Reliability of Westerns

[norbitonflyer]

. Rolls had no interest in diesels, especially German ones

They did build diesel engines though. They were fitted to several DMU classes, the Lea Valley Class 125s, the Calder Valley class 110s, Metro Cammell 111s, the Cravens classes 112 and 113, and the Marylebone and St Pancras and Marylebone suburban sets (classes 115 and 127). Several of these classes had hydraulic transmissions. Two Clayton Class 17s were also fitted with RR engines.

What did for the type 4 hydraulics?
Sheer weight of numbers meant that the hydraulics would be bound to go first in any rationalisation.

Actually, weight (or lack of it) was a problem, as hydraulics were in general less suitable for heavy freight than their diesel-electric counterparts - especially in the early days when brake force was essential to control unfitted freights. A "Warship" weighed 79 tons, a Class 40 weighed 132.

However, the difference in weight between a Western and a 47 was only a few tons.

 

[Shrop]

Actually, weight (or lack of it) was a problem, as hydraulics were in general less suitable for heavy freight than their diesel-electric counterparts - especially in the early days when brake force was essential to control unfitted freights. A "Warship" weighed 79 tons, a Class 40 weighed 132.

However, the difference in weight between a Western and a 47 was only a few tons.

I remember that weight was always a big factor with Deltics, 3300hp in only 99 tons of loco meant that trying to get 12 or 13 coaches going out of stations was a real struggle as they kept slipping. It was often something of a joke watching Deltics leaving Peterborough with the last coach trundling along the platform at barely more than 10mph, but then they more than made up for it when they got going. I recorded many runs up Stoke Bank, and a Deltic on 12 could usually top the bank at around 90mph, whereas a 47 on even just 8 coaches would struggle to beat 80mph.

Westerns were entirely different, I watched many leaving Reading when the last of 12 coaches would be whisked off the platform at around 40mph, thanks to their C-C configuration which meant that individual axles didn't slip independently like they did in most other classes. This meant that Westerns were a lot more capable of getting heavy freight trains going, certainly compared to Deltics.

I think in practice, both Warships and Westerns were actually fairly heavy per axle compared to a lot of other classes, the class 40s for example had 8 axles, while the Westerns only had 6, and Warships only 4.

 

[norbitonflyer]

. I recorded many runs up Stoke Bank, and a Deltic on 12 could usually top the bank at around 90mph, whereas a 47 on even just 8 coaches would struggle to beat 80mph.

It would have been beyond the comprehension of steam drivers that modern trains are required to reduce speed at the top of Stoke Bank - thye limit through Stoke tunnel is 100mph, presumably for aerodynamic reasons although I understand that on Shap and Beattock the downhill speed limits are lower than uphill because of the assistance/impediment to braking that gravity affords ("your permission to speed is your ability to stop").

 

[Grumpy]

Actually, weight (or lack of it) was a problem, as hydraulics were in general less suitable for heavy freight than their diesel-electric counterparts - especially in the early days when brake force was essential to control unfitted freights. A "Warship" weighed 79 tons, a Class 40 weighed 132.

However, the difference in weight between a Western and a 47 was only a few tons.

The Western Region argument was that the hydraulics were being bought under the Modernisation Plan which was also proposing to eliminate unfitted freight, so the extra weight of the electrics would be an unnecessary burden

 

[matchmaker]

Interesting thread as I remember the Westerns very well in my view they were reliable locomotives - maybe a bit of bias as quite a few are fans of the class including me!

Sometimes the 52s had a tendency to pump their acceleration, eg the locomotive would be sluggish then suddenly surge. However they certainly weren't underpowered and in the sixties as I recall were easily capable of hauling trains with twelve - fifteen coaches.

Being a regular traveller I remember the Westerns hauled Mk II stock since the earlier rakes were equipped also for steam heating. The introduction of the HSTs was more of a reason to get rid of the Westerns rather than the lack of ETH.

Westerns could certainly steam heat earlier versions of Mk 2 coaches. The problem was the lack of ETS which was required to power the air conditioning on Mk 2d and Mk 2e coaches which were being introduced on South Wales services.

