• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

BR Type 3s - Regional Preferences

Status
Not open for further replies.

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,121
Location
Cambridge, UK
The Southern Pacific German hydraulics may have been 154 tons, but not only do US roads expect 25 ton axleloads for adhesion with such substantial trains, they sometimes at rebuilding actually increase the weight with ballast. Additional weights inside the body have comprised both cast concrete blocks, and scrap steel pieces from old locos, welded together!

The recent new freight locos are 32+ tonne axle load.

One factor in the success of the Class 33 was that maintenance standards were higher on the Southern than on the other regions.
Visiting Class 47's from the WR and LMR were often filthy with Oil leaks everywhere.

From what I've read, BR's attitude to diesel maintenance (at least in the 1960s) was decidedly steam-age in many places - not enough spares stock, and/or spares held in works stores (instead of depots) so locos were stopped waiting for the parts to arrive, and faults not being fixed properly causing something expensive to break eventually... I also remember reading about the comments of the Wisconsin Central mechanical people when they looked around the ex-BR loco fleet of what became EWS - they were pretty appalled at both the state of the motive power (oil leaks etc.) and the poor levels of tools and equipment in the maintenance depots.

I wonder if the Southern Region attitude to maintenance was different due to it being a heavily electric system, and hence very familiar with maintaining electrical equipment (or maybe it just had better management who understood that having expensive locos standing around broken/failing on the road wasn't good business economics)?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,083
There are multiple factors at play when comparing the maintenance of the 33 fleet with others. Anecdotal stories suggest that other regions regarded the 33's as being overmaintained underworked pets/toys. Seems the use on the Welsh routes was partly due to pressure from WR to get more "realistic" working from them by getting them off the Southern. Jealousy maybe?
As for BR's quality of servicing......I can remember seeing a report that claimed the major cause of failures on the hydraulic fleet (at least in the early days) was due to soot and ash getting into the transmission fluid. No-one bothered to maintain basic standards of cleanliness when servicing the diesels - but perhaps that was due to the condition of the buildings used.
 

snakeeyes

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2011
Messages
213
Surly if more 33's had been built then rebuiling 31's with electric train heating in the 1980's would not have been needed?
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,083
Surly if more 33's had been built then rebuiling 31's with electric train heating in the 1980's would not have been needed?
A better question would be to ask why so many type 2 machines were built. Toward the end of class 25 production the demise of steam heating was obvious, and many of them were built without boilers as pure freight locos. Those should have been built as type 3. Either using the class 25 body, or else as a 33. Even if BRCW weren't interested, the 33 could have been assembled elsewhere (for instance some 47 were built at Crewe, some 25 at Beyer-Peacock).
This does raise an interesting question: assuming a full ETH load, which of 26/27/33 has the highest available power for traction?

But while thinking on these lines, there are a number of related questions e.g:
Why were so many class 20 built when it was clear they were underpowered for the existing traffic and had to be used in pairs or triples? Must have been an economic nightmare.
Why were the EE engines in the 31 not given something closer to their full power rating? Even if there was a worry about this overstretching the traction equipment, surely the 31/4 conversions would have benefited from a power increase?
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,874
Location
Airedale
Anecdotal stories suggest that other regions regarded the 33's as being overmaintained underworked pets/toys. Seems the use on the Welsh routes was partly due to pressure from WR to get more "realistic" working from them by getting them off the Southern.

There were certainly 33s going spare, but didn't the WR also want rid of 25s, 31s and steam heat - not to mention gain a bit more horsepower?
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
The 27 were 1,250hp 6-cylinder Sulzers. The 27/2, converted to ETH, had this provided by a noisy little Deutz auxiliary diesel, which when the loco was idling at Glasgow Queen Street made far more racket than the prime mover. However, the 33 had a 1,550hp 8-cylinder engine, and even when supplying ETH would still have more power at the rail.

But not enough. In the 1970s, when they ran the Waterloo-Exeter service, after the Warships and before the Class 50s, it was normal in winter for the ETH to be switched off during the big climbs on the route, such as Axminster west to Honiton tunnel.

The Class 31 were re-engined, but retained the original 1,365hp electrical gear. The new EE engines were set to some 100hp more, but that was it. At least one was tried at 1,600hp but apparently was too much for the transmission.

