What did for the 45s?

[Helvellyn]

The thread about withdrawn Class 45s at Whitemoor Yard has got me thinking - what did for the Class? Their Crompton-Parkinson electrical equipment i believe saw them as considered reliable and 50 had been fitted with ETH in the 1970s. Yet BR was still converting 47s and 31s to have ETH fitted in the mid 1980s. Would have not been easier to keep the 45/1s going for regional services that were planned for sprinterisation rather than fit ETH to more locos (especially Class 31s)?

 

[Cowley]

The thread about withdrawn Class 45s at Whitemoor Yard has got me thinking - what did for the Class? Their Crompton-Parkinson electrical equipment i believe saw them as considered reliable and 50 had been fitted with ETH in the 1970s. Yet BR was still converting 47s and 31s to have ETH fitted in the mid 1980s. Would have not been easier to keep the 45/1s going for regional services that were planned for sprinterisation rather than fit ETH to more locos (especially Class 31s)?

That is an interesting question. Was it something to do with bogie cracking possibly?

 

[Sun Chariot]

Their 1980s raison d'etre - on inter-regional and inter-urban passenger services - had been taken over by HSTs, Sprinters and cascaded 47s. Parcels and wagonload freight were also much in demise. I recall the railway press of the time, saying that the final members were simply switched off.

 

[Helvellyn]

That is an interesting question. Was it something to do with bogie cracking possibly?

Possibly, or weight.

Just curious why you would invest in modifying other locos for short lives (on passenger services) and seemingly mass withdraw a fleet that still had life left, even if only five years until sprinterisation was complete.

My only other thought was that with sectorisation they were considered expensive to maintain. I've read previously InterCity had first dibs on the Class 50 fleet and said no, despite their 100mph capability. NSE didn't have need for 50, so withdrawals quickly began, then as surplus 47s appeared they class was eliminated as non-standard.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Poor Route Availability may have been a factor (RA7, compared with a 47 with RA6 and a 31 with RA5). In fact, I believe that the Peaks are still, albeit by a narrow margin, the heaviest diesel locos to have run on British tracks (the 46s were marginally heavier than the 45s)

 

[Sun Chariot]

Poor Route Availability may have been a factor (RA7, compared with a 47 with RA6 and a 31 with RA5). In fact, I believe that the Peaks are still, albeit by a narrow margin, the heaviest diesel locos to have run on British tracks (the 46s were marginally heavier than the 45s)

Makes sense. By the mid 1980s, BR didn't need all the locos it had on its books. Keeping larger "standardised" fleets with useful RAs (47 and 31) made more sense, operationally and financially.

 

[Cowley]

Was their fuel range a bit limited too? Going on the fact that long range 47s were being converted at the time for cross country work.

 

[Helvellyn]

Was their fuel range a bit limited too? Going on the fact that long range 47s were being converted at the time for cross country work.

I thought the long range 47s were partly what allowed InterCity to dispense with the 50s?

 

[Cowley]

I thought the long range 47s were partly what allowed InterCity to dispense with the 50s?

I’m not sure that they really used the full range on a 50 though as they seemed to be mixed in with the 47/4 fleet and generally got swapped at New Street and sent west again?

 

[Gloster]

I’m not sure that they really used the full range on a 50 though as they seemed to be mixed in with the 47/4 fleet and generally got swapped at New Street and sent west again?

Another reason for changing at New Street was traction knowledge. Saltley drivers would know them (*), but if you had a driver change further north or even a need to move it when the driver was on break, you probably had a problem.

* - Of course they did: they were Saltley drivers.

 

[norbitonflyer]

You need the same range for four short trips as two longer ones.
A loco change was dten required at Nw Street anyway because of reversal and/or electric haulage north thereof

 

[Siemens Staines]

I’m not sure that they really used the full range on a 50 though as they seemed to be mixed in with the 47/4 fleet and generally got swapped at New Street and sent west again?

The 50s greater fuel range was required on some of the Waterloo - Exeter diagrams. It was one of the reasons that their replacements were 47/7, which did have a greater fuel range, rather than the surplus RfD 47/4 which then back filled the 47/7 on Paddington - Oxford.

