Christleton Junction - 1986 - Gateway to North Wales

[cheesysmith]

The 47 differences, if you really want to know about duffs, you need the book 50 year history. It covers everything about them from official documents, and is a very good read. As to the differences between the brush built and crewe built, it was the rain strip above the windows (continuous Vs two piece) and tail lights (side hinged Vs top hinged).  The tanks were the same at building, even the 47/3 without any CWA (carriage warming apparatus, the steam generator or boiler it was know as) came with the water tank between the bogies. Then there was the difference between the different roofs because of the fitting of the different CWA, until the universal compartment was introduced to take any of the CWA in use(the idea being each region used their own CWA, and it could be changed when transferred). When the first ETH rebuilds were done, they kept the CWA so were dual heat, but later they became ETH only, removing the water tanks and leaving only the battery boxes. Even later, during sectorisation, some had tank inserted onto the underframe where the tanks used to be for extra fuel, increasing the range of the locos.

 

Just a brief run down of the duffs, not including the difference between plated head code boxes and the marker light ends, or the chance of swapping cabs during repairs, or the later flush cabs or the cutaway buffer beams. Or the difference between the first 20 generators and all the later built ones.

 

The detail differences for the STANDARD (LOL) type 4 was large.

[Mol_PMB]

The early 31/4s had a very high ETH rating as they were used for pre-heating ECML express rakes, and it was so arranged that the power for ETH was unavailable for traction. They lost about 30% of their traction power, even if they weren’t actually delivering ETH. They were therefore very slow (PEDestrian). 

I think this may have been changed for later 31/4 conversions but they were sluggish locos at the best of times. 

[5BarVT]

6 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

they were sluggish locos at the best of times. 

Not always!

Padd to Reading was 34 mins pre HST for a type 4. There was an occasional diagram that I think had 2x Brush 2 (non ETH).  One evening (probably early 76) a single Brush 2 was allocated.  It made Reading in 34 mins.

Admittedly it then ‘sat down’ blocking the Down Main platform, but it did make Reading in a type 4 timing!

Paul.

[cheesysmith]

The 31 were a early diesel design. They suffered from the way their power curve and weak fields were set out, resulting in a very low power at rail in final weak field (or to non technical, top gear). And they were heavy for their power output, which used up more of the limited power at rail, but were designed with VERY robust electrical equipment (as proved by the early uprating of the engine, from 1250hp to 2000hp, with no changed in the electrical side, just the cooling system was uprated). IIRC the power at rail in "top gear" was as low as 750hp, it may have been even lower for the ETH versions.

 

They were best thought of as the diesel version of the LMS 4f or the compounds, general freight low speed or light weight passenger locos.

[Mol_PMB]

One of the mental scars from my childhood was a ‘Golden Rail’ trip to Paignton in the late 80s. Arriving at Paddington we were herded away from the booked HST onto a long rake of Mk1s headed by two 31s. It was a blistering hot day and we arrived in Devon about 3 hours late and completely exhausted. I have hated those overweight ugly underpowered pieces of #### ever since!

[61656]

A very brief visit to the railway room tonight to run a couple of trains and see which pictures I can recreate. 
 

47612 (received mainline intercity livery sometime in 86, this version with below buffer ETH jumper) has just taken over a West Midlands to Holyhead service formed of pressure ventilated mk2 stock. The buffet car indicates it’s a timetabled train. 
 

Bescot’s no-heat 31144 has just taken over a summer relief service from the north east heading for Llandudno. The booked type 4 remains on shed surrounded by spanners and expletives. 
 

 

A class 108 has just terminated in platform 1, which often happens when the terminal platforms are dealing with relief services. The driver is grumbling about having to perform the ‘Christleton shuffle’ over to the carriage sidings at White Lane. It’s a proper railwayman’s grumble that doesn’t mention an hour’s overtime that will just take him to opening time at the Brewery tap. 

[61656]

47 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

One of the mental scars from my childhood was a ‘Golden Rail’ trip to Paignton in the late 80s. Arriving at Paddington we were herded away from the booked HST onto a long rake of Mk1s headed by two 31s. It was a blistering hot day and we arrived in Devon about 3 hours late and completely exhausted. I have hated those overweight ugly underpowered pieces of #### ever since!

Imagining moaning about the service we would all have chosen if offered the choice!

