Class 47 Acceleration and Braking

[SolomonSouth]

Not sure why they'd shut off, about half power and the amps will rise considerably but as soon as it's rolling drops back quite quickly. Once this happens can virtually apply full power, Sulzer engines seems to have quite a large inertia and take a while to spool up so difficult to overload on a train of that size/weight. Unlike EE engines which spin up quickly and their load regulators are more erratic too making overload more likely.

Maybe

 

[Ghawk2005]

The values I have are:
Class 43 w/ 4 carriages - 0-60 in 60 seconds approx, then 0-100 in about 3 mins or so and 0-125 in 4 mins. Limiter activates at 132. Before it was there the thing went 167.
Class 166 - 0-60 in 65 secs approx. 0-100 in 5 mins. Buffed from TSW2020 which saw it get 0-60 in 93 seconds and really struggle to reach 90mph on a flat track.
Class 101 - 0-60 in 90 seconds approx with 0-70 in 2 mins. Puts it on par with a class 315. Seems about right (NOT)
Class 465/9 - 0-60 in 47.5 seconds, 0-70 in 63 secs and 0-75 in 73 secs. Both the real and in-game one do hit 50 at around the same speed but the real one struggles a lot more towards top speed
Class 375/377 - 0-60 in 51 seconds and 0-100 in 2 mins 50. When I got on a real 377 the thing took that length of time to reach 75mph! Absolutely laughable! See the video here:

Class 45 - 0-60 in 40 seconds, 0-100 in 2 mins. Gets up to 129 mph. How?
Class 47 - 0-60 in 40 seconds, 0-100 in about 2 mins 45. Gets up to 120mph.
Class 395 (DC) - 75 secs to 60. 3 mins to 80. About 7 mins to 100.
Class 395 (AC) - 37 secs to 60. 82 secs to 100. 155 secs to 125 and 3 mins 51 to 140. Gets up to 145mph.
Class 66 - 0-35 in about 18 seconds, then power loss at 35 prevents a continuous acceleration. Gets up to 80mph then a limiter comes into effect. Before they had the limiter it used to go 156mph!!!!!
M7 LIRR - 0-60 in 44 seconds and 0-100 in 2 mins - suspiciously good for DC.
BR Talent 1442 - 0-60 in 40 secs and 0-100 in about 2 mins
BR Talent 442 - 0-60 in 36 seconds and 0-100 in 96 seconds
1972 stock - 0-30 in 30 seconds. 0-60 in 4 mins 58 seconds. Would a tube train really take 5 mins to 60?? I thought they needed to accelerate fast?
AC4400CW - 0-60 in 30 seconds. Gets up to 77mph.
SD40-2 - 0-60 in 45 secs and gets up to 165mph (Really?). 0-100 in about 2 mins 20 I think.
ICE DB BR 406 - 0-60 in 42 secs, 0-100 in 77 secs, 0-125 in 110 secs, 0-140 in 2 mins 20 secs, 0-180 in 3 mins 44. Extremely fast for a intercity train.
DB BR 182 Taurus - 0-60 in 9.98 seconds!! 0-100 in 19 seconds!!! 0-125 in 28 seconds!! 0-150 in about 38 seconds!!!

Thats about all I can remember. Hope this helps, Gary

Wow. Some of those are way off then. Yet Armstrong Powerhouse always gets them impressively accurate. Their 158 and 150s are just awesome. I love their work.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Not sure why they'd shut off, about half power and the amps will rise considerably but as soon as it's rolling drops back quite quickly. Once this happens can virtually apply full power, Sulzer engines seems to have quite a large inertia and take a while to spool up so difficult to overload on a train of that size/weight. Unlike EE engines which spin up quickly and their load regulators are more erratic too making overload more likely.

Certainly when you saw a 47 make a spirited departure, the engine would rev right up (cue the usual column of black clag straight up into the sky) for about 3-4 seconds then would drop right back to idle, as the train starts to move off the engine would spool up again. I always wondered if that was the driver’s power controller technique or whether it was something about the control systems / field weakening on the locomotive?

