Gresley bogies on emu class's 303, 304 etc...

[DGH 1]

I've often wondered why the decision was made to fit gresley bogies to these emu's built in the late 50's and early 60's, does anyone have any idea why?.

 

[Taunton]

They were felt to be better than the BR B1 bogies. A matter of opinion but both seemed to work alright out of the works, but deteriorated over time. Some Mk 1 hauled stock at the time had them fitted as well.

The Commonwealth was also around at the time, and did give a much better ride at speed. It however had two downsides, one was it was notably heavy, about 2 tons more than a B1, and secondly Commonwealth Steel in the USA, who devised it (it's on a lot of US diesel locos of the era as well) had licensed it to a Sheffield steel company, and both looked for considerable royalties on it, which made it quite expensive.

 

[DGH 1]

Hi Taunton, thank you for your informative reply, I had never thought about an American connection, even though I 've seen them on their trains in photographs etc.
I had also wondered what people must have thought seeing these new trains introduced back then and riding on bogies that look like a throwback to a pre-war period.

 

[Spartacus]

In fairness I think the B1 was essentially a Collett design anyway. I think BR plumped for it was it was supposedly easier, and therefore cheaper to maintain, trouble is that without regular maintenance the B1’s ride could deteriorate significantly, which didn’t really happen with the Gresley one, made a greater problem by sustained high speeds possible with modern traction, and by increased weights associated with traction motors and engines.

I think the Gresley bogie was seen to give at the very least a softer ride, even compared to a perfect B1, hence why stock like Pullmans, restaurant cars and sleepers were fitted with them.

 

[DGH 1]

In fairness I think the B1 was essentially a Collett design anyway. I think BR plumped for it was it was supposedly easier, and therefore cheaper to maintain, trouble is that without regular maintenance the B1’s ride could deteriorate significantly, which didn’t really happen with the Gresley one, made a greater problem by sustained high speeds possible with modern traction, and by increased weights associated with traction motors and engines.

I think the Gresley bogie was seen to give at the very least a softer ride, even compared to a perfect B1, hence why stock like Pullmans, restaurant cars and sleepers were fitted with them.

Hi Spartacus, thank you for another informative reply, growing up, I was always just as interested in the variety of bogies on trains as much as what was riding on them, so it's great to get more insight into something important that I think is often overlooked.

 

[edwin_m]

Was there a motorized version of the B1? I think most of the DMUs had B1 or a variant of it, but this would just have had a cardan shaft from the underfloor engine, whereas EMUs would need motors on the bogie itself. If I recall correctly the powered bogies on the EMUs with Gresley bogies were a similar-looking but heavier version. But the Southern did something different.

 

[AM9]

Was there a motorized version of the B1? I think most of the DMUs had B1 or a variant of it, but this would just have had a cardan shaft from the underfloor engine, whereas EMUs would need motors on the bogie itself. If I recall correctly the powered bogies on the EMUs with Gresley bogies were a similar-looking but heavier version. But the Southern did something different.

The EMUs that had 'Gresley' style bogies on the trailers had a different flat topped design as a motor bogie. You can see them on the second car in the picturte on this link:
https://live.staticflickr.com/4704/25738271817_a7e5523134_b.jpg
Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to past the picture itself in at the moment.

 

[DGH 1]

The EMUs that had 'Gresley' style bogies on the trailers had a different flat topped design as a motor bogie. You can see them on the second car in the picturte on this link:
https://live.staticflickr.com/4704/25738271817_a7e5523134_b.jpg
Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to past the picture itself in at the moment.

Hi AM9, were the motor bogies a derivative of the Gresley bogie do you know, or were they specifically designed for these units? .(And 303, 304 etc).

 

[jp4712]

I spent most of my youth on class 304 and 504 EMUs on Gresley bogies, and they were very comfy if a bit bouncy over pointwork. I'm quite amused by post #3 wondering what people thought of prewar design bogies on BR equipment - in all my years on Whitefield station I don't recall any commuter saying "hey! I'm not travelling on that, that's a Gresley bogie originating in the GNR period!"

To get a good view of the difference between a powered and non-powered bogie on class 504, click on the linked pic below.

