Class 50 why fifty.

[D854_Tiger]

Originally built for the WCML services north of Crewe on the remaining non-electrified section to Glasgow.

 

However, fifty locomotives, even when operated double headed later on, does seem a rather large number of locomotives for such few services.

 

From memory, Euston - Glasgow trains were only every two hours, add to that four trains to Glasgow from Birmingham, three from Manchester/Liverpool and that doesn't seem anything like enough to keep the whole class of fifty busy.

 

I know they also turned up on the odd service to Blackpool and Barow but considering they were replaced by just 35 class 87s and that for the whole route from Euston to Glasgow it does suggest fifty locomotives were too many or they were hopelessly unreliable by design.

 

Then, even with that many locomotives, I don't believe they turned up much on the North Wales services, if at all, and hardly ever on freight either.

[woodenhead]

Not to mention that 22 Deltics built several years earlier covered the whole ECML including Leeds on a much more intensive schedule.

[griffgriff]

They were used on freight. Their purpose was to accelerate services to electric timings. So all sevices over the top needed some extra power... so van trains, freighliners etc often had a Hoover on the front.

 

... the lease contract with EE was to provide sufficient power for this... perhaps EE thought reliability might be an issue

 

Griff

[eastwestdivide]

To be fair, the Deltics didn't cover anything like all ECML trains out of KX.

 

A more comparable fleet might be the 50 "Peak" ETH conversions, which by the early 80s were covering basically all trains out of St Pancras, and relatively little else. And St Pancras had only 2 main line departures an hour in the off peak, for essentially a 160-mile stretch to Sheffield. Crewe-Glasgow is somewhat further than that.

[Edwin_m]

I know they also turned up on the odd service to Blackpool and Barow but considering they were replaced by just 35 class 87s and that for the whole route from Euston to Glasgow it does suggest fifty locomotives were too many or they were hopelessly unreliable by design.

The 35 locos were only to replace the section between Crewe and Glasgow, because those trains were already hauled by AC locos south of Crewe.  Just to be clear, they weren't dedicated to that route, all the loco classes could appear anywhere on the electrified network.  35 locos could provide around five trains per hour in each direction over a three-hour journey, which isn't hugely excessive considering some of them would be freights that took much longer than three hours and at any given time some of them would be in works or awaiting duties somewhere. 

 

The 50s would have had the added inefficiency that some would be waiting at Crewe whereas the electrics could stay with their trains for the longer journey to Euston.  A diesel also has lower availability anyway due to needing fuelling and more maintenance, but I don't think those factors would account for 35 locos replacing 50. 

[jonny777]

I think the 35 replacing 50 idea is disingenious, because it could be argued that there was a surplus of electrics south of Crewe, before northward electrification was completed; so the 81-86 classes could take over duties (previously worked by single or pairs of 50s), as well as 87s.

Edited March 18, 2017 by jonny777

[Holmesfeldian]

To be fair, the Deltics didn't cover anything like all ECML trains out of KX.

 

A more comparable fleet might be the 50 "Peak" ETH conversions, which by the early 80s were covering basically all trains out of St Pancras, and relatively little else. And St Pancras had only 2 main line departures an hour in the off peak, for essentially a 160-mile stretch to Sheffield. Crewe-Glasgow is somewhat further than that.

Rubbish - Peaks were very common on NE-SW axis trains plus trans pennine (NW-NE) services in the early 80s at the very least.

[jonny777]

Peaks may have been common on SW-NE services, but how many were 45/1s until HSTs appeared on the Midland?

[eastwestdivide]

Rubbish - Peaks were very common on NE-SW axis trains plus trans pennine (NW-NE) services in the early 80s at the very least.

Hmm, rubbish is a bit strong... I was referring to the fifty ETH 45/1s in the early 1980s. My observations at Derby in the early 80s for example, had predominantly non-ETH 45s and 46s as well as some 47s on the NE/SW services, while I think the use of 45/1s on the Trans-Pennines was somewhat later, after the 45/1s had been mostly displaced from St Pancras workings by the HSTs. 

I'll have a look at a "loco-hauled travel" book later, and see what was rostered for the 45/1s.

[On the block Allan]

The 35 locos were only to replace the section between Crewe and Glasgow, because those trains were already hauled by AC locos south of Crewe.  Just to be clear, they weren't dedicated to that route, all the loco classes could appear anywhere on the electrified network.  35 locos could provide around five trains per hour in each direction over a three-hour journey, which isn't hugely excessive considering some of them would be freights that took much longer than three hours and at any given time some of them would be in works or awaiting duties somewhere. 

 

The 50s would have had the added inefficiency that some would be waiting at Crewe whereas the electrics could stay with their trains for the longer journey to Euston.  A diesel also has lower availability anyway due to needing fuelling and more maintenance, but I don't think those factors would account for 35 locos replacing 50. 

