Lima "Clayton" BR Class 17 shunter

[wilwahabri]

I am suffering some confusion here. All the documents I have found show the Class 17 diesel shunters to have 4 axles, and there are Lima Class 17s out there with 4 axles but the one I have has only 2 axles, and was obviously intended to be like that because the frame mouldings have moulded springing and axleboxes for 2 axles only. As far as I can tell it was available in two forms D8900 in BR green livery and D8915 in BR blue and yellow.

 

So my question is, is this an oddball design Lima produced, and subsequently corrected or was there really a 2 axle version of the Clayton Class 17 diesel Shunter? If so what was it's class number?

[kevinlms]

I am suffering some confusion here. All the documents I have found show the Class 17 diesel shunters to have 4 axles, and there are Lima Class 17s out there with 4 axles but the one I have has only 2 axles, and was obviously intended to be like that because the frame mouldings have moulded springing and axleboxes for 2 axles only. As far as I can tell it was available in two forms D8900 in BR green livery and D8915 in BR blue and yellow.

 

So my question is, is this an oddball design Lima produced, and subsequently corrected or was there really a 2 axle version of the Clayton Class 17 diesel Shunter? If so what was it's class number?

That loco is nothing but a generic loco made for their international/junior range that happens to carry the number belonging to a Class 17.

 

Not so sure that a Clayton's was considered as a shunter, but a mainline locomotive.

[Steamport Southport]

I'm afraid it's based on a foreign (German) design and is actually HO, and yes it should have bogies.

 

http://www.limabritishho.co.uk/LBHO-Locomotives.htm

 

 

 

Jason

[Fenman]

...

Not so sure that a Clayton's was considered as a shunter, but a mainline locomotive.

My understanding is that the Clayton was developed to be BR’s standard Type 1 loco (instead of the EE Class 20), which was intended mainly for pick-up freight - a traffic that was rapidly disappearing even as the order for new locos was placed.

 

I’ve seen photos of them used on secondary summer passenger traffic (there was room for a steam train-heating boiler, but none was fitted) - there’s a particularly lovely one of a Clayton hauling a passenger train into Stirling - and they were frequently seen double-headed on heavier freights. I’m not sure if that was because they needed the extra hauling power, or they were so unreliable that the second loco was there in case the first failed.

 

It’s a pity: I’ve always thought them rather pleasing-looking machines, and the number of 00-gauge production runs Heljan have now done (is it 20 different versions by now?) suggests I’m not alone. I’m just surprised no-one has launched it in 0. Maybe the now-defunct JLTRT option put manufacturers off?

 

Paul

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The external treatment of the class, on top of a form which clearly should have served the crew look out function well, does make it outwardly attractive. (Crew comments on this aspect of the design would be interesting.) I would have one on my layout like a shot if there was the slightest indication of their ever operating in the KX inner suburban zone

 

Crucial to the design is the low and narrow bonnets, enabled by having two engines. I do wonder if symmetry had been abandoned, whether with an off centre cab a single engine in a longer low and narrow bonnet at one end could have been achieved? (The shorter bonnet being available for auxiliaries like the train heat  boiler.) Or was it simply that as in the alternative BoBo type 1s there wasn't an 800-1,000 hp diesel lump capable of being fitted inside a low bonnet?

[kevinlms]

The external treatment of the class, on top of a form which clearly should have served the crew look out function well, does make it outwardly attractive. (Crew comments on this aspect of the design would be interesting.) I would have one on my layout like a shot if there was the slightest indication of their ever operating in the KX inner suburban zone

 

Crucial to the design is the low and narrow bonnets, enabled by having two engines. I do wonder if symmetry had been abandoned, whether with an off centre cab a single engine in a longer low and narrow bonnet at one end could have been achieved? (The shorter bonnet being available for auxiliaries like the train heat  boiler.) Or was it simply that as in the alternative BoBo type 1s there wasn't an 800-1,000 hp diesel lump capable of being fitted inside a low bonnet?

Probably true, engines of the required size were too big. The alternative could have been to use 4 smaller engines and call it a Fell - wait...

['CHARD]

Probably true, engines of the required size were too big. The alternative could have been to use 4 smaller engines and call it a Fell - wait...

 

[kevinlms]

Wow, where did you find that old photo of me?

[The Johnster]

There seems to have been a sort of crossover between the roles of shunting and 'Type 1' locos in the early diesel period in the UK, influenced as it was by US practice.  There they have 'yard switchers' and 'road swicthers', switcher being their term for a shunting loco; yard switchers were generally 4 wheeled locos with big steps at both ends for staff to ride on, and a cab at one end with good visibility for the driver over a low bonnet; they worked at low speed in yards and only ventured on to running roads where this was necessary to return to depot.  A road switcher is around 800hp and carried on bogies, with a full height engine housing and cab about ¾ the way towards one end, much like the BTH Class 18 and NB 19 here, and the prototype 10800; driver visibility was compromised by the full height bonnets and the situation worsened on the British versions because of the loading gauge which required the cab to be close in to the bodywork.  The work in the US was analogous to British pick up and trip work.

