Jump to content

1200 "Falcon" South Wales workings


jools1959
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can anyone tell me what 1200 "Falcon" booked workings were when it was based at Ebbw Junction?  I assume it was trip workings between the steel plants at Llanwern and Ebbw Vale.

 

I only got to see the loco twice, both on passing trains.  First time as it was coming out of Llanwern heading west and the second, stabled on Ebbw Junction depot.

 

Julian Sprott

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never saw her working, sadly, except for once as a boy circa 1963 at Doncaster, the same day I also saw D0260 Lion.

 

REALLY looking forward to the Heljan 7mm model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian hit the nail on the head in his post above, 'Falcon' was restricted in its' sphere of operations on trip workings between Alexandra Dock Junction Yard, East Usk Junction Yard (from where it apparently made the rare foray along the Uskmouth Branch) and BSC Llanwern.

.

There are photos on a website (search  on:- "Quiet Womans Row " -  but the site is a pig to navigate) of "Falcon" on the line to Newport Dock St. etc in 1973.

.

Occasionally "Falcon" got to Ebbw Vale, the attached is probably its claim to fame in the area, when in 1973 a Cl.37 ran away at Marine Colliery, Cwm, Ebbw Vale.

.

The errant 37 was left teetering over the river bank for months whilst the authorities figured out a way to recover it - which they did by laying a wooden roadway, then using 'Kelbus' gear ( powerful block tackle gear) they hauled the 37 up the embankment using a pair of 47s and "Falcon". The loco was then re-righted and re-railed.

.

Brian R

.

PS

original photographer unknown

post-1599-0-36148300-1433104188_thumb.jpg

Edited by br2975
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

1200's 9E61 target job was as follows -

 

MO

 

9E61 05.20 ADJ - Newport / 05.42 Newport - East Usk J / 06.20 E U J - Stewarts & Lloyds / 06.48 S&L- Orb Works Outlet / 07.35 OWO - Orb Works Inlet /

 

 

MX

 

01.05 EUJ - ADJ / 02.25 -ADJ-Spencer Works / 0E61 04.00 SW - ADJ EBV /  05.05 ADJ-Newport High Street / 05.32 NHS-ADJ / 06.45 ADJ - S & L / 07.35 S&L- Orb Works Inlet /

 

MS

 

08.16 OWI-Monsanto / 08.44 Mon-British Aluminium Co / 08.58 BAC-Uskmouth / 0E61 09.46 Uskmouth-Lysaughts EBV / 10.30 Ly-ADJ / 11.30 ADJ-S&L / 12.25 S&L-Orb Works / 13.35 O W - East Usk J / 14.17 EUJ-ADJ

 

 

SX (also SO 'Q' if required)

 

15.21 ADJ-S&L / 16.10 S&L - Mon / 16.55 Mon-O W / 17.27 O W - S&L / 17.57 S&L-ADJ /

 

 

SX

 

0E61 18.45 ADJ-Mon EBV / 19.40 Mon - BAC / 20.05 BAC-S&L / 20.40 S&L - E U J / 21.07 E U J-ADJ / 0F83 21.50 ADJ - EJ / FUEL EXAM AND SERVICE / 23.20 EJ - ADJ / 23.50 ADJ-E U J /.... then 01.05 EUJ etc...

 

Spencer Works is now known as Llanwern and produced steel plate and coil. It was known as Spencer Works when it was part of the Richard Thomas & Baldwins company. Orb Works was also part of the RTB group and produced Electrical steels and tin-plate. Stewarts & Lloyds manufactured steel tubes. Monsanto was a chemical company located on the Uskmouth branch as was Orb Works. Monsanto possibly had coal delivered for boilers and plant? Lysaghts was an iron & steel works, near Orb works.

 

Busy little Bee. . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

But what a come down for the (at the time) only 100mph rated loco on the Western.

That wasn't the only come down - we had it at Westbury for a while for stone working and I think it made more mileage running light to & from Bath Road for repairs than it managed in traffic.  Definitely a waste of money putting it on that work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Often saw her at Bristol in her heyday.

 

But at Hereford - wow! She also towed a 25 to Derby for repair one day.

 

Greyhound - yes - but one heck of a tractive effort too, restarted some trains of ludicrous weights when on test on the Lickey.

 

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

If it was that good, why weren't any more built?

Single engine Brush Type 4 offered performance that wasn't that far removed - although that was theoretical once Sulzer engines had to be de-rated.

 

High speed Maybachs not liked by engineering fraternity away from WR either

 

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

To get an understanding of why BR chose the Class 47 over the other Type 4 contenders at the time including Falcon, the early chapters of Class 47 50 Years of Locomotive History are as good a place as I know, even if I am biased as one of the authors. Written based on access to both BR and Brush original documents.

