What class of 'Peak' is this?

[Pigeon]

And yet looking at JohnW1s photo of 45139 today shows one plated over.

I remember them being plated over far more often than not.

Why the 1Co-Co1 wheel atangement. And what allowerd Cl47 to be Co-Co?

The Peak design came out heavier than expected, and despite efforts to get the weight down they didn't manage to get it down anywhere near enough to avoid the extra axle.

The 47 could be viewed as a more thorough attack on the weight problem by going to drastic measures like a new body design instead of trying to tweak the old one. It still came out too heavy, and they had to browbeat the civil engineer's department into allowing them to be a bit over the axle weight limit in order to get away with the Co bogies.

Did the 'peaks' share a common bogie design and were they interchangeable? Or does a bogie feature help telling the classes apart.

It's Bulleid's bogie off his prototype diesels, like this:

Also used on the Class 40.

I never looked closely enough to see if there were any visible detail differences between the various applications. There were of course differences in things like what traction motors were in them. In broad terms, they were "interchangeable" with the Class 40s (and indeed the Bulleid prototypes, in theory) if said differences were also changed, because that's what they were. Not sure if there was ever much call to actually do it, although such things did get done with other classes that shared bogies in the same kind of "basically the same with different motors etc" manner between themselves.

No-one has mentioned traction motors yet!

Yeah, they have - different motors and different wiring thereof has been mentioned. The main reason for having both 45s and 46s was, I'm fairly sure, that they couldn't get enough sets of electrical equipment in as short a time as they wanted without going to two different suppliers.

 

[ac6000cw]

The main reason for having both 45s and 46s was, I'm fairly sure, that they couldn't get enough sets of electrical equipment in as short a time as they wanted without going to two different suppliers.

That's my understanding too.

The 47 could be viewed as a more thorough attack on the weight problem by going to drastic measures like a new body design instead of trying to tweak the old one.

Yes - AFAIK the 47 had a monocoque-style structure (a bit like a rectangular tube) which weighs less for same strength & stiffness, whereas the 40/44/45/46 were a more traditional underframe-plus-superstructure design.

The interesting thing is DP2 (in 1962) weighed 107t, and the prototype Deltic weighed about the same in 1955 (three years before the cl.40 and four before the cl.44 appeared), so if BR had wanted a medium-speed diesel engined Co-Co design within their axle-load limits I'm sure they could have had one... English Electric were pretty much world-leading in power-to-weight ratio at the time, but sometimes BR seemed to go out of their way to avoid buying from them...

 

[Magdalia]

The interesting thing is DP2 (in 1962) weighed 107t, and the prototype Deltic weighed about the same in 1955 (three years before the cl.40 and four before the cl.44 appeared), so if BR had wanted a medium-speed diesel engined Co-Co design within their axle-load limits I'm sure they could have had one... English Electric were pretty much world-leading in power-to-weight ratio at the time, but sometimes BR seemed to go out of their way to avoid buying from them..

But only at vast expense. The Deltics cost over £200k per loco, nearly twice as much as a loco with a medium speed power unit. That's why there were only 22 of them. And although the prototype BR and EE type 4s appeared in 1959 and 1958 respectively, they were ordered in 1955, when the prototype Deltic was still untested.

At the time that the production BR Type 4s were ordered the most powerful EE loco with a medium speed power unit on Co-Co bogies was the Type 3 at 1750hp, and it was unproven, having been designed after the Pilot Scheme orders.

Yes - AFAIK the 47 had a monocoque-style structure (a bit like a rectangular tube) which weighs less for same strength & stiffness, whereas the 40/44/45/46 were a more traditional underframe-plus-superstructure design.

The Brush Type 4 bodyshell was technology transfer from aviation after Brush was acquired by Hawker Siddeley.

Yeah, they have - different motors and different wiring thereof has been mentioned. The main reason for having both 45s and 46s was, I'm fairly sure, that they couldn't get enough sets of electrical equipment in as short a time as they wanted without going to two different suppliers.

It is a bit of a mystery what happened with Crompton Parkinson, but basically Brush met delivery deadlines whereas Crompton Parkinson did not.

And construction of the Peaks was laboriously slow, especially at Derby.

 

[Richard Scott]

But only at vast expense. The Deltics cost over £200k per loco, nearly twice as much as a loco with a medium speed power unit. That's why there were only 22 of them. And although the prototype BR and EE type 4s appeared in 1959 and 1958 respectively, they were ordered in 1955, when the prototype Deltic was still untested.