 

Don't forget that in addition to the 35 class 87s there were several class 81 -85s which were stored in the early 70s and reinstated when Weaver Jct to Glasgow went live.

[AberdeenBill]

What was the anticipated number of 50s actually available on any given weekday (i.e.: how may would be undergoing scheduled maintenance or a works visit?).

 

Thanks,

Bill

[Dunsignalling]

Originally built for the WCML services north of Crewe on the remaining non-electrified section to Glasgow.

 

However, fifty locomotives, even when operated double headed later on, does seem a rather large number of locomotives for such few services.

 

From memory, Euston - Glasgow trains were only every two hours, add to that four trains to Glasgow from Birmingham, three from Manchester/Liverpool and that doesn't seem anything like enough to keep the whole class of fifty busy.

 

I know they also turned up on the odd service to Blackpool and Barow but considering they were replaced by just 35 class 87s and that for the whole route from Euston to Glasgow it does suggest fifty locomotives were too many or they were hopelessly unreliable by design.

 

Then, even with that many locomotives, I don't believe they turned up much on the North Wales services, if at all, and hardly ever on freight either.

Electric locos have a much higher availability than diesels of that era.

 

Besides, there were never anything like fifty fully serviceable at any given time. By the time we got them on the Waterloo-Exeter route we called them fifty-fifties and they had already supposedly been de-bugged by then. . When they were good, they were very good, but you could never predict when most of them were going to be good! 

 

Complete waste of money; BR could/should have just built some more Duffs with slightly higher gearing.

 

John

Edited March 18, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[keefer]

The 83s and 84s were stored late 60s/early 70s due to major technical issues and being generally surplus to requirements.

When it became clear that, due to financial restrictions, there would only be 35 new build electric locos, the stored locos were repaired, dual braked and put back into service.

As for the 50s, they were just a stop gap on the WCML until the full electric service started. They were looked at as power for the Edinburgh-Glasgow push-pulls, but were needed instead to introduce the accelerated timings north of Crewe.

[keefer]

Electric locos have a much higher availability than diesels of that era.

 

Besides, there were never anything like fifty fully serviceable at any given time. By the time we got them on the Waterloo-Exeter route we called them fifty-fifties.

 

Complete waste of money; BR could/should have just built some more Duffs with higher gearing.

 

John

Or even just built 50 DP2s - ie without all the extra gubbins that was unreliable/unused and would eventually be removed at refurbishment Edited March 18, 2017 by keefer

[pete_mcfarlane]

Or even just built 50 DP2s - ie without all the extra gubbins that was unreliable/unused and would eventually be removed at refurbishment

It would be interesting to know what BR thought they were getting. On paper a class 50 is essentially DP2 with some 'minor' changes to the control systems.  

[Flood]

Electric locos have a much higher availability than diesels of that era.

 

Besides, there were never anything like fifty fully serviceable at any given time. By the time we got them on the Waterloo-Exeter route we called them fifty-fifties and they had already supposedly been de-bugged by then. . When they were good, they were very good, but you could never predict when most of them were going to be good! 

 

Complete waste of money; BR could/should have just built some more Duffs with slightly higher gearing.

 

John

What a lot of people now happen to forget is that when five Class 47s were allocated to the Wat-Exe services through 1987 and 1988 they were more unreliable than the 50s were. It was the start - stop nature of the services (mainly after Salisbury) that caused so many problems for both classes of diesel. When given the, reasonably, clear run to either Bristol or Plymouth the refurbished Class 50s were a lot less susceptible to reliability problems.

 

Plus when the 50s were being ordered in 1966/67 the Brush Type 4s were suffering severe reliability problems that eventually led to them being permanently de-rated from 2750 hp to 2580hp.

[bennyboy]

Electric locos have a much higher availability than diesels of that era.

 

Besides, there were never anything like fifty fully serviceable at any given time. By the time we got them on the Waterloo-Exeter route we called them fifty-fifties and they had already supposedly been de-bugged by then. . When they were good, they were very good, but you could never predict when most of them were going to be good! 

 

Complete waste of money; BR could/should have just built some more Duffs with slightly higher gearing.

 

John

 

 

You do know why they were called Duffs?

Edited March 18, 2017 by bennyboy

[45125]

The 400s reliability was hampered from early on by having certain electronics fitted that EE said they didn't need but BR insisted on. Even when they were refurbished a big mistake was made by not fitting an alternator vice the main generator.

[Titan]

 

Complete waste of money; BR could/should have just built some more Duffs with slightly higher gearing.

 

John

 

It was not the gearing that limited top speed, Duffs were geared for a 100mph top speed but limited to 95 due to track forces - an exception was made later for the push/pull services from Edinburgh to Glasgow where they were allowed to run at 100mph. Similarly Deltics are geared for 105mph top speed (as the prototype was) but restricted to 100mph for the same reason. 

