57602 Restormel Castle

[RedPostJunc]

Apologies in advance if this has been covered in another thread. I did a search, but could not find anything relevant.

Every time I have seen reports of the Cornish sleeper this year, it has been worked by 57603, 57604 or 57605, with occasional outings by 57306. I read somewhere that 57602 was parked up at Long Rock awaiting repairs, but it seems to have been out of service for a long time now. What is the current position of 57602? Can it be seen at Long Rock, or is it inside?

 

[O L Leigh]

I’m not down that way on a frequent basis, but it seems to be a regular on the depot at Reading.

 

[fgwrich]

Slightly diverting the thread for a moment, if anyone is interested: GWR Has begun to replace the BR Style nameplates on 602/603/605 with the HST Castle style plates painted in Red. They in my opinion look ok, but sadly now leave a rather large patch on the bodyside where the size / shape difference of the old one was.

 

[FGW_DID]

Apologies in advance if this has been covered in another thread. I did a search, but could not find anything relevant.

Every time I have seen reports of the Cornish sleeper this year, it has been worked by 57603, 57604 or 57605, with occasional outings by 57306. I read somewhere that 57602 was parked up at Long Rock awaiting repairs, but it seems to have been out of service for a long time now. What is the current position of 57602? Can it be seen at Long Rock, or is it inside?

I’m not down that way on a frequent basis, but it seems to be a regular on the depot at Reading.

57602 has been out of action at Penzance since sometime last year, awaiting Axlebox repairs. I believe there is / was an issue with the supply of the required components!

 

[co-tr-paul]

As above since January 2021. Parts supply issues. Not visible as in Long Rock shed.
Work has recommenced.

 

[fgwrich]

As above since January 2021. Parts supply issues. Not visible as in Long Rock shed.
Work has recommenced.

I’m not surprised it’s been out of action for some time, there seems to be a very long lead time for Progress Rail / EMD parts at the moment.

 

[43096]

Slightly diverting the thread for a moment, if anyone is interested: GWR Has begun to replace the BR Style nameplates on 602/603/605 with the HST Castle style plates painted in Red. They in my opinion look ok, but sadly now leave a rather large patch on the bodyside where the size / shape difference of the old one was.

How the hell have GWR got permission to squander money on replacing perfectly good nameplates with new ones?

 

[DelW]

I’m not surprised it’s been out of action for some time, there seems to be a very long lead time for Progress Rail / EMD parts at the moment.

If it's an axlebox problem as per post #4, wouldn't that be original cl47 equipment rather than Progress/EMD? Or were the bogies and/or axles modified during the conversion?

 

[RedPostJunc]

Thanks to all for replying to this thread

 

[ac6000cw]

If it's an axlebox problem as per post #4, wouldn't that be original cl47 equipment rather than Progress/EMD? Or were the bogies and/or axles modified during the conversion?

From memory, I think the cl. 57 rebuilds essentially involved replacing the Sulzer 12LDA plus DC generator with an EMD 12-645 plus cl. 56 alternator (and I assume a new traction control system etc.). I think the bogies and traction motors were basically just overhauled/refurbished i.e. are the same as on a cl. 47 - but of course we're taking about a 60 year old mechanical design now...

 

[Strathclyder]

From memory, I think the cl. 57 rebuilds essentially involved replacing the Sulzer 12LDA plus DC generator with an EMD 12-645 plus cl. 56 alternator (and I assume a new traction control system etc.). I think the bogies and traction motors were basically just overhauled/refurbished i.e. are the same as on a cl. 47 - but of course we're taking about a 60 year old mechanical design now...

Indeed, that sounds about right. Don't recall brand-new bogies/traction motors ever being considered for the Cl. 57 rebuilds, just refurbished Cl. 47 ones. Worth mentioning that the EMD power units were themselves 'used' (2nd or 3rd-hand), being refurbished/overhauled prior to their installation.

Will be 60 years next month since D1500 first rolled out of Brush Works. In some ways hard to imagine, given how cleanly/inoffensively styled they are.

 

[fgwrich]

Indeed, that sounds about right. Don't recall brand-new bogies/traction motors ever being considered for the Cl. 57 rebuilds, just refurbished Cl. 47 ones. Worth mentioning that the EMD power units were themselves 'used' (2nd or 3rd-hand), being refurbished/overhauled prior to their installation.

Will be 60 years next month since D1500 first rolled out of Brush Works. In some ways hard to imagine, given how cleanly/inoffensively styled they are.

Was it all of the fleet or just the 57/0s that utilised the second hand PUs?

That to me, is why the Brush Type 4 has always been one of the best looking locos out there. It has been an absolutely timeless design, still looking fresh after all these years. Although not in the eyes of some, it is one aspect of the 57/6 conversion that I really liked - it bought a clean, simple, and timeless design bang up to date. I reckon that, if you placed a 57/6 next to a 67, most would say the 57 is the newer loco.

How the hell have GWR got permission to squander money on replacing perfectly good nameplates with new ones?

Absolutely no idea. Then again, they seem hell bent on naming all of the Class 43 Fleet before they are stood down over the next few years. Even 093 hasn't escaped the "Castle" treatment.

 

[ac6000cw]

Worth mentioning that the EMD power units were themselves 'used' (2nd or 3rd-hand), being refurbished/overhauled prior to their installation.

