Brush Type 1&2

[kandc_au]

Hi,
I have only basically followed GWR for the last 15yrs. That was the start of my journey into British Railways as such.
I have started to take a small interest in the early diesel loco's and am trying to understand terminology amongst other things.
What is the difference between Brush type 1&2 locomotives please?

 

Khris

[Fat Controller]

There aren't  any Brush Type 1s?

Diesels were grouped by horsepower initially:-

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_TOPS_Locomotive_classes   should be of use.

Later, as locos were adapted for particular work, sub-classes would sometimes be created. These would be indicated by an oblique slash, and a single figure.

[BernardTPM]

Under the 1955 Modernisation Plan the planned power classes were:

Type A - 800 to 1,00hp - for freight

Type B - 1,000 to 1,250hp - for mixed traffic

Type C - 2,000hp upwards - for heavy duties

 

but these were amended around the time the Pilot Scheme locos started to appear to:

Type 1 - up to 1,000hp

Type 2 - 1,000 to 1,499hp

Type 3 - 1,500 to 1,999hp

Type 4 - 2,000 to 2,999hp

Type 5 - 3,000hp up

 

Shunters were not included in either of these power classification systems because of their low speed.

[keefer]

Brush type 2 was the 1250hp mirlees engined AIA-AIA (nominally class 30) and the later 1470hp EE engined locos (which became class 31)

As mentioned by BernardTPM, the 'type' was defined by engine horsepower, not by TOPS class.

e.g. class 20 were type 1, class 30/31 were type 2, class 50 was type 4 and class 60 would be type 5 (there being no type 6)

Brush type 4 would be class 47 - the class 44-46 were Sulzer type 4 (44 &45 with Crompton Parkinson electricals and class 46 with Brush eqpt)

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by keefer
To expand answer

[MidlandRed]

Pedant mode on - Brush type 2 was all 263 of what became class 30 and 31, except D5835, which was listed as type 3 owing to its uprated 1600 hp Mirrless engine. They were all re-engined with 1470 hp English Electric engines from the early/mid 60s, eventually mostly as class 31 as the Mirrless engines began to cause problems. D5500-5519 remained class 30 owing to non-standard features but mostly their coupling control system (red circle) with the exception perhaps of D5518 which was rebuilt following a collision, with both cabs replaced with the headcode type also (reported in Railway Magazine in Doncaster carrying replaced cabs on which other numbers were visible).

 

Extreme extreme pedant warning - the LMS/Ivatt North British 

800 hp (thus type1....) prototype 10800 was rebuilt by Brush as experimental AC loco, Hawk. The attached thread has some info and pics. So just about a Brush Type 1 although possibly never used in service as such.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/83327-hawk-the-forgotten-prototype/

Edited November 22, 2019 by MidlandRed

[keefer]

D5500-19 became class 31/0 (red circle MU eqpt), the rest inc. rebuilt D5518 became class 31/1 (blue star eqpt)

[BernardTPM]

BR had an excess of Type 2 designs which is why the highest rated of them ended up with 31 under TOPS but weren't Type 3s. By comparison there were only three Type 3s so they were able to space them out, leaving the even numbers between and still had room to spare.

Ironically the LMS twins, at 1,600hp, were Type 3s but were withdrawn too early to receive TOPS classification.

Edited November 22, 2019 by BernardTPM

[Flood]

More pedant mode - Class numbers were used from 1969 on data panels but TOPS did not come on line until 1973. TOPS originally could only take 4 digit numbers and had to be altered to take 5 digits. Strictly speaking Class numbering should not be called TOPS numbering - Pedant mode off. Thanks to The Stationmaster on another thread for previously correcting me!

Edited November 22, 2019 by Flood

[keefer]

Just remembered a previous thread where I posted a proposed TOPS list of classes in the May 1969 RO - this list also includes the 'old' designations we are discussing here and the loco numbers involved

 

[Classsix T]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Brush didn’t have any Type 1 or Type 2.

 

They “types” aligned to class numbers...

2x 000 were Type 2’s (with exception of class 20 which is arguably a Type 1).

3x 000 were Type 3’s 

etc.

 

Brush Type 3 became class 31

Brush Type 4 became class 44,45,46,47

Brush Type 5 is arguably Falcon, Kestrel

Brush Type 6 (If there is one) would be class 60.

 

 

 

What on earth are you on about? 

 

C6T. 

[Classsix T]

9 hours ago, kandc_au said:

Hi,
I have only basically followed GWR for the last 15yrs. That was the start of my journey into British Railways as such.
I have started to take a small interest in the early diesel loco's and am trying to understand terminology amongst other things.
What is the difference between Brush type 1&2 locomotives please?

 

Khris

Have you muddled the power classification of "types" and included Brush purely as a random locomotive manufacturer Khris? 

 

This thread is turning into a mess of well intentioned fact delivery but not pausing to deliberate where you're coming from. 

 

So, taking BernardTPM's posted list of classification, there were Type 1 locomotives made by English Electric, Clayton, NBL etc but Brush didn't tender a design.

