hexagon789
Veteran Member
All EE538 motorsClass 37, 50 and 55 shared the same bogies - but what about traction motors? Were they vastly different? I would assume so? I've never looked at the specs on these.
In regards to HST's - there were plans to put bigger engines in, but would the existing traction system including traction motors have been able to cope with the extra power?
55s are EE538
50s are EE538/5A
37s are EE538/A
And some 37s gained bogies off Deltics (106mph continuous rated speed) to allow them 100mph running which they did for a brief period in the late-1960s doubled headed on a selection few headline expresses.There's something everyone's forgetting
Ignoring the 1960s designs, virtually all the UK CoCo designs post class 47, electric or diesel have been primarily freight locos with a max speed of 80 or less, while the BoBo designs were all passenger or mixed traffic designs with a max speed of 100+. The 89 obviously was an exception. During the 1970s BR developed an antipathy toward high speed CoCo designs, believing they damaged the track, I believe you're still seeing the results of that belief.
37 & 50 were geared differently - one 50 was fitted with 37 bogies to reduce the gearing and try to use it for heavy haulage
Deltics can put 2,640 down at the rail continously (obviously minus any ETH load)The feted 2460kW of the class 55s was the maximum power at the engine's output shaft/input to the generator. It would be an absolute maximum determined by the injection settings of the engine. There would be a power loss in the generator, auxiliaries and control gear so the power available to the motors might be 20% lower. Similarly, the class 50 power available at the motors would be lower than the headline 2010kW engine maximum figure quoted. Within those sort of power ranges, it is possible that the EE motors might have been the same (for the 50s and 55s) as DC motors are quite basic designs that can be range rated. The difference in physical size/weight would be minimal and they would fit into the same bogie frame mountings.
50s are 2,070hp continous (2,400hp motor rating)
Don't know about the alternator but the quoted output at rail is lower - 1,632.5hp against the usual 1,770hp for production PCs.That had been dropped by the time the production power cars were built: there was space for a V16 Valenta in 41001/2, but not in 43002 upwards. Production power car main alternators are rated at 1,868kW (against 1,678kW engine output), so not enough margin for a 33% hike in engine power, but then by that stage the V16 plan had been dropped, so why specify the extra capability for something you don't need. I've not seen the rating of the original main alternators in 41001/2 quoted anywhere.