Wow. Some of those are way off then. Yet Armstrong Powerhouse always gets them impressively accurate. Their 158 and 150s are just awesome. I love their work.

100% agree. Their 37s and 50 are out of this world.

 

[Ghawk2005]

Just tried the Class 47 again and mine takes approx 1m 40sec to get to 60mph. Are you using 8 mk2?

 

[Richard Scott]

Certainly when you saw a 47 make a spirited departure, the engine would rev right up (cue the usual column of black clag straight up into the sky) for about 3-4 seconds then would drop right back to idle, as the train starts to move off the engine would spool up again. I always wondered if that was the driver’s power controller technique or whether it was something about the control systems / field weakening on the locomotive?

When they initially start they start to rev up but the turbo takes a while to catch up so fuel is limited meaning you're not getting maximum power. As the engine revs the load reg runs round exciting the generator so current rises, as the load on the engine rises so the load reg winds back a bit. As the engine winds up and the turbo eventually catches up so the load reg winds round exciting the generator further and current rises again the loco will now start to really accelerate. This actually takes quite a while (many seconds) to happen. Any Sulzer loco behaved in much the same way, possibly why EE locos may get away slightly quicker. What you are hearing isn't quite what's happening as the engine doesn't actually return to idle, it's the load reg balancing the load on the engine making it sound likes it's returning to idle (it isn't) and then the turbo catching up where driver then should apply more power so engine speed increases further from its previous balancing speed; hope this makes sense?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

When they initially start they start to rev up but the turbo takes a while to catch up so fuel is limited meaning you're not getting maximum power. As the engine revs the load reg runs round exciting the generator so current rises, as the load on the engine rises so the load reg winds back a bit. As the engine winds up and the turbo eventually catches up so the load reg winds round exciting the generator further and current rises again the loco will now start to really accelerate. This actually takes quite a while (many seconds) to happen. Any Sulzer loco behaved in much the same way, possibly why EE locos may get away slightly quicker. What you are hearing isn't quite what's happening as the engine doesn't actually return to idle, it's the load reg balancing the load on the engine making it sound likes it's returning to idle (it isn't) and then the turbo catching up where driver then should apply more power so engine speed increases further from its previous balancing speed; hope this makes sense?

Thank you yes, I think I get it! It’s such a characteristic of the class and one that (I believe) is yet to be properly reproduced in any of the simulator packages.

 

[Richard Scott]

Thank you yes, I think I get it! It’s such a characteristic of the class and one that (I believe) is yet to be properly reproduced in any of the simulator packages.

No problem, peaks do it too but not too common on the mainline of late!!!!! Simulator packages do seem to struggle with getting correct link between applying power and what actually happens in reality.

 

[SolomonSouth]

Just tried the Class 47 again and mine takes approx 1m 40sec to get to 60mph. Are you using 8 mk2?

I did a 47 on its own sorry

Wow. Some of those are way off then. Yet Armstrong Powerhouse always gets them impressively accurate. Their 158 and 150s are just awesome. I love their work.

The 465/9 in the game has armstrong powerhouse sounds. (Note it's a /9, because /0 and /1 accelerate slower than /2 and /9)

 

[D1537]

I suspect some of the timing runs with 47s between Reading and Padd might not be entirely representative. Fast runs along there were not uncommon, mainly I suspect due to Old Oak drivers wanting to get home early. (The penultimate Birmingham-Padd train - at various times 1V97, 1V98 and others - was allegedly a possibility for a quick one due to its arrival time coinciding with last orders in the pub!). Of the 5 highest speeds I have recorded with a 47 in my many years following them, two were between Reading and Paddington and one was on the GWML heading west on the Brighton-Derby.

