region the Route Availability classification was already in operation in 1958 for routes and locomotives, though with the scale RA1-9 not meaning exactly the same as it did in the 1970s and 1980s. Details were included in Working Timetables, from these it is possible to see what applied at the time, and how the classifications evolved over time.

This is particularly pertinent in the case of the BR 1160hp Type 2s. In a 1959 Working Timetable, issued before the Eastern Region had received any BR Type 2s, these are shown as RA6, but in a 1960 Working Timetable, after the first locomotives had arrived on the Eastern Region, they are shown as RA7. By 1962 D5000-5049 are being shown as RA7 and D5050-5150 as RA6. I don't have a Working Timetable for 1961. It is clear that, in 1959, the Eastern Region did not expect the first BR Type 2s to be RA7 not RA6.

The issue with the Snow Hill route, and the Eastern Region transfer freights from Ferme Park, was specifically related to Blackfriars Bridge. It is not relevant to the Southern Region more generally. When virtually everything else on the GN suburban had gone over to diesel, the freights via the Snow Hill line continued to be steam hauled, the Southern Region having rejected all of BR Type 2, BRCW Type 2 and Baby Deltics. They only relented when the Eastern Region offered to confine the workings to BR Type 2s from D5050 upwards, and there were some convoluted depot reallocations that eventually gave Finsbury Park a fleet consisting of D5050-72 and D5094/95 to cover this work.

Finally, a word of precaution about BR diagram books. These were designed to be living documents that could be updated when necessary, which is why they are loose leaf not bound. Issuance of revised pages would always be accompanied by an instruction to destroy the removed pages that no longer applied. This means that any page of a BR diagram book only applies from the date that page was issued, and doesn't necessarily say anything about the specification when new. The original diagrams are unlikely to have survived, unless they are in a national or regional CMEE file that was never thrown away.

 

[Mag_seven]

Not diesels, but worth mentioning that 92021/45/6 have never done any passenger AFIK.

I asked about Class 92s in post #4. I knew there must have been at least a couple.

 

[Richard Scott]

What about the Network North West Day April 25/26 1992? They were all advertised service trains, I had 60095 on the 1448 Man Vic – Barrow amongst others

There was also a probable fix when 60033 replaced 50033 on a Waterloo to Exeter service in May 1992; made it to Salisbury where it was replaced by 2 33s. If I remember correctly 47322 also out that day.

 

[randyrippley]

So how many 04 and 03 shunters hauled passenger trains at Weymouth?
Presumably anything that was allocated to Bournemouth shed, though some of those were at Salisbury rather than Weymouth (and used for adding/removing coaches to Waterloo-Exeter services during the Warship days)

 

[Gloster]

So how many 04 and 03 shunters hauled passenger trains at Weymouth?
Presumably anything that was allocated to Bournemouth shed, though some of those were at Salisbury rather than Weymouth (and used for adding/removing coaches to Waterloo-Exeter services during the Warship days)

Salisbury‘s 08 was supplied by Eastleigh.

 

[Richard Scott]

So how many 04 and 03 shunters hauled passenger trains at Weymouth?
Presumably anything that was allocated to Bournemouth shed, though some of those were at Salisbury rather than Weymouth (and used for adding/removing coaches to Waterloo-Exeter services during the Warship days)

Definitely know D2280 did as current owner has a picture of it on Quay line on a passenger train.

 

[D7666]

So how many 04 and 03 shunters hauled passenger trains at Weymouth?
Presumably anything that was allocated to Bournemouth shed, though some of those were at Salisbury rather than Weymouth (and used for adding/removing coaches to Waterloo-Exeter services during the Warship days)

There was AFAIK no attaching detaching coaches in the sense of portions at Salisbury from 1964 once the D800s took over; the timetable that did that with locos also altered the service and stock workings as through blocks Waterloo Exeter. Of course there would be occasional need to remove defective cars but then that could apply any location with shunters (and in any case more often than not train locos did those sort of moves - and which are always uncommon defects anyway).

 

[randyrippley]

There was AFAIK no attaching detaching coaches in the sense of portions at Salisbury from 1964 once the D800s took over; the timetable that did that with locos also altered the service and stock workings as through blocks Waterloo Exeter. Of course there would be occasional need to remove defective cars but then that could apply any location with shunters (and in any case more often than not train locos did those sort of moves - and which are always uncommon defects anyway).

