OO gauge class 74 electro-diesel locomotive

[DY444]

On 11/05/2019 at 21:16, jools1959 said:

 

I always thought that the Class 74’s poor performance was largely due to Crewe making a total pigs ear of the conversion, the Paxman power unit had reliability problems and the electrical system was a mess?

 

Essentially they were too clever for their own good.  Apart from silicon rectifiers, 1960s vintage electronics didn't fare too well in locomotives.  With hindsight the SR might have been better served by keeping the 71s largely as was, putting tram wires up in Clapham and Eastleigh yards and piloting with Cromptons or shunters into and out of Southampton docks.  The operational inconvenience of that would have been minor compared with what actually happened with the 74s regularly sitting down.  My recollection from the time is that it was thought feasible to fit 71s with push pull kit and so this could have been done too to allow operation with 4TCs.

Edited May 13, 2019 by DY444

[JSpencer]

On ‎11‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 22:16, jools1959 said:

 

I always thought that the Class 74’s poor performance was largely due to Crewe making a total pigs ear of the conversion, the Paxman power unit had reliability problems and the electrical system was a mess?

 

The Paxman units were already known to be an unreliable mess (class 17 anyone). I cannot understand what they were thinking so many years later just to gain a mere extra 50hp over a 73. If they had had 73 units, we might have seen them in a different light - same power under diesel - a lot more grunt under 3rd rail.

[leopardml2341]

The Class 74 diesel engines were Paxman 6YJXL (class 14), whereas the Class 17 were equipped with the 6ZHXL unit.

 

Though the class 14 didn't survive long under BR ownership, I don't think that was due to reliability issues, more the traffic for which they were designed disappearing.

[adb968008]

4 hours ago, leopardml2341 said:

The Class 74 diesel engines were Paxman 6YJXL (class 14), whereas the Class 17 were equipped with the 6ZHXL unit.

 

Though the class 14 didn't survive long under BR ownership, I don't think that was due to reliability issues, more the traffic for which they were designed disappearing.

Would you trust a class 14 on higher speed class 1 work between Bournemouth and Weymouth day in day out.... especially boat trains with 10+ on upwey bank ?

The 74 seems a classic exercise in you only get what you pay for, whats cheap is dear.

 

The fact that the class 33/1 took over this work says as much itself.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2019 by adb968008

[lapford34102]

51 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Would you trust a class 14 on higher speed class 1 work between Bournemouth and Weymouth day in day out.... especially boat trains with 10+ on upwey bank ?

The 74's never worked a boat train west of Bournemouth, it was always a 33.  The 74's, when they worked, were fast and powerful but as DY444 points out the electronics sadly weren't that suited to the loco environment.   Ironically as the work for them dried up they sometimes ran into Weymouth on a parcels though phot's of them on that are few and far between.

They were aimed at being a MN/Brush Type 4 replacement - their late delivery meant that Southern had to borrow a handful of Type 4's to cover certain workings from 67-68. (And some would have happily kept them)

In good shape a 74 with a pair of 4TC's out of Waterloo would go.

 

Stu

Edited May 13, 2019 by lapford34102

[adb968008]

3 minutes ago, lapford34102 said:

 

They were aimed at being a MN/Brush Type 4 replacement - their late delivery meant that Southern had to borrow a handful of Type 4's to cover certain workings from 67-68. (And some would have happily kept them)

In good shape a 74 with a pair of 4TC's out of Waterloo would go.

 

But not on diesel power ?

i was lead to believe the conversion to diesel power was for taking services beyond the juice, without needing a loco change ?

But the type4 power you refer too would surely be on juice, off juice its not more than a 14 ?

[DY444]

9 hours ago, adb968008 said:

But not on diesel power ?

i was lead to believe the conversion to diesel power was for taking services beyond the juice, without needing a loco change ?

But the type4 power you refer too would surely be on juice, off juice its not more than a 14 ?

 

The diesel power was for depot movements, yard work, short distance journeys off the juice (eg Northam to Southampton Docks) or light duties off the juice.  It was never the intention for 74s to work passenger trains to Weymouth and if it did happen it was extremely rare.  Once full electric working started, everything from Waterloo for beyond Bournemouth (with one exception) was booked for a pp Crompton from Bournemouth including the Channel Islands Boat Train.  The exception was an up morning working from Poole which for a while was booked for a 74 but that became notorious due to a mixture of the 74's inherent unreliabilty and Parkstone bank.

 

Another factor is that on diesel power a 74 could not supply ets to the train whilst moving which in the case of a TC formation meant no battery charging and no lights (except the emergency lighting) in addition to no heat in colder months. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by DY444

[adb968008]

Thanks for that, its the dangers of beleiving wikipedia..