 

[Magdalia]

The thread about withdrawn Class 45s at Whitemoor Yard has got me thinking - what did for the Class? Their Crompton-Parkinson electrical equipment i believe saw them as considered reliable and 50 had been fitted with ETH in the 1970s. Yet BR was still converting 47s and 31s to have ETH fitted in the mid 1980s. Would have not been easier to keep the 45/1s going for regional services that were planned for sprinterisation rather than fit ETH to more locos (especially Class 31s)?

You are looking at things with hindsight not foresight.

The railway was very badly hit by the election of the Thatcher government in 1979 and the economic recession that followed. Lots of things were done to cut costs, and manage with very limited new investment. There were some new HSTs and heavy freight locos (classes 56 and 58), some of which took work from class 45s, but new smaller freight locos (class 38) or DMUs (class 210) didn't happen. Sprinters were beyond the railways wildest dreams at that time: there were no "regional services that were planned for sprinterisation", they are what you see only with hindsight.

Locomotive maintenance resources were concentrated on life extension for selected classes funded by ceasing classified repairs for others, those locos either being withdrawn or placed into store. Class 45/1 locomotives had heavy general overhauls between late 1979 and early 1984, though with a pause through much of 1981 and 1982. Class 46 and class 45/0 classified repairs ceased in 1980 and 1981 respectively, though a few class 45/0s did eventually get classified repairs in 1983-85.

One of the key features of life extension for selected classes was ETH capacity in order to eliminate steam heat, while at the same time using cascaded hauled stock, released by HSTs, to replace life expired first generation DMUs. The class 45/1s already had ETH so were a precious resource at that time, that's why they got heavy general overhauls. But the railway needed more ETH fitted locomotives, reshuffling the existing fleet was not enough.

poor Route Availability may have been a factor (RA7, compared with a 47 with RA6 and a 31 with RA5).

Another reason for changing at New Street was traction knowledge. Saltley drivers would know them (*), but if you had a driver change further north or even a need to move it when the driver was on break, you probably had a problem.

Route availability and traction knowledge did limited the usefulness of the class 45s. For example, in this part of the world only March drivers knew class 45s. Classes 47 and 31 were much better choices than class 45 for further ETH conversions because they had wider route availability and traction knowledge.

 

[KevinTurvey]

Remember these times well. In the early and mid 80's BR was desperate to rid itself of the many surplus locomotives they had for the available traffic, starting with the vac braked and no/steam heat examples. By May 1987 even for the dual braked and ETH fitted 45/1s was their turn to go, like it had been for the 25s 27s and 40s a few years earlier, as Sprinters came on line, the drive for efficiency, and loss of freight traffic.

Hard to believe the last route they regularly operated on, Liverpool-York-Scarborough became 2 car class 150s for a while, much to the annoyance of the many standing passengers.

In hindsight some 45s could have lasted a few more years until the 158s were ready.

One of the main reasons the 31/4s lasted so long was there were insufficient Sprinters and poor pacer reliability in the north, they were pressed into service on Wigan/Liverpool/Blackpool/Preston/Barrow/Manchester services until 1995
and Holyhead services (with 37s) until 2000 when at last they had enough 175s.

 

[6Gman]

Route availability and traction knowledge did limited the usefulness of the class 45s. For example, in this part of the world only March drivers knew class 45s. Classes 47 and 31 were much better choices than class 45 for further ETH conversions because they had wider route availability and traction knowledge.

I was going to make these exact points.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I believe their weight was a factor in another way; they were not very efficient as a fair proportion of their power output (and fuel usage) was taken up in moving the locomotive itself rather than whatever it was pulling. Other classes were lighter and thus more efficient. At least that's what a BR engineer told me back in the day.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Weight was an advantage in the days of unbraked wagons, as it improved the braking capability of tbe train. Indeed, "diesel brake tenders" were used for a while with some of the lighter locomotives. Basically a dead weight on wheels, fitted with continuous brakes and coupled to a locomotive to increase the "fitted head" of the train.