 

[Ghawk2005]

I did a 47 on its own sorry


The 465/9 in the game has armstrong powerhouse sounds. (Note it's a /9, because /0 and /1 accelerate slower than /2 and /9)

Ahh, Yes that’s a big difference. With 8 Mk2s, milepost timings match up very very close to the real life data.( which was also 8 coaches )

 

[47827]

I suspect some of the timing runs with 47s between Reading and Padd might not be entirely representative. Fast runs along there were not uncommon, mainly I suspect due to Old Oak drivers wanting to get home early. (The penultimate Birmingham-Padd train - at various times 1V97, 1V98 and others - was allegedly a possibility for a quick one due to its arrival time coinciding with last orders in the pub!). Of the 5 highest speeds I have recorded with a 47 in my many years following them, two were between Reading and Paddington and one was on the GWML heading west on the Brighton-Derby.

It was one of the best parts of the latterly available 47 hauled routes for topping 100mph on an almost daily basis. You couldn't really achieve the same performances in the daytime though even if you wanted, especially after the Heathrow units started (which got in the way in the evening sometimes too). Didcot to Reading on the fasts could be wild too sometimes. Sometimes when XC short formed a set down to 6 or even 5 coaches it all got faster again.

Then there were the multi pairs. Even the RFD ones on a few early railtours plugged in could chase a HST somewhat. Once had a pair of 47s with the leading one misreading on the speedo and on-train recordings produced VERY high speeds with passing Carstairs to reaching Carlisle shaving a tiny bit off a 390 emu schedule for the same bit. Admittedly the gradients probably helped a tad.

 

[SolomonSouth]

Ahh, Yes that’s a big difference. With 8 Mk2s, milepost timings match up very very close to the real life data.( which was also 8 coaches )

So that suggests a class 47 alone irl would do 0-60 in 40 secs... wow

 

[Richard Scott]

So that suggests a class 47 alone irl would do 0-60 in 40 secs... wow

I know of a driver many years ago who got a 56 running light to do it in 19 seconds so feasible.

 

[SolomonSouth]

I know of a driver many years ago who got a 56 running light to do it in 19 seconds so feasible.

A class 56 did 0-60 in 19 seconds?

 

[hexagon789]

A class 56 did 0-60 in 19 seconds?

An 86 has done 0-60 in under ten seconds light engine

 

[Railperf]

An 86 has done 0-60 in under ten seconds light engine

Can a Class 86 driver even notch up to max power in 10 seconds?

 

[hexagon789]

Can a Class 86 driver even notch up to max power in 10 seconds?

I assume the loco was notched up with the loco straight air brake applied.

 

[Steve Harris]

Not sure why they'd shut off, about half power and the amps will rise considerably but as soon as it's rolling drops back quite quickly. Once this happens can virtually apply full power, Sulzer engines seems to have quite a large inertia and take a while to spool up so difficult to overload on a train of that size/weight. Unlike EE engines which spin up quickly and their load regulators are more erratic too making overload more likely.

I did say "think" ! (ie not guarenteed to be due to ammeater readings). You have to remember I was 12 years old at the time and it was like 40+ years ago !!!!

I would ask a one of the drivers, but unsurprisingly none are no longer with us.

Can a Class 86 driver even notch up to max power in 10 seconds?

I doubt it. I remember getting a cab ride a couple of years after the 47's and at a guess I would say you could notch twice every second. How many notches are there on a 86/2 ? 20 something ?

 

[Rob F]

An 86 has done 0-60 in under ten seconds light engine

I’m sorry but I don’t believe this. Even if it was an 86/1 (5000hp, 82 tons) it would have a power to weight ratio of approx 61hp per ton. Most cars weigh at least a ton and one with only 61hp would not get anywhere near 60mph in 10 seconds. Also the coefficient of friction for rubber tyres on tarmac is much higher than steel wheels on steel rails so the car would put the power down better.

 

[hexagon789]

I did say "think" ! (ie not guarenteed to be due to ammeater readings). You have to remember I was 12 years old at the time and it was like 40+ years ago !!!!

I would ask a one of the drivers, but unsurprisingly none are no longer with us.

You can go straight to full power with a 47 and it won't overload. Indeed the driving instructions suggest going to 'ON' then straight to full power if conditions allow.