At the time that the production BR Type 4s were ordered the most powerful EE loco with a medium speed power unit on Co-Co bogies was the Type 3 at 1750hp, and it was unproven, having been designed after the Pilot Scheme orders.


The Brush Type 4 bodyshell was technology transfer from aviation after Brush was acquired by Hawker Siddeley.


It is a bit of a mystery what happened with Crompton Parkinson, but basically Brush met delivery deadlines whereas Crompton Parkinson did not.

And construction of the Peaks was laboriously slow, especially at Derby.

Think CP were struggling to deliver for both 33s and 45s. Don't forget cubicles were Allen and West so they may have been part if the problem too? I don't know that, just speculating.
Thought the Brush order was purely due to giving orders to more than one supplier and nothing to do with CP being unableto deliver?
Also believe the class 40 order was increased due to slow delivery of Peaks. Can anyone substantiate this?

 

[Magdalia]

Also believe the class 40 order was increased due to slow delivery of Peaks. Can anyone substantiate this?

I have looked at the BTC papers and not seen evidence of that.

What did happen was redistribution of BR Type 4 loco build away from Derby to Crewe and Loughborough.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Think CP were struggling to deliver for both 33s and 45s. Don't forget cubicles were Allen and West so they may have been part if the problem too? I don't know that, just speculating.
Thought the Brush order was purely due to giving orders to more than one supplier and nothing to do with CP being unableto deliver?
Also believe the class 40 order was increased due to slow delivery of Peaks. Can anyone substantiate this?

I hesitate to say this, because I don't want to accidentally add false ideas into the murky mist of ideas that are already out there, but I thought CP went bust, which is why BR turned to Brush.

As for the 'extra' 40s - I don't know. The early Cl 45s were allocated mainly to former Midland Rly sections. The 40s were put on the WCML and ECML. (OK, the first few also went to the GER in their earliest days.)

I confess that that remains a mystery to me - the WCML in c 1959 - with its formidable banks at Shap and Beattock - frequently had 15-coach loads, while the maximum on the Midland was 10 - maybe 11 on the Bristol - York route.

Yes, the Midland routes had Peak Forest, Ais Gill and the banks up and down south of Leicester, but these were surely insignificant compared to the loads and banks on the the WCML and ECML, which could surely have better used the extra 500 HP of the class 45s.

 

[D1537]

Think CP were struggling to deliver for both 33s and 45s. Don't forget cubicles were Allen and West so they may have been part if the problem too? I don't know that, just speculating.
Thought the Brush order was purely due to giving orders to more than one supplier and nothing to do with CP being unableto deliver?
Also believe the class 40 order was increased due to slow delivery of Peaks. Can anyone substantiate this?

The last 20 Class 46s were cancelled and their electrical equipment used on the first 20 Class 47s (D1500-D1519), which is why that batch were non-standard to the other 492 that were built.

 

[Richard Scott]

The last 20 Class 46s were cancelled and their electrical equipment used on the first 20 Class 47s (D1500-D1519), which is why that batch were non-standard to the other 492 that were built.

Yes, that's correct as believe last few 46s were going to be numbered in the D1100 series?
Oddly the first 20 47s have electric cooling fans unlike the rest with hydrostatic like the 46s.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The last 20 Class 46s were cancelled and their electrical equipment used on the first 20 Class 47s (D1500-D1519), which is why that batch were non-standard to the other 492 that were built.

I thought it was only the last seven 46s affected?

The first 20 class 47s were non-standard 47s and very different from 46s because they had DC electric train heat generators (and not alternators), surely not because they were 'converted' in the order book from Class 46s.

 

[Richard Scott]

I thought it was only the last seven 46s affected?

The first 20 class 47s were non-standard 47s and very different from 46s because they had DC electric train heat generators (and not alternators), surely not because they were 'converted' in the order book from Class 46s.

There were supposed to be 76 46s but order for last 20 was cancelled and the electrical machines ordered used for first 20 47s and, presumably, the Sulzer engines also used in the first 20 47s albeit in C form rather than the B version used in the 46s.
The first 20 were different in a number of ways, they had Westinghouse brakes rather than Davies and Metcalfe, which rest of 47s (and 46s) had, along with a DC Generator for Electric Train Heat (as you stated) and Electric cooling fans rather than hydrostatic in rest of the 47s.

 

[Magdalia]

The last 20 Class 46s were cancelled and their electrical equipment used on the first 20 Class 47s (D1500-D1519)

Yes, that's correct as believe last few 46s were going to be numbered in the D1100 series?