I was there several times and saw it happen.
Two (from memory) coaches added / removed from the London end.
Train would arrive from the west, Warship would draw off eastward. Shunter would back two coaches onto the head of the train, uncouple and draw away. Then (usually) the same Warship would couple back up.

 

[The exile]

What about the Network North West Day April 25/26 1992? They were all advertised service trains, I had 60095 on the 1448 Man Vic – Barrow amongst others

Were they all? Certainly those that were would count, as would any tour that officially carried “normals” for part of its route (for that bit of course)

 

[d9009alycidon]

Were they all? Certainly those that were would count, as would any tour that officially carried “normals” for part of its route (for that bit of course)

Here is the list of services expected to run that day, think it pretty much kept to plan except for the 26s which failed in the morning and spent the rest of the day parked up at Preston. Anything described as Vice DMU was a scheduled service. The underlined services were what I planned to travel on, but changed my mind and went from my base at Blackpool to Longsight open day in the morning (DMU) and was back at Victoria in time for the 14.48 to Barrow behind 60095. Spent the afternoon spotting at Preston before taking the 17.58 to Lime Street behind the 20059 and 20168 then finally back to Blackpool behind 31433

 

[D7666]

I was there several times and saw it happen.
Two (from memory) coaches added / removed from the London end.
Train would arrive from the west, Warship would draw off eastward. Shunter would back two coaches onto the head of the train, uncouple and draw away. Then (usually) the same Warship would couple back up.

interesting

what services were these ?

I did say portions - not shunt moves.

those two coaches being added or removed, were these conveying actual through passengers - which is the point in a haulage thread - and why I said attaching / detaching 'portions' - and where and on what services did those two coaches come from before coupling or got to after uncoupling

if this was merely a shunt move, then that opens up every shunt move in the land, that it altering the thread a bit more again, and not specific to 03/04

 

[randyrippley]

interesting

what services were these ?

I did say portions - not shunt moves.

those two coaches being added or removed, were these conveying actual through passengers - which is the point in a haulage thread - and why I said attaching / detaching 'portions' - and where and on what services did those two coaches come from before coupling or got to after uncoupling

if this was merely a shunt move, then that opens up every shunt move in the land, that it altering the thread a bit more again, and not specific to 03/04

I can't remember the specific service timings, too long ago but they were daytime Waterloo-Exeter workings.
They were simply additional coaches, not through portions to/from anywhere else.
It's a long time ago but my memory is that they were waiting with passengers on them and then shunted across by the shunter.
Did Salisbury have crossovers at the east end of the platforms to release locos? I've got a feeling they did but can't be sure.

 

[778]

I would assume no class 14s ever hauled passenger trains before preservation.

 

[D6130]

Not diesels, but worth mentioning that 92021/45/6 have never done any passenger AFIK.

For a moment there I thought you were talking about class 9F steam locos....then I realised that you were talking about electric locos 92 021, 92 045 and 92 046.

I'm just amazed at how many "Crosti" 9Fs have hauled a passenger train.

Someone else who was obviously under the same misapprehension as myself!

I would assume no class 14s ever hauled passenger trains before preservation.

While I have no evidence either way, I wouldn't be surprised if class 14s - either singly or in pairs - may have occasionally rescued failed passenger trains, either loco-hauled or DMU.

 

[D7666]

I can't remember the specific service timings, too long ago but they were daytime Waterloo-Exeter workings.
They were simply additional coaches, not through portions to/from anywhere else.
It's a long time ago but my memory is that they were waiting with passengers on them and then shunted across by the shunter.
Did Salisbury have crossovers at the east end of the platforms to release locos? I've got a feeling they did but can't be sure.

thanks, not portions then, simply shunt moves; as I said if those count for this thread, then there must be many many of those given the vast time frame now covered

the layout at both ends of Salisbury was laid out to execute rapid loco changes yes, east end on the Up and west end on the Down

 

[The exile]

thanks, not portions then, simply shunt moves; as I said if those count for this thread, then there must be many many of those given the vast time frame now covered

the layout at both ends of Salisbury was laid out to execute rapid loco changes yes, east end on the Up and west end on the Down

As booked work, Ivthink I would count them - as long as passengers could remain in the coaches concerned as part of a through journey. Shunt releases, like the one my Dad once blagged me onto at Crewe wouldn’t count as the coaches weren’t technically in service at the time.