 

Quote

They were intended especially for use on the boat trains to Southampton and Weymouth, as both routes included sections of non-electrified track and tramway along the public thoroughfare. The elimination of the locomotive change (at either Eastleigh (for Southampton) or Bournemouth) was envisaged and their dual power capability would greatly accelerate timings and reduce operational complexity.

 

So why were the converted, surely more class 73’s would have made sense, but were they even needed anyway ?.. as they were in storage already (from 1964-67?) at this point... it seems they were useless and Bullieds were preferred.

 

http://www.semgonline.com/electric/class71_1.html

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by adb968008

[DY444]

13 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Thanks for that, its the dangers of beleiving wikipedia..

 

 

So why were the converted, surely more class 73’s would have made sense, but were they even needed anyway ?.. as they were in storage already at this point.

 

The SR wanted a locomotive which could maintain REP timings on its newly electrified line both for boat trains (which were incredibly important in the late 60s with not much in the way of motorways and air transport only just starting to become affordable) and to work with TC stock (as initially there were only 11 REPs).  You needed two 73s to maintain REP timings and with the limited platform lengths at Waterloo that compromised the train length.  The 71s had the power but didn't have MU equipment and they couldn't work into Southampton Docks so the decision was taken to develop a high powered ED.

Edited May 14, 2019 by DY444

[lapford34102]

DY444, thanks, you've summed things up nicely there and rather more coherently than my scribblings.

 

A Class 71 was tested out of Waterloo hauling VEPS in 69 but I've never heard an explanation as to why.

 

Stu

[locoholic]

On 8 May 2019 at 11:55, Oldddudders said:

....Modellers generally like to have models of successful and charismatic locos - vide the eternally buoyant sales of pacifics, despite few of us having the space to stretch their legs  - and the 74 was thus a niche product, as confirmed by the lack of orders at a time when DJM was still regarded as a good bet. 

The success of some other "niche" RTR diesel models (Clayton, NBL D600s, Class 14, Class 16, Falcon, Lion, etc) says otherwise. Some locos are hopeless failures but still somehow charismatic. I would like an RTR Class 74. After the issues with his Class 71 and 14xx I had definite qualms about DJ Models, which have subsequently proved to be well-founded. Maybe I wasn't alone, and that's why there weren't many orders for the loco? I'm hoping that some Hornby Class 71s make it to the bargain bin, so I can have a go at converting one to a Class 74.

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

The SR wanted a locomotive which could maintain REP timings on its newly electrified line both for boat trains (which were incredibly important in the late 60s with not much in the way of motorways and air transport only just starting to become affordable) and to work with TC stock (as initially there were only 11 REPs).  You needed two 73s to maintain REP timings and with the limited platform lengths at Waterloo that compromised the train length.  The 71s had the power but didn't have MU equipment and they couldn't work into Southampton Docks so the decision was taken to develop a high powered ED.

Thanks i’m still learning here..

 

but what did Weymouth boat trains ? Was a 33 to Waterloo able to keep Rep timings ? Or did it do a loco change, or was it just not considered as important given it wasnt US sailings?

 

Maybe the 74 was just a cheap solution to a dying problem ? - by the time they were converted ocean liners were already dead.

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by adb968008

[adb968008]

4 minutes ago, locoholic said:

I'm hoping that some Hornby Class 71s make it to the bargain bin, so I can have a go at converting one to a Class 74.

That boats already sailed (bad pun), they were trading at £50-60 at one point, Looking at ebay the mad discounting seems to have gone, but under £100 seems possible.

 

Hornby seems to think those 4 year old 71’s are worth £170 today (not a bad line of 10% inflation considering it started at £154) though i’m sure the accountants will adjust this perception at 5 years.

Edited May 14, 2019 by adb968008

[melmoth]

If no one else has mentioned it, the Southern Way Special Issue on the 71/74s is well worth getting hold of.

[lapford34102]

Quote

but what did Weymouth boat trains ? Was a 33 to Waterloo able to keep Rep timings ? Or did it do a loco change, or was it just not considered as important given it wasnt US sailings?

 

Loco change at Bournemouth, 74 off and a 33/1 on for the non electrified bit to Weymouth.  The line speeds on this section were relatively modest so keeping time with a 33 and 10 wasn't too difficult. Reverse happened for London bound train.

The boat train, IIRC,  also had different (fewer - minds going.....!) stops to a regular service train.

Cheers

Stu

[4630]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Thanks i’m still learning here..

 

but what did Weymouth boat trains ? Was a 33 to Waterloo able to keep Rep timings ? Or did it do a loco change, or was it just not considered as important given it wasnt US sailings?

 

Maybe the 74 was just a cheap solution to a dying problem ? - by the time they were converted ocean liners were already dead.

 

 

Class 74s worked the Weymouth boat trains between Waterloo and Bournemouth, where there was a loco change with the 74 detached and a class 33/1 substituted for the rest of the working to Weymouth Quay.  In the absence of a serviceable 74, a class 73 was the regular substitute traction.