I doubt it. I remember getting a cab ride a couple of years after the 47's and at a guess I would say you could notch twice every second. How many notches are there on a 86/2 ? 20 something ?

It takes approximately 35 seconds; there are 38 or 39 notches on an 86 depending on variant. The 5,000hp Class 87 prototypes have 39 as per 87s (39 is weak field), the others have 38 (no weak field). 81-85s have 40 notches (two stages of field weakening).

I’m sorry but I don’t believe this. Even if it was an 86/1 (5000hp, 82 tons) it would have a power to weight ratio of approx 61hp per ton. Most cars weigh at least a ton and one with only 61hp would not get anywhere near 60mph in 10 seconds. Also the coefficient of friction for rubber tyres on tarmac is much higher than steel wheels on steel rails so the car would put the power down better

I'm just quoting an anecdote from another forum, at no point hage I ever attempted this myself.

5,000 is also just the continuous rating, when accelerating you'd have the one-hour and maximum outputs to call on as well. (Admittedly the former isn't much greater.)

 

[Richard Scott]

I did say "think" ! (ie not guarenteed to be due to ammeater readings). You have to remember I was 12 years old at the time and it was like 40+ years ago !!!!

If you were watching ammeter they do dance around a bit, may give impression power being applied and then reduced. You may well have remembered that bit correctly!!!!

I’m sorry but I don’t believe this. Even if it was an 86/1 (5000hp, 82 tons) it would have a power to weight ratio of approx 61hp per ton. Most cars weigh at least a ton and one with only 61hp would not get anywhere near 60mph in 10 seconds. Also the coefficient of friction for rubber tyres on tarmac is much higher than steel wheels on steel rails so the car would put the power down better.

Don't forget that's continuously available unlike a car which varies with engine speed and then you have transmission losses of about 20-30% to deal with so now swings very much in loco's favour. Doubt coefficient of friction will matter much when light engine as nigh on impossible to get one to slip on dry rail when running light. Certainly there are videos of Austrian 1116s on YouTube taking off like scalded cats light engine easily achieving 60 in around 10 seconds and hitting 100 around 6 seconds later. I know they have more power and modern three phase drives but shows it's achievable with steel wheels on steel rail.

 

[SolomonSouth]

An 86 has done 0-60 in under ten seconds light engine

Woah... faster than a DB BR 182 Taurus

 

[Taunton]

One of my colleagues showed me a log of a Class 47 that ran for almost app 7-8 miles at speeds of over 110mph down from Whiteball

47625 City of Truro by chance?

 

[Railperf]

Woah... faster than a DB BR 182 Taurus

Not sure an 86 or 87 could be faster than a Taurus. If someone wants to arrange it.. I'll bring the timing gear along!!

 

[Steve Harris]

It takes approximately 35 seconds; there are 38 or 39 notches on an 86 depending on variant. The 5,000hp Class 87 prototypes have 39 as per 87s (39 is weak field), the others have 38 (no weak field). 81-85s have 40 notches (two stages of field weakening).

Thanx for the info, I knew it was a far few (20 was a wild guess) as I can remember it took a age before the driver stopped notching !
It was great to be asked to watch the traction motor ammeter's and "shout if it goes in the red lad".

If you were watching ammeter they do dance around a bit, may give impression power being applied and then reduced. You may well hey have remembered that bit correctly!!!!

Nope !

I can remember the controller (throttle)(that big long rod (with a bend in it) with a black knob on its end) on the control desk to the right of the drivers seat being pulled back (or was it pushed forward) a fair way, pushed forward (or back) a little, then pulled back all the way ! (I think you pull it back on a 47, but as I have never driven one and not been in the cab of one for 40 years I can't fully remember if it's pull or push tbh). But I can remember (like it was yesterday) the sequence!! It certainly wasn't banged full on and just left, that's for sure!
Some of the drives I knew were ex steam men, so that may have something to do with their driving style !! As I said before, they are all dead now...so you won't get an answer why they drove like that (even though the "proper" way is to bang it full on). Can we just accept they did (for whatever reason) and leave it there.

