Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
'CHARD

Class 37 Clayton boiler removal

Recommended Posts

A mate posed a riddle I can't answer despite research. Here's the question:

'Any idea what happened to the Clayton boilers allegedly fitted to centre panel 37s and removed straight away? Were they fitted to 47s?'

 

We're talking from May 1965 or thereabouts, as 6819 et al were delivered and Brush Type 4 production hit its peak. I've no idea if the Clayton RO2500 was used in both, but I imagine a shift in traction policy coupled with material shortage for Loughborough or Crewe may have precipitated such action if indeed they were compatible.

 

Does anyone know, could any of our resident experts shed any light, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Guest Phil

That is a good question 'Chard.

 

AFAIK 37s only ever had Claytons in those that were fitted. Also AFAIK the only other BR class that carried Claytons were those boilered 47s that didn't have Spanners and Stones.

 

Perhaps BR decided to whip the Claytons out of the 37s and drop them in the 47s. IIRC it was some of the Cardiff and Bristol batch that had the Claytons.

 

That is just about the only suggestion I have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers mate. That kinda fits my thinking, in the absence of any evidence either way. I really must renew my quest for Modern Railways of the period, I've learnt stacks of useful stuff as context for modelling the late sixties (you know what I'm like for flippin' context!) but nothing on this. I suspect it would have been covered in their pretty thorough technical style had it happened.

 

Maybe though it was a decision taken before the Type 3s concerned were in production, much as the first twenty sets of Brush Type 4 electrical equipment were diverted from the last, unbuilt Class 46s... Oh to have been there other than as a new-born baby biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..., much as the first twenty sets of Brush Type 4 electrical equipment were diverted from the last, unbuilt Class 46s... Oh to have been there other than as a new-born baby https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

 

Blimey, your parents sent you out to work youngblink.gif

 

Having dipped into the standard references by Messrs Webb, Haresnape and Clough, none of them seem to have anything to say about this. Yet I know I've read it somewhere (that the boilers in the 37s were immediately removed and sent to the 47 production line), and I also STR seeing something that suggested it was a myth. There might be something in the specific cl. 47 tome by Tayler, Thorley and Hill, which I used to have but stupidly dont any more.

 

Edit - the above obviously excludes the WR machines that were known to retain boilers, around the 688x area

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Chard

Apologies for the hijack of your thread, but I have a similar query. I'm modelling D6723 (Split headcode, GSYP) as running in 1967. I think this was one without the steam heat boiler, but can anyone confirm? Assuming no steam heat, is therte simply a plain panel where the boiler exhaust would be?

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regrettably my Diagram Book is far from complete regarding dates and amendments but it quotes diagrams DE/3003/1 as fitted with a Clayton RO 2500/3 boiler, diagram DE/3003/2 fitted with a Clayton RO2500/2, and DE/3003/2 as no boiler fitted. The RO2500/2 had a higher steam output than the /3 according to teh diagram information

 

Converting that into loco numbers -

 

Diagram DE/3003/1 was D6700 - 6754, 6758, 6775, and 6781-6818

Diagram DE/3003/2 was D6875 - 6892

Diagram DE/3003/3 was D6755 - 6757, 6759 - 6774, 6776 - 6780, 6819 - 6874, 6893 - 6982, (6983 is missing - might give a clue re date?), 6984 -6999, and 6600 - 6608

 

The only diagram in the 4003 seies with a Claton boiler is DE/4003/9 which is shown as a Clayton MkII (same steam output as the RO2500/2) while diagram DE/4003/10 is shown as not having a boiler fitted.

 

Diagram DE/4003/9 is shown against D1100 (but not 1101 - 1107), D1901 - 1947, and 1977 - 1999.

 

Diagram DE/4003/10 is D1782 - 1836, and 1875 - 1900.

 

Sorry I can't put a date to it but the book seems to have been kept up to date although it has no amendment record (real railway back then of course B) .

 

Hope this might help and at least not hinder....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Chard

... I'm modelling D6723 (Split headcode, GSYP) as running in 1967. I think this was one without the steam heat boiler, but can anyone confirm? Assuming no steam heat, is therte simply a plain panel where the boiler exhaust would be?

 

 

 

Lots were NB in later life Alex, as freight usage assumed more importance (although all split boxes were built with boilers) and yes, the outlet was just plated over (probably with fairly obvious fixings, boltheads or suchlike), but D&EG records list 37023 as still boilered as late as 1982, evidently still be a first-line GE loco and capable of heating passenger stock. In 1967, it definitely would have been

 

Regrettably my Diagram Book is far from complete regarding dates and amendments ..., (6983 is missing - might give a clue re date?), ...

