What's the Attraction for Using Old Locos?

J-Rod · 25 Jan 2019

GrimShady said:
You might as well couple two of the PCs fitted with draw gear back to back.

Interestingly enough, there's a pic online somewhere of a cut and shut PC model similar to what you just described.

Edit: Found it!

My, they look neat :smile:

(as in 'tidy', that is). Nice bit of modelling too.

While the spotter in me likes to see these things from time to time... when will some of them become life expired? Surely they can't run forever? I'm talking mechanicals, rather than economics, here.

Also, why did 33s disappear so fast but the 20s keep on going?

RailUK Forums

GrimShady · 26 Jan 2019

J-Rod said:
My, they look neat (as in 'tidy', that is). Nice bit of modelling too.

While the spotter in me likes to see these things from time to time... when will some of them become life expired? Surely they can't run forever? I'm talking mechanicals, rather than economics, here.

Also, why did 33s disappear so fast but the 20s keep on going?

Sulzer Vs EE engines possibly?

Also I would have thought the 33s have worked much harder during their careers.

hooverboy · 26 Jan 2019

J-Rod said:
My, they look neat (as in 'tidy', that is). Nice bit of modelling too.

While the spotter in me likes to see these things from time to time... when will some of them become life expired? Surely they can't run forever? I'm talking mechanicals, rather than economics, here.

Also, why did 33s disappear so fast but the 20s keep on going?

the HST engines are still quite new!,I think they replaced the paxman velenta's around 2008,so only about 10 years old.

as to withdrawal of 33's from service, yes I think the sulzer engines might not have been too reliable(class 25/45 also withdrawn quite early- 47 still going though!)
I think our old friend route availability plays a part again, and perhaps braking/coupling systems?

apk55 · 26 Jan 2019

Old does not necessary mean unreliable particularly if well looked after.
However they may be higher maintenance than modern designs but this may not be too significant. The designs that have survived from the 60s and 70s are the best of the bunch with many others being scrapped early because of issues.
Because most of the parts are quite simple and robust it is quite possible the make or find spares to keep them going. It is some of the later locomotives that problems can occur for example digital logic and early computer controls are now almost unavailable. (Early electronics is quite easy to fix and most parts are still available (or at least drop in replacements are available)).

anamyd · 26 Jan 2019

hooverboy said:
the HST engines are still quite new!,I think they replaced the paxman velenta's around 2008,so only about 10 years old.

Most Valentas were replaced in 2007-2008 (mostly with the new MTUs but some East Midlands Trains ones have VP185s built in 2003), but the earliest year of replacement was 2005 (First Great Western trial) and the latest was 2010 (one remaining Grand Central one whose drivers were instructed to be gentle with the power controller)

43096 · 26 Jan 2019

anamyd said:
Most Valentas were replaced in 2007-2008 (mostly with the new MTUs but some East Midlands Trains ones have VP185s built in 2003), but the earliest year of replacement was 2005 (First Great Western trial) and the latest was 2010 (one remaining Grand Central one whose drivers were instructed to be gentle with the power controller)

It’s way more complex than that. First Valenta replacement was by Mirrlees MB190s in 4 power cars in 1986/87. Thereafter VP185 installation started in 1994 with an initial 8 converted (of which 4 for Midland) through to 1996, then a further handful for FGW, before 14 conversions for MML in 2002/3. That’s before MTU conversion started.

125 Group members will have seen the excellent article on 25 years of the VP185 in their current magazine, which gives a good overview of the engine type.

anamyd · 26 Jan 2019

43096 said:
It’s way more complex than that. First Valenta replacement was by Mirrlees MB190s in 4 power cars in 1986/87. Thereafter VP185 installation started in 1994 with an initial 8 converted (of which 4 for Midland) through to 1996, then a further handful for FGW, before 14 conversions for MML in 2002/3. That’s before MTU conversion started.

125 Group members will have seen the excellent article on 25 years of the VP185 in their current magazine, which gives a good overview of the engine type.