Class 504 M65444, M77181, M77167 - Bury Electric Depot. by Martyn Hilbert, on Flickr

 

[DGH 1]

I spent most of my youth on class 304 and 504 EMUs on Gresley bogies, and they were very comfy if a bit bouncy over pointwork. I'm quite amused by post #3 wondering what people thought of prewar design bogies on BR equipment - in all my years on Whitefield station I don't recall any commuter saying "hey! I'm not travelling on that, that's a Gresley bogie originating in the GNR period!"

To get a good view of the difference between a powered and non-powered bogie on class 504, click on the linked pic below.

Class 504 M65444, M77181, M77167 - Bury Electric Depot. by Martyn Hilbert, on Flickr

Hi jp4712, that's a lovely crisp picture and shows the difference perfectly!, reminds me of Triang blue pullman models with different motor bogies to the free running ones.
I'm glad you found my comment amusing .

 

[edwin_m]

Hi jp4712, that's a lovely crisp picture and shows the difference perfectly!

Ignoring the chunky side-contact pickup shoes and the beams they attach to, that's the one I think of as the heavier version of the Gresley bogie for the motors. Curiously class 306 [edit: not 307], actually ordered by the LNER, had bogies with no visible Gresley heritage.

 

[DGH 1]

Ignoring the chunky side-contact pickup shoes and the beams they attach to, that's the one I think of as the heavier version of the Gresley bogie for the motors. Curiously class 307, actually ordered by the LNER, had bogies with no visible Gresley heritage.

I never realised that it was the LNER that had ordered the 307's, I just thought it had been British Railways. Did they not receive the Gresley designed bogies because they were built at Eastleigh and Ashford with their Southern Region way of doing things?.

 

[AM9]

Ignoring the chunky side-contact pickup shoes and the beams they attach to, that's the one I think of as the heavier version of the Gresley bogie for the motors. Curiously class 307, actually ordered by the LNER, had bogies with no visible Gresley heritage.

I commuted on all of the GE EMU types for 8 years and I remember those motored bogies but never associated them with Gresley designs. In my childhood and early teen years one could still see Gresley and Thompson coaches on East Anglian expresses so the Gresley bogies on EMUs were not strangers on Eastern Region metals. The EMU trailer version looked heavier than the LHCS type which would make sense because the LNER coaches werer 51ft long and mainly wood so they must have weighed a lot less than the MKI BR designs, but I could be wrong.

 

[Snow1964]

Wasn’t the Gresley bogie plentiful, I have a vague recollection that they were salvaged off older stock, rather than new builds

The BR mk1 was also a 90mph bogie (although when worn was rough at that speed), but most of those EMUs were limited to 75mph. Need to dig some old books out, but the LNER designed electrics (later class 306 and 506) might have been slower at something like 65mph. I suspect these lower speeds influenced decision on reusing surplus former mainline bogies.

The Southern was a master of this, many of the 4EPB (class 415) although built in 1950s were fitted with salvaged SE&C pre grouping bogies on unpowered vehicles, and some survived into 1990s until networkers introduced.

 

[Alfie1014]

Ignoring the chunky side-contact pickup shoes and the beams they attach to, that's the one I think of as the heavier version of the Gresley bogie for the motors. Curiously class 307, actually ordered by the LNER, had bogies with no visible Gresley heritage.

I think you are getting confused with the class 306 (AM6) which were LNER, whereas the class 307 were based on BR(SR) designs. The 307s had B1 type bogies from new but the ride was not good and subsequent suburban builds had the Gresley types. The trailer bogies of the 307s and the 30 refurbished 302s had their originals replaced in the 1980s with B4/5s as they became surplus from withdrawn MkI hauled vehicles as they were scrapped.

 

[edwin_m]

I think you are getting confused with the class 306 (AM6) which were LNER, whereas the class 307 were based on BR(SR) designs. The 307s had B1 type bogies from new but the ride was not good and subsequent suburban builds had the Gresley types. The trailer bogies of the 307s and the 30 refurbished 302s had their originals replaced in the 1980s with B4/5s as they became surplus from withdrawn MkI hauled vehicles as they were scrapped.