Sorry I can't put a date to it but the book seems to have been kept up to date although it has no amendment record (real railway back then of course B) .

 

 

Not sure if you've forgotten Mike but 6983 was the one that had the argument with a Hymek at Bridgend in late '65. Harris has it as condemned on 18.4.66, so at least it helps date the book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not sure if you've forgotten Mike but 6983 was the one that had the argument with a Hymek at Bridgend in late '65. Harris has it as condemned on 18.4.66, so at least it helps date the book

 

 

I like the word 'forgotten' in there - 'completely out of my mind' is probably more appropriate so the diplomacy was appreciated :) .

 

According to a covering letter the book was issued on 31 March 1966 but the pages of the section which lists diagram number against running number are loose and might well include reissued pages, hence my not originally wishing to quote any dates. Those pages are also incomplete as there are none there for running numbers below D1000 although the diagrams are there for the D6XX and D8XX.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the book went straight into a cupboard and any amendments were just left with it. I 'saved it' after it had gone through at least two major office moves and didn't even know it was there until we were clearing out at the time our office was disbanded in the 1994 reorganisation; it often paid to keep your eyes open when redundancy loomed (again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phil

Fascinating.

Have to say I agree with Pennine's thought "although all split boxes were built with boilers" that is the way I believed the type 3s were delivered. Perhaps the boilers were lifted out fairly swiftly by some depots ?

 

Just glancing at cl37lg website http://www.c37lg.co.uk/

 

At 37057 in particular, the loco is reported to have had it's boiler removed 15th Feb 1969. This date is the same for the similarly numbered batch 055/056/059/064 etc

 

I'm not very knowledgeable on Brush type 4s but believe at least some were built with an "adaptable" boiler room capable of being fitted with at least two, if not all three manufacturers steam generators, Stones, Spanner and Clayton. As I earlier surmised, perhaps some Senior BR Manager responsible for traction, decreed that those type 3s allocated to the NER freight depots like Thornaby should give up their boilers to the more "mixed traffic" Brush type 4s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not very knowledgeable on Brush type 4s but believe at least some were built with an "adaptable" boiler room capable of being fitted with at least two, if not all three manufacturers steam generators, Stones, Spanner and Clayton.

 

The so-called 'universal' boiler compartment, fitted to later construction; I suspect once a particular boiler was plumbed though, it wasnt too easy to change it

 

As I earlier surmised, perhaps some Senior BR Manager responsible for traction, decreed that those type 3s allocated to the NER freight depots like Thornaby should give up their boilers to the more "mixed traffic" Brush type 4s.

 

I'd reckon it was earlier than that Phil, I think those late 60s removals you mention would have been too late for most of the 47 construction run and from what I recall, the removals from the WR batch were done almost on delivery. I should say, the 'myth' element I mentioned earlier wasnt the removals as such (which I'm sure did happen), just whether they were actually reused in 47s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating.

Have to say I agree with Pennine's thought "although all split boxes were built with boilers" that is the way I believed the type 3s were delivered. Perhaps the boilers were lifted out fairly swiftly by some depots ?

 

Just glancing at cl37lg website http://www.c37lg.co.uk/

 

At 37057 in particular, the loco is reported to have had it's boiler removed 15th Feb 1969. This date is the same for the similarly numbered batch 055/056/059/064 etc

 

I'm not very knowledgeable on Brush type 4s but believe at least some were built with an "adaptable" boiler room capable of being fitted with at least two, if not all three manufacturers steam generators, Stones, Spanner and Clayton. As I earlier surmised, perhaps some Senior BR Manager responsible for traction, decreed that those type 3s allocated to the NER freight depots like Thornaby should give up their boilers to the more "mixed traffic" Brush type 4s.

 

 

I can shed some further light on this.I have a letter from The Mechanical Engineer (Design) dated 5th May 1964 on this very topic. It says and I quote

 

" The Clayton Mk111 boilers which can be made surplus from existing Type 3 locomotives are as follows.

 

(a) Western region

 

The CM&EE of that region in his letter to me of 12 March last confirmed that a further 56 Clayton boilers could be recovered from Type 3 locomotives thereby providing boilers for 47 Type 4 locomotives together with 9 to be held as spares.