 

[Richard Scott]

Poor Route Availability may have been a factor (RA7, compared with a 47 with RA6 and a 31 with RA5). In fact, I believe that the Peaks are still, albeit by a narrow margin, the heaviest diesel locos to have run on British tracks (the 46s were marginally heavier than the 45s)

Ironically it's the other way around 45/1 is RA6 with a number of 47/4s being RA7, especially if fitted with long range tanks. Yes, most 47/4s are RA6 before we get into semantics (although 1988 platform5 book shows all as RA7, but don'tthink that's correct).
Don't forget quite a number of 47/4s had been withdrawn by the time the last 45s went.
It's probably about standardisation, 47 was standard traction known by most drivers, by this time 45s were banned west of Bristol in case no-one could be found to drive it back. Also the later 47 conversions were all parallel machines, which were more reliable than earlier series parallel machines.
The 45s became expensive to maintain due to their bogies, which were prone to cracking and then required expensive works visits. When final ones were switched off BR was quite reluctant as there were insufficient locos of type 4 power with ETH anyway and sometimes left a train with a 31 instead of a type 4, got there the following week, I expect!!!
To be honest the 45 was the better passenger loco (its Crompton Parkinson electricals were superior to Brush and they had 5 field weaking stages making them easily match a 47 for acceleration and gave the 45 superior hill climbing ability) but, in the end, there just weren't enough of them and they were expensive to run.
A little anecdote, people often asked Gloucester drivers (who basically knew almost all diesel traction in England/Wales) what was the best type 4s, answers invariably came back as 45 best, 50 second and 47 last. Amused me as upset lots of people, particularly those who hated 50s!!

 

[norbitonflyer]

Ironically it's the other way around 45/1 is RA6 with a number of 47/4s being RA7, especially if fitted with long range tanks. Yes, most 47/4s are RA6 before we get into semantics (although 1988 platform5 book shows all as RA7, but don'tthink that's correct).

I understoood 45/0s were RA7 though

Although Peaks are heavier than other RA6/RA7 classes, they also have more axles to distribnute the weight.

 

[Magdalia]

Ironically it's the other way around 45/1 is RA6 with a number of 47/4s being RA7, especially if fitted with long range tanks.

Loco weights are based on being "loaded for service", with a full tank of fuel. For a steam heat loco the weight doesn't just include the weight of the boiler, it also includes the boiler water and fuel. A full tank of water weighs a lot, as anyone who has carried pails of water will know. Some locos that had steam boilers removed didn't get much weight loss because they had a concrete balance weight to maintain reasonably even weight distribution. I don't know if that applies to class 45/1s.

Although Peaks are heavier than other RA6/RA7 classes, they also have more axles to distribnute the weight.

But route availability isn't just about axle load. It also includes what, in steam days, was called the hammer blow effect, that comes from having lots of axles close together.

 

[D Mylchreest]

Not sure that hammer blow can be applied to diesels. I thought it was the result of out-of-balance forces, rotary and reciprocating, that all steam engines suffer from (but some more than others).

 

[Gloster]

Loco weights are based on being "loaded for service", with a full tank of fuel. For a steam heat loco the weight doesn't just include the weight of the boiler, it also includes the boiler water and fuel. A full tank of water weighs a lot, as anyone who has carried pails of water will know. Some locos that had steam boilers removed didn't get much weight loss because they had a concrete balance weight to maintain reasonably even weight distribution. I don't know if that applies to class 45/1s.

The Class 44 were given concrete weights for weight distribution reasons when they were moved across to being goods locos early in the 1960s. I believe that the boilers were left in place, but would have been empty.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Not sure that hammer blow can be applied to diesels. I thought it was the result of out-of-balance forces, rotary and reciprocating, that all steam engines suffer from (but some more than others).

I thoughht sio too, although axle spacing is also a factor - a longer wheelbase is less likely to concentrate too much weight on one span of a bridge

 

[Richard Scott]

Loco weights are based on being "loaded for service", with a full tank of fuel. For a steam heat loco the weight doesn't just include the weight of the boiler, it also includes the boiler water and fuel. A full tank of water weighs a lot, as anyone who has carried pails of water will know. Some locos that had steam boilers removed didn't get much weight loss because they had a concrete balance weight to maintain reasonably even weight distribution. I don't know if that applies to class 45/1s.


