Prototype for everything corner.

[russ p]

10 hours ago, pheaton said:

D255 was the 40 fitted

not aware of a 37/0 being done, the 37/4s were a very extensive refurbishment. 

 

I'm sure I remember reading in the early 80s of a 37 being fitted with ETH,  it was around the time one was uprated to 2000hp although I'm not sure they were the same machine 

I understand the 37/4 conversion is very extensive i drive them more often than anything else,  long may that continue 

[Busmansholiday]

Buses on bridges not quite your theme, but you fancy adding a bit of continental flare to your 1970's Woodhead based diorama, well step this way.

 

 

July 21st 1977, Five Arches on Herries Road in Sheffield (just up the road from that wonderful football ground).

 

If you don't want a bright yellow foreign bendibus, how about a more subtle cream one. Again Sheffield, adjacent to the main line on Queens Road but October 6th, 1977.

 

[LMS2968]

And running the correct Class C headcode too!

[lmsforever]

10 hours ago, russ p said:

 

I'm sure I remember reading in the early 80s of a 37 being fitted with ETH,  it was around the time one was uprated to 2000hp although I'm not sure they were the same machine 

I understand the 37/4 conversion is very extensive i drive them more often than anything else,  long may that continue 

Did they not do this to some 37,s in south wales for hauling iron ore trains in the eighties ,lucky you driving them.

[russ p]

2 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Did they not do this to some 37,s in south wales for hauling iron ore trains in the eighties ,lucky you driving them.

 

I think the 2000hp loco was a solitary machine.  If the power unit could be reliably uprated to 2000hp im surprised the refurbished or HGR locos weren't all uprated especially when fitted with an alternator 

[russ p]

On 09/11/2020 at 17:21, 45125 said:

The Brush BL100 alternator is a pretty robust machine as on the Inverness based 47/6 the ETH was upgraded to 95, with a the top speed been dropped to 75mph to take into account the extra load on the Sulzer power unit, all these loco had the overloads up graded. A 33 has other problems when working A/C stock in respect of the earth return.

 

 

Were there any adaptors for 33s to allow them to heat night ferry stock as these were single pole UIC eth which I believe was earth return?  Not sure how the proving circuit would work though

[jonny777]

3 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Did they not do this to some 37,s in south wales for hauling iron ore trains in the eighties ,lucky you driving them.

 

I don't think the iron ore locos were any more powerful, they did have strengthened couplings to cope with the extra loadings.

[37114]

58 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

I think the 2000hp loco was a solitary machine.  If the power unit could be reliably uprated to 2000hp im surprised the refurbished or HGR locos weren't all uprated especially when fitted with an alternator 

37292 was the one updated to 2000HP, it is still running today as 37425 albeit back at 1,750. Like other attempts to increase or reduce horse power there was always a trade off with wear and tear on the engine and the gains weren't worth the additional maintenance costs.

[pheaton]

the 12 CSV is capable of a lot more than. the 1750hp that br had set the "T" variant to, the duty cycles of locomotives do not lend themselves to the designed horsepower in both the sulzer and EE engines so they were pretty much all derated for reliability reasons.

 

The heavyweight 37s were fitted with alternators because EE generators along with non refurb  37s that were not fitted with certain modifications were quite prone to flashovers, especially with a carefree driver. However the electronics fitted to the heavyweight 37s and 37/4s introduced issues by themselves. the refurbished locomotives are electrically quite complex locomotives which is partly why comparatively few of them have been preserved compared to there non refurbished counterparts.

Edited November 10, 2020 by pheaton

[Steadfast]

Three locos for one wagon?

59003 'Yeoman Highlander' waits time in Westbury Down Yard with 6O41 to Eastleigh. 66729 and 66754 were dead in tow after working a ballast train over the weekend and the heavyweight load comprised a sole OCA Bass wagon! 19/10/20

Clicking the picture links to Flickr for a bigger version.

 

Jo

Edited November 10, 2020 by Steadfast

[russ p]

27 minutes ago, pheaton said:

the 12 CSV is capable of a lot more than. the 1750hp that br had set the "T" variant to, the duty cycles of locomotives do not lend themselves to the designed horsepower in both the sulzer and EE engines so they were pretty much all derated for reliability reasons.

 

The heavyweight 37s were fitted with alternators because EE generators along with non refurb  37s that were not fitted with certain modifications were quite prone to flashovers, especially with a carefree driver. However the electronics fitted to the heavyweight 37s and 37/4s introduced issues by themselves. the refurbished locomotives are electrically quite complex locomotives which is partly why comparatively few of them have been preserved compared to there non refurbished counterparts.

 

 

If they are used more or less continually the electronics don't give many problems but if they have been stood for a while you get some spurious faults 

Some can be remedied by removing a module  and drying its connector plug  especially the load reg and field divert modules 

[russ p]

52 minutes ago, 37114 said:

37292 was the one updated to 2000HP, it is still running today as 37425 albeit back at 1,750. Like other attempts to increase or reduce horse power there was always a trade off with wear and tear on the engine and the gains weren't worth the additional maintenance costs.

 

Bloody hell was driving that the other night,  a great loco still but has an odd exhaust sound at present. 