Was it all of the fleet or just the 57/0s that utilised the second hand PUs?

The 57/0 and 57601 were fitted with a version of the 12-645E3 (which I believe came from an engine rebuilder in the US). The later ETS-equipped versions have the later, more powerful 12-645F3B (the ultimate version of the V12 645), but I don't think I've seen a definitive verdict on whether those were new or rebuilt engines.

 

[50039]

I’ve been curious about this one as well. Given new nameplates have been fitted, I presume this means a return to service is imminent?

 

[Strathclyder]

Was it all of the fleet or just the 57/0s that utilised the second hand PUs?

Am not sure tbh, have never been able to ascertain with 100% certainity if all the 57s had second-hand power units fitted or if it was just the 57/0s & 57601 as @ac6000cw states above.

The 57/0 and 57601 were fitted with a version of the 12-645E3 (which I believe came from an engine rebuilder in the US). The later ETS-equipped versions have the later, more powerful 12-645F3B (the ultimate version of the V12 645), but I don't think I've seen a definitive verdict on whether those were new or rebuilt engines.

I see, cheers for this. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the later ETS-equipped rebuilds (the 57/3s and 602-605) also had refurbished/overhauled power units as opposed to brand-new ones though, given the nature and stated purpose of the Cl. 57 project.

That to me, is why the Brush Type 4 has always been one of the best looking locos out there. It has been an absolutely timeless design, still looking fresh after all these years. Although not in the eyes of some, it is one aspect of the 57/6 conversion that I really liked - it bought a clean, simple, and timeless design bang up to date. I reckon that, if you placed a 57/6 next to a 67, most would say the 57 is the newer loco.

Indeed. The 47/Brush Type 4 has aged like fine wine aesthetically, primarily due to it's clean/non-fussy design. The 57/6s' front end does refresh a timeless design and brings it right up to date, but I, being rather old-school, prefer the 57/0 front end design overall (which left the original 47 front end design as it was); worked rather well with the Freightliner livery the type debuted imo (6 47s also got this livery, which kinda surprised me when I first learned of it).

 

[The exile]

How the hell have GWR got permission to squander money on replacing perfectly good nameplates with new ones?

Wouldn’t surprise me if the revenue from selling the old ones (assuming they do) more than paid for new ones.

 

[43096]

Wouldn’t surprise me if the revenue from selling the old ones (assuming they do) more than paid for new ones.

Yes, fair point! Normally the proceeds from such sales go to charity, though I suppose the railway is itself a charity these days.

 

[USRailFan]

From memory, I think the cl. 57 rebuilds essentially involved replacing the Sulzer 12LDA plus DC generator with an EMD 12-645 plus cl. 56 alternator (and I assume a new traction control system etc.). I think the bogies and traction motors were basically just overhauled/refurbished i.e. are the same as on a cl. 47 - but of course we're taking about a 60 year old mechanical design now...

Didn't the driver's cabs get modernized? Or are they the same Class 47 ones still?

 

[ac6000cw]

There are some cl. 47 and cl. 57 cab interior photos here (not mine) - http://www.dawlishtrains.com/cabs-loco-class-47-70.html

I've no idea if they did any structural changes e.g. to improve crashworthiness.

 

[co-tr-paul]

57604 may 2020.

 

[Tynwald]

They have axle speed sensors. I bleive

 

[northernbelle]

How the hell have GWR got permission to squander money on replacing perfectly good nameplates with new ones?

The name plates were purchased long before all the purse strings were held by DfT.

 

[43096]

The name plates were purchased long before all the purse strings were held by DfT.

It’s still a pointless exercise.

 

[Steve14]

Why can’t the sleepers be hooked up to some HST power cars and just keep 57s on rescue missions? Top tail, I suspect some heavy modifications would be required too?

 

[USRailFan]

Way too little power, doesn't an HST power car have abt the same power as a 37?

 

[43096]

Why can’t the sleepers be hooked up to some HST power cars and just keep 57s on rescue missions? Top tail, I suspect some heavy modifications would be required too?

As well as the HST multi working jumper needing fitting, HST train supply is totally different to the sleeper stock.

Way too little power, doesn't an HST power car have abt the same power as a 37?

 

[randyrippley]

Why can’t the sleepers be hooked up to some HST power cars and just keep 57s on rescue missions? Top tail, I suspect some heavy modifications would be required too?

for starters
wrong ETH voltage
wrong couplings
the sleepers aren't wired for remote loco control

Way too little power, doesn't an HST power car have abt the same power as a 37?

No

 

[43096]

wrong couplings

You can couple the drophead buckeye of the sleeper stock to the Alliance coupler on an HST power car.

 

[1Q18]

for starters
wrong ETH voltage
wrong couplings
the sleepers aren't wired for remote loco control

I’m not suggesting that 43s are a viable solution but just on the coupler point, although I gather there is some difference in the specs of the HST alliance coupler and the drophead buckeyes which will be fitted to the sleeper stock (I’m sure there’ll be people on here who know more on that) they certainly are still compatible. Colas use 43s with drophead-fitted Mk1/Mk2 stock on Network Rail infrastructure monitoring trains every day.

 

[randyrippley]

You can couple the drophead buckeye of the sleeper stock to the Alliance coupler on an HST power car.

thanks for the correction