Experts in driving "on the ammeter red line" were the Scottish Class 27 crews, especially Eastfield, who developed this hammering of what were actually quite small locos over the West Highland line. When they took over the Glasgow-Edinburgh push-pull, they brought this technique to quite a different style of operation. They could never have managed 39 minutes nonstop Queen Street to Haymarket every hour both ways otherwise, something that even the new and expensive electric multiple units nearly 50 years later seem unable to match.

BRCW went out of business in 1962, but had a good design principle, the opposite of North British, that they just assembled everything from other mainstream suppliers, in a straightforward manner. They didn't manufacture much, if anything, of the many replaceable bits, so when they shut down BR could carry on getting parts as required. It was also, compared to some (back to NB) a very straightforward and practical design, even improving on the similar BR Class 24/25. Their dmus were along the same lines, and likewise lasted a long time.
 
Last edited:

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
There were certainly 33s going spare, but didn't the WR also want rid of 25s, 31s and steam heat - not to mention gain a bit more horsepower?

Very true. 33s replaced 25s & 31s around Exeter where they could be switched to/from WoE diagrams for maintenance purposes and putting them on Portsmouth-Cardiff was a no-brainer.

A better question would be to ask why so many type 2 machines were built. Toward the end of class 25 production the demise of steam heating was obvious, and many of them were built without boilers as pure freight locos. Those should have been built as type 3. Either using the class 25 body, or else as a 33. Even if BRCW weren't interested, the 33 could have been assembled elsewhere (for instance some 47 were built at Crewe, some 25 at Beyer-Peacock).
This does raise an interesting question: assuming a full ETH load, which of 26/27/33 has the highest available power for traction?

But while thinking on these lines, there are a number of related questions e.g:
Why were so many class 20 built when it was clear they were underpowered for the existing traffic and had to be used in pairs or triples? Must have been an economic nightmare.
Why were the EE engines in the 31 not given something closer to their full power rating? Even if there was a worry about this overstretching the traction equipment, surely the 31/4 conversions would have benefited from a power increase?

All down to the disastrous management of procurement during the Modernisation Plan. BR suddenly had huge funds and went hell-for-leather towards a steam-free railway without any strategic overview of longer-term traction requirements. Firstly by ordering bulk volumes of locos even before the Pilot Scheme examples had even been completed, never mind properly evaluated. Secondly by failing to see the writing on the wall for short distance freights and so building huge numbers of small locos as well as marshalling yards that were never used to anything like their capacity. Thirdly by taking too long to take the decision to eliminate steam-heating of passenger rolling stock.

The large number of 20s arose from the realisation that the 17s were absolute dead ducks and hence the 20s continued in production until 1967 to replace them even though the traffic they were intended for was fast disappearing. But the 8SVT engine was very reliable so running them in pairs made for a useful alternative Type 4 as well as avoiding driver objections to running nose first.

As for the 31s it should be remembered they only had 2 powered axles per bogie which limited their ability to take the full power available from the 12SVT engine. If it had been known how poor the original Mirrless engine would turn out to be then maybe a lot more 37s would have been built instead. But that is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,083
..............As for the 31s it should be remembered they only had 2 powered axles per bogie which limited their ability to take the full power available from the 12SVT engine. If it had been known how poor the original Mirrless engine would turn out to be then maybe a lot more 37s would have been built instead. But that is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight.

It wouldn't have been extra 37s, they weren't thought of till much later.
When the 30s were ordered the immediately available alternatives would have been 21/22/23/28. None would have been an improvement. The 24/26 were a little bit later in the ordering process
 

Western Lord

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
782
The reason that Class 31's had de-rated EE engines was to avoid having to replace the cooler group. Several Class 30s ran with 1,600 bhp Mirrlees engines (and one was uprated to 2,000 bhp).
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,083
The reason that Class 31's had de-rated EE engines was to avoid having to replace the cooler group. Several Class 30s ran with 1,600 bhp Mirrlees engines (and one was uprated to 2,000 bhp).