 

(B) North Eastern Region

 

The CM&EE of that region in his letter to me of 14 April last confirmed that when the modification programme is complete there will be 24 Clayton boilers not fitted to locomotives which can be utilised for fitting to the Type 4 locomotives to be built.

 

The remaining 53 Type 4 locomotives which are to be fitted with boilers will have new Stones OK.4265 boilers. I should be obliged if the Mechanical Engineer (Design) at Derby would co-ordinate this matter so as to ensure that both new and surplus boilers are available to meet building programmes."

 

 

Hope this is of interest.

 

Regards

 

Simon

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of interest? Of interest??? :O

 

That's one of those rare Holy Grail modern traction gems that unlocks a certain crucial part of The Debate massively for those close to it.

 

Letters from CM&EEs are up there with Waverley Route SB registers that feature loco i.d.s.

 

An enormous Thank You! I didn't notice, was that a Maiden Post? If so - it's likely to be MP of the year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The exchange of Clayton boilers between EE3s and Brush 4s was not a straight swap. The boilers from the EE3 would have been sent for modification as the layout on Brush 4 would not allow some of the fittings to be in the same place. The control cabinets where in different positions, various valves where also relocated. i think other bits may have been moved as well, but it is a long time since I worked on Brush 4 that had complete Clayton MK II fitted.

 

The Clayton "boilers" may have been modified at Crewe, but Vulcan works is the most likely as they were built under license by English Electric.

 

 

Al Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... it is a long time since I worked on Brush 4 that had complete Clayton MK II fitted.

 

Thought you'd have something to say, Mr Twink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of interest? Of interest??? https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_shok.gif

 

That's one of those rare Holy Grail modern traction gems that unlocks a certain crucial part of The Debate massively for those close to it.

 

Letters from CM&EEs are up there with Waverley Route SB registers that feature loco i.d.s.

 

An enormous Thank You! I didn't notice, was that a Maiden Post? If so - it's likely to be MP of the year!

 

 

Just happy to help. I have a few bits of paper on Brush Type 4s that I have gathered over the years. They were most useful when it came to writing Classic Classes - The Class 47s in Traction last year.

 

I found this site by accident and looking forward to getting my MP of the Year award if I am not topped!!!

 

Regards

 

Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not sure if you've forgotten Mike but 6983 was the one that had the argument with a Hymek at Bridgend in late '65. Harris has it as condemned on 18.4.66, so at least it helps date the book

 

Wasn't it the original Thor (D1671) that was involved??

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't it the original Thor (D1671) that was involved??

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

Yes that's right... I was just about to correct our esteemed Mr Pennine but you beat me too it! The collision ended D1671's short career and the Thor plates were transferred to D1677.

 

Nidge ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it was D1671, apologies - not sure where I pulled the Hymek mention from (I obviously didnt read Harris correctly when I checked the date), though ISTR one of that class was badly damaged but repaired in the early years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just happy to help. I have a few bits of paper on Brush Type 4s that I have gathered over the years. They were most useful when it came to writing Classic Classes - The Class 47s in Traction last year.

 

I found this site by accident and looking forward to getting my MP of the Year award if I am not topped!!!

 

Regards

 

Simon

 

Hehehehe - welcome aboard the mutinous craft that is the good ship RMWeb. Glad you found us, although I won't ask what you had searched on to bring you here :P

 

Assuming your MP isn't topped, there'll be a pint waiting for ya on the bar of the Men of Steele, Christmas Eve ;)

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/blog/217/entry-4829-the-sows-ear-borderizing-the-beast-vintage-Heljan-pub-kitbash-to-you-rss-fletcher/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Max Stafford

Interesting info here.

Clayton boilers eh?

There was me thinking a Clayton was perfectly capable of boiling itself...! ;)

 

Dave.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaps

 

I think I can now shed some more light on this conundrum, namely which Class 47s would have been the recipients of the 2nd hand boilers.

 

I had a further read through the documents I have from the period on this and came across a chart which shows the original intention was that the 47 second hand boilers from WR Class 37s would go into Class 47s D1915 -D1961 with the 24 boilers from the NER Class 37s would go into D1977 -D1999 and D1100.

 

What actually happened was that Clayton boilers went into D1901-D1947 and D1977 -D1999 and D1100. D1948 -D1961 originally planned for the WR went to the LMR instead and had Stones boilers from new.

 

A few steps further I am sure you will agree.

 

Regards

 

Simon

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.