I thought it was only the last seven 46s affected?

There were supposed to be 76 46s but order for last 20 was cancelled and the electrical machines ordered used for first 20 47s

It is even more complicated than that!

The original BR Type 4 order was 137 locos with CP traction equipment and 66 locos with Brush traction equipment.

The locos with CP equipment were originally going to be D11-67 built at Derby and D68-147 built at Crewe. The locos with Brush equipment were originally going to be D148-199 and D1500-13 built at Derby.

Ten locos were then switched from CP to Brush with D138-147 getting Brush equipment and being built at Derby instead of Crewe. To compensate D58-67 were built at Crewe instead of Derby, but after D68-137.

D50-57 were later switched from Derby to Crewe, being built after D58-67.

BR Type 4s D194-199 and D1500-13 were then cancelled being replaced by D1500-19 built at Loughborough as Brush type 4s.

 

[ac6000cw]

I hesitate to say this, because I don't want to accidentally add false ideas into the murky mist of ideas that are already out there, but I thought CP went bust, which is why BR turned to Brush.

As for the 'extra' 40s - I don't know. The early Cl 45s were allocated mainly to former Midland Rly sections. The 40s were put on the WCML and ECML. (OK, the first few also went to the GER in their earliest days.)

I confess that that remains a mystery to me - the WCML in c 1959 - with its formidable banks at Shap and Beattock - frequently had 15-coach loads, while the maximum on the Midland was 10 - maybe 11 on the Bristol - York route.

Yes, the Midland routes had Peak Forest, Ais Gill and the banks up and down south of Leicester, but these were surely insignificant compared to the loads and banks on the the WCML and ECML, which could surely have better used the extra 500 HP of the class 45s.

Maybe BR decided was better to use the 40's closer to where they were built i.e. Vulcan Foundry in case of problems (also in the 1950s the WCML was a relatively slow route, compared to the ECML, and was slated for electrification so dieselisation was mostly a stop-gap). Maybe the same reasoning applied to the 44's and 45's in relation to Derby?

 

[70014IronDuke]

It is even more complicated than that!

The original BR Type 4 order was 137 locos with CP traction equipment and 66 locos with Brush traction equipment.

The locos with CP equipment were originally going to be D11-67 built at Derby and D68-147 built at Crewe. The locos with Brush equipment were originally going to be D148-199 and D1500-13 built at Derby.

Ten locos were then switched from CP to Brush with D138-147 getting Brush equipment and being built at Derby instead of Crewe. To compensate D58-67 were built at Crewe instead of Derby, but after D68-137.

D50-57 were later switched from Derby to Crewe, being built after D58-67.

BR Type 4s D194-199 and D1500-13 were then cancelled being replaced by D1500-19 built at Loughborough as Brush type 4s.

This is numbering pedantry, but weren't the first 47s going to be numbered D1100 - 19?

Maybe BR decided was better to use the 40's closer to where they were built i.e. Vulcan Foundry in case of problems (also in the 1950s the WCML was a relatively slow route,

All the more reason to give them 45s vs 40s! The WCML was slow because a) they had such massive loads which needed more powerful locos and b) because of electrification slacks.

compared to the ECML, and was slated for electrification so dieselisation was mostly a stop-gap). Maybe the same reasoning applied to the 44's and 45's in relation to Derby?

Well, the 44s, after a few weeks of testing, went onto the WCML. But I don't think that was the reason, no. Plenty of 40s went to the ECML, including a lot to Scotland. It was only when the 46s came out that the ECML saw any 'Peaks' in regular traffic.

 

[12LDA28C]

This is numbering pedantry, but weren't the first 47s going to be numbered D1100 - 19?

Some of these numbers were used later on in Class 47 production with D1100-D1111 emerging from Crewe Works between August 1966 and February 1967. Only one of these locos now survives, 47526 (the former D1109).

 

[Cowley]

Some of these numbers were used later on in Class 47 production with D1100-D1111 emerging from Crewe Works between August 1966 and February 1967. Only one of these locos now survives, 47526 (the former D1109).

My favourite 47 (47521) was part of that batch. I think they were all originally allocated to East Coast work to supplement the Deltics if I remember correctly?