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, cheesysmith said:

(as proved by the early uprating of the engine, from 1250hp to 2000hp, with no changed in the electrical side, just the cooling system was uprated)

1370hp I thought? The cooler group was underrated for the new engine power so they would frequently overheat in one direction (No 2 end leading IIRC).

[cheesysmith]

The first prototype toffie apple machines were only 1250, the production machines were 1350, and a few were uprated to 1600 using intercooling , with a pressurised cooling system (which for some reason BR tried to avoid , but then the bog carts had pressurised cooling and how much trouble did they have with them) and one was 2000hp, with a extra air intake filter on one side.

 

The V12 EE block used when re-engined was capable of 2000hp, the de-rating used in the 31 accounts for why they lasted so long.

 

Interesting fact. In the class 47 50 year history book it shows the tenders submitted by brush for the 47 the cheapest and lightest option was using a EE V16 as used in the 50s. The reasons they ended up with the sulzer engines were speed up construction (the first 20 using the bits already ordered for the 46s) and the chief engineer of the ER wanted the sulzer 12 cylinder engine (BRs costs had shown overhaul costs were linked to how many cylinders a engine had, so 12 was cheaper to overhaul than 16).

[cheesysmith]

Interesting thought. How much different would BR have been if they had done more manufacturer upgrades? A extra 56 class 47s using bits from the 46s, just like the first 20 generators? Or the 40s rebuilt in class 47 bodies (like the tender of the 47 shows) which could have 2400 bhp with intercooling of the original engine or the full 2700 of the 50s with the newer cylinder head. The block was the same for both, as one of the 50s did end up with a 40 block. If they had re-bodied the 40s and intercooled them, you would have had a loco with the same pulling power as a 40 even with ETH but in a body of approx 114 tons. And it is not as if BR did not have experience of the EE engine at the intercooled setting as the 600hp thumpers were using it from 4 cylinders.

[61656]

31 minutes ago, cheesysmith said:

Interesting thought. How much different would BR have been if they had done more manufacturer upgrades? A extra 56 class 47s using bits from the 46s, just like the first 20 generators? Or the 40s rebuilt in class 47 bodies (like the tender of the 47 shows) which could have 2400 bhp with intercooling of the original engine or the full 2700 of the 50s with the newer cylinder head. The block was the same for both, as one of the 50s did end up with a 40 block. If they had re-bodied the 40s and intercooled them, you would have had a loco with the same pulling power as a 40 even with ETH but in a body of approx 114 tons. And it is not as if BR did not have experience of the EE engine at the intercooled setting as the 600hp thumpers were using it from 4 cylinders.

BR’s loco policy never seems to have been properly thought through from the modernisation plan onwards. It was though a lot more joined up than today’s railway where even units of the same class aren’t necessarily compatible with each other. 
 

1986 is the halcyon days for me, a lot of the inconsistent or unreliable classes had been weeded out and most of the traction was still in good health. Loco hauled was still king and freight was still available by the wagon load. 

[47449xeCD]

23 hours ago, cheesysmith said:

I agree, all 31 are peds, if they have more than 4 coaches behind the hook.

 

The high/low 47s, will have to check, but wasn`t it because of the mounting of the 3 piece snow plows for the scottish region? It was mainly the later ETH conversions that had them fitted to the side of the buffer beam instead of the cab front.

47401-420 and 586-665 were low, but with slight differences between the two. Then a number of Scottish formerly-high had them moved low for the reason you mentioned, mostly with the telltale high mounting bracket left intact. Oh, and one end of 430 had a unique low arrangement after a prang. 
 

class47.co.uk is your (and everyone else’s) friend. 

 

 

[61656]

Not a lot has happened over the last week, mainly due to full sized train distractions, but come what may the weekly brewery train needs to run. A couple of 25s look on as the vans are shunted about. 
 

[61656]

It is time for the confessions of a class 87...

 

I’m a firm believer that you can do anything if you set your mind to it. You may have to learn new skills and you may have to accept some failures along the way, but nothing is out of your reach. Sound fitting a Hornby 87 came very close to shattering the theory!

 

I couldn’t decide which electric to fit first, the 85 or 87, so I waited until I could afford both and bought them at the same time. I know you can’t hear the quality properly, but I do like a good listen on Youtube before committing so much money on a sound unit. The only 85 I could find online was Legomanbiffo, so that was the choice for both. 
 