 

Actually the Channel Islands boat train from Waterloo to Weymouth was an important working and its history goes back to Southern Railway days.  They were daily workings, unlike the boat trains for the transatlantic liners from Southampton which were scheduled to fit in principally with the sailings of the two 'Queens' ( Mary and Elizabeth) and also QE2 from 1969.  

 

I've uploaded these 2 photos of mine of the CI boat train to RMweb before, but it might have been to an earlier incarnation of the site.  A class 74 (apologies I didn't note the number at the time) at Bournemouth, where class 33 6580 took over.  Neither did I note the date I took the photos, but the box of slides is marked Summer 1973 and that would tally with the pre-TOPS class 33.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by 4630

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, 4630 said:

 

Actually the Channel Islands boat train from Waterloo to Weymouth was an important working and its history goes back to Southern Railway days.  They were daily workings, unlike the boat trains for the transatlantic liners from Southampton which were scheduled to fit in principally with the sailings of the two 'Queens' ( Mary and Elizabeth) and also QE2 from 1969.  

That's interesting as I hadn't realised that the Southern ran boat trains to Weymouth in order to connect with the GWR steamer services to the Channel Islands.  Looking at a 1930s GWR STT I can see that there were Southern trains (of unknown origin) arriving at Weymouth about 30 minutes ahead of the GWR through trains from Paddington but I'd presumed the Southern trains hadn't worked through to Weymouth Quay prior to the closure of its route from Southampton in 1960.

[mdvle]

12 hours ago, locoholic said:

The success of some other "niche" RTR diesel models (Clayton, NBL D600s, Class 14, Class 16, Falcon, Lion, etc) says otherwise. Some locos are hopeless failures but still somehow charismatic. I would like an RTR Class 74. After the issues with his Class 71 and 14xx I had definite qualms about DJ Models, which have subsequently proved to be well-founded. Maybe I wasn't alone, and that's why there weren't many orders for the loco? I'm hoping that some Hornby Class 71s make it to the bargain bin, so I can have a go at converting one to a Class 74.

 

I suspect that a fear that Hornby would again go for a duplication made many take a wait and see approach until it just was forgotten about and/or subsequent issues caused hesitation.

[TravisM]

I was talking to a Hornby rep at the Peterborough show and mentioned the possibility of a Class 74 using the Class 71 chassis and updated moulding for the 74.  He smiled and discreetly said it’s been talked about, but talking and doing are not the same thing.

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

I suspect that a fear that Hornby would again go for a duplication made many take a wait and see approach until it just was forgotten about and/or subsequent issues caused hesitation.

I didn't realise that Hornby went for duplication of the Class 71 - especially as they started on theirs first!!   As ever - think Q6, 'King', GW large prairie -  we shouldn't be confusing who announces their model first with who has already started work on theirs and is probably some way ahead.  

 

But having said that there was of course always the chance that Hornby might have moved on to the Class 74 although thus far it has announced nothing.

[mdvle]

58 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I didn't realise that Hornby went for duplication of the Class 71 - especially as they started on theirs first!!   As ever - think Q6, 'King', GW large prairie -  we shouldn't be confusing who announces their model first with who has already started work on theirs and is probably some way ahead.  

 

But having said that there was of course always the chance that Hornby might have moved on to the Class 74 although thus far it has announced nothing.

 

I wasn't intending to state / place blame with my wording, rather just point out that there were 2 new models of the 71 regardless of who came first and that might have had a negative influence on the possibility of a 74 getting done, either because Hornby could decide to enter the market or alternately had already decided and was progressing and just hadn't announced yet.  And then with time, and lack of progress by either likely sources, the possibility of a model just faded away.

[lapford34102]

Rather off topic but....

 

Quote

That's interesting as I hadn't realised that the Southern ran boat trains to Weymouth in order to connect with the GWR steamer services to the Channel Islands........................................  but I'd presumed the Southern trains hadn't worked through to Weymouth Quay prior to the closure of its route from Southampton in 1960.

Mike,

You have presumed correctly. The Southern Railway/Region didn't run anything on the Tram until Weymouth changed region  - Sept 59 was the last WR Boat train.

I think what  4630 was referring to was the practice of running services on alternate weekdays from Southampton and Weymouth during the winter timed sailings to the islands. To allow for this there was a Southern Railway train into Weymouth (Town) which as you mentioned arrived 30mins before the GW Boat Train to allow passengers to make their way to the Quay.

 

Back on topic just dug out my DC Kits 74 :-)

 

Stu

 

 

[Mike Storey]

8 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I didn't realise that Hornby went for duplication of the Class 71 - especially as they started on theirs first!!   As ever - think Q6, 'King', GW large prairie -  we shouldn't be confusing who announces their model first with who has already started work on theirs and is probably some way ahead.  

