HST power car dragging a light loco?

[125_driver]

During the 1990s I have seen plenty of footage of class 47s dragging a HST power car plus barrier vehicle between depots for maintenance purposes, but I dont recall seeing a Power car dragging a 47. 

Does anyone have a picture of this happening or is there a technical reason why it didn't happen??? (I know in later times there have been pairs of power cars rescuing stuff but im more interested in the light engine moves....)

Many thanks in advance..

[Wickham Green too]

Apart from the prototype Power Cars they wouldn't have had compatible couplings at the 'inner' end.

[125_driver]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Apart from the prototype Power Cars they wouldn't have had compatible couplings at the 'inner' end.

I believe that's what the barrier vehicle is for. Coupling compatibility definitely isn't the issue as like I said I have seen lots of footage of cl47 + mk1 barrier + power car, so just trying to work out if the power car ever did the hauling and the 47 dead on the back....

[298]

It was done a few times when taking power cars to and from Brush as part of the MTU program.

 

Here is another with the infamous Advenza Railfreight....

 

https://youtu.be/fzH-7Rs1Hco

Edited February 18, 2021 by 298

[Rivercider]

Not quite what you asked, but here are 3 HST power cars with MK3 coaches a barrier and a 47 on the rear,

 

cheers

 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32929427@N06/50344951858/in/photolist-2jGP3cm-27nXoxm-2fTfffW-2krfdUg-XhdeiL-2hKnKox-2jMQYwB-JWK94H-2enPrSC-2emZQC4-Kyxmh6-2iRZVFL-29LoUgY-bu5asj-ZaeP2Q-2jCAo6e-2iC8his-2khKRQS-2khPAPV-FNt9Hb-Z1saxj-ZybG39-2jcgdDW-2exgNPH-FPp5r1-2jaZZmE-2jKN6e1-rR79hB-GAnFPP-V5dreE-2jRjo78-2i4FzVw-2kj788Y-TsqxEy-2dMQGV5-2iEdSmG-2jcv5hc-2iKZHc3-2i3i5s4-YTPZMG-2jJSpyz-K97PvP-DiCXxG-2jRVsbq-BmCCE6-2gMSqbT-PMWfzQ-2kqv5Fi-dsPoaj-sZ4hYm

[adb968008]

Never seen powercars pulling anything other than mk3”s.

 

I did see a failed FGW HST at Swindon once, it was rescued by 2 HST power cars, blunt ends together, putting 3 powercars on the head end.

[DY444]

Back to back power cars have hauled the Night Riviera complete with failed 57 coupled inside.

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by DY444

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

He did specifically ask the 1990's! It's perfectly possible but less likely, as power car utilisation vs loco utilisation at the time probably meant all the HST power cars were busy on the ends of Mk3 rakes with passengers within, and any dead loco moves would have been done by one of the then plentiful locos. Sending HST power cars back to back to rescue another HST or even a loco-hauled train does belong in the realms of the more modern era when the loco fleet on FGW was "one for the up, one for the down, one for the Old Oak-Pad ECS and one spare". They really shouldn't pre-plan to run a passenger train like that, and GWR knows it...!

 

[The Stationmaster]

9 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

He did specifically ask the 1990's! It's perfectly possible but less likely, as power car utilisation vs loco utilisation at the time probably meant all the HST power cars were busy on the ends of Mk3 rakes with passengers within, and any dead loco moves would have been done by one of the then plentiful locos. Sending HST power cars back to back to rescue another HST or even a loco-hauled train does belong in the realms of the more modern era when the loco fleet on FGW was "one for the up, one for the down, one for the Old Oak-Pad ECS and one spare". They really shouldn't pre-plan to run a passenger train like that, and GWR knows it...!

 

And quite how else would FGW do it?  Four locos to work one pair of trains sounds like more than enough to me especially as one loco was 100% spare - very SNCF in terms of over provision but not the way more efficient operators do it or have no choice about the way they do it.  (By the way I used to plan, among other things, passenger train resourcing for another operator and my loco fleet diagrammed utilisation was actually higher than FGW's 75%.   So presumably I shouldn't have done it that way either?

[Ken.W]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Never seen powercars pulling anything other than mk3”s.

 

How about this?

Newcastle-York-Edinburgh-Heaton

(including running-round at York and Edinburgh)

 

 

 

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

And quite how else would FGW do it?  Four locos to work one pair of trains sounds like more than enough to me especially as one loco was 100% spare - very SNCF in terms of over provision but not the way more efficient operators do it or have no choice about the way they do it.  (By the way I used to plan, among other things, passenger train resourcing for another operator and my loco fleet diagrammed utilisation was actually higher than FGW's 75%.   So presumably I shouldn't have done it that way either?

The drawbar between the HST power car and the loco is an "emergency" aluminum affair that has failed in use, so starting a passenger train like that ought to be banned. If FGW's own locos are not working they really ought to hire in a loco from somewhere else (but their proximity to other ETH fitted loco users and lack of crew knowledge often precludes that).

 

75% is theoretically a lot, but if you only have four locos it means you are stuffed if two break down. 75% on 20 locos gives you four spares and would be excessive.