Yes I was meaning the 306. I'll edit the post.

 

[Taunton]

I think you are getting confused with the class 306 (AM6) which were LNER, whereas the class 307 were based on BR(SR) designs.

They weren't even LNER. They were fully designed and built, mechanically and electrically, by a BRCW/Met-Cam joint venture, the same partnership that built the LMS Wirral units and the London Transport O-P Stock. There's a lot of commonality between these types. The LNER went to them as an established producer of such stock.

 

[Grumpy]

Was there a motorized version of the B1? I think most of the DMUs had B1 or a variant of it, but this would just have had a cardan shaft from the underfloor engine, whereas EMUs would need motors on the bogie itself. If I recall correctly the powered bogies on the EMUs with Gresley bogies were a similar-looking but heavier version. But the Southern did something different.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the DMU bogies were based on the LMS Southport electric stock

 

[AM9]

... The BR mk1 was also a 90mph bogie (although when worn was rough at that speed), but most of those EMUs were limited to 75mph. Need to dig some old books out, but the LNER designed electrics (later class 306 and 506) might have been slower at something like 65mph. I suspect these lower speeds influenced decision on reusing surplus former mainline bogies. ...

The 306s were rated at 75mph by BR but I can recall many journeys, particularly early on Saturdays, when the 306s would get into the '80s. It was a very lively ride though! I've never been on a 506, (more's the pity), but don't think that the 506s had much 1500VDC track over which they could even get to 65, let alone 75.

 

[d9009alycidon]

The Gresley bogies fitted to the class 303s were apparently not without there issues, when the class 311s were introduced in 1967 the bogies were reinforced in an attempt to prevent cracking that had appeared on some of the existing units. As a regular commuter on these great old units, you soon worked out the best place to sit, the centre motor coach was much preferred as it gave the best ride, the seats above the rear bogie of the leading coach were to be avoided as it could get very lively here, especially if there was a wheel flat.

 

[d9009alycidon]

Someone asked for a photo of the motor bogie, this is the now scrapped 311103 at Summerlee

 

[DGH 1]

The Gresley bogies fitted to the class 303s were apparently not without there issues, when the class 311s were introduced in 1967 the bogies were reinforced in an attempt to prevent cracking that had appeared on some of the existing units. As a regular commuter on these great old units, you soon worked out the best place to sit, the centre motor coach was much preferred as it gave the best ride, the seats above the rear bogie of the leading coach were to be avoided as it could get very lively here, especially if there was a wheel flat.

Were these cracks appearing on the other classes with these bogies, or was it just the 303's also do you know if it was the powered bogies or the unpowered that had them?

 

[dubscottie]

They weren't even LNER. They were fully designed and built, mechanically and electrically, by a BRCW/Met-Cam joint venture, the same partnership that built the LMS Wirral units and the London Transport O-P Stock. There's a lot of commonality between these types. The LNER went to them as an established producer of such stock.

They were LNER. Pepercorn tweeked the design to suit post war Britain. BRCW built the motor coaches and Met-Cam the driving trailers. Met-Cam and BRCW got the contract as the main LNER/BR works where still catching up on repairs to existing stock and having to shift from war production back to railway jobs. I believe the majority of new build LNER stock built between 1945-1951 was produced by outside contractors and not in-house.

I have a very old book somewhere that states that what became the 306/506 were to have been built in LNER shops using electrical parts provided by outside contractors. Mr Hitler put a spanner in the plan.

 

[Taunton]

I believe that the 100 units that became 306 and 506 were actually ordered in 1938 before the war started from the BRCW/Met-Cam joint venture, but were put on ice for about 10 years by the later events. The OHLE side of the project had made some progress by 1939, and the stock order matched. The LNER Society states that a few of the initial cars had actually been built by 1939 and their bodyshells were put into storage near the BRCW/Met Cam works part-complete for the duration, see here : https://www.lner.info/locos/Electric/shenfield.php . I believe the money the impoverished LNER (it was close to bankruptcy) needed for this scheme came from a government railway tax rebate in the 1930s, with the stipulation that the saving be spent on major capital works.