[Davexoc]

The 400s reliability was hampered from early on by having certain electronics fitted that EE said they didn't need but BR insisted on. Even when they were refurbished a big mistake was made by not fitting an alternator vice the main generator.

The other problem pre-refurbishment was the piston rings. IIRC to reduce smoke levels after idling the oil scraper rings were modified, this had the desired effect but then created a new one, siezed pistons. The engine damage ranged from fairly minor to a leg out of bed. Refitting the original rings almost cured that, but later when on the SR they insisted on no idling at Waterloo because of smoke, they then suffered flat batteries in the winter due to shunt releases etc.

 

I remember looking for a low oil pressure shut down fault once where just turning the engine over revealed a loud knocking. Removal of the crankcase cover revealed piston skirt shrapnel. Looking up into the cylinder there was a gudgeon pin trying to hammer it's way out of the liner and the piston crown siezed at TDC. Later when repair work was started, it was found that the valves had been damaged which had shoved debris into the inlet manifolds and knackered most other cylinders too.

 

As for electronics, they were pretty crude really. And the main generator, well we often saw a 'birds nest' in the bottom (when the mica and other bits and pieces end up at the bottom, usually after a flashover).

 

Dave

[Dunsignalling]

You do know why they were called Duffs?

Oh Yes. Like pretty much all British diesels (with the honourable exceptions of all the Type 3 classes and most things with sixteen wheels) they were still very much a work in progress when they entered service. By the early nineties, when we got an ever-changing dogs breakfast of anything (including freight 47/3s) that could be dredged up from anywhere with one to spare, they had definitely reverted to type. Many were the up Waterloo trains delayed because the incoming loco had finished off its brake blocks descending from Exeter Central to St. David's. 

 

When it came to the West of England line, we usually got Fifties that were not wanted anywhere else. Laira could generally be depended on to turn out four or five in fairly top nick on any given day but the rest tended to be a bit of a lottery. There was one infamous incident when a crew had to get water out of a stream to top up lost coolant and prevent the engine wrecking itself - very Thomas the Tank Engine.

 

To be fair to both classes, the problem with all our Type 4s was that they were built to cruise, not to do what was expected of them on the ex-LSWR route; with frequent stops and (often) nasty gradients to restart.

 

By comparison, the Class 159 units have been absolute gems for (frighteningly) almost a quarter of a century. First traction on the line since the Bulleid Pacifics that wasn't somebody else's cast-offs and boy does it show.............  

 

John

Edited March 19, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[jonny777]

A deafening silence fell over the poor quality performance of the 47s in the 60s/70s.

 

It had to, because after 512 had been ordered by the gung-ho management, it would have been a shock to most people to find, that after engine de-rating, they were hardly any more powerful than a Peak.

 

I do wonder if that was a contributory factor to the lack of interest in Kestrel? Did they wonder if 4000hp was a step too far for Brush at that early stage, when 2750hp had been proved problematic?

[Dunsignalling]

A deafening silence fell over the poor quality performance of the 47s in the 60s/70s.

 

It had to, because after 512 had been ordered by the gung-ho management, it would have been a shock to most people to find, that after engine de-rating, they were hardly any more powerful than a Peak.

 

I do wonder if that was a contributory factor to the lack of interest in Kestrel? Did they wonder if 4000hp was a step too far for Brush at that early stage, when 2750hp had been proved problematic?

I think the issue with Kestrel was, as you suggest, the huge gap between it and what it might replace. It was also too heavy for a lot of routes and could never exploit its great power because it had the same traction motors as a 47. Before its time? Almost certainly.

 

I don't remember there being much silence about the 47s shortcomings in the West Country! Even without de-rating, their greater weight rendered them no more effective than a 2200hp B-B Warship and their tendency to "lose" one or more traction motors when driven hard over the Devon banks was notorious.

 

John

Edited June 2, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[rogerzilla]

As a student in the late 1980s, I was often stuck in the middle of nowhere due to a failed Class 47!

 

Class 50s were notoriously flaky but none of them could ever have been out of service for extended periods, because I had them all crossed off in my Ian Allan book...except 50 031, which I eventually saw 20 years later in the museum at Swindon .  Besides, they all had cool names and they make a much better noise than 47s.

[Rugd1022]

Freight was mentioned further up the thread - the 50s certainly worked liners quite regularly south of Crewe in their early years, my very first sighting of one was 404 on a liner heading south through Rugby late one Friday night. My next sighting was 402 on Willesden TMD a week or so later.

 

I managed to drive all of them when at Old Oak in the '80s, by then the refurbishment programme was almost complete and by large they were grand machines when looked after but we did thrash them mercilessly most of the time. 50 035 was our pet engine but for some reason it was never as strong as the rest, despite engine / gen changes. By far the worst of our allocation was '039, a pile of absolute sh*te on wheels if ever there was one! Some of our elderly / portly Drivers hated them with a passion as the internal doors were very narrow and difficult to pass through.