When they arrived, I fitted the 85 first. Undid 4 screws, unplugged the old chip, plugged the new one in, slotted the speaker into the space designed by Bachmann to take it, and off it went. 
 

The 87 is easier to take apart, being just a simple clip on body. After that it becomes the most troublesome of locomotives to fit. It’s clear not much thought has gone into sound fitting it. Or alternatively, the Hornby designer knows that a model railway enthusiast is having an affair with his wife, and as he doesn’t know who, he’s decided to seek revenge on all of us. 
 

Eventually I figured out a way to fit two sugar cubes between the bogies and with sufficient persuasion (more orientation than force) the chip will fit in the designed slot. 
 

Now for some recommendations. Always fit a sound chip when you have plenty of time available, at least 3 hours. You’ll need nothing like that long but it will remove the pressure. Have a cup of tea (there’s something in tea which gives you a steady hand*). Arrange a nice clear, well lit, white workspace. Have a handy box on hand to store the screws in. If you need to do any soldering, this isn’t the place to learn how to solder, but it’s certainly within the scope of the average modeller. 
 

I always test my sound units before fitting in their final configuration. Take care that there’s no chance of a short circuit as you could blow the chip. The 87 unit worked first time and sounded amazing. I spent some time fitting it all properly, nothing too complex, but you do have to strip the circuit board and remove the motor to do it. On the track it went and... no sound. The loco worked fine, but zilch from the speaker. 
 

Here we get to meet local hero, Charlie at DCKits, who supplies the LMB sounds. Send it back and we’ll have a look, he said. A week later a new (or fixed) chip appears. I repeat the above process, and this time... sound. It’s amazing, well maybe a bit fuzzy, in fact that doesn’t sound right at all. Why’s it stopped? This time, a complete failure of the chip, it won’t even respond on the programming track. 
 

Second call to Charlie, send it back we’ll have a look. And then.... nothing. Somewhere it’s gone missing in the post. Fortunately, somehow, Charlie sorted it and the third attempt can begin. 
 

Failure 1 was almost certainly a short circuit across the speaker. I have no idea how, but that’s the likely cause. 
 

Failure 2 was probably one of the 4 trailing wires from the chip touching something in the loco. 
 

The lesson here is to fit the chip when you get it, whilst it’s still in warranty and you have all the order deals to hand. Dealing with a good firm is definitely worth it, and Charlie comes highly recommended. 
 

All locos are fit-able with DCC sound, but the Hornby 87 is the most challenging I’ve done so far. If you have a choice, start with a Bachmann!

 

A video of the superb sounding 87 will follow in due course. It is unbelievably evocative of the West Coast. 
 

And then, we can dissect my real problem loco, the Hornby** 08. 
 

Happy modelling!

*I have no evidence for this but it seems to be true. 
 

**inevitably. 

[ISW]

13 hours ago, 61656 said:

Always fit a sound chip when you have plenty of time available, at least 3 hours. You’ll need nothing like that long but it will remove the pressure.

13 hours ago, 61656 said:

Failure 2 was probably one of the 4 trailing wires from the chip touching something in the loco. 

It's always a good idea to use heat shrink sleeving on all exposed wires. Yes, they are a pain to install, especially on small wires, and even more of a pain when you need remove them to do any re-wiring but, on balance, are still the way to go.

 

Ian

 

 

 

[61656]

1 hour ago, ISW said:

It's always a good idea to use heat shrink sleeving on all exposed wires. Yes, they are a pain to install, especially on small wires, and even more of a pain when you need remove them to do any re-wiring but, on balance, are still the way to go.

 

Ian

 

 

 

Thanks. I’d decided on just that approach. Previously I’ve relied on securing the loose ends out of harms way, but some loco and chassis  combinations are so tight I think the wires may have moved. 

[61656]

Progress of the intricate and fiddly kind. My current project is to recreate a concrete monstrosity of the type common to many large BR stations, built in the late 60’s to house the numerous office staff required to run a railway. 
 

This tower will be two sided, in an effort to disguise the return angle of the wall going into the alcove. I’m hoping to be able to have it slightly skew to the railway rather than at a right angle. 
 

So far I’ve managed to construct the first part of one side and so I’ve placed it in position to see how it looks. There is the non-shiny side of kitchen foil as backing behind the windows, to try to recreate the anti glare reflective film common on most office blocks. The building itself is fairly straightforward, there’s just a lot of it!