 

[SP Steve]

Not a 47 but I previously posted this image over in the "Prototype For Everything" thread showing buckeye coupling fitted 08.643 being hauled through Bristol Temple Meads by a HST power car:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by SP Steve

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

The drawbar between the HST power car and the loco is an "emergency" aluminum affair that has failed in use, so starting a passenger train like that ought to be banned. If FGW's own locos are not working they really ought to hire in a loco from somewhere else (but their proximity to other ETH fitted loco users and lack of crew knowledge often precludes that).

 

75% is theoretically a lot, but if you only have four locos it means you are stuffed if two break down. 75% on 20 locos gives you four spares and would be excessive.

 

I think the key words are 'emergency drawbar'.  And there was definitely no restriction at all in the 1990s on the distance over which the large straight emergency drawbar could be used. 

 

And yes - you are stuffed if two locos out ofa fleet of four fail but what else do you do - keep a number of extra ones on hire for that eventuality and increase your fares to pay for it and losre the passengers?  Easy to hire in when other locos area around, not so easy when there aren't any for very long distances.  The practicalities of doing the job can be very different from the theory.

[Zomboid]

The GW 57 thing is really an example of the problems that can caused by a really small fleet spread over a large area.

 

Perhaps a more sensible idea would have been to hire in traction from an operator with more ETH fitted locos (like Scotrail did for the sleepers) or use generator vans and freight locos. I'm sure those were considered though and the chosen solution was deemed better.

 

Or maybe (at the time at least) convert the carriages to take HST ETH. No shortage of motive power in that case, but if they were still dropping a carriage(s) at Plymouth that would have been a whole lot harder.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

The GW 57 thing is really an example of the problems that can caused by a really small fleet spread over a large area.

 

Perhaps a more sensible idea would have been to hire in traction from an operator with more ETH fitted locos (like Scotrail did for the sleepers) or use generator vans and freight locos. I'm sure those were considered though and the chosen solution was deemed better.

 

Or maybe (at the time at least) convert the carriages to take HST ETH. No shortage of motive power in that case, but if they were still dropping a carriage(s) at Plymouth that would have been a whole lot harder.

I've been an advocate of converting the sleeper to HST since the mid 2000's; it's so easy to do and would have made economic and operational sense.

[125_driver]

2 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

I've been an advocate of converting the sleeper to HST since the mid 2000's; it's so easy to do and would have made economic and operational sense.

Tend to agree,  much as I like driving 57s , a HST sleeper would make sense and be more reliable, plus far easier to crew (fewer and fewer drivers with 57 knowledge these days and Covid certainly doesn't help!)

[adb968008]

5 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

I've been an advocate of converting the sleeper to HST since the mid 2000's; it's so easy to do and would have made economic and operational sense.

Given where we are in 2021, does an Azuma Sleeper make more sense ?

Failing that new mk5’s.

[burgundy]

13 hours ago, SP Steve said:

Not a 47 but I previously posted this image over in the "Prototype For Everything" thread showing buckeye coupling fitted 08.643 being hauled through Bristol Temple Meads by a HST power car:

 

 

 

 

 

Also at Temple Meads.

I must admit that I had thought it was the 08 hauling a dead power car!

Best wishes 

Eric 

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

These gronks on the back/front of power cars around Bristol are just local moves to turn the power car- you do all know that don't you?!! It would have been driven from the power car when that was leading, or from the 08 when that was leading. Similar move may have been seen Laira-Plymouth to facilitate power car swaps over the years, Craigentinny just took their power cars out on the mainline with a shunter in the back instructing the driver over a radio.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

15 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Given where we are in 2021, does an Azuma Sleeper make more sense ?

Failing that new mk5’s.

Nobody could ever make a sound financial case for replacing any of the Mk3 sleepers given the amount of passenger journeys each one could operate in a week. It would make better economic sense to add sliding doors to the Mk3 SLE/SLEP if they really cannot manage that situation even with the number of crew they have on board. Then all you need do at Penzance every evening is pinch one of the mini HST sets and make it into an 8 car train by shunting 3 sleeper vehicles and a first class/lounge between the power car and the TS and off you go....

[Wickham Green too]

..... might need a little bit of rewiring too ............ 

[caradoc]

1 hour ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Nobody could ever make a sound financial case for replacing any of the Mk3 sleepers given the amount of passenger journeys each one could operate in a week.

 

True, of course, however the Mk3 Sleepers used on Anglo-Scottish services have indeed been replaced ! Although political considerations may well have been a factor there.....

 

[adb968008]

So in probability, within 10 years this will be curtains.

[125_driver]

3 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

These gronks on the back/front of power cars around Bristol are just local moves to turn the power car- you do all know that don't you?!! It would have been driven from the power car when that was leading, or from the 08 when that was leading. Similar move may have been seen Laira-Plymouth to facilitate power car swaps over the years, Craigentinny just took their power cars out on the mainline with a shunter in the back instructing the driver over a radio.

Yep done several moves over the years turning a power car with an 08 via plymouth Station,  the 08 often struggles a bit heading up into North Rd Station, up the bank if the power car isn't powering!!!

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

..... might need a little bit of rewiring too ............ 

Probably cheaper to start from scratch!   The amount of wiring in sleeping cars is phenomenal due in part to all the fire monitoring/alarm system requirements and a contemporary sleeping car (without the luxury of a databus etc) is likely to have about the same total distance of wiring in it as some early 1960s BR Type 4 diesel locos.  The abortive ENS sleepers - which of course had a little bit more safety system stuff plus some complex 'hotel' wiring - contained a total length of wiring longer than that in an as built D10XX/Class 52.