class 47 proposed drawings

[cheesysmith]

Just been reading Class 47, 50 year history, and does anyone know where the proposed different class  47 drawings can be obtained from? It is just the drawings of the EE engined version drawing is too small to read the numbers on the drawing.

[Peter749]

I presume you are referring to 47601/47901 which had different RK engines fitted?

 

The main difference is the roof area above the engine which has 4 exhaust ports like the Class 56 which 47601 was a test for.

Later the loco had a 12cyl engine fitted as a prototype for the Class 58

 

This might help

 

Peter

[cheesysmith]

Much as I like that, no. The drawing is the one of the proposed version with the EE v16 engine instead of the twin 12 LDA at the beginning. The outline drawing at the beginning is just too small to see the measurements used.

[Trainshed Terry]

D0260 "Lion" by BRCW/AEI  was the test bed for the 12 LDA engine, the only thing that changed was the control gear was changed to "Brush" control equipment in the production loco's.

 

Terry

[pheaton]

2 hours ago, Trainshed Terry said:

D0260 "Lion" by BRCW/AEI  was the test bed for the 12 LDA engine, the only thing that changed was the control gear was changed to "Brush" control equipment in the production loco's.

 

Terry

LION was BCRWs offering for the BR type 4 requirement, (which specified that prototypes had to be privately funded) it wasnt the test bed for the 12lda, the peaks predated lion by over a year, originally brush offered a class 47 with an 16cyl EE option which was substantially cheaper than the sulzer engine.  There was a specific reason the option wasnt taken and that reason escapes me at the moment....

 

 i seem to recall that lion was considered superior to the other type 4 offeringts (lion and DP2) but....BCRW were in a precarious financial position and there was doubt they could fulfill the order...so brush used the external styling of LION on the final type 4 design....thats all they have in common, the bodies of lion and a class 47 use completely different construction techniques.

Edited September 14, 2021 by pheaton

[cheesysmith]

On 14/09/2021 at 20:19, pheaton said:

LION was BCRWs offering for the BR type 4 requirement, (which specified that prototypes had to be privately funded) it wasnt the test bed for the 12lda, the peaks predated lion by over a year, originally brush offered a class 47 with an 16cyl EE option which was substantially cheaper than the sulzer engine.  There was a specific reason the option wasnt taken and that reason escapes me at the moment....

 

 i seem to recall that lion was considered superior to the other type 4 offeringts (lion and DP2) but....BCRW were in a precarious financial position and there was doubt they could fulfill the order...so brush used the external styling of LION on the final type 4 design....thats all they have in common, the bodies of lion and a class 47 use completely different construction techniques.

 

IIRC everything I have seen published points to two reasons for the use of the LDA engine. The first reason stated that they had no demonstration of the EE engine at that power output, which ignores the fact the thumpers were running the EE engine at the intercooled output, which would have been 2400bhp for the v16. So EE were only offering a 300 bhp increase on what BR already had experience with. The other point is Harrison who we the chief engineer of the ER which started the 47 project was more a sulzer man, and quoted the fact BR figures that the overhaul costs of a engine were directly related to the number of cylinder used, so the 12 in the LDA would be cheaper than the 16 in the EE. Both these facts ignore that the EE engine was cheaper in first costs and also 5+ tons lighter.

[Clive Mortimore]

On 12/09/2021 at 14:16, cheesysmith said:

Just been reading Class 47, 50 year history, and does anyone know where the proposed different class  47 drawings can be obtained from? It is just the drawings of the EE engined version drawing is too small to read the numbers on the drawing.

Yo Cheesy Dave

 

Are you trying to enlarge the drawing to 4mm scale? If so use the buffer height as your datum. Scale it up so the buffer height is 14mm.

[cheesysmith]

51 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Yo Cheesy Dave

 

Are you trying to enlarge the drawing to 4mm scale? If so use the buffer height as your datum. Scale it up so the buffer height is 14mm.

 

It is just trying to find a better or larger picture to work from. The outline drawing almost looks like a class 40 body with 47 cabs.

[kevinlms]

I'm sure I've seen a 'Design Panel' version layout sketch of it somewhere, but can't find it.

 

It had an unusual number, perhaps D8500 or similar. But that belongs to the Class 17 Class, so not sure.

[kevinlms]

On 15/09/2021 at 05:19, pheaton said:

 originally brush offered a class 47 with an 16cyl EE option which was substantially cheaper than the sulzer engine.  There was a specific reason the option wasnt taken and that reason escapes me at the moment....

 

 

Wasn't the reason that EE were honest and wouldn't commit to building too many locos at once? That was one of the key problem of the mass production builds, manufacturers CLAIMED they could build locos within a given time frame, but many found they could not.

[pheaton]

42 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Wasn't the reason that EE were honest and wouldn't commit to building too many locos at once? That was one of the key problem of the mass production builds, manufacturers CLAIMED they could build locos within a given time frame, but many found they could not.

AIUI EE were only supplying the engines, and the locos were always intended to be built by brush, and subcontracted out where required.

[russ p]

On 14/09/2021 at 14:20, cheesysmith said:

Much as I like that, no. The drawing is the one of the proposed version with the EE v16 engine instead of the twin 12 LDA at the beginning. The outline drawing at the beginning is just too small to see the measurements used.

 

This was more or less taken up later as the class 56

[kevinlms]

28 minutes ago, pheaton said:

AIUI EE were only supplying the engines, and the locos were always intended to be built by brush, and subcontracted out where required.

Yes, but I'm saying that EE couldn't supply the engines at the time, so got Sulzer.

Edited September 16, 2021 by kevinlms
More info