Think it could be some fuel pumps not timed correctly but a strong engine noe the less

[pheaton]

14 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

 

If they are used more or less continually the electronics don't give many problems but if they have been stood for a while you get some spurious faults 

Some can be remedied by removing a module  and drying its connector plug  especially the load reg and field divert modules 

a particular trait of 37s is they draw oil and dirt into the main generator which is partially why DRS modded some 37s to bring the fan in above a certain position on the power controller which attempted to pressurise the engine room away from the main gen, which ordinarily draws all of the dirty air towards and then through the main generator and down to the outlet at the bottom of the locomotive. 

Im not too familiar with the construction of EE generators but I was reliably informed that the composition of the banding sucked the oil mist like a sponge and it completely screwed resistance over.... this coupled with the very very violent diverts on a non refurb 37 and a driver that shuts off before a divert drops out was just asking for trouble.....Ironically 31s and 50s tried to get round this with sealed generator compartments and extractor fans in the case of 50s.

 

of course jamming the load regulator on a non refurb 37 would stress the main gen very heavily as well, an alternator in contrast can withstand an awful lot of punishment in terms of working conditions and loading stress.

 

its just the extra bits and pieces that a 37/4 has that couldn't be accommodated as easily to convert AC from the alternator to DC for the archaic traction motors, in other locomotives, the Americans were very early adopters of AC traction power compared to us.

Edited November 10, 2020 by pheaton

[newbryford]

1 hour ago, 37114 said:

37292 was the one updated to 2000HP, it is still running today as 37425 albeit back at 1,750. Like other attempts to increase or reduce horse power there was always a trade off with wear and tear on the engine and the gains weren't worth the additional maintenance costs.

 

Without checking - allocated to Motherwell at the time as it turned up on the Gunnie-Clitheroe cement a couple of times.

[DY444]

12 hours ago, russ p said:

 

Were there any adaptors for 33s to allow them to heat night ferry stock as these were single pole UIC eth which I believe was earth return?  Not sure how the proving circuit would work though

 

There were no adaptors - it was all built in.  The positive side jumper on the locomotive was used and the return current came through the rails and the locomotive wheels.  There was an interlock cut out button in the cab which you pressed at the same time as the Train Heat On button to activate the single pole mode of operation.  If you didn't press the cut out button then the normal two pole mode with the interlock was activated. 

 

The 33/1 locomotives had a different arrangement for controlling the eth and the single pole system was removed on those during conversion to push pull but the 33/0 and 33/2 all had it.

Edited November 11, 2020 by DY444

[RLBH]

11 hours ago, pheaton said:

the 12 CSV is capable of a lot more than. the 1750hp that br had set the "T" variant to, the duty cycles of locomotives do not lend themselves to the designed horsepower in both the sulzer and EE engines so they were pretty much all derated for reliability reasons.

 

In principle, the 2,000hp rating on a 12CSVT is equivalent to the 2,700hp rating on a 16CSVT as used by the Class 50 (and the 1,330hp rating of the 8CSVT on the CP Class 1400 - basically the ultimate Class 20) so should be reasonably achievable. I've heard that EE offered the higher rating to BR for one of the later batches of Class 37s but it wasn't thought necessary.

[pheaton]

Ahh dont forget mind...the 50s have 4 turbo chargers to a 37s 2, and I might be wrong but I believe the CP1400 is also intercooled, where as the 20 isn't, so whilst you are absolutely right that some traction variants of the CSV engine is set routinely to higher ratings, other variants of the engine also used external bolt ons to raise to the hp.

 

 

 

 

[luckymucklebackit]

DRS Motherwell has a new shunting "loco"

 

https://twitter.com/DRSgovuk/status/1323569242692820993

 

OK who's up for a model!

 

Manufactured by this company

 

http://www.zwiehoff.com/en/products/shunting-technology/rotrac-e2-up-to-250t/

 

Jim

Edited November 11, 2020 by luckymucklebackit

[talisman56]

1 hour ago, luckymucklebackit said:

DRS Motherwell has a new shunting "loco"

 

https://twitter.com/DRSgovuk/status/1323569242692820993

 

OK who's up for a model!

 

Manufactured by this company

 

http://www.zwiehoff.com/en/products/shunting-technology/rotrac-e2-up-to-250t/

 

Jim

 

Any idea what the TOPS classification is?

[Gibbo675]

1 hour ago, talisman56 said:

 

Any idea what the TOPS classification is?

.08 ?

[Ramblin Rich]

3 hours ago, luckymucklebackit said:

DRS Motherwell has a new shunting "loco"

 

https://twitter.com/DRSgovuk/status/1323569242692820993

 

OK who's up for a model!

 

Manufactured by this company

 

http://www.zwiehoff.com/en/products/shunting-technology/rotrac-e2-up-to-250t/

 

Jim

Possibility in 0 scale with a reguaged SPUD but smaller scales might struggle for adhesion. I wonder how heavy the real thing is?

[Aire Head]

I told you that the baseboard edge was prototypical!

[rodent279]

6 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

I told you that the baseboard edge was prototypical!

Guess that's what happens when one team works in metric units, the other imperial units.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

I told you that the baseboard edge was prototypical!

The RH platform is for Manchester Metrolink, the LH for everybody else's trams

[73c]

'' Don't let the speed of the train drop below 50 and we should make it''  Speed 4, The Commute home. Coming to a cinema near you soon.