And that's the funny thing isn't it?
The Class 30 fleet ran reliably, even the uprated ones.....until they went in for their first heavy workshop and then they became disaster areas. Makes you wonder if that was another case of BR workshop incompetence along the lines of the class 48 fiasco: failures only after heavy work on the diesel because they couldn't assemble the crankshaft big ends properly.
The 48 problem and its cause is detailed at https://www.derbysulzers.com/1702.html
but at present that website is giving an error 403
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,121
Location
Cambridge, UK
And that's the funny thing isn't it?
The Class 30 fleet ran reliably, even the uprated ones.....until they went in for their first heavy workshop and then they became disaster areas. Makes you wonder if that was another case of BR workshop incompetence along the lines of the class 48 fiasco: failures only after heavy work on the diesel because they couldn't assemble the crankshaft big ends properly.
The 48 problem and its cause is detailed at https://www.derbysulzers.com/1702.html
but at present that website is giving an error 403

The link works fine for me, and if you read it, the cause of the major 12LVA24 engine problems was an incorrectly made big-end bearing fitting tool (used by both Crewe and Tinsley - BR only had one tool). What it doesn't say is who made the tool....(I'd expect it to have been Sulzer, though).
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,083
The link works fine for me, and if you read it, the cause of the major 12LVA24 engine problems was an incorrectly made big-end bearing fitting tool (used by both Crewe and Tinsley - BR only had one tool). What it doesn't say is who made the tool....(I'd expect it to have been Sulzer, though).

Yes, I've read the thread and am aware of the tool problem, but the fact remains that after the first two failed after rebuild, carrying on with the rest was an exercise in incompetence. It should have been obvious that they'd got something wrong - and something as basic as a bottom end assembly should have been an early thing to check. BR may not have been responsible for the tool, but they were certainly responsible for using it in adverse circumstances. Implies a group mindset totally at odds with quality practice.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
And that's the funny thing isn't it?
The Class 30 fleet ran reliably, even the uprated ones.....until they went in for their first heavy workshop and then they became disaster areas. Makes you wonder if that was another case of BR workshop incompetence along the lines of the class 48 fiasco: failures only after heavy work on the diesel because they couldn't assemble the crankshaft big ends properly.
The 48 problem and its cause is detailed at https://www.derbysulzers.com/1702.html
but at present that website is giving an error 403

Interesting points. But equally it demonstrates just how useful the EE SVT series engines turned out to be in everyday use.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
EE had their own issues, although to a lesser extent than others. DP2 was a success but the follow-on Class 50 had a string of design issues. Deltics worked well, but the Baby Deltics hardly got out of warranty.

They were also the largest diesel exporter from the UK, especially to the Commonwealth, and their designs did seem to hold up, compared to other exports from the UK, a number of which were unmitigated disasters - you only have to look at the first generation of diesels in Ireland, before a General Motors salesman came to call.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
There are multiple factors at play when comparing the maintenance of the 33 fleet with others. Anecdotal stories suggest that other regions regarded the 33's as being overmaintained underworked pets/toys. Seems the use on the Welsh routes was partly due to pressure from WR to get more "realistic" working from them by getting them off the Southern. Jealousy maybe?
.

33s were the only suitable ETH-fitted locos available in the early 1980s when steam-heating was being abolished. Class 47/4 were over-powered for the relevant trains, and the 37/4 ETH conversions only started in 1985. Class 31/4 was probably regarded as underpowered to use on the steeper banks (e.g. Llanvihangel)
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
33s were the only suitable ETH-fitted locos available in the early 1980s when steam-heating was being abolished. Class 47/4 were over-powered for the relevant trains, and the 37/4 ETH conversions only started in 1985. Class 31/4 was probably regarded as underpowered to use on the steeper banks (e.g. Llanvihangel)

And yet they were prime power on the heavily graded Hope Valley route for a number of years. Generally speaking ISTM that BR under-ordered more powerful locos and over-ordered smaller ones from the word go. The big Standard locos were very useful but if the smaller ones had not been built their absence would hardly have been noticed. Same for the diesels under the Modernisation plan.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
And yet they were prime power on the heavily graded Hope Valley route for a number of years. Generally speaking ISTM that BR under-ordered more powerful locos and over-ordered smaller ones from the word go. The big Standard locos were very useful but if the smaller ones had not been built their absence would hardly have been noticed. Same for the diesels under the Modernisation plan.

The Hope Valley route trains were mostly Loco + 4; Cardiff to Crewe was usually Loco + 5 (or sometimes 6).
Also Llanvihangel bank (1 in 82) is a bit steeper than the Hope Valley route. The extra power and lighter weight of Class 33 made quite a difference in perfornance.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
The Hope Valley route trains were mostly Loco + 4; Cardiff to Crewe was usually Loco + 5 (or sometimes 6).
Also Llanvihangel bank (1 in 82) is a bit steeper than the Hope Valley route. The extra power and lighter weight of Class 33 made quite a difference in perfornance.