 

Brush did tender a design in the Type 2 category (and also cranked an engine in one up to 1600 and then 2000hp, but that's another story) and would go on to win the tender for a Type 4 (Cl.47) and two Type 5 designs (Cl.56 & Cl.60).

 

Hth. C6T. 

[Titan]

4 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Brush didn’t have any Type 1 or Type 2.

 

They “types” aligned to class numbers...

2x 000 were Type 2’s (with exception of class 20 which is arguably a Type 1).

3x 000 were Type 3’s 

etc.

 

Brush Type 3 became class 31

Brush Type 4 became class 44,45,46,47

Brush Type 5 is arguably Falcon, Kestrel

Brush Type 6 (If there is one) would be class 60.

 

 

 

 

Is this some kind of record? All of the above lines contain factual errors, apart from "etc.", and the line beginning with "They"...

[Davexoc]

5 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Brush Type 4 became class 44,45,46,47

 

Of the Peaks, Class 44 and 45 were fitted with Crompton Parkinson equipment. Only Class 46 was fitted with Brush gear....

The common feature was the primemover, all being Sulzer.

[adb968008]

Oops apologies All,  the perils of writing whilst travelling and not being around a few hours to correct it,

 

Keefer and Davexoc are correct, so I removed my post.

 

classixT  all you can do is insult but no attempt to add value... I see that in the computer game thread too, sorry mate, but ..low value.

Edited November 22, 2019 by adb968008

[SRman]

Classes 30 and 31 were all type 2 with the exceptions mentioned earlier, so please ignore ClassixT's adb968008's earlier list. The 'types' were a power range classification system, not a 'mark' or variation of builds.

As already mentioned, a small batch of class 30 were fitted with uprated Mirrlees engines of 1600 hp (or thereabouts) becoming power classification type 3, and one only was uprated further to 2000 hp, becoming a Brush type 4, not to be confused with what became class 47, also a Brush type 4.  

 

Edited to correct the reference to an earlier post, with apologies to ClassixT.

Edited November 23, 2019 by SRman
Correcting name reference

[kandc_au]

WOW!
I thought it was a simple basic question!
Give me time to digest all this please.

Khris

[Classsix T]

9 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Oops apologies All,  the perils of writing whilst travelling and not being around a few hours to correct it,

 

Keefer and Davexoc are correct, so I removed my post.

 

classixT  all you can do is insult but no attempt to add value... I see that in the computer game thread too, sorry mate, but ..low value.

Again with the accusations, exactly where is the insult? As opposed to asking a question or clarification on what you have admitted is an erroneous post? 

And to then add a barbed addition of criticism at the end...hypocrite. 

C6T. 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Classsix T

[Oldddudders]

What a jolly thread! Lots of anorak clod-hurling. The poor OP has every right to indigestion trying to assimilate lots of conflicting 'facts'! And no-one has mentioned D5545, the first loco to be uprated to 1600 hp, and which I enjoyed (?) walking through with the driver in 1961 at Liverpool St. Prime movers are quite loud even at idle, I concluded at the time.

 

As for TOPS numbering, well few US railroads needed loco numbers beyond 9999, and Southern Pacific, which developed TOPS and sold it to BR, certainly didn't. OTOH 6-digit car (wagon) numbers are the norm in the US, so certain aspects of TOPS could handle more than 4 digits. And it is a pity that TOPS numbering has duplicated steam loco numbers, so a recent thread about Hornby 60015, which I assumed was an ex-LNER A4, turns out to be about a diesel made by, er, Brush. Yes, I did know a little about Class 60, as a colleague was the Project Director for their construction. But, hey, he has a nameplate from a GWR Grange class loco above his fireplace - it is in the family name. 

[Rugd1022]

20 hours ago, Flood said:

More pedant mode - Class numbers were used from 1969 on data panels but TOPS did not come on line until 1973. TOPS originally could only take 4 digit numbers and had to be altered to take 5 digits. Strictly speaking Class numbering should not be called TOPS numbering - Pedant mode off. Thanks to The Stationmaster on another thread for previously correcting me!

 

Slightly more pedant mode - the data panels first appeared in the Summer of '68, D1063 'Western Monitor' was photographed as such in Swindon Works around this time with newly applied blue livery, data panels and shed stickers .

 

 

[Covkid]

4 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Snip

 

As for TOPS numbering, well few US railroads needed loco numbers beyond 9999, and Southern Pacific, which developed TOPS and sold it to BR, certainly didn't. OTOH 6-digit car (wagon) numbers are the norm in the US, so certain aspects of TOPS could handle more than 4 digits. And it is a pity that TOPS numbering has duplicated steam loco numbers, so a recent thread about Hornby 60015, which I assumed was an ex-LNER A4, turns out to be about a diesel made by, er, Brush. Yes, I did know a little about Class 60, as a colleague was the Project Director for their construction. But, hey, he has a nameplate from a GWR Grange class loco above his fireplace - it is in the family name. 

To be fair though Ian the Americans generally didn't "waste" digits denoting class numbers. So if you saw CSXT 5555 , unless you knew hat it was you wouldn't know it was a GE B30-7 

[MidlandRed]

To try and get all of this accurate, when was the loco classification system first applied? It must have been pre 68 as failures which we all now love, like the Co Bos and unmodified NBL D61xx got their classifications (28 and 21) before complete withdrawal in 1968 (started in 1967 although in the latter case some hadn't worked since 1962/3). 