 

[45076]

I took this photo a year or so ago and I'd like confirmation as to which class of Peak loco it is. I think I know but don't want to say as this might lead to agreeing with me rather than a true identification from an expert! View attachment 134698

Its 45133, a class 45/1 in the diesel shed at Butterley. The other two peaks there are D4 (44004) GreatGable and 46045.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2023 ==

No, appreciate that but seemed to have drifted onto general differences.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2023 ==


They were added as part of a 60s refurbishment, I believe. Air filters added to side grills at the same time and not all 45s have them but, as you say, sure all of 46s had this modification. 45149 certainly doesn't have the modification.

The normal rule is that if the loco has internal bodyside filters fitted behind the long louvre then the small grill was used rather then the blank plate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2023 ==

Not too sure about 44's apart from disc headcodes and driving controls.
The main difference between 45s and 46s is Crompton Parkinson electrics on the 45, and Brush electrics on the 46.
45s also had big brass power handle and reverser, along with a visible "X" form on the fuel tank. A 46 had similar controls to a 47, and a plain sided fuel tank.

Class 44 has a 12lda28a series engine which is rated at 2300hp, also vac brakes only and no heat, the boilers were removed very early in the lives.

 

[Richard Scott]

Its 45133, a class 45/1 in the diesel shed at Butterley. The other two peaks there are D4 (44004) GreatGable and 46045.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2023 ==


The normal rule is that if the loco has internal bodyside filters fitted behind the long louvre then the small grill was used rather then the blank plate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2023 ==


Class 44 has a 12lda28a series engine which is rated at 2300hp, also vac brakes only and no heat, the boilers were removed very early in the lives.

The side grills also longer on a 44 so another visible cue apart from discs on front ends and no air tanks between the bogies.

 

[45076]

Not too sure about 44's apart from disc headcodes and driving controls.
The main difference between 45s and 46s is Crompton Parkinson electrics on the 45, and Brush electrics on the 46.
45s also had big brass power handle and reverser, along with a visible "X" form on the fuel tank. A 46 had similar controls to a 47, and a plain sided fuel tank.

That X form is actually on the battery boxes on both 44's and 45's. all Peaks have internal fuel tanks.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2023 ==

Here you go, one of each, From left to right, class 46, 46045, Class 44 44004 then Class 45/1 45108 and finally on the right Class 45/0 45041

 

[12LDA28C]

My favourite 47 (47521) was part of that batch. I think they were all originally allocated to East Coast work to supplement the Deltics if I remember correctly?

Indeed, all based at York (50A) from new.

 

[D1537]

Indeed, all based at York (50A) from new.

And 11 of the 12 remained at Eastern depots until 47518 (D1101) went to Bescot in 1986.

The oddity was D1100, which for some reason was the only one not fitted with ETH, and drifted off to the LMR in 1977.

 

[D365]

There are a few other differences between a 45 and 46. The 45 has 220V auxiliary electrical machines such as compressors and exhausted whereas the 45s are 110V.

Does the non-standard 220V vehicle voltage make it more difficult to source components?

 

[Richard Scott]

Does the non-standard 220V vehicle voltage make it more difficult to source components?

In preservation, yes, as auxiliary motors are are 220V as opposed to standard 110V so if a motor develops a fault it's usually am expensive overhaul rather than substitute a spare. The electrical cubicle still runs off standard 110V as do lighting circuits so less of an issue there (many components interchangable with a 33). In 45/0s that meant using a rotary converter to provide 110V supply; in the 45/1s there was an additional output for 110V from the auxiliary alternator. The AVR also has to be a 220V one which makes that a non-standard component too.

 

[Kneedown]

That X form is actually on the battery boxes on both 44's and 45's. all Peaks have internal fuel tanks.

Cheers for the clarification. Been a good few years since i last went on one.

 

[Magdalia]

And 11 of the 12 remained at Eastern depots until 47518 (D1101) went to Bescot in 1986.

The oddity was D1100, which for some reason was the only one not fitted with ETH, and drifted off to the LMR in 1977.

We are straying off topic here, but D1100 was not in the same batch as D1101-11. D1100 had more in common with D1977-99, particularly having a Clayton boiler. D1101-11 had Stones boilers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2023 ==

I think they were all originally allocated to East Coast work to supplement the Deltics if I remember correctly?

D1101-11 were the first Brush Type 4s to be retro-fitted with ETH, for the introduction of aircon MkIID coaches in 1971-72. That's where their particular association with substituting for Deltics began.

On the other hand, none of the D1975-99+D1100 batch were ever ETH fitted, becoming 47275-298.

 

[randyrippley]

were there detail differences between the Crewe and Derby 45s?

 

[Richard Scott]

were there detail differences between the Crewe and Derby 45s?