 

Best wishes

 

Simon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Often saw her at Bristol in her heyday.

 

But at Hereford - wow! She also towed a 25 to Derby for repair one day.

 

Greyhound - yes - but one heck of a tractive effort too, restarted some trains of ludicrous weights when on test on the Lickey.

 

Phil

 

 

Yes, 638 tons on the 1 in 37.7 according to reports from the time (almost makes the eyes water).

 

92079 was on standby should the train need assistance but apparently it did not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was that good, why weren't any more built?

Probably because at that time BR had had enough of ordering what any company offered, as quite a few had faults, so took the traction motors and generators from Falcon, and the Sulzer engine out of Lion, combining them into what must be the most successful BR diesel loco of all time.

 

And because they didn't like the high speed Maybachs which needed more maintenance than the slower speed Sulzers, or the AEI traction motors on Lion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Probably because at that time BR had had enough of ordering what any company offered, as quite a few had faults, so took the traction motors and generators from Falcon, and the Sulzer engine out of Lion, combining them into what must be the most successful BR diesel loco of all time.

 

And because they didn't like the high speed Maybachs which needed more maintenance than the slower speed Sulzers, or the AEI traction motors on Lion.

 

You may be stretching history a little bit out of shape there, as the order for what was later to become D1500 was confirmed before both Lion and Falcon had been completed.

 

As I have always understood it, the first class 47s (as they were later to become) were simply an upgraded and uprated version of the class 46; and in fact one of my Locospotters Annuals had the "peak" class numbering continuing with D1500-1515, which was the info they had when they went to press.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Yes, and BR had let it be known that a 138 ton, 16 wheeled leviathan was not going to be the future of diesel traction; especially as the WR had stolen a march with their 80 ton machines of 2200hp.

 

The manufacturers must have known that big orders might be on the way for those who had the right combination, so they were building their own versions using the most upgraded and hopefully reliable components of the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Probably because at that time BR had had enough of ordering what any company offered, as quite a few had faults, so took the traction motors and generators from Falcon, and the Sulzer engine out of Lion, combining them into what must be the most successful BR diesel loco of all time.

 

And because they didn't like the high speed Maybachs which needed more maintenance than the slower speed Sulzers, or the AEI traction motors on Lion.

Well no - not only because of what Jonny pointed out as the course of development but because the Brush Type 4, especially compared with the two prototypes ('Lion' and D0280 'Falcon'), was a pile of trouble which needed numerous modifications to make it fit for regular traffic use and which in any case was also permanently derated.  I suspect the reasons it won were in reality very simple - Brush could build it quickly,  and it was cheaper than the BR&CW contender (and reputedly of not such good build quality) and it didn't have nasty high speed engines of Brush's own contender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaps

 

I can understand the thinking aloud but I really would suggest you read the opening chapters of my book. The whole story is laid out in detail. As I said when researching we were accessing original BR and Brush documents from the period 1959 to 1962. It is a story with umpteen twists and turns, too many to detail here. So far as Brush being cheaper than BRCW, alas no. In the original tender process of 1960, BRCW came out on top and there was every chance LION would have been not a prototype loco but the first loco of the new class.

 

If anyone hasn't a copy of Class 47 50 Years of Locomotive History, pm me and I can arrange it for you, complete with author signatures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no - not only because of what Jonny pointed out as the course of development but because the Brush Type 4, especially compared with the two prototypes ('Lion' and D0280 'Falcon'), was a pile of trouble which needed numerous modifications to make it fit for regular traffic use and which in any case was also permanently derated.  I suspect the reasons it won were in reality very simple - Brush could build it quickly,  and it was cheaper than the BR&CW contender (and reputedly of not such good build quality) and it didn't have nasty high speed engines of Brush's own contender.

In the 1960 tender exercise, the cheapest loco on offer was for a Brush built loco with a 16 cyl EE engine at 2700hp. BR rejected the option as uprating the EE engine from 2000hp to 2700hp was felt to be a step too far. As a result BR initially opted for the BRCW offering. There is a Brush drawing of this loco on page 13.

 

Best wishes

 

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Chaps

 

I can understand the thinking aloud but I really would suggest you read the opening chapters of my book. The whole story is laid out in detail. As I said when researching we were accessing original BR and Brush documents from the period 1959 to 1962. It is a story with umpteen twists and turns, too many to detail here. So far as Brush being cheaper than BRCW, alas no. In the original tender process of 1960, BRCW came out on top and there was every chance LION would have been not a prototype loco but the first loco of the new class.

 

If anyone hasn't a copy of Class 47 50 Years of Locomotive History, pm me and I can arrange it for you, complete with author signatures.

Interesting as in 1967 I was told by a WR Loco Engineer that the BRCW loco was the more expensive - mind you by then practical experience with the Brush product might well have coloured his opinion.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...