Thanks for the additional info and I should have been clearer

zn1 · 27 Jan 2019

Ironically....in the last years of intercity...it was cheaper to hire a couple of HSTs in from western region than do the class 47 loco swaps at crewe for the holyhead jobs..times change...

br60066 · 27 Jan 2019

Would the MTU units be able to keep their grandfather rights if they were removed from hst’s to be used for replacing engines or even put in a new built body. Could it work like GBRF with their last batch of class 66’s. Engines made and registered before the emission regulation change then fitted to locos built afterwards?

Cowley · 27 Jan 2019

J-Rod said:
Also, why did 33s disappear so fast but the 20s keep on going?

I suppose percentage wise the class 20 already had one over on the 33s by there being more than three times as many to start with.
The 20s were obviously used by what became DRS, so they continued in service on the flask trains, and in more recent years formerly preserved ones have been bought back onto the mainline for uses such as the LT stock moves.
I suppose that they are (or were) reasonably easy to repair due to their simplicity and the availability of standardised EE parts?

The 33s were powerful (for their size) and fairly reliable machines with good electrical equipment.
Obviously DRS found a use for a few of them before they went on to WCRC.
One problem with them is how quickly they rust though...

anamyd · 28 Jan 2019

Cowley said:
I suppose percentage wise the class 20 already had one over on the 33s by there being more than three times as many to start with.
The 20s were obviously used by what became DRS, so they continued in service on the flask trains, and in more recent years formerly preserved ones have been bought back onto the mainline for uses such as the LT stock moves.
I suppose that they are (or were) reasonably easy to repair due to their simplicity and the availability of standardised EE parts?

The 33s were powerful (for their size) and fairly reliable machines with good electrical equipment.
Obviously DRS found a use for a few of them before they went on to WCRC.
One problem with them is how quickly they rust though...

Explain abbreviations as per forum rules please!

mmh · 28 Jan 2019

anamyd said:
Explain abbreviations as per forum rules please!

DRS, WCRC and LT aren't really abbreviations in a way (although in a way of course they are!), they're operators commonly known by their acronyms

DRS - Direct Rail Services
WCRC - West Coast Railway Company
LT - London Transport

EE is English Electric, a company that built lots of the early BR era diesel and electric locos, including the class 20.

Cowley · 28 Jan 2019

anamyd said:
Explain abbreviations as per forum rules please!

I do apologise. It was late o'clock.
Thanks to mmh for the extra detail.

pt_mad · 28 Jan 2019

whhistle said:
Why do (some) freight companies use older locos like the 37s or the 50s instead of newer 60s (for example)?

Because there's better 'thrash' on a 37 :lol:

?

Emblematic · 28 Jan 2019

br60066 said:
Would the MTU units be able to keep their grandfather rights if they were removed from hst’s to be used for replacing engines or even put in a new built body. Could it work like GBRF with their last batch of class 66’s. Engines made and registered before the emission regulation change then fitted to locos built afterwards?

Put simply, no. The MTUs could be put in another locomotive with the same engine as a like-for-like replacement, but otherwise don't have any grandfather rights as such. The 66s engine transplants were part of a specific 'flex arrangements' that allowed for existing classes to continue to use the older 3a class engines after the 2011 changeover to 3b. These were limited in both number and time, and the three recovered engines took the 66 build to the maximum allowed.
A separate dispensation allows older locomotives to be re-engined with engines one level below current, so a class 3a engine can be used to upgrade and old locomotive at present. This dispensation will effectively disappear in 2021, when class 5 emissions take effect (as there's nothing significantly different coming to class 5 for locomotives.)

anamyd · 28 Jan 2019

Thanks mmh, some of those were doh moments for sure! No worries Cowley

br60066 · 28 Jan 2019

Emblematic said:
Put simply, no. The MTUs could be put in another locomotive with the same engine as a like-for-like replacement, but otherwise don't have any grandfather rights as such. The 66s engine transplants were part of a specific 'flex arrangements' that allowed for existing classes to continue to use the older 3a class engines after the 2011 changeover to 3b. These were limited in both number and time, and the three recovered engines took the 66 build to the maximum allowed.
A separate dispensation allows older locomotives to be re-engined with engines one level below current, so a class 3a engine can be used to upgrade and old locomotive at present. This dispensation will effectively disappear in 2021, when class 5 emissions take effect (as there's nothing significantly different coming to class 5 for locomotives.)