I'll see your Llanvihangel and raise you the combination of Totley plus Cowburn, a real grind going west out of Sheffield. But the 31s were available and better than the 123/124 hybrids they replaced. 37s would certainly have been better but for the lack of ETH. Perhaps we should have had small generator vans.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,546
Location
Elginshire
I'll see your Llanvihangel and raise you the combination of Totley plus Cowburn, a real grind going west out of Sheffield. But the 31s were available and better than the 123/124 hybrids they replaced. 37s would certainly have been better but for the lack of ETH. Perhaps we should have had small generator vans.
I wonder whether we should perhaps have gone down the generator-van route, rather than actually converting locomotives to ETH. Would it have been beyond the bounds of possibility to have, for example, a BG/BCK/BSO converted with a generator and a through pipe so that either steam- or electric-heated coaching stock could be catered for without having to worry about which loco was stuck on the front?
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,083
I wonder whether we should perhaps have gone down the generator-van route, rather than actually converting locomotives to ETH. Would it have been beyond the bounds of possibility to have, for example, a BG/BCK/BSO converted with a generator and a through pipe so that either steam- or electric-heated coaching stock could be catered for without having to worry about which loco was stuck on the front?
All you would have needed was a Hastings line power car without the driving cab or motor bogies
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,546
Location
Elginshire
All you would have needed was a Hastings line power car without the driving cab or motor bogies
Probably. SR was far too far south to even feature on my radar, so I'd never have thought of that :)
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
All you would have needed was a Hastings line power car without the driving cab or motor bogies

Have a look at You Tube footage of regional services around Melbourne: they use short bodied but bogied generator vans. Quite strange, to my eyes at least, to see them running with loco-hauled sliding door suburban stock but does allow the use of any loco.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
I'll see your Llanvihangel and raise you the combination of Totley plus Cowburn, a real grind going west out of Sheffield. But the 31s were available and better than the 123/124 hybrids they replaced. 37s would certainly have been better but for the lack of ETH. Perhaps we should have had small generator vans.

Still nothing steeper than 1 in 100 in those tunnels and the 33s were, as noted by Bevan Price, hauling 30 to 60 tonnes more up Llanvihangel.

The Western Region's attempt to use Class 31s on the Cotswold Line to replace Hymeks in 1973-4 was nothing short of a disaster. They couldn't handle loads that Hymeks took in their stride and lack of adhesion on the 1 in 100 of Chipping Campden bank and through the tunnel on damp autumn and winter mornings was a particular problem. They were confined to lighter loads from then on and disappeared as soon as the arrival of HSTs freed up enough 47s in 1976-77 to cover all the services
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
Still nothing steeper than 1 in 100 in those tunnels and the 33s were, as noted by Bevan Price, hauling 30 to 60 tonnes more up Llanvihangel.

At fist sight, the difference between a 33 and 31/4 is roughly 40 tonnes (in favour of the 33) with the 33 also having an extra 80 bhp - must be an extra 5-6% or so more power.

But according to the Wiki page, the ETH arrangement on many of the 31/4s appears to have meant that the ETH power component, when not used, could not be redirected for traction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_31
Is this really true? It seems a staggeringly daft thing to do. It meant, roughly speaking, that the 31/4s so wired - already somewhat lumbering beasties - only had about 1000 bhp available for traction purposes. It truly boggles the mind!

The Western Region's attempt to use Class 31s on the Cotswold Line to replace Hymeks in 1973-4 was nothing short of a disaster. They couldn't handle loads that Hymeks took in their stride and lack of adhesion on the 1 in 100 of Chipping Campden bank and through the tunnel on damp autumn and winter mornings was a particular problem. They were confined to lighter loads from then on and disappeared as soon as the arrival of HSTs freed up enough 47s in 1976-77 to cover all the services.

I suppose I must have heard about this WR attempt to rid themselves of Hymeks at the time, but I can't remember it. It feels today an exercise doomed to fail - somehow I feel I always 'knew' the Cl 31s to be underpowered - but perhaps it was not so obvious at the time.
Nonetheless, the WR had been using Cl 31s for some years by 1973 - did nobody at least insist of trying a Cl 31 on a test run before planning such a fundamental switch of traction?
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,083
theres a table at http://extra.southernelectric.org.uk/features/historical-features/watexdieselops.html which is interesting.
The page discusses the history of diesel on the Waterloo-Exeter line, but the table is interesting in that it seems to suggest that using ETH made .no difference to the locomotive range - which suggests that the ETH was wasting power even when "off". It shows this as true for 31/4, 33 and 50. "Taunton" has already stated that ETH was turned off on the 33 when hill climbing so to maximise power, so something doesn't quite seem to add up