 

British development was of course influenced by our loading gauge, and the first diesels were developed in the 30s and 40s leading to the 08 shunting engine.  This is to all intents and purposes a yard switcher, but is used for local trip and pickup work as well; it is not ideal for this being a rough rider, unkind to track, and restricted for speed.  The loading gauge and the need for a full height engine housing bonnet compromised visibility, though not as badly as on the road switcher Type 1s  So, a line of development to increase the speed and power of these locos was instituted, and a 40mph Bullied shunter with a bit more capacity resulted before 10800 came along, very much on American road switcher lines.  The locos developed from 10800, the 17 and 18, fell into line with the 1955 Modernisation Plan's stated need for 'Type 1' locos, but the EE class 20, with better reliability, a little more power, and a cab which gave very good visibility in one direction at least, came to dominate.  

 

But BR wanted a loco that was as powerful as the 20 and featured better visibility, and Claytons came up with the 17, with a massive centre cab.  It is regarded as a bit of a failure, because of reliability issues, but was produced in volume so couldn't have been all that bad compared to the 17s and 18s.  The 20s spent most of their lives hunting in nose to nose pairs to obviate the visibility issue, and were, in a world where loads were increasing and adaptability to MGR working was a factor, ultimately more successful than the 17s which were supposed to replace them; some are still in service.  

 

Then Swindon decided to have a go with the Class 14 Teddy Bear, influenced by the same perceived traffic needs as had produced the 94xx steam locos.  The traffic was disappearing as they were being built, and they were in some ways neither fish nor fowl, a jackshaft driven half pint road switcher.  They could run at 40mph, though, which gave them a big advantage over the 08s.  Another centre cab design, and centre cabs always seem to be big in proportion to their locos; one Canton driver commented to me that you could have held the shed xmas dance in one.  You'd have had to dance up and down the steps covering the transmission tunnel, though; even Fred and Ginger (who did it all backwards in heels) would have had trouble...

 

Unreliability and lack of traffic that they could handle (650hp isn't enough on a road switcher and they couldn't stop the unbraked coal trains that pushed them around in South Wales), but they were just the job for heavy industrial work in which most had long and successful careers, ending up in preservation.  The BR livery featured wasp striped ends, which sort of made you think 'shunter, or yard switcher' but they were not really intended for yard work.  Another yard shunter feature was the big riding steps, in recesses so that staff were not exposed to vehicles passing too close.

 

Centre cab locos were popular and common on mainland Europe, where pick up and trip work was more common for a longer period than here, and in Japan as well.  This may be the explanation for attempts to pass H0 models of them off as 17s by presenting them in BR liveries, but many have off centre cabs or cabs cut in German style to fit the loading gauge, and do not even pass muster at a distant glance.

['CHARD]

  A road switcher is around 800hp and carried on bogies, with a full height engine housing and cab about ¾ the way towards one end, much like the BTH Class 18 and NB 19 here,

 

My bold; BTH Class 15 and NBL 16.

[RedgateModels]

Still got mine,

 

couplings replaced for good old metal tension locks and a full repaint when I was a teenager 😃

 

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by RedgateModels

[E3109]

Many years ago, maybe 1982, there was an article in 'Rail Enthusiast' entitled 'Day of the Claytons', based on a 1970s trip to Glasgow Works to look at the demics.

 

I think it was in the same article, it was suggested that BR were considering conversion of some of the locos to straight electrics. Perhaps that's why they hung around for so long.

Were they really as unreliable as claimed, and were the RR-powered machines better or worse than the standard ones?

 

Clearly BR had made up its mind by 1967 or 1968, when they ordered a further batch of EE Type 1s (class 20) presumably as replacements.

 

Regarding the model, I'm glad Lima chose D89xx for it, rather than an actual Clayton number for this abomina...er toy!

To be fair, this 'entry level' inexpensive stuff will have attracted many to the hobby at an early age, so they're not all bad.

Edited July 2, 2018 by E3109

[jonny777]

Yes, it is difficult to fathom BR thinking in those days. They seem to have had a policy of seeing something looking attractive and modern on the drawing board and saying "Ok we will have 50/100/150 of those". 

 

Reading David Clough's analysis (BR Standard Diesels Of The 1960s), it appears to me that a 'pilot scheme' approach would have discovered the big problems with crankcase and camshaft failures, had the initial order been for 10 locos or so. But BR ordered an initial 88 without any prototype. 