If it was simple we would all be making locos

. Wonder if there will be a mad rush before 2021 for any engine swaps

apk55 · 28 Jan 2019

Thinking about it, the continued use old locomotives is mainly because there is no modern equivalent. All recently built locomotives have been have been big powerful heavy designs for hauling heavy trains. Using them for light duties such as stock movement and flask trains is very inefficient as a big diesel would rarely need even half power.
Therefore should we not be thinking of some new build light locomotives. OK the existing locomotives can be kept going for a few more years but eventually they will require costly repairs. And emission regulations might well be applied in some areas such as London such as to prohibit their regular use.
Looking at the Europe many of the manufactures have designs that meet that requirement although they would need modifying to meet uk loading guage.
My own suggestion is for a loco is a 75 tonne; 140KPH; 250kn tractive effort Bo Bo locomotive of 1 to 1.5Mw power. I would go for center cab design with twin diesels at each end. Options to replace one of the diesels with a battery (hybrid version) or transformer (bi mode) could be considered as well.

randyrippley · 28 Jan 2019

J-Rod said:
My, they look neat (as in 'tidy', that is). Nice bit of modelling too.

While the spotter in me likes to see these things from time to time... when will some of them become life expired? Surely they can't run forever? I'm talking mechanicals, rather than economics, here.

Also, why did 33s disappear so fast but the 20s keep on going?

At a guess better availability of EE electrical parts compared with Crompton Parkinson. If you're looking at breaking locos to provide spares, then the 33 fleet had only around 90 locos that could be stripped, the EE locos had interchangeable parts from the full fleet of 20/37/40/50.
And of course the UK built Sulzer engines were fragile.

randyrippley · 28 Jan 2019

apk55 said:
Thinking about it, the continued use old locomotives is mainly because there is no modern equivalent. All recently built locomotives have been have been big powerful heavy designs for hauling heavy trains. Using them for light duties such as stock movement and flask trains is very inefficient as a big diesel would rarely need even half power.
Therefore should we not be thinking of some new build light locomotives. OK the existing locomotives can be kept going for a few more years but eventually they will require costly repairs. And emission regulations might well be applied in some areas such as London such as to prohibit their regular use.
Looking at the Europe many of the manufactures have designs that meet that requirement although they would need modifying to meet uk loading guage.
My own suggestion is for a loco is a 75 tonne; 140KPH; 250kn tractive effort Bo Bo locomotive of 1 to 1.5Mw power. I would go for center cab design with twin diesels at each end. Options to replace one of the diesels with a battery (hybrid version) or transformer (bi mode) could be considered as well.

We already have a design like that, its known as a "Clayton"........and of course there was that one-off super Clayton

Cowley · 29 Jan 2019

randyrippley said:
At a guess better availability of EE electrical parts compared with Crompton Parkinson. If you're looking at breaking locos to provide spares, then the 33 fleet had only around 90 locos that could be stripped, the EE locos had interchangeable parts from the full fleet of 20/37/40/50.
And of course the UK built Sulzer engines were fragile.