But route availability isn't just about axle load. It also includes what, in steam days, was called the hammer blow effect, that comes from having lots of axles close together.

Whatever the criteria 45/1s were RA6!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A factor for consideration has to be the difficult financial issues for the time within BR - from memory the overall running costs in the late 80's for a 47 was £75,000 a year -and for a 50 around £125,000 .

Efforts made to foist 50's on a freight sector were not welcome -though 50149 was taken on as a test case (downgraded I believe) - "no thank you" was the response - and I think it went back to passenger use after a while , due to the reliability of the class generally.

 

[Richard Scott]

A factor for consideration has to be the difficult financial issues for the time within BR - from memory the overall running costs in the late 80's for a 47 was £75,000 a year -and for a 50 around £125,000 .

Efforts made to foist 50's on a freight sector were not welcome -though 50149 was taken on as a test case (downgraded I believe) - "no thank you" was the response - and I think it went back to passenger use after a while , due to the reliability of the class generally.

Their reliability wasn't so much the issue, as far as miles per casualty were concerned they were similar to other type 4s. The problem was when they let go it was usually a traction motor or generator flashover, so an expensive repair whereas other classes may have been a burned out relay or something fairly cheap to repair.
The one issue with converting them to freight use was sanding equipment had been removed at refurbishment so led to issues starting heavy trains. The availing of CP7 bogies from the 37 refurbishment program meant was quite easy to get the tractive effort up relatively cheaply.
50149 was used on China clay freight for quite a while as two 37s required accident damage repairs. Once these returned it was converted back to standard and returned to passenger pool.

 

[Cowley]

Their reliability wasn't so much the issue, as far as miles per casualty were concerned they were similar to other type 4s. The problem was when they let go it was usually a traction motor or generator flashover, so an expensive repair whereas other classes may have been a burned out relay or something fairly cheap to repair.
The one issue with converting them to freight use was sanding equipment had been removed at refurbishment so led to issues starting heavy trains. The availing of CP7 bogies from the 37 refurbishment program meant was quite easy to get the tractive effort up relatively cheaply.
50149 was used on China clay freight for quite a while as two 37s required accident damage repairs. Once these returned it was converted back to standard and returned to passenger pool.

Re the 45s with Crompton equipment - was it harder to acquire spares compared to Brush parts due to them no longer existing as a company?

 

[Richard Scott]

Re the 45s with Crompton equipment - was it harder to acquire spares compared to Brush parts due to them no longer existing as a company?

I think they're were quite a few spares, 33s had nearly identical cubicles and can rewind a motor or generator an almost infinite number of times, despite being costly. Scored commutators may be a more expensive/difficult proposition.
I would speculate that the Brush equipment was inferior in the first place given that the younger 46s were easily outlived by the older 45s.

 

[Davester50]

There was a ban at Glasgow Central for locos with pony-wheeled bogies for a while in the 1980s, can't remember if it were 40s or 45s, (all from the thread below) but things like this on top don't help when a 47 can do it

Loco hauled trains into and out of Glasgow Central 1976-1981

Hi Does anyone have any railway lists or records from Glasgow Central for the years 1976-1981 at all please? Any help is much appreciated. Thank you Kemal Ali

www.railforums.co.uk

Looks like there were a couple of incidents:

Also in the Glasgow area, Classes 40, 45 & 46 were banned from Glasgow Central station due to problems with their ability to derail on the complex pointwork and curves in the station area. During the morning of August 21st 1978 40047 had become derailed blocking several platforms whilst on January 12th 1980 45126 became derailed in the station area while working the 11.50 Glasgow - Nottingham. The result of the ban saw Toton Class 47s replace the Class 45s on these diagrams.

https://www.derbysulzers.com/80.html

 

[Magdalia]

Re the 45s with Crompton equipment - was it harder to acquire spares compared to Brush parts due to them no longer existing as a company?

Suspension of classified repairs created a pool of withdrawn and stored locomotives that were an important source of spare parts for the locomotives that continued in operation, what was gruesomely referred to as cannibalisation.