Not that I'm aware of. Individual locos sometimes differed due to modifications over the years.

 

[randyrippley]

Maybe BR decided was better to use the 40's closer to where they were built i.e. Vulcan Foundry in case of problems (also in the 1950s the WCML was a relatively slow route, compared to the ECML, and was slated for electrification so dieselisation was mostly a stop-gap). Maybe the same reasoning applied to the 44's and 45's in relation to Derby?

Reading between the lines I believe the WCML got 40s simply because EE were hitting delivery schedules while BR couldn't. Only the 40s were available in number when it became time to dieselise the WCML

Remember there's a version of the Peak story which goes....
The initial intention was to build them all at Crewe, but Crewe couldn't hit delivery deadlines (Union problems?) so a second production line was set up at Derby. Then it was decided Crompton Parkinson couldn't hit delivery dates for two production lines so the later orders which switched to Brush components. Even with two production lines and two electrical component sources deliveries weren't keeping up so Brush were asked to set up a third production line and given the last 20 to build. However someone hit the "pause" button and got the Brush order switched to an extrapolation from "Falcon" using the Brush electricals.

And while all that was going on EE were churning out 40s from two sites ahead of schedule

 

[70014IronDuke]

Reading between the lines I believe the WCML got 40s simply because EE were hitting delivery schedules while BR couldn't. Only the 40s were avaįlable in number when it became time to dieselise the WCML

Remember theres a version of the Peak story which goes....
The initial intention was to build them all at Crewe, but Crewe couldn't hit delivery deadlines (Union problems?) so a second production line was set up at Derby. Then it was decided Crompton Parkinson couldn't hit delivery dates for two production lines so the later orders which switched to Brush components. Even with two production lines and two elelctrical component sources deliveries weren't keeping up so Brush were asked to set up a third production line and given the last 20 to build. However someone hit the "pause" button and got the Brush order switched to an extrapolation from "Falcon" using the Brush electricals.

And while all that was going on EE were churning out 40s from two sites ahead of schedule

This is probably the best explanation going. I suspect BR(M) were desperate to dieselise the WCML to cut costs and ease maintenance problems with steam - anyone know if Camden and Willesden were suffering staff shortages c 1959? I presume this was also the reason the Cl 44s were put onto the WCML soon after delivery too.

 

[randyrippley]

This is probably the best explanation going. I suspect BR(M) were desperate to dieselise the WCML to cut costs and ease maintenance problems with steam - anyone know if Camden and Willesden were suffering staff shortages c 1959? I presume this was also the reason the Cl 44s were put onto the WCML soon after delivery too.

Quite probably so.
It's also important to remember that the Peaks were ordered before the 40s, but deliveries started later.
As I see it, the 40s were a low technical risk fallback plan B in case BR's preferred option of Sulzer powered locos went wrong. And it did go wrong in a big way.
That's probably also why BR declined EE's offer to uprate the later batches of 40s: they couldn't afford to gamble on the upgrade also going wrong as that would have left them with no reliable type 4 design

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 May 2023 ==

It is a bit of a mystery what happened with Crompton Parkinson, but basically Brush met delivery deadlines whereas Crompton Parkinson did not.

Crompton Parkinson were taken over by Hawker Siddeley.......funny that
Hawkers seemed to be more interested in removing competition for Brush than actually using their production. I guess Brush could build a whole loco (except for the diesel) but CP could only do the electricals.
Later when Hawkers were broken up, CP became part of Chloride, though they were still trading as Crompton Parkinson in the late 1970s

 

[E27007]

But only at vast expense. The Deltics cost over £200k per loco, nearly twice as much as a loco with a medium speed power unit. That's why there were only 22 of them. And although the prototype BR and EE type 4s appeared in 1959 and 1958 respectively, they were ordered in 1955, when the prototype Deltic was still untested.

At the time that the production BR Type 4s were ordered the most powerful EE loco with a medium speed power unit on Co-Co bogies was the Type 3 at 1750hp, and it was unproven, having been designed after the Pilot Scheme orders.


The Brush Type 4 bodyshell was technology transfer from aviation after Brush was acquired by Hawker Siddeley.


It is a bit of a mystery what happened with Crompton Parkinson, but basically Brush met delivery deadlines whereas Crompton Parkinson did not.

And construction of the Peaks was laboriously slow, especially at Derby.

A friend, was a diesel shed fitter, retired 12 years ago, reckons Crompton Parkinson was the more reliable electrical equipment than the other makers.