 

[randyrippley]

They did build diesel engines though. They were fitted to several DMU classes, the Lea Valley Class 125s, the Calder Valley class 110s, Metro Cammell 111s, the Cravens classes 112 and 113, and the Marylebone and St Pancras and Marylebone suburban sets (classes 115 and 127). Several of these classes had hydraulic transmissions. Two Clayton Class 17s were also fitted with RR engines.


Actually, weight (or lack of it) was a problem, as hydraulics were in general less suitable for heavy freight than their diesel-electric counterparts - especially in the early days when brake force was essential to control unfitted freights. A "Warship" weighed 79 tons, a Class 40 weighed 132.

However, the difference in weight between a Western and a 47 was only a few tons.

That was RR's small diesel business, which was handed over to Perkins in the 1980s to get rid. It was based at the old Sentinel works and its questionable whether it ever made money


As for the weight, you're missing the whole point of the type 4 hydraulics: they were specifically purchased to work fully fitted trains.
WR business doctrine was to totally eliminate all unfitted freight, allowing haulage by lightweight locos.
Don't forget the Westerns had the highest tractive effort of any of the 1950-60s diesels, around 35% more than the 47

 

[Pigeon]

In the 1960's when Gerry Feinnes was manager of the WR, both the Westerns and Hymeks were affected by flawed axles, the entire fleet had to be grounded while an oscilloscope was brought over from the USA, leading him to comment "Why can't axles be properly constructed nowadays. George Stephenson could."

I'd have expected someone with his level of clue to be well aware that broken axles were a common cause of accidents in the early days. Any of the old boys would have given their left nut for an ultrasonic crack detector.

 

[36270k]

The Western Region argument was that the hydraulics were being bought under the Modernisation Plan which was also proposing to eliminate unfitted freight, so the extra weight of the electrics would be an unnecessary burden

Had a look at my 1972 Freight trains loads book.
The Class 40 had around the same brake force as a Class 37.
The Class 40 had no brakes on the pony trucks and smaller than optimal brake cylinders on the motored axles.

The Class 42 warships worked very well on fitted freights. I had several trips on D821 Greyhound on Westbury stone trains. When retired in Dec 72 D821 had 1.3 million miles on the clock.

 

[Irascible]

Interesting thread as I remember the Westerns very well in my view they were reliable locomotives - maybe a bit of bias as quite a few are fans of the class including me!

Sometimes the 52s had a tendency to pump their acceleration, eg the locomotive would be sluggish then suddenly surge. However they certainly weren't underpowered and in the sixties as I recall were easily capable of hauling trains with twelve - fifteen coaches.

Being a regular traveller I remember the Westerns hauled Mk II stock since the earlier rakes were equipped also for steam heating. The introduction of the HSTs was more of a reason to get rid of the Westerns rather than the lack of ETH.

Probably my first trip ( I was 10 days old, so not likely to be sure! ) and definitely the first I remember was behind a Western, in MkIIs ( stood on the table to stick my head out & everything ). Top "gear" ( proper explanation above somewhere ) is definitely off but in the lower two stages they can pick up well that's for sure.

Not sure the original plan was to wait for HSTs - I doubt anyone really expected so many 50 failures, that must have prolonged them a while.

 

[londontransit]

Westerns could certainly steam heat earlier versions of Mk 2 coaches. The problem was the lack of ETS which was required to power the air conditioning on Mk 2d and Mk 2e coaches which were being introduced on South Wales services.

I didn't dispute what anyone might have said earlier. I merely added they could haul Mk IIs with steam heating capability.

Probably my first trip ( I was 10 days old, so not likely to be sure! ) and definitely the first I remember was behind a Western, in MkIIs ( stood on the table to stick my head out & everything ). Top "gear" ( proper explanation above somewhere ) is definitely off but in the lower two stages they can pick up well that's for sure.

Not sure the original plan was to wait for HSTs - I doubt anyone really expected so many 50 failures, that must have prolonged them a while.