 

But having said that there was of course always the chance that Hornby might have moved on to the Class 74 although thus far it has announced nothing.

 

There does seem to be a general acceptance that Hornby started on their version first, and I must accept that.

 

But Dave Jones made it very clear that the emergence of his Class 74 depended on the success of his Class 71, and that has subsequently turned out not to be enough, for reasons debated long and hard on this forum.

 

Hornby have no similar history of making such logical progression in their decisions, at least not when it comes to traction which does not involve boiling water. They followed up their largely disastrous 4 VEP (despite which I bought several, pour encourager les autres), with rather better models more aligned to Simon's view of the right era for model railways, especially the 2 BIL.  But they could have produced a 4 SUB, far more useful to far more people, or they could have, with reasonably minor changes, gone on to a Class 74.

 

As you say, no sign of that.

 

But similarly, Bachmann, despite their superb foray into EMU's to date, have delayed and delayed the one unifying EMU for the suburban terminus modeller and more rural Kent, Sussex or elsewhere layouts, the 2 HAP. But they do seem to be going ahead with it, maybe next year.

 

One thing that gave many of us hope, from Dave, was that he understood what a minority of us wanted, but his business model has not worked (nor his ability to deal with the failure in a business-like way) and so we are left, chastised and mocked for ever having believed in him. But I have sweet FA belief in Hornby to ever deliver what I actually want. 

 

I live in the hope that Bachmann produce one or two more things that I know I cannot build myself, and the rest in an even more ambitious belief that I can build the other things I know I will need, one day.

 

 

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

 

Hornby have no similar history of making such logical progression in their decisions, at least not when it comes to traction which does not involve boiling water. They followed up their largely disastrous 4 VEP (despite which I bought several, pour encourager les autres), with rather better models more aligned to Simon's view of the right era for model railways, especially the 2 BIL.  But they could have produced a 4 SUB, far more useful to far more people, or they could have, with reasonably minor changes, gone on to a Class 74.

 

As you say, no sign of that.

 

 

 

 

I don't think Hornby can fairly be criticised for doing the 2 BIL and 2 HAL .. They have a big suburban tank in the range for all the other groups (Fowler and Stanier 2-6-4T, L12, 61xx). The SR equivalent is a Maunsell EMU - not only does this provide an appropriate third-rail partner for their Southern steam (and the SR with no 3rd rail is half the story) it also gives them a model that fits every era from the 1930s to the early BR blue period. They filled a genuine gap that no-one else had done anything about: in terms of extending the range of layout possibilities they did a lot more for the hobby than say Heljan's Falcon or Kestrel or DP2

 

A 4 SUB would have lost the prewar market but gained a 1970s-80s market. However a 4 car unit would have been substantially more expensive and would require twice as much space to run it. In principle the 2-HAL could be sold to everyone who had already bought a 2-BIL as a follow up

 

The argument about a RTR 74 can be stood on its head - the DJM 71 probably ensured that Hornby took a bath on their own 71. It was always a niche item - a niche split in half is likely to be unprofitable. It may well go down with the EM2 and APT among the commercial failures.

 

In the meantime, given that it is unlikely anyone will now attempt a RTR Class 74, the question arises of a route to a model 74 in 4mm. Arguably it might call for a Craftsman-style conversion kit to rework a 71 : there should be a reasonable supply of those around for a while. The key thing is that BR Blue is not too difficult a livery for the ordinary modeller to do. Even I can turn out a respectable result when most modern liveries are totally impossible for me

 

Conversions may be an old-fashioned form of modelling , but conversions it will clearly have to be . What is required is for someone to do the necessary as a kit

[PMP]

10 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

There does seem to be a general acceptance that Hornby started on their version first, and I must accept that.

 

One thing that gave many of us hope, from Dave, was that he understood what a minority of us wanted, but his business model has not worked (nor his ability to deal with the failure in a business-like way) and so we are left, chastised and mocked for ever having believed in him.

 

Hornby scanned the 71 at Barrow Hill 18th September 2014, and announced it at Warley November 2014.

DJM announced it July 23rd 2014. September 26 they reported that they were still awaiting permission to scan and licensing from NRM.

On October 7th 2014 DJM reported they had 'about' half of the required sign ups for production.

 

Interesting then Hornby scanned the King at Didcot June 25th 2014, DJM/Hattons announced King 1st September 2014.

 

Accurascale scanned the HUO Tanfield 3rd week of October 2017, about a week before DJM announced an HUO (of unknown diagram) on the 1st November 2017.

 

DJM has been very very unlucky in announcing at least three WIP  products by two manufacturers, after those 'competitors' had commenced work on them. We almost had a duplication of the Q6 too, and the unfortunate announcement of another competitors 92 if memory serves me.