 

[Richard Scott]

Thanx for the info, I knew it was a far few (20 was a wild guess) as I can remember it took a age before the driver stopped notching !
It was great to be asked to watch the traction motor ammeter's and "shout if it goes in the red lad".


Nope !

I can remember the controller (throttle)(that big long rod (with a bend in it) with a black knob on its end) on the control desk to the right of the drivers seat being pulled back (or was it pushed forward) a fair way, pushed forward (or back) a little, then pulled back all the way ! (I think you pull it back on a 47, but as I have never driven one and not been in the cab of one for 40 years I can't fully remember if it's pull or push tbh). But I can remember (like it was yesterday) the sequence!! It certainly wasn't banged full on and just left, that's for sure!
Some of the drives I knew were ex steam men, so that may have something to do with their driving style !! As I said before, they are all dead now...so you won't get an answer why they drove like that (even though the "proper" way is to bang it full on). Can we just accept they did (for whatever reason) and leave it there.

No problem. Shame can't go back and watch them all over again.

 

[ac6000cw]

The values I have are:
....
AC4400CW - 0-60 in 30 seconds. Gets up to 77mph.
SD40-2 - 0-60 in 45 secs and gets up to 165mph (Really?). 0-100 in about 2 mins I think.

I think I'd at least swap the AC4400CW & SD40-2 0-60 times - GE's are so slow to 'load' that the SD40-2 would probably be halfway to 60 before the AC4400CW had spooled up the engine to a reasonable power level...good 'luggers' once they get going though.

And no, an SD40-2 can't do 100mph (officially) but I suspect some used to get well into the 80s (at least) on hotshot freights in the past, before speed traps and radar speed guns became commonplace.

Back in the UK, the most spirited departure of a diesel loco I've ever seen was a Peak on a summer Saturday XC train at New Street in the 1970s - basically full power from a standing start, column of exhaust 30-40 feet straight up into the air, tremendous noise and then it took off like a scalded cat. It was doing rather more than the 15mph speed limit by the time the last coach rocked and rolled over the pointwork at end of the platform...

 

[Railperf]

47625 City of Truro by chance?

That particular journey was a 47/8.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Sorry to wade in. But I drive 16x on a daily basis and I thought I'd hand over my thoughts/experiences.

The TSW/TSClassic 16x are far too quick off the mark, but braking is about right. For realistic performance, you should be able to knock 10-20mph (depending on the speed you're doing) off in step 2, back to step 1 and see it in, providing you know the route well enough. Of course, you won't know it properly but you'll know it enough for the game if you drive it there enough. I also have braking zones for good weather where you brake later and leave it in step 2 a lot longer and still stop comfortably.

Acceleration and overall performance- well, here's where it gets fun. Our 165s are more spritely and go a bit better. The difference between a 2/4car 165 and a 3/6 car 166, or a 5car 165/166 is noticeable. I'm not a fitter but I'd wager this is down to the 166's aircon and its tendancy to sap power at every opportunity.

A bad set you'll barely hit 90 all day. I can take sets to Cardiff and never get anywhere near the good 5-10nins you should be sat at 90. Others you'll hit 90 between Yatton and Nailsea, which in Turbo acceleration terms is a quite short distance!
I'd say a good set should do 0-90 in about 4-5minutes, a poor set likely around 7-8. Average it out between 5and7 minutes.
Notch 7 by 10mph or you'll never get anywhere.

0-40 performance is usually fairly good, it's the 40+ speeds where the gears change over you'll notice if it's a sluggish one.
That said, some of the worst you'll know by 10mph you're in for a slog of a trip!

 

[Bill EWS]

I remember when we first got Class 47's from brand new at Didcot. When on a local stopping service to Reading they would manage to get up to 90mph between Didcot and Cholsey and still manage to stop in the station all right. They were fantastic machines both on Express duties as well as on freightliners By the latter 70's into the 80's they were flogged to death on one loco + 7 coaches services.