My first trip behind a Western was a crimson livered example with a matching crimson rake!

 

[coppercapped]

As for the weight, you're missing the whole point of the type 4 hydraulics: they were specifically purchased to work fully fitted trains.
WR business doctrine was to totally eliminate all unfitted freight, allowing haulage by lightweight locos.
Don't forget the Westerns had the highest tractive effort of any of the 1950-60s diesels, around 35% more than the 47

Quite so. And the WR doctrine was based on the Modernisation Plan which stated on page 6:

Fourthly, the freight services must be drastically remodelled. Continuous brakes will be fitted to all freight wagons, which will lead to faster and smoother operation of freight traffic;...

I'd have expected someone with his level of clue to be well aware that broken axles were a common cause of accidents in the early days. Any of the old boys would have given their left nut for an ultrasonic crack detector.

He was very well aware. The comment was made in conjunction with the observation that the motion on the first Britannias went round faster than the axles which was good for neither part. The Britannias were built only 10 years before the 1000s hence Fiennes' remark.

 

[DelW]

I don’t think Yeomans were fed up with the Westerns, more that BR simply made them unavailable by withdrawing them. Yeomans actually bought a Western for preservation, D1010 Western Campaigner which was disguised for many years as D1035 Western Yeoman. It operated like this on the West Somerset Railway under the custodianship of the Diesel & Electric Group at Williton.

Going back to the Westerns, the last few that were in service seemed to do some sterling work considering the minimal maintenance. Or was the minimal maintenance not all it seemed?
I wonder how many non sanctioned repairs happened just to keep the fleet going until the final withdrawal date?

D1010 is currently undergoing a major overhaul at Williton, which was prompted by a transmission failure some years ago. While that is under repair, the body is also being fully renovated, including stripping much of the paintwork back to bare metal. This has apparently revealed signs of several rather back-street-bodge-job body repairs dating back to BR days, and the opportunity is being taken to do rather better quality (and much more labour intensive) repairs to correct these.

More information is available here:
D1010 Restoration Appeal | The Diesel and Electric Preservation Group (depg.org)

D1010 ‘WESTERN CAMPAIGNER’ RESTORATION

​

The delays to work on other locos caused by multiple Covid-19 lockdowns resulted in our flagship loco having to suffer the attention of the seagulls for a lot longer than was originally planned. Although protected by tarpaulins throughout both winters, her 19-month stay on number 3 road in the South Yard at Williton has resulted in her paintwork becoming faded and given her a decidedly down-at-heel look. Her appearance was made worse by the removal of her heavily corroded lower front valances and more recently by the removal of her nameplates and numberplates.
All this is set to change because the loco has now moved inside the shed so that a programme of bodywork repairs can commence.
Apart from some localised corrosion damage, mostly around the bodyside windows and vents, the level of repair required for the main body of the locomotive is limited to removal and replacement of the ‘Prestolith’ filler that was applied when new to smooth out the surface distortions caused by welding the relatively thin outer skin panels to the framework beneath. One side was dealt with back in the late ‘80s when the loco was undergoing restoration at Didcot, but the other side is now crying out for the same level of attention.

(There is a lot more information and photos on that page).

 

[Cowley]

D1010 is currently undergoing a major overhaul at Williton, which was prompted by a transmission failure some years ago. While that is under repair, the body is also being fully renovated, including stripping much of the paintwork back to bare metal. This has apparently revealed signs of several rather back-street-bodge-job body repairs dating back to BR days, and the opportunity is being taken to do rather better quality (and much more labour intensive) repairs to correct these.

More information is available here:
D1010 Restoration Appeal | The Diesel and Electric Preservation Group (depg.org)

​

(There is a lot more information and photos on that page).

That’s great thanks for that. I think I might have been on D1010s last run before it went wrong a few years ago. It was definitely looking quite rough by then too.
I might split a couple of these posts off into a general preserved fleet status thread tomorrow actually.

If anyone wants to get involved with that could you pm me please?