RR - I'd definitely agree with you on the availability of EE parts, but were the 8cyl Sulzer engines in the 33s actually fragile?
Although the 12LDA28C Sulzer engines fitted to the class 47s had to be heavily re-engineered (and permanently derated), the 8LDA28 fitted to the 33s remained pretty much unaltered up to the present day.
The class has had very few modifications since new, and to my mind seemed like a pretty decent overall package from that era.
Punchy, compact, and pretty reliable considering the beasting they got west of Salisbury when substituting for a class 47/50 in the 1980s.
What do you reckon?

big all · 29 Jan 2019

as a driver man and boy with cromptons between 72 and around 94 at redhill i only ever had about 2 fail one with flat batteries and one with coolant fan hydrostatic fan oil loss
there may have been other occasions but not so much to notice as in pick up engine something wrong complain get another engine
but in general cromptons where rock solid failure didnt happen and to be fair they where so reliable i never bothered doing even basic oil fuel or water checks as the perhaps 15-30% drivers who did where more than enough to keep in tip top order

Charlie Smythe · 29 Jan 2019

whhistle said:
Why do (some) freight companies use older locos like the 37s or the 50s instead of newer 60s (for example)?

It is often cheaper to refurbish an older loco such as a 37 (Colas has done this), 47 or 57 than buy a new loco. You could refurbish a 37 3 or 4 times before you go t to the price of a new class 68. Of each overhaul gets you 10 years, that’s a lot of operating time for less money.

Also, it will have to do with the speed of delivery. It is much quicker to refurbish an older locomotive than it is to buy new.

There also aren’t that many newer locos about now due to emmisons regulations. 37’s, 47’s and 57’s exist on grandfathers rights.

randyrippley · 2 Feb 2019

Cowley said:
RR - I'd definitely agree with you on the availability of EE parts, but were the 8cyl Sulzer engines in the 33s actually fragile?
Although the 12LDA28C Sulzer engines fitted to the class 47s had to be heavily re-engineered (and permanently derated), the 8LDA28 fitted to the 33s remained pretty much unaltered up to the present day.
The class has had very few modifications since new, and to my mind seemed like a pretty decent overall package from that era.
Punchy, compact, and pretty reliable considering the beasting they got west of Salisbury when substituting for a class 47/50 in the 1980s.
What do you reckon?

All the UK built Sulzers were fragile, maybe with the exception of the units in the class 44. They all had piston and cylinder head failures, while the uprated -B and -C series machines also suffered crank case failures, happily BR never upgraded the 8-cylinder versions in the 33 to -B or -C
See the Derby Sulzers site at https://www.derbysulzers.com/class33.html
I think the lack of 33 failures in real life is down to the fact they were molly-coddled with a higher level of servicing than was the standard anywhere else, combined with the superiority of the Crompton-Parkinson electrics (compare class 45 vs 46). As for "beasting they got west of Salisbury when substituting for a class 47/50".......don't forget those services were mainly running on class 33 timings anyway, which hadn't been changed much from when the 33 fleet took over from the Warships

delt1c · 2 Feb 2019

Cowley said:
I suppose percentage wise the class 20 already had one over on the 33s by there being more than three times as many to start with.
The 20s were obviously used by what became DRS, so they continued in service on the flask trains, and in more recent years formerly preserved ones have been bought back onto the mainline for uses such as the LT stock moves.
I suppose that they are (or were) reasonably easy to repair due to their simplicity and the availability of standardised EE parts?

The 33s were powerful (for their size) and fairly reliable machines with good electrical equipment.
Obviously DRS found a use for a few of them before they went on to WCRC.
One problem with them is how quickly they rust though...

£ times as many 20's as 33's at start. I think not quite. However 20,s were a lot more versatile with a lower RA. Always felt BR didnt allocate loco,s to full advantage. Most 33's ( fitted with ETH) were running around on freights, whilst on Scr and LM 24's and 25's were running around on passenger with steam heating, many services having dual heated stock

xotGD · 3 Feb 2019

delt1c said:
£ times as many 20's as 33's at start. I think not quite. However 20,s were a lot more versatile with a lower RA. Always felt BR didnt allocate loco,s to full advantage. Most 33's ( fitted with ETH) were running around on freights, whilst on Scr and LM 24's and 25's were running around on passenger with steam heating, many services having dual heated stock

In a parallel universe the 37/4 conversions never happened and 33s were allocated to Eastfield and Inverness.

What's the Attraction for Using Old Locos?

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

Member

Forum Staff

On Moderation

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member