 

I’ve only got the too row of window verticals complete so far - getting them all to line up looks like fun! The lower part will be covered by the station brickwork. 

 

 

[mallaig1983]

Looking good so far 

[61656]

Well with the imminent prospect of getting some visitors, I decided to focus some time on sorting some operational issues. First job on the list is to improve the Crewe fiddle yard, which meant clearing everything out of the sidings and into the station. 
 

I don’t often (ever) have the station full, but I do quite like it!

 

 

[61656]

Right then, lets get into the nub of the problem. Long time readers will recall that I built a curved double slip (I have no idea how) to access the Crewe fiddle yard. There are a couple of problems with this, firstly the only points I had available to lead off the slip and into a fan of sidings were the very large radius Peco curved points in code 100. This has lead to a kink between the slip and each point, and the change in rail code makes it an even less smooth transition. I have finally managed to get some code 75, 600mm radius points which should allow me to resolve both elements of that problem. 
 

The second issue is that the slip runs really well, but only in the correct direction of travel. I didn’t think this would be a problem, but every now and again I want to do a wrong direction move and end up with coaches everywhere. 
 

So, kettle on, sleeves up and into the action. Here’s a couple of before shots, confidently taken in the expectation of having something improved to look at later!

 

 

[ISW]

14 minutes ago, 61656 said:

So, kettle on, sleeves up and into the action.

I'm guessing that the 'after' layout will have the curved slip replaced by a pair of toe-to-toe curved medium turnouts. You'll lose a bit of stabling length, but it'll be a much better turnout fan.

 

Ian

[61656]

25 minutes ago, ISW said:

I'm guessing that the 'after' layout will have the curved slip replaced by a pair of toe-to-toe curved medium turnouts. You'll lose a bit of stabling length, but it'll be a much better turnout fan.

 

Ian

Not at all. The curved slip allows me to stable loco plus 6, and I don’t want to go lower than that. The double junction and slip are 600mm radius, the issue is that the peco curved points are just too long and wide radius. Oddly 600mm straight turnouts allow a tighter curve without going below 600. 
 

I originally tried the set track curved points toe to toe, but they are far too tight and won’t allow 3-link stock around them. There’s nothing commercially available that fits the bill, unless I move a doorway....

[ISW]

10 minutes ago, 61656 said:

Oddly 600mm straight turnouts allow a tighter curve without going below 600. 

Indeed yes. I only have a single curved turnout on my layout, but they are longer & flatter than plain straight turnouts.

 

11 minutes ago, 61656 said:

I originally tried the set track curved points toe to toe, but they are far too tight and won’t allow 3-link stock around them.

SetTrack turnouts are a tad too tight for a layout. I only allowed them in my MPD and the Brewery Lines where they will only see slow speeds and/or short wheelbase wagons.

 

It'll be nice to see your 'revised' layout ...

 

Ian

[61656]

And just like that, the fiddle yard was sorted. The new points, moving the code 75 to 100 transitions and a very minor bit of work on the slip (a high soldered joint and a slight track twist) have made a remarkable difference, although not that great visually!

 

 

 

Next up is the Holyhead yard, which needs some head-scratching first. The Holyhead yard is busier than the other two, theoretically longer but on a curve. 

[61656]

More of the same at the other end this evening. The issue at the Holyhead end wasn’t so much curvature as capacity. I had 4 roads, only two of which could hold loco plus 6. 
 

 

Using the same medium radius straight points to replace the large curved ones, I now have 6 storage roads, 4 of which can take loco plus 6. This should be ample for my intended service. 
 

 

To the right of the last photo are the Warrington lines, which end up parallel to the Crewe yard. For the moment there’s a temporary crossover which will be moved further round to the straight section, allowing almost the full 180 degrees of the curve to be scenic. 
 

The Warrington yard is currently 2 through roads to allow continuous running plus just two turnback sidings. I plan to add two more through loops and 1 more turnback. The Warrington yard is by far the least used at the moment, but needs to expand for oil, steel, coal and ballast workings. 
 

I think that makes 15 out of a planned 18 fiddle yard roads. I’m hoping to feel like I have plenty of spare storage at the next running session, such that the timetable doesn’t have to be constrained by yard capacity. 
 

If anyone wants some Peco streamline curved points in code 100, I now have about 10 spare!