Locomotive type

Locomotive type Fuel capacity (gallons) Heat on range (miles) Heat off range (miles)
Class 31/4Electric Heat 530 530 530
Class 33 Electric Heat only 750 600 600
Class 47/0 Steam Heat 765 500 600
Class 50 Electric Heat only 1055 840 840
Class 52 Steam Heat only 850 570 680
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
theres a table at http://extra.southernelectric.org.uk/features/historical-features/watexdieselops.html which is interesting.
The page discusses the history of diesel on the Waterloo-Exeter line, but the table is interesting in that it seems to suggest that using ETH made .no difference to the locomotive range - which suggests that the ETH was wasting power even when "off". It shows this as true for 31/4, 33 and 50. "Taunton" has already stated that ETH was turned off on the 33 when hill climbing so to maximise power, so something doesn't quite seem to add up

Locomotive type

Locomotive type Fuel capacity (gallons) Heat on range (miles) Heat off range (miles)
Class 31/4Electric Heat 530 530 530
Class 33 Electric Heat only 750 600 600
Class 47/0 Steam Heat 765 500 600
Class 50 Electric Heat only 1055 840 840
Class 52 Steam Heat only 850 570 680

On the 47/4s* there was a button - it's on the controller, IIRC - that the driver could press and this would switch the ETH power off for approx 30 seconds on each carriage. This was to enable the entire power unit output to be concentrated on traction when, eg climbing banks. I can't remember for sure, but I think the 45/1s also had something like this. My guess is that the 33s had a similar facility.

EDIT * Not sure about the original 'generators' - they were rather different.
 

D5645

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2016
Messages
57
Location
Ripley, Derbyshire
But according to the Wiki page, the ETH arrangement on many of the 31/4s appears to have meant that the ETH power component, when not used, could not be redirected for traction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_31
Is this really true? It seems a staggeringly daft thing to do. It meant, roughly speaking, that the 31/4s so wired - already somewhat lumbering beasties - only had about 1000 bhp available for traction purposes. It truly boggles the mind!

The Wikipedia page on Class 31/4s is complete rubbish and as you say it would make no sense.

When a 31/4 is not providing ETS it has the same traction power available as a 31/1.

31/4s do have a different engine governor to a 31/1 as a 31/4 has a higher engine idle speed than a 31/1. The governors themselves have different coloured bands on them to assist maintenance staff.

31/4s were originally intended as ECS engines at Kings Cross, Paddington and St Pancras and that's why they have an ETS rating of 66 for large rakes of air conditioned stock. With the widespread introduction of HSTs they became available for secondary passenger services where loco hauled stock replaced first generation DMU's.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
31/4s were originally intended as ECS engines at Kings Cross, Paddington and St Pancras and that's why they have an ETS rating of 66 for large rakes of air conditioned stock. With the widespread introduction of HSTs they became available for secondary passenger services where loco hauled stock replaced first generation DMU's.
Interesting. Does that mean that the full ETS power is unavailable for traction whenever the ETS is in use, or is the loss of traction power proportionate to the amount of ETS the train is actually using?
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
At fist sight, the difference between a 33 and 31/4 is roughly 40 tonnes (in favour of the 33) with the 33 also having an extra 80 bhp - must be an extra 5-6% or so more power.

But according to the Wiki page, the ETH arrangement on many of the 31/4s appears to have meant that the ETH power component, when not used, could not be redirected for traction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_31
Is this really true? It seems a staggeringly daft thing to do. It meant, roughly speaking, that the 31/4s so wired - already somewhat lumbering beasties - only had about 1000 bhp available for traction purposes. It truly boggles the mind!



I suppose I must have heard about this WR attempt to rid themselves of Hymeks at the time, but I can't remember it. It feels today an exercise doomed to fail - somehow I feel I always 'knew' the Cl 31s to be underpowered - but perhaps it was not so obvious at the time.
Nonetheless, the WR had been using Cl 31s for some years by 1973 - did nobody at least insist of trying a Cl 31 on a test run before planning such a fundamental switch of traction?

Western was already familiar with Class 33 - they had worked Cardiff / Bristol - Portsmouth services for a few years - initially substituting for failed 31s, though there had been visits to Cardiff as early as 1969. See:-
https://www.derbysulzers.com/class33.html
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top