 

Apparently there were so many oil leaks caused by serious service vibration, that some fitters had made up 'oil catchers' from old paint cans and hung them in various positions under the bonnets in order to prevent the engine rooms becoming completely awash with oil. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by jonny777

[cheesysmith]

The biggest cause of the unreliablity in the claytons was the engine, that even paxmann knew wasn`t up to the job. It had been originally designed with a aluminium crankcase, and after extended used this deteriorated causing the problems BR had. Pxmann wanted to change it to a cast iron version which would have solved the problrems, but BR would only allow delivery of the ali versions as thaat was the version that had passed tye aproval.

[The Johnster]

Much of the rapidity and overconfidence (as it turned out in hindsight) of the large orders for Modernisation Plan diesels was down to the twin factors of wanting to support a British loco manufacturing industry that was in A Bad Way, with government approval, and the desire to eliminate steam as quickly as possible and probably a lot more quickly than was wise.  Political or marketing decisions that should not have been allowed to have as much credence as they did, but the buzzword was Modernisation, Harold Wilson's White Heat Of Technology, and it was vital to eradicate the old and introduce the new as quickly as possible to attract Treasury investment.

 

It looks visibly stupid now, and some of us though so at the time, but the tide was against us especially after the Beeching report.  The railway was bleeding money, and making ever greater losses, and the watchword was modernise, adapt, or die.  The public image, encouraged by the jackals of the media, was of inefficiency and backward thinking, and the way to show that you were not inefficient or backward thinking was to make it look new with new locos and stock and close as much of it down as you could to save money.

 

We all know the money should have been spent on line or infrastructure improvements and electrification like the European nations were doing, but there was never the political will or the feeling that there was sufficient money (though I believe there was) in the UK for it.  BR lost £91 million in the year the HST was introduced; the turnaround was instant and massive, on the back of the failure of the motorway system that attracted the big money a decade before's failure to cope with increased traffic levels, themselves at least partly down to the closure of freight facilities on the railway.

 

Before we judge those who made mistakes in procuring reliable and effective locomotives, it is as well to at least acknowledge the zeitgeist of the day and the pressures they were under.  And they made some very good procurements; the Class 20s, 33s, 37s, and 47s have undeniably stood the test of time and proved very good value for money, so should be set against the Metrovicks, Claytons, Baby Deltics and so on that didn't make the cut.

[doctor quinn]

One of our club members utilised a chassis from one of these to power an Airfix Park Royal rail bus very effectively

[davknigh]

If you want a similar engine that is reliable, 1200 HP, steam generator, you might want to consider one of these http://www.cnrphotos.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=8001 They even come in green!

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Allegheny1600]

I'm afraid it's based on a foreign (German) design and is actually HO, and yes it should have bogies.

 

http://www.limabritishho.co.uk/LBHO-Locomotives.htm

 

 

 

Jason

I'd say that it is one of Limas worst locos (which is going some!), perhaps only eclipsed by the other 4 wheel shunter.

Here is what it was based upon: https://www.v100.de/index.php?nav=1000001&lang=de&file=krupp_4351_02&action=image

These were highly successful machines built from 1958-1965 with mods and in service until about 2001/2010 on DB, many are still in use today with private companies.

Thankfully most of the European majors have made far, far better versions.

 

Remarkably, these locos have operated on British shores but ISTR in very much rebuilt form! Our loading gauge was much too small for the originals and the rebuilds looked completely different.

Cheers,

John.

[S&DWatty]

Yes, Im doing the same.  Good idea.  My chassis was from another Lima generic shunter model branded as South African Railways I think.  Sits well under the Park Royal body to be fair- I just need to chip the chassis and finish it off.

 

dave

[wilwahabri]

Thanks for all the information. I have a penchant for the ugly duckling being somewhat of an individualist and actually liking the underdog. I have both versions of the Lima class 17 with twin axles and 4 axles. I also have Park royal railbusses, class 121 railbusses, Spam cans and Deltics. Somewhat eclectic in my selection. It has been very informative and interesting reading your comments

[doctor quinn]

The

I'd say that it is one of Limas worst locos (which is going some!), perhaps only eclipsed by the other 4 wheel shunter.

The other 4w shunter is based on an American Plymouth and the proportions are about right but it's much too big - roughly S scale if I recall Chris Ellis's comments in an old Model Trains

Nick

[Hroth]

I converted the Lima N gauge version into a "Clayton" by painting it green (it was blue, I think) and removing handrails fore and aft.  Its in the attic somewhere, I've not run it for decades!

 

Mechanically speaking the N gauge version was an 2-4-2 with pony trucks at each end to give it the appearance of a BO-BO.  Very odd....