 

The point of this is that the EE 1470 hp re-engining programme, starting with D5677, started before this and the whole class except D5500-5517/9 was given class 31, despite some 'class 31' still being in the forward programme for engine replacement. The others were class 30 owing to the electro-magnetic (red circle) control system as we've heard. Sub classes like 31/1 and 31/4 came quite a bit later. 

 

The final question relates to the Mirrless engines uprating. I was aware of D5835 (temporarily unrated to 1600 and I think 2000 for a short period) but it's been suggested there were others. Is there a definitive list and dates for the up rating? I find this concept quite fascinating given the whole class was eventually re-engined owing to issues with the originals. Or did the issues come to light later? 

 

Ps what an entertaining thread!

[Flood]

7 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

To try and get all of this accurate, when was the loco classification system first applied? It must have been pre 68 as failures which we all now love, like the Co Bos and unmodified NBL D61xx got their classifications (28 and 21) before complete withdrawal in 1968 (started in 1967 although in the latter case some hadn't worked since 1962/3).

A very good question. I may have details in a Modern Railways around that date so if I get chance I'll have a look.

 

Who needs rivet counters when you can spend your time looking for data panels instead? I must admit that I do note which style of data panel locos had between 1975 and 1979. The later style with the defined box at the top seems to have been used from late 1975.

 

All good fun.

[rogerzilla]

I always thought it was lucky that EE, Brush, NB etc didn't submit several designs in each power class, otherwise "English Electric Type 3" wouldn't have been a unique description any more.

 

With hindsight, one of the problems with the Modernisation Plan is that too many builders were given a slice of the pie, and many of them produced total dogs, like the Metropolitan-Vickers Co-Bo and the North British locos.  English Electric were more successful than some, which is why BR ended up buying so many EE Type 1s - they were the first BR diesels, they weren't that good (single cab and really basic technology), but at least they worked most of the time.

[SRman]

8 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

I always thought it was lucky that EE, Brush, NB etc didn't submit several designs in each power class, otherwise "English Electric Type 3" wouldn't have been a unique description any more.

 

With hindsight, one of the problems with the Modernisation Plan is that too many builders were given a slice of the pie, and many of them produced total dogs, like the Metropolitan-Vickers Co-Bo and the North British locos.  English Electric were more successful than some, which is why BR ended up buying so many EE Type 1s - they were the first BR diesels, they weren't that good (single cab and really basic technology), but at least they worked most of the time.

Besides the obvious 'dogs' you mentioned, a real source of unreliability in most of the early designs was the steam heating boilers. Class 20s didn't have one, and combined with their basic technology and rugged build, they became one of the most reliable classes. 

Of course, 'dogs' like what became classes 15 and 16 didn't have steam heating either, so had no excuses - their unreliability was more down to the choice of engine, although the Eastern Region maintenance staff are reputed to have improved the procedures which, in turn, improved the reliability of the class 15s to an acceptable level in their later years. It wasn't enough to save them though.

Going back to the Brush type 2 class 30 locomotives, steam heating was a source of unreliability, and then the Mirrlees engines started developing cracks in their crankcases (with the uprated machines showing these first, and the original lower powered machines continuing fairly trouble free). Mirrlees did work out fixes for these problems but their timescale was too slow for BR, so the decision was made to re-engine all of them with the 12 cylinder English Electric power plants (very similar to those already in the class 37s), tuned to match the existing electrical systems. Thus the Brush type 2 became more homogeneous again, with all locos in the class conforming to the type 2 power classification, although there remained the first small batch with the red circle electro-magnetic control system (with D5518 being rebuilt to blue star standards, as mentioned by keefer earlier).

[The Johnster]

EE were beyond doubt the most successful supplier in terms of reliability, the 20s, 37s, and 40s being more or less bombproof.  They let themselves down with the Baby Deltics, though, and the proper Deltics were prima donnas, and would not have been tolerated without their teams of support technicians provided by EE at Doncaster.  The DP2 based 50s were regarded as unreliable for some time when they were transferred to the WR.  

 

Sulzer prime movers seem to have been well regarded as well, irrespective of the locos they were installed in.  There were few prime movers that were really dreadful, and reliability problems in some of the 1955 Plan locos were more to do with ancilliary equipment of various sorts.  

 

Metrovick did especially badly, and on the high profile Condor, the train that was suppose to take on the long distance door to door road transport competition, to boot.  Metrovick built locos for CIE, the Republic of Ireland's railway, as well and they did no better over there.  

 

Another dog, and one of the later introductions, was the hydraulic transmission D95xx, class 14 had it survived in BR service to carry TOPs numbers.  It had a very unpopular combination of an unreliable prime mover and transmission with feeble brakes, and was called the wonder loco; you wondered if it would go, and then if you got it going you wondered if it would stop...  Despite this, it's industrial owners after BR had had enough with it thought very well of it, perhaps because an industrial is never too far from the fitters and